noimmunity
scratch my niche
I'm waiting for the M&M, a dual film/digital body that comes with all new, vibrant colors
noimmunity
scratch my niche
OUCH!!!
I was lucky that I left the M8 home during a two week trip a couple years ago that ran into Typhoon Morakot. The Bessa T was the perfect choice for that trip. Indeed, the T is a •great• backpacking body. Metered, inexpensive (but unfortunately out of production), and doesn't need batteries to fire.
Alan, I'll have to wait and see, between the Nex 7 and the GXR, which has the subjectively 'better' rendition for landscape.
celluloidprop
Well-known
There's no reason to assume an M10 will come in at a lower price point - Leica knows that it can sell all the digital Ms it wants at the current price point.
I'm seriously considering working out a way to buy a M9 in the coming year.
A M9 is an obscene purchase for me. But used, we're talking under $6k. Three years use, $2k/year. Tri-x w/ processing is ~$10/roll ($3.50/roll, mailing it off, $5.75 processing). Plus all the time to scan each roll - I'm getting a V700 for MF film, but I'd need a dedicated 35mm scanner for the best frames, and for 'exhibition quality' I'd pay for drum scans most likely. All in all, the M9 can make a twisted kind of sense.
It really comes down to whether the size and convenience is worth a pair of Nikon D700s (if you use Zeiss glass, you're actually going to save money on a quality 35mm lens vs. Nikon!), and whether the IQ and traditional rangefinder system is worth 5 NEX-7s (or a NEX-7 and a European vacation...). That's a tougher question to handle.
I'm seriously considering working out a way to buy a M9 in the coming year.
A M9 is an obscene purchase for me. But used, we're talking under $6k. Three years use, $2k/year. Tri-x w/ processing is ~$10/roll ($3.50/roll, mailing it off, $5.75 processing). Plus all the time to scan each roll - I'm getting a V700 for MF film, but I'd need a dedicated 35mm scanner for the best frames, and for 'exhibition quality' I'd pay for drum scans most likely. All in all, the M9 can make a twisted kind of sense.
It really comes down to whether the size and convenience is worth a pair of Nikon D700s (if you use Zeiss glass, you're actually going to save money on a quality 35mm lens vs. Nikon!), and whether the IQ and traditional rangefinder system is worth 5 NEX-7s (or a NEX-7 and a European vacation...). That's a tougher question to handle.
porktaco
Well-known
sojournerphoto
Veteran
The remedy is called insurance.. .
I have been skiing with the M9, dragged it through little-travelled parts of Africa, covered it with dust in dry semi-desert, nearly drowned it with a sudden storm on an open boat, and I am of again into Manda Wilderness in Mozambique and Katavi and the Mahale Mountains in Tanzania tomorrow. Looking forward to using my newly acquired Super Elmar 18 for landscapes and reportage.It has never failed me. It is a tough tool, built for traipsing through the wilderness as you put it. A backpacking hike appears to me to be rather mild use, suitable even for cameras that have become habituated to be treated as precious ornaments..,
Made me smile - I was just thinking the only thing I don't do with my M9 is take it dinghy saling. Helming can get wet, particularly when the boat goes over
And it is insured.Mike
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I do have a digital - a GF1 with the EVF accessory - which at the time was as close as I could get to what I wanted and could afford. It's alright, but............... I use the M6 most of the time.
Any current thoughts of replacing the GF1 with something else are now on hold and waiting the realisation of Fuji's announcement this week of an interchangeable lens version of something that will be close to the X100. I don't mind waiting a year if it turns out to be a winner.
Any current thoughts of replacing the GF1 with something else are now on hold and waiting the realisation of Fuji's announcement this week of an interchangeable lens version of something that will be close to the X100. I don't mind waiting a year if it turns out to be a winner.
jky
Well-known
The M9 doesn't need to get babied... but your plan above sounds fine. It's the cheaper alternative that still allows you to enjoy photography & capture great images.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Fuji's announcement generates some additional hope.
The Ricoh M mount module looks very good, too.
Based on the musings above, I committed to a used, coded ZM 18, a wonderful lens I used to have that will give me a 24 FOV on the M8 and 27 FOV on the GXR. On film, it will occasionally pair with a 35 and 75.
Atom
Molecular.Atom
I did 6 straight days of mountain biking in The high mountains of Colorado with my M8.2 in my camelback. I crashed hard enough to severely sprain my ankle on the last day but the camera made it through without issue. From rain and near freezing temps at 12,000 feet down a mountain side to 60f and sunny, the camera performed without issue. If I had had my M9 then, it would have been on my bag.
ChrisN
Striving
Funny - I'm still using the Olympus OM10 that did 15 years of bushwalking, cross-country skiing, caving, rock-climbing and motorcycle trips with me, including a couple of crashes while packed in the tank bag on the bike. I don't think anyone should be the least surprised or impressed by that. Yet the digital Ms do not enjoy the reputation for hardiness and reliability that made the film M cameras legendary.
To the OP - it sounds like an M9 would be a significant and possibly stressful acquisition for you, especially following an M8. Let's face it - if good photos are the objective there's plenty of good cameras that cost less and would be more reliable. M9s are for people who want an M9 and can freely afford it, or can convince themselves that no other camera will allow them to work in the way that lets them create good work.
(I don't want an M9 either - really - because I'm worried that it would be so nice that I'd neglect my film cameras, and I'm not ready to let film photography go.
)
Godfrey
somewhat colored
to me, it's a camera. whatever it costs, I use it to do what it was made to do. I take care of it, of course, but buying a nice camera then leaving it home is a waste of money.
the GXR-M does a wonderful job. it's not cheap either. neither is a NEX 5n or Fuji X-Pro1.
BTW, the GXR-M currently does a better job with the ultra-short "near-symmetric" RF lenses than the NEX cameras, or anything else short of M8/M9. don't know how the X-Pro1 will do yet, of course.
the GXR-M does a wonderful job. it's not cheap either. neither is a NEX 5n or Fuji X-Pro1.
BTW, the GXR-M currently does a better job with the ultra-short "near-symmetric" RF lenses than the NEX cameras, or anything else short of M8/M9. don't know how the X-Pro1 will do yet, of course.
EXksporry
Member
I think most opinions have already been said. If You are worried about damage to your m9, get an insurance. In fact, when I was still in the uk I took out an insurance when I got my first canon L lens. Insurance is invaluable when working with valuable equipment. Most people would consider it just for their holiday, or that special trip, but think about it, your 2 year old daughters could pull herself up on the table cloth... That happens to be where your m9 was lying around... Or you leave it in your car when stopping somewhere for 5 minutes, and people break into your car, etc etc, and so on and so forth... I myself am I. China now most of the year, meaning my insurance wouldn't cover me ( and I haven't found an insurance company that will insure me when I'm permanently abroad).
As for alternatives, I think a Sony or Panasonic camera is just not the same, and I recon those types of cameras usually don't handle tricky light situations that well (though I admit I don't know how well the nex7 performs). What would be interesting is to see that new fuji x-pro1! If that sensr is as good as they say it is, it could be the next best thing after sliced bread!
As for alternatives, I think a Sony or Panasonic camera is just not the same, and I recon those types of cameras usually don't handle tricky light situations that well (though I admit I don't know how well the nex7 performs). What would be interesting is to see that new fuji x-pro1! If that sensr is as good as they say it is, it could be the next best thing after sliced bread!
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I continue to really like my M8. The files look unique, and the brassed all black front (I eliminated the white lettering and got a black dot) combined with chrome dials, chrome external VF (for a 24 efov) and chrome lenses is really sweet.
I also continue to love shooting film...!
As an aside, I kind of doubt the Fuji X-Pro1 will do very well with M wides. Heck, even the Leica M9 has had a lot and still has some trouble in that department.
I also continue to love shooting film...!
As an aside, I kind of doubt the Fuji X-Pro1 will do very well with M wides. Heck, even the Leica M9 has had a lot and still has some trouble in that department.
celluloidprop
Well-known
I think a cheaper FF RF is a pipe dream. Not that it couldn't be done, just that no one will put in the R&D money for a very niche market, and cheaper could be relative.
We still see the corner issues that come from having the rear element so close to the sensor with a 1.5x sensor in the NEX-7 - the microlenses that adapt to accept M-mount wide angles on the M9 are a nice piece of engineering and barring a leap in sensor technology, probably not something that can be done away with.
Leica will remain the only game in town for digital rangefinders, and they will continue to charge whatever they can get for bodies, preferring high-margin and low-volume to the opposite.
We still see the corner issues that come from having the rear element so close to the sensor with a 1.5x sensor in the NEX-7 - the microlenses that adapt to accept M-mount wide angles on the M9 are a nice piece of engineering and barring a leap in sensor technology, probably not something that can be done away with.
Leica will remain the only game in town for digital rangefinders, and they will continue to charge whatever they can get for bodies, preferring high-margin and low-volume to the opposite.
pgk
Well-known
Firstly, as has been stated many times, insure your gear!
Secondly, whilst impact damage could completely destroy a camera, with the M9 its more likely to lead to repair bills rather than replacement cost, so insurers are more likely to pay out without contesting the claim - repair costs are unlikely to be fraudulent.
Thirdly, the most likely thing to cause total destruction is water, which is why I always carry a lightweight, waterproof 'drybag' with my cameras and lenses. If they are going into a situation (torrential rain or open boat) where they could easily get soaked then they go onto this (I can always add a sachet of silica-gel too) and are safe.
Secondly, whilst impact damage could completely destroy a camera, with the M9 its more likely to lead to repair bills rather than replacement cost, so insurers are more likely to pay out without contesting the claim - repair costs are unlikely to be fraudulent.
Thirdly, the most likely thing to cause total destruction is water, which is why I always carry a lightweight, waterproof 'drybag' with my cameras and lenses. If they are going into a situation (torrential rain or open boat) where they could easily get soaked then they go onto this (I can always add a sachet of silica-gel too) and are safe.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Not sure how true is the rumor that the M10 will be announced at Photokina 2012.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
I've been wondering why a R-d2 had never got released. With 5 year old Rd1 cameras still selling for over $1000, there would be a market. Of course crop factor would have to be less. I'm not sure if I could ever be satisfied with a 1.5 or 1.6 crop factor.
mls64
Member
Hatch
Established
Just insure and use it.
If you just have it, to tote around on those occasions when you feel it's safe, it's more like jewelry than a tool.
Nothing wrong with that, GAS is great.
I have a carbon racing bike which I was hesitant to use because it's well,... carbon, basically brittle plastic.
So I insured it.
For the next three years I can crash it all I want, except in a race, no worries.
It frees the spirit
If you just have it, to tote around on those occasions when you feel it's safe, it's more like jewelry than a tool.
Nothing wrong with that, GAS is great.
I have a carbon racing bike which I was hesitant to use because it's well,... carbon, basically brittle plastic.
So I insured it.
For the next three years I can crash it all I want, except in a race, no worries.
It frees the spirit
Archiver
Veteran
There's almost always a compromise involved somewhere, unless your needs and budget exactly match what the camera offers.
I have a GXR-M and a M9, among others. The GXR-M's image quality is a not M9-like, but still does a great job. The lack of AA filter gives it very sharp images, but not in the same way that a M9 is sharp. The M9 gives me some of the richest and sharpest images out of all of my cameras. Having said that, I would definitely use a GXR-M plus some good lenses as a landscape hiking kit. It's not that the GXR isn't a great camera - it is. Due to its size, convenience and image quality I now use it as much, perhaps more than, the M9. But the M9 produces super images.
I bought the M9 because dragging a 5D Mark II everywhere was getting tiresome. The irony is that over the last couple of years I've becomes less and less tolerant of weight to the point where even a M9, a few lenses and a backup camera or two is heavy. Where I used to carry the M9 all the time, I now only carry it if I know I'm not walking a lot, or it will be in my hands and take the weight off my shoulder. Or if the situation demands the best image quality I can get, I just suck it up and take the M9.
If the M9 had not spoiled me with its image quality I could happily use the GXR as my compact solution. Image quality, plus the ability to use M-mount lenses at their intended focal lengths and with appropriate depth of field, means that the M9 will always win the ultimate battle for me. But for general purpose and non-critical shooting I am very happy with the GXR.
I have a GXR-M and a M9, among others. The GXR-M's image quality is a not M9-like, but still does a great job. The lack of AA filter gives it very sharp images, but not in the same way that a M9 is sharp. The M9 gives me some of the richest and sharpest images out of all of my cameras. Having said that, I would definitely use a GXR-M plus some good lenses as a landscape hiking kit. It's not that the GXR isn't a great camera - it is. Due to its size, convenience and image quality I now use it as much, perhaps more than, the M9. But the M9 produces super images.
I bought the M9 because dragging a 5D Mark II everywhere was getting tiresome. The irony is that over the last couple of years I've becomes less and less tolerant of weight to the point where even a M9, a few lenses and a backup camera or two is heavy. Where I used to carry the M9 all the time, I now only carry it if I know I'm not walking a lot, or it will be in my hands and take the weight off my shoulder. Or if the situation demands the best image quality I can get, I just suck it up and take the M9.
If the M9 had not spoiled me with its image quality I could happily use the GXR as my compact solution. Image quality, plus the ability to use M-mount lenses at their intended focal lengths and with appropriate depth of field, means that the M9 will always win the ultimate battle for me. But for general purpose and non-critical shooting I am very happy with the GXR.