dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
I don't think my skills and time available to dedicate to shooting were enough to justify the M9. I'm happily using an X-Pro 1 now. Maybe I'll revisit Leica digital again in a few years.
Wish I had bought one a year sooner rather than trying to save money with EVIL alternatives. But that journey convinced me that there is no substitute for the real thing.
Why so?
The GXR is a shockingly versatile camera producing great quality for a reasonable price, and it lets me use with it all my M-bayonet and Nikkor lenses. The M9 and new M are a different format and working methodology. Both have their place.
The difference is that the M8.2 shutter runs slower and gentler than the original M8 one, resulting in a 1/4000 top shutter speed instead of 1/8000, and a slower flash synch speed. There is just less-vigorous movement going on inside, which should be easier on the mechanisms too. The M9 shutter is different but similar in effect to the one in the M8.2.I'm taking the opportunity of this thread to ask a straight question:
I have an M8-2 and the shutter is really quiet and smouth compared to the M8. Is the M9 shutter of the same quality as the M8-2 shutter ?
This is a song I've been singing for years. Don't buy "what you can afford", because that eats into the money you could have saved for what you really want, and for what does the job properly instead of in a half-arsed fashion.+1
I could have gotten the M9 much sooner if I didn't spend time and money trying to avoid it by investing in other cameras/lenses. Glad I finally did get my M9.
That was before though... while M9 is still a good camera and I wouldn't upgrade to the new M, if I was going buy into the M-system today, I'd think long and hard about the new M.
1. It costed a mint
2. Value retention is cr@p
3. Sensor performance is on par with any sub $2000 digital cameras
4. I enjoy the film Leicas much more
5. Long term support for such a piece of gear is questionable