Hypothetical: Talk me in/out of an M9

[Takkun]

Hi all,
Not to be redundant to other threads, but some backstory: this was 'the summer of the rangefinder' for me. I dusted off the Bessa, bought an M5, and shot probably 40 rolls. Aside from volunteering as an event photog for a few nonprofits around here, I haven't touched any of my Nikon gear. Some backstory: I studied and worked as a PJ and all but gave up film for the D3 for five years.
Now I'm back to shooting film, working the whole gallery/art thing while working towards grad school. I still do live music photography when I can, and shoot portraits when I get paid. I sometimes dream of photographing wildlife, but that's only been realized when I go hiking and spot a fox or something, and I haven't shot sports since college.

So why am I hanging on to a DSLR? Even the last event I shot was mostly with the X100 and only took out the nikon to use an old 105mm tele. I didn't even want to bother with figuring out AF anymore.

Most of what I shoot is street and urban landscapes, 'real' landscapes if I'm lucky enough to get out of the city.

My Nikon kit is really just four lenses-- a 28, 50, 85 (which I love!), and the old 35-70 zoom. That's not counting the F that I keep for sentimental reasons. I'm sure if I ditched them and the X100 I'd be able to scrape up the cash.

So I'm finding myself bitten by the Leica bug, but at the same time I'm pretty committed to film for my personal and artistic work. This is really just a hypothetical idea batted around, since I really ought not be spending more money...

At any rate, I was invited to volunteer as a photographer in Haiti early next year for a friend's nonprofit. I'm not getting paid aside expenses, but I'm likely going to rent a digital M for that week, since they would want the photos before I leave. Maybe that will spoil me.

Thoughts? Who else switched over from DSLRs entirely?

 

[YYV_146]

I've done this to myself several times over the past 3 years... for both the M9 and M6.

But every time I end up buying a new lens...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not entirely: DSLRs are more use for pack shots and illustrations. Otherwise...

This is why I MIGHT -- just MIGHT -- buy an M240: all my Nikon lenses on the M on the rare occasions I need 'em.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Godfrey]

Equipment comes and goes. An M9 is a fine camera with its own unique imaging signature ... dump everything for one? Why not? At this point in time, you can almost be guaranteed that if you want to sell it a year down the road, you'll get back the same amount of money. They might go a little lower, but I think $3500-4500 for a good clean one is going to be stable for a long time.

I dunno. I have too many cameras. Some for sentimental reasons, some because I just like shooting with them occasionally, etc. One thing is for sure: I have too many lenses for the amount that I use my M9. An M9, a 28mm and a 50mm is all I use with any frequency (but I'll want the 90mm occasionally).

No one can answer what the right thing for you to do is on this subject. Do what your heart, gut, and wallet tell you is right. It's only equipment ... you can always change to something else again at some other time. Long as you can afford it, it's a toss up.

G

 

[Takkun]

I'll definitely go with my gut feeling, of which I don't have any in particular right now. I'm shooting virtually no digital aside from snapshots. I just have probably a couple thousand tied up in gear that's not being used and, unlike Leica, is probably depreciating very, very quickly.
I probably would have sold it for more lenses, but I actually quite like my RF lineup. And then I'd be out a digital camera for those aforementioned occasional shoots..

Essentially what I'm saying is I'm too young to really have all these bodies! Not to mention the size of my living space. It's also a lot of money to throw around; it's not like I'm trading around old Pentaxes on ebay here..

 

[edge100]

No place to put film. What else do you need to know? 😉

 

[JSU]

Is shooting for your friend's non-profit on deadline? If not, why not shoot film?

I have the M9, for me it is the end of an era, the last digital, non-video, purely mechanical rangefinder / non-live view, Leica M mount camera.

I am retired from news photography but still pick-up enough freelance work to justify keeping my pair of Nikon D700 bodies which are used with an assortment of manual focus Nikkors including the venerable 105/2.5 P-C.

My first love and continuing mistress is my relationship with rangefinder cameras. I have long realized I "see" best with Leicas, at least for focal lengths shorter than 100mm.

I appreciate your affinity for rangefinders, been there - done that - still doing that.

However, I would not invest, nor rent, a M9 for a one time project. Use something that is so much a part of you that it is second nature. If you do go with a M9 or any other digital camera, have a back-up, if only a Fujii X100.

I reiterate, if time is not a pressing constraint, shoot film. . . and have fun!

SORRY, I just reread the OP and realized there is a deadline. Consider the M9, but back it up with the X100.

 

[flash]

You like rangefinders. You like the 35mm format. You don't mind manual focus etc. You have some lenses. All your lenses are shorter than 135mm. I'm just surprised you haven't got an M9 already. It's a no brainer. Just get it.

Gordon

 

[thegman]

Hypothetically? No, too much money for not enough camera for me. If you want a Leica, get a proper Leica, i.e. a film one. If you want digital, you can do better for less money.

Realistically? The heart wants what it wants. My photography could easily be done on a Sigma DP1M and DP2M. It's not logic that makes me buy 4x5 cameras, Rolleiflexes etc. It's what I want, and no amount logic will top that.

There is no logical reason to buy an M9, but logic is overrated.

 

[Keith]

If you want a Leica, get a proper Leica, i.e. a film one

If it wasn't for their foray into digital Leica would probably be history by now so please define a real Leica for me because I can't accept that premise! 😀

 

[Kwesi]

Sell everything but the x100 and the rf lenses. Use the x100 for low light in Haiti and shoot everything else with the m9. Rent a Nikon workhorse when a paid gig demands it. The aesthetic quality of your work will improve dramatically.

 

[thegman]

If it wasn't for their foray into digital Leica would probably be history by now so please define a real Leica for me because I can't accept that premise! 😀

Well, Leica certainly would not be in the position they are, now, we can agree on that. Perhaps they'd be more like DHW Fototechnik after Rollei?

Anyway, my comment is tongue in cheek, but I guess for me a real Leica is one produced by Leica, not by various electronics companies. All the bits that take the photos in a digital Leica are produced elsewhere, other than the lenses of course.

Don't get me wrong, I've no problem with digital Leicas, but they are not 'real' Leicas in the same way that Thinkpads are not proper IBM gear any more. It's not a bad or a good thing, just Leica don't make digital cameras, they assemble parts from other companies to make a digital camera. Again, I have no problem with this, but there is a simple pleasure in knowing where something came from. For example, I like that when I buy a bottle of whisky, it came from a particular island in Scotland.

With Leica, it used to be the case that the whole camera was created by Leica. Now that is not the case, which is not negative in itself, just that there is a certain pleasure in knowing how/where something was created, for me anyway.

 

[flash]

No camera that uses batteries, including the M6 etc.. is entirely made in house. It's a brave new world.

Gordon

 

[sojournerphoto]

I like that when I buy a bottle of whisky, it came from a particular island in Scotland.

Don't forget the barley was almost certainly grown off island, and peated at Port Ellen Maltings rather than in the pagoda roofed kiln houses that now house the visitor centre🙂

But i understand, even though I have an M9

 

[jschrader]

Thoughts? Who else switched over from DSLRs entirely?

I did. I did b&w for 15 or 20 years but gave up due to lack of time for the lab when the family starting growing in numbers. I used color film then, and later bought my D700 which I used with my old Nikon non-AF lenses.

A year ago I discovered someone who does reasonable b&w prints from digital files. Since I always dreamed of a Leica I took my fathers retired M6 and started b&w again. I develop the films and now I am in the process of buying a scanner (some time already; did not see any of my photos from the last 12 or 14 months ;-)

M9 does not attract me any more; if, it will be a Mono. The big difference now is the knowing that I have a b&w camera. Converting D700 files to b&w was not the same. And since I focus manually and don't need a flash, I have 99% of my D700 unused, in a way.

 

[jschrader]

Anyway, my comment is tongue in cheek, but I guess for me a real Leica is one produced by Leica, not by various electronics companies. All the bits that take the photos in a digital Leica are produced elsewhere, other than the lenses of course.

Well the things in a real Leica that take the photo are also made by other companies, e.g. Kodak or Iflord 🙂

 

[Richard G]

The M9-P is a direct descendant of my M2. I use it almost in the same way. I can't now remember my gripe about the LCD. I do hate the frame lines, especially the 50, but their misleading restriction beyond 1m I am now used to. And I can see the 28 frame lines, or one of them at a time, with my glasses, which I can't with the M6. I use it most days. I am rarely in menus. It just feels like the cameras I have been using for nearly 40 years.

 

[Maiku]

If I had the money I would buy an M9. Do it.

 

[thegman]

Well the things in a real Leica that take the photo are also made by other companies, e.g. Kodak or Iflord 🙂

Certainly, I fully admit that what I am talking about in terms of something being "created" in a certain way is more emotional than logical.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Why buying an M9 when a M8 can do it, even better?