Any Regrets with M9?

Maybe full frame is becoming irrelevant in some perceptions of photogrpahy, but where it is deemed necessary, what are the options as you get older and have neck ache and shoulder problems? I have seen online and have met in person a number of pros who have switched from DSLRs and heavy zooms and other lenses to the M9 because of the size and compactness of lenses and the overall kit. This is a serious practical consideration. And that's initially non-rangefinder photographers. The M9 is not just some expedient for cranky die-hards to use their mouldy lenses: it was a game changer. Why wouldn't I be happy with it? A month before it was announced it was an online dream, an idea that defied physics. The M9 will endure. The new camera will be something a little different.
 
I love mine. I use it, an XP-1 and a D3 for most of my stuff these days, although I also have a NEX-5 and a Oly EP-2. I agree that its price poses an interesting problem with such short product cycles and (unfortunately) demolishes one of Leica's main selling points in the film days. This argument went, "we are twice as expensive as the other guys, but our cameras last ten times as long, we support our cameras for decades, and our warranties are the best in the business so it is a good deal." Well, Leica's suppliers are now part of a digital supply chain, Leica is subject to the vagaries of that supply chain and you can't use that argument any more. Examples: lack of M8 replacement viewing screens and the evaporation of Kodak, their M8/M9 chip manufacturer.

That said, I enjoy using the M9 every time I haul it out and after the initial sticker shock, have never thought about its cost again.

BTW, I am currently using it on two projects: documentation/promotion of a local cheese-making operation and printing pix of a day sailing on a friends boat. The files are just awesome.
 
I really like mine.

The M9 handles like a "real" Leica M, produces excellent image files, and my particular sample has never had any mechanical problems.

But the real reason I like the M9 is that it allows me to use my huge lens collection the way they were intended to be used, on a digital full frame with no cropping.

I don't claim any special superiority of certain lenses, but I enjoy using them. Right now I've been mostly shooting with the LTM version of the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 from the 1950's, which produces beautiful photographs on the M9.

I don't believe there is anything "magical" about the Leica system which will suddenly help me make wonderful photographs, and I think the rangefinder system is antiquated and somewhat difficult to use. (now somewhat remedied by the new digital "M").

But I like old lenses, and I like the M9. No other reason is needed.
 
I didn't like the M9 but I also didn't regret getting it. You have to try something before you know you like it or not, and it doesn't make sense to regret about everything that you bought and didn't like.
 
While I appreciate the comments about the M9, my original post, I would prefer that comments relating to anything that creates disharmony among us be curtailed.

I'm relatively new to this forum, but one of the attractions is an environment conducive to open discussion, mutual learning and respect. I'd prefer to see it remain that way.

Returning to the topic of the M9 - I was able to "play" with one this weekend. I'm very impressed and the owner helped me better understand what I was doing wrong when framing with the M7. Turns out that my glasses contributed to part of the earlier problem, which is much less of a problem on the M9. I did find, however, that the frame lines on the M9 seem to be set for subjects closer to the camera than the frame lines on the M7. I'm sure I can adjust, but it did appear to be a noticeable difference to me.

Thanks again to all for the help - I'm now seriously interested in the M9, and without this forum I would not have been able to understand some aspects of both the M7 and M9, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of rangefinder cameras versus SLRs.
 
FrozenInTime said:
Totally agree - it took me time and money to get to that conclusion.
In hindsight I should not have bought the GXR, but as I have it I continue to use it - just not in the role I envisaged.
Click to expand...

Of late, the GXR has become my most used copy/macro camera as well as what I pick when I want a fast snapshot streetshooter ... fitted with 28mm lens and optical finder. It does really well at both of these things.

I'm using the M9 more for street work now, though, as I find I'm heading more into "most wide open" shooting again and it's very fast and easy to focus. It all goes in cycles. 🙂
 
Godfrey said:
Of late, the GXR has become my most used copy/macro camera as well as what I pick when I want a fast snapshot streetshooter ... fitted with 28mm lens and optical finder. It does really well at both of these things.

I'm using the M9 more for street work now, though, as I find I'm heading more into "most wide open" shooting again and it's very fast and easy to focus. It all goes in cycles. 🙂
Click to expand...

Do you use the Ricoh 28mm or an M mount? I was looking at NEX over GXR solely because of the close focus helicoid adapters available to NEX cameras.
 
lencap said:
I am about to purchase a new M9 and new Summicron-M 50mm F/2.0 lens. This is a very considerable expense for me, and I'm not unaware of Fuji "alternatives" including the current X-Pro1 and the upcoming X-E1.


My desire to buy a Leica is based on many intangible things - pride of ownership, quality construction and materials, and all of the things that make Leica what it is. I also admit that I'm somewhat impacted by advertising and the "exclusivity" of Leica, although it is not driving my decision.
Click to expand...



Here's my 2 cents worth.

I own the Nikon D3s, Fuji X100 (which I prefer over the X-Pro1) and Olympus OM-D. It took a while before finally deciding to get an M9.

If we'll go by the reasons you stated for buying an M9, you'll be very happy with the purchase! Pride of ownership -- most definitely so! Quality construction and materials -- again, most definitely so!

Now let's go to the pictures.

When I went out to buy the M9, I brought the OMD and attached my favorite lens on it which is the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95. I took pictures of the pretty saleslady using the OMD combo and the M9+50mm 1.4 Summilux M asph, aiming for identical settings and poses. I couldn't believe my eyes when we viewed the jpeg pictures on a mac. Some of the OMD pictures were even better. I mean, what the heck?

My heart pushed me to still make the purchase and took the M9 for a spin the rest of the day. When I got home, I loaded the RAW versions and I was blown away ... or at least very pleasantly surprised with the output from the M9. The M9 was meant to be used to shoot in RAW and when used right, pictures from it are the best that i've taken versus my other camera gear.

Now regarding your question as to buyer's remorse:

With the proper lenses, the M9 is fantastic for street and portrait photography and you won't regret it one bit. If you also want to shoot it for macro or tele (longer than 90mm) then you'll regret buying it 🙂
 
crispy12 said:
Do you use the Ricoh 28mm or an M mount? I was looking at NEX over GXR solely because of the close focus helicoid adapters available to NEX cameras.
Click to expand...

I was referring to GXR-M with 28mm lens above, although I also have the A12 28mm (18mm) camera unit. I prefer the manual focus lenses and the close focus isn't a problem for me, when i want close i fit a macro lens. The A12 28 does a nice job though.
 
No. No regrets. Silly to chase to newest thing just because it's new. I really can't get all that excited about the new M--as I've said elsewhere, the new features such as Live View, etc, really don't do anything for me--my EM-5 has all those features at a much lower cost.

Just because the M9 is considered "old" or maybe even "obsolete" by some doesn't mean that it's no longer a well-built camera which takes great photos. Same with my Olympus E-3. It's now considered "way old" in current terms, being what, four or five years since its introduction (and to think a camera like the Nikon F had a fourteen-year production run), but it still keeps on banging out great pictures.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

+1 and very suitable the following post by Richard :

Richard G said:
This is Mike Johston on his site The Online Photographer, accepting the rebuke from someone rejecting Mike's advice to buy a full frame camera and two fast primes at the outset. ...
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting Richard, that is indeed hilarious and most likely describing 90% of user experiences who are wasting their money step by step.


To the OP:
If rangefinders are not for you, then the M9 will not be any different from the M7, just with a SD card to plug into your PC and a digital workflow.

If money is no issue buy new otherwise some good deals can be found between 5 and 5,5 Grant for a used M9. If you don't mind the grey color the ME is also an option.

If you go for a M get a correction lens that screws in the viewfinder to eliminate the issues with your glasses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom