if I could afford an M9....

IMO, the M9 is about the same cost as a D3. I like the D3 but will never own one for many reasons, even it were offered for free.

The M9 is a marvelous camera. But, tell me, what does the anticipated X100 have that trumps an M9? Certainly there is no heritage/legacy. Will it produce better images?

And, please, no flames, as this is a serious question with no sniping intended.
 
The X100 is vaporware so speculating much is somewhat pointless at this time. However, if it's what Fuji has previewed, even without a working model, it will appeal to people like me a lot more than the M9 does. It's supposed to be what, a seventh of the price? The sensor will be smaller but we all know that 4/3 and APC sensors are quite capable and can provide wonderful images. The benefit of the full-frame sensor is no crop factor.
 
A camera repairman whom I trust with my Leica and Contax, who also works on digital cameras, told me that when he opened a M8 for repair he was surprised to find the camera manufactured with low quality "cheap parts" compared to the Canons he had repaired. How much of his opinion is objective; how much is subjective representing a bias against digital Leicas? I cannot say.
 
About the "nonsense" and "meaningless statements":


Roger Hicks said:
This is a completely meaningless statement. There are NO OTHER full-frame RF cameras on the market. That's nothing to do with marketing. It's limited production of a limited-demand item. HOW is Leica supposed to get the price down to $4000?
Click to expand...
Roger Hicks said:
So you are saying because there is no other full frame RF out there, it has to be expensive. If that is not a meaningless statement , I don't know what is. I don't give a darn if it's full frame or not, I'm interested in the photos that come out of the thing! And they are no better then products half the price.
How are they supposed to drop the price? Wait a few years and you'll see.
Oh, C'mon! Of course it's marketing! You create a hype by producing something very expensive that's hard to get. Rolex - and many others - does that for decades. If you don't see that - now that's a tad naive.

And actually, the M9 is quite a small camera. Not tiny, to be sure, but without a mirror box and a petaprism hump, it's not as lumpy and awkward as an SLR. There are lots of pics purporting to show SLR bofies that are as svelte as a Leica -- and they are, as long as you ignore the mirror box and pentaprism.

I'm not disputing that the M9 is smaller. But for a rangefinder it's quite big. You won't put the thing in a pocket. That's all I'm saying. A LX3 - now that is small.

Your argument about 'shoot a wedding...' is pure nonsense. There are only two reasons to shoot a wedding with a Nikon or Canon instead of a Leica. One is that you prefer the Nikon or Canon, and the other is that even if you'd prefer a Leica, you can't/won't afford it.

My last wedding took place in a very dark church. The couple did not allow flash photography during the ceremony. I shot the D700 with 6400ISO and shots I got back were great. You could try that with a M9 but you would have to explain to the bride why the photos didn't turn out. You could use as an argument that it's the only full frame RF on the market and that it costs a lot. If after that it is still nonsense to you, then so be it.
Click to expand...
 
Well, the last wedding I shot was in a 700 year old church in Cornwall, with very little in the way of interior lighting. No flash, of course. The bride and the groom were happy, and no explanations required: it's what fast lenses are for. I'd be surprised if you'd shot in much darker churches. For that matter, the church across the road is even darker, and even older, and I've shot concerts in there too. Same for the 1000-year-old castle on the hill behind the village.

If there were really a market for a cheap mass-market FF RF, and if it were possible to make one at the sort of price that fantasists like you consider 'reasonable', there'd be one on the market. Why wouldn't there be? You're the one who's being naive here.

And sure, a Tessina -- a 35mm TLR -- is a lot smaller than an M9. And a Gandolfi is bigger. There are small cameras and big cameras. That doesn't affect the argument that SLRs are big, awkward, lumpy things next to Leicas.

Go on believing what you want to believe. It won't affect the facts.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
^^ actually, as a "Wedding Pro" - I'd take the D700 or 5DMK2 (with fast primes) over M9. Did my own comparison shooting both for a charity event indoors with relatively low light, and the 5D (first version) did better than the M9 (shot both alternately).

As a "Wedding Guest", I'd take the M9, as it is more discreet, compact and socially acceptable for the role. This is exactly what I did 2 weeks ago at a family wedding and was quite satisfied!
 
Perhaps I should add a tiny bit more.

If I wanted to shoot weddings with a large format camera, I would use a large format camera, and adapt my technique accordingly.

If I wanted to shoot weddings with a DSLR, I would use a DSLR, and adapt my technique accordingly.

And if I want to shoot weddings with a FF RF, I use an M9, and adapt my technique accordingly.

If I can't shoot weddings with the camera I choose, I've chosen the wrong camera or technique. The same is true for any photographer. That's why I've never shot a wedding on LF. But just because one photographer may lack the confidence or ability to use a particular tool, it doesn't mean that someone else is doing something wrong by doing it their way. Maybe they know more than either of us.

Cheers,

R.
 
ederek said:
^^ actually, as a "Wedding Pro" - I'd take the D700 or 5DMK2 (with fast primes) over M9. Did my own comparison shooting both for a charity event indoors with relatively low light, and the 5D (first version) did better than the M9 (shot both alternately).

As a "Wedding Guest", I'd take the M9, as it is more discreet, compact and socially acceptable for the role. This is exactly what I did 2 weeks ago at a family wedding and was quite satisfied!
Click to expand...

If I were shooting weddings for a living, I might conceivably agree with your choice. But I think you'd agree that both the M9 and the DSLRs named must surely well above the quality threshold where the photographer's ability and preferences count for more than the camera.

Cheers,

R.
 
Oh, I see. Of course you are right. It could very well be that I don't have the skills to shot with a M9 as you suggest. After all for $7000 it HAS to be a product for a few SELECT experts that can't be wrong.

I for myself am happy I'm not THAT skilled and shot digital with one of those hunky DSLRs. The $4000 I saved I used for a nice vacation. But that's just foolish, isn't it?


Roger Hicks said:
If I can't shoot weddings with the camera I choose, I've chosen the wrong camera or technique. The same is true for any photographer. That's why I've never shot a wedding on LF. But just because one photographer may lack the confidence or ability to use a particular tool, it doesn't mean that someone else is doing something wrong by doing it their way. Maybe they know more than either of us.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
The high ISO performance difference between the named DSLRs and the M9 is much more then "above the quality threshold". Noise is noise, no matter who presses the button. And for $7000 the M9 should be better. That IS a fact!

Roger Hicks said:
If I were shooting weddings for a living, I might conceivably agree with your choice. But I think you'd agree that both the M9 and the DSLRs named must surely well above the quality threshold where the photographer's ability and preferences count for more than the camera.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
Roger Hicks said:
<snip>But just because one photographer may lack the confidence or ability to use a particular tool, it doesn't mean that someone else is doing something wrong by doing it their way. Maybe they know more than either of us.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I don't think the implication of lacking confidence or abiilty is appropriate for this argument. Let's assume a photographer is confident and able with both the RF and SLR systems.

Sensor technology:
Current sensor technology for the RF FF is a bit below best-in-class dSLR capabilities.

Lens options:
For 35mm, 1.4 is the fastest available for either of the two systems.

Now, shame on me for not using a 50 nocti in the charity event mentioned, but I did bring a 50 lux to bear, only 1/2 stop slower than the 50/1.2 Canon prime.

At the 75-85mm range, the 75 lux is fastest and best-in-class glass but still a 1/2 stop slower than the 85/1.2L.

For longer focal lengths, the system disparity widens, with the SLR pulling further ahead.

So it isn't in the lens category (except 50 nocti) that the RF offers an advantage.

Leave along close focus / macro abilities for things such as rings, settings and other potential detail shots.

Lighting:
If the photographer is competent in the use of artificial strobe lighting, then the integration and options for Canon/Nikon are again superior (TTL or manual capability with multi-strobe wireless off-camera options). Plus high speed sync.

So it isn't in the flash category that RF would provide an advantage.

Speed:
Rapid shots during tight action? The buffer capability of available FF RF technology falls behind...

Focusing - well, we could go back and forth with this one, but let's call it a draw (and I do feel confident with RF focusing after 30K clicks this year, but admit to having quite a ways to go still relative to what is possible).

Investment:
FF RF is a bit more expensive for the body, and glass for RF gets expensive quickly (especially for that nocti). How does one cover the additional depreciation given this is a commercial venture? What are the differentiators?

I think the advantages for RF would be:
a) Leica glass and image rendering
b) the smaller size for putting subjects more at ease
c) smaller size for handling multiple bodies
d) quieter operation for more delicate moments
e) viewfinder for framing
f) smaller tripod/support requirements
g) noise characteristics for B&W conversions (slightly better film look)

Not saying someone is doing it "wrong" with RF relative to SLR, just that they may be handicapping the technical quality of the final product with tool choice, particularly in the low-light scenario mentioned - confidence and ability being equal.

Good discussion and reminder of the factors for system choice.

And for Vacation - I'll take the M9/M4 combo any day.. Well, maybe except for an animal safari or bird shooting adventure that requires long lenses, or shooting some rapids which require water sealing, or going to Burning Man or the desert which requires dust sealing, or... Ok ok, for MOST vacations I'd take the M9! 😀
 
ederek said:
And for Vacation - I'll take the M9/M4 combo any day.. Well, maybe except for an animal safari or bird shooting adventure that requires long lenses, or shooting some rapids which require water sealing, or going to Burning Man or the desert which requires dust sealing, or... Ok ok, for MOST vacations I'd take the M9! 😀
Click to expand...

I did keep my DSLR and long lenses for air shows, bird shooting and sports but I don't think I would even take that to Burning Man with all the dust... Something like Burning Man or a rafting trip would take special considerations about an appropriate camera. The thing that I liked most with the M9 on vacation was carrying it into places where I would have most likely left the DSLR behind.
Pete
 
Oh yeah, that out dated CCD sensor was one of the main reasons that I bought the M9. I still like the look of my D200 (also CCD) photos over any of the other DSLRs since... Now I know what camera to bring to Burning Man, a D200 and small complement of lenses.
Pete
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Perhaps I should add a tiny bit more.

If I wanted to shoot weddings with a large format camera, I would use a large format camera, and adapt my technique accordingly.

If I wanted to shoot weddings with a DSLR, I would use a DSLR, and adapt my technique accordingly.

And if I want to shoot weddings with a FF RF, I use an M9, and adapt my technique accordingly.

If I can't shoot weddings with the camera I choose, I've chosen the wrong camera or technique. The same is true for any photographer. That's why I've never shot a wedding on LF. But just because one photographer may lack the confidence or ability to use a particular tool, it doesn't mean that someone else is doing something wrong by doing it their way. Maybe they know more than either of us.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Excellent answer...😛 I will never understand why the heated discussion about M9 v D3 v D7000 v whatever, it is not the camera necessarily, it is the skill of the photographer. Certainly a RF camera will have a different "style" and/or technique than a DSLR... and for me, I have sold ALL of my digital Nikon pro bodies in favor of the lowly film-based RF, the M3 and cannot wait until I can afford a used M9 for what digital work I do these days. I have had enough of DSLR's after shooting them most of the last ten years, and losing my a** on the depreciation.
 
Last edited:
I'm having a great time with my M8, just not ready to put down $7K for an M9 yet. The money is set aside for when I am ready to upgrade. I have a lot of Nikon lenses, could buy a D3x for the same money- I just do not want one. The luxury of this being a hobby, not requiring income from it, and shooting with the cameras that I like to use.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I'm having a great time with my M8, just not ready to put down $7K for an M9 yet. The money is set aside for when I am ready to upgrade. I have a lot of Nikon lenses, could buy a D3x for the same money- I just do not want one. The luxury of this being a hobby, not requiring income from it, and shooting with the cameras that I like to use.
Click to expand...

Dear Brian,

Of course, if you are making money with your cameras, you have the further advantage that the M9 is tax allowable.

But whether it's hobby or earning a living, shooting with the cameras you like to use is much nicer, and (I firmly believe) gives you better pictures. This is as true of a Holga (if that's your favourite) as of an M9 (if that's your favourite), though some aspects of your definition of 'better' may change.

Like you, I don't want a D3x, which from my point of view is an overcomplicated tub of lard.

Finally, I can't help feeling that if an M9 did cost (say) $4000 US instead of $7000 US, most of the sniping and snivelling about its alleged lack of technical features would evaporate. An awful lot of it, I'm sure, comes from comparing modestly-sized M9 apples to huge, fat DSLR oranges (or possibly pumpkins) -- assuming, of course, that it's not another fruit entirely, namely, sour grapes. The point is that an M9 costs what it costs. You may wish it cost less (I do -- I'd buy two). But as there's no competition in FF RFs, I rather suspect that no other manufacturer can make one significantly cheaper, given the tiny size of the market.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
if i could afford an M9 i would buy a hasselblad scanner and some more film.
plus i would quit my AWFUL job and take pictures/develop/wetprint.
not that i don't like the M9, but my humanly mind wont control how many pictures it will take with a digital and many times i will never love/care and be greatful about every single picture i take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom