Find ten differences...

jaapv

jaapv

RFF Sponsoring Member.
Local time
6:26 PM
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
8,374
Just to show how close Leica has remained to the original...:p
Fifty-four years have passed...


l1020731.jpg
 
If you will take them apart the difference will become much more obvious :)! Leica is probably too cheap to hire a new design team to re-shape the Ms. The design, however, is very good and I cannot see how possibly they can improve it...
 
You're right about the Kodachrome, but I ran out of the original one quite some years ago ;)
 
Well a typical scan of a slide when I get mine developed is 25 megapixel, vs. 18 megapixel for the M9, so that's 7 million differences right there. :)
 
It is a very interesting comparison but that does not meen its a great achievement. Im more concerned by how little the M9 has moved on from the M8.

I just wish Leica could snap out of this fixation on the past and make something a bit more innovative. As long as its a rangefinder and takes m lenses I give them carte blanche to try something completely different. They have absolutely nothing to loose.

Richard
 
I take it you don't use an M9, Richard? Believe me, I had the same doubts before buying mine, as the changes seem quite incremantal. However, in daily use, I find the sum of those changes adds up to a different camera. The M8 come of age, so to speak.
 
hans voralberg said:
Nothing? I think they'll lose the whole purist/collector market in one swoop lol.
Click to expand...
Hmm.. I don't see many collectors buying digital M cameras... But yes, I would think 95% of users are purists - quite a number of customers to lose, I agree.
 
Is the fact that there appear to be few outward physical differences between the two a good or a bad thing? Personally I am undecided on that.

Bob
 
i'll own one eventually. i did however learn my lesson with the 8. i'll be buying my M9 in about a year or so.
 
Kodachrome-X did not come out until the 1960s. It would have been "Kodachrome", ASA 10. I still have some in the refrigerator for Double-8. I do have some empty boxes, dated 1957. Kodachrome II was ASA 25, replaced original Kodachrome. Kodachrome-X was the high-speed stuff at ASA 64.

JSU said:
In the mid-1950's there was no Kodachrome 64, it would have been Kodachrome X.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
I take it you don't use an M9, Richard? Believe me, I had the same doubts before buying mine, as the changes seem quite incremantal. However, in daily use, I find the sum of those changes adds up to a different camera. The M8 come of age, so to speak.
Click to expand...
Dear Friend

I do not have an M9 but will most certainly have a good look at one once they reach reasonable availability. I am certainly not parting with my cash without seeing one.
I agree small refinements can make a difference but for the price I certainly expected more. The LCD screen particularly is well obsolete. I know there are limitations to what can be done to the design within the boundries of an M body so i say lets really go for this and make something worth paying for.

Hasselblad got away with it. there is still classic v series interest and a cutting edge digital product (which can use manual zeiss leneses should some one so wish to.

Sorry to be so negative but my M8 was not a good one and I am cautious about re investing. My point is that yes the M9 does look like a 50 year old camera but this ultimately is a millstone which leica need to relieve themselves of.

Glad you are happy with yours.
All the best for 2010

Richard
 
emraphoto said:
#1 - price?
Click to expand...

I actually wonder what the actual price difference would be if one compared the incomes of people who purchased the M3 when it original came out and those who are purchasing the M9 today? In other words how many weeks of pay would each one cost.

For me an M9 would equal 11 weeks of work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom