if I could afford an M9....

If you are waiting for an M9 to drop in price and drop in to your hands, it may take another year or two for the two of you to hook up.

People are selling them new for less than $7k and if you order out of state, you can save tax, so you have to figure if the time is right. Used and chipped models are selling a bit less, and have less warranty left.

I believe it also comes with some Adobe software, in place of the software that came with the M8, which also is worth something.

If you have a use for such a camera, it is what it is, and I don't see any other FF RF's on the horizon that accepts my M Mount glass.

I would have liked "Contax" to have made a G2 in digital FF that accepted my existing Zeiss lenses, but they seem to have passed on the project.


Perhaps I can swap my Apple IIgs with the $850 40mb hd and Woz's name on the front that I have $6500 invested from the seventies, but I did use it for work for a number of years.


I suppose the next thing to "wait" for will be a MF digital at a "reasonable" price, but am not sure as to how long I have to wait. Would love to slap a digital back on my Blads for a few thousand bucks.

I did set a buy point price, and I did find an M9, pass the beans please.

Now, that sweet V12 Jag someone drove to the last show was only a few thousand more and no Lucas Ignition...

Regards, John

ps-- I did shoot a wedding in LF, had to go home to change film between the wedding and reception as we wanted to make at least 40 shots. Returned the borrowed film holders the following week. ;-)
 
Last edited:
I have had my M9 for over a year and have really enjoyed everything about it. I am getting quiet used to macaroni and wieners... I know it may not be the best choice for weddings but then I don't do weddings!!!
Pete
 
3rdtrick said:
I have had my M9 for over a year and have really enjoyed everything about it. I am getting quiet used to macaroni and wieners... I know it may not be the best choice for weddings but then I don't do weddings!!!
Pete
Click to expand...


Mac and wieners aside, that was a really good choice for you but for others maybe not. I don't see what the fuss is about in people feeling that they have to defend their choice to buy one or their choice not to buy one. Then again this seems to be typical when the word Leica is attached to a product.

Bob
 
Nikon Bob said:
Mac and wieners aside, that was a really good choice for you but for others maybe not. I don't see what the fuss is about in people feeling that they have to defend their choice to buy one or their choice not to buy one. Then again this seems to be typical when the word Leica is attached to a product.

Bob
Click to expand...

...this from a guy called Nikon Bob...

Cheers,

R.
 
I do agree with Bob though, no one should have to defend their choice. If you read one of my earlier I even suggested that those who still have their film workflow down should continue that and take in some of those great deals on old film cameras. I wish I had time to do that.
Pete
 
Roger Hicks said:
...this from a guy called Nikon Bob...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Sorry to possibly disappoint you Roger but I am not a fanboy for Nikon. I only use Nikon among other makes of cameras that I have. I could careless about other peoples choices, they have their reasons for using what they do and that is valid for them. With any consumer product you get this type of thing, them vs us, but it seems to get even more extreme when it comes to high end products. This type of arguing/discussion is a total and complete waste of time because neither side is willing to listen to what the other is saying.

Bob
 
The M9 is a low production, niche product. This kind of product costs a lot in R&D (not that long ago people were saying a FF sensor for RFs was impossible due to the incidence angle remember) so the sale price is going to be high, no question. Doubtless a modern mass-market SLR is going to be more highly featured.

I use SLRs for a living shooting weddings. I dabbled with using my M8 for that but went back to SLRs as they suited me better. However I'm just back from a month travelling with my M8 and I'm totally smitten, so much so that I am pondering an M9, despite it not being a terribly sensible business decision - but sometimes enjoyment is worth paying for.
 
Lord Fluff said:
The M9 is a low production, niche product. This kind of product costs a lot in R&D (not that long ago people were saying a FF sensor for RFs was impossible due to the incidence angle remember) so the sale price is going to be high, no question. Doubtless a modern mass-market SLR is going to be more highly featured.

I use SLRs for a living shooting weddings. I dabbled with using my M8 for that but went back to SLRs as they suited me better. However I'm just back from a month travelling with my M8 and I'm totally smitten, so much so that I am pondering an M9, despite it not being a terribly sensible business decision - but sometimes enjoyment is worth paying for.
Click to expand...

Most of the time, I'd have said. Especially when it comes to work. Most of us need tools of some kind to earn a living, even if it's only a computer or a pen. There's a big difference between adequate tools that'll do the job and good tools that are a pleasure to use.

Cheers,

R.
 
archeophoto said:
The M9 is way to expensive for what it is. I think one is much better off with a D700 or a 5D MKII. The high ISO performance of the Leica is just not comparable, especially compared to the D700. While I certainly appreciate the "Made in Germany" aspect of the M9 I think $3500-4000 would be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

And why is high ISO the end-all reason why one camera is better than another? ISO certainly was never what made one film better than another- it was image quality, and I see better quality requiring less processing from the M9 than the Nikon and Canon files I've worked with (Granted, I've not shot those Canon or Nikon files, and I've only processed my own M9 files- but the differences are quite clear in the time required to get a finished file, even from files by people whose work I'm used to).

I've never shot either my M8 or M9 at the highest ISO- I've never needed to. Nor do I ever need to shoot B&W film at 6400. ISO 1000 or 1600 has always been more than enough for my needs. I don't think I've ever shot much sheet film at even ISO 400. By the ISO argument a view camera is vastly less capable than that Canon.

When one shoots B&W at high ISO one processes the film to minimize or accentuate the grain as they want- when shooting digital at higher ISO one simply must process the file appropriately. Not much different, and higher ISO has always come at a cost.
 
Last edited:
Hi
have you guys read this?

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/01/03/why-a-used-leica-m7-is-more-expensive-than-a-new-m9-by-mikael-tornwall/

If you factor the cost of film over time, both to buy and to process, the time to scan correctly etc... The M9 pays for itself over time. It's a huge investment for sure. I am waiting for mine in the next few days to arrive, but i am sure i'll be happy. I shoot an M4 most of the time, i have a canon 5d M2 i'm selling to pay for part of the M9. Film is great, no batteries, easy to get film anywhere in the world, the only pain is developping and scanning.
 
If had $7,000 to spend on an M9, I would rather buy a 50mm Summilux and an M8.2. Then I would be able to have the best of both worlds - film and digital.

The M9 is incredible, but not worth $7000 to me.
 
eduvauchelle said:
Hi
have you guys read this?

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/...e-expensive-than-a-new-m9-by-mikael-tornwall/

If you factor the cost of film over time, both to buy and to process, the time to scan correctly etc... The M9 pays for itself over time. It's a huge investment for sure. I am waiting for mine in the next few days to arrive, but i am sure i'll be happy. I shoot an M4 most of the time, i have a canon 5d M2 i'm selling to pay for part of the M9. Film is great, no batteries, easy to get film anywhere in the world, the only pain is developping and scanning.
Click to expand...

To buy a roll of Fuji Superia XTRA 400 in Australia is about five dollars. Dev/scan/print is $20 in a Fuji lab, which is where I get it done. Maybe only a touch less if you don't want the prints. Therefore, a roll of film with processing costs me $25.

Say I could get a M9 for $7000. That's only 280 rolls of film in value. If I shot a roll per week that would last me for nearly six years, assuming that the price of film or processing did not go up in that time. I'd be stuck with Fuji lab level scans and be subject to the abilities of the lab techs (many of whom are good, I'll admit).

Or, $7000 buys me a M9, which allows me to shoot virtually unlimited photos, at a range of ISOs, at much higher per-pixel sharpness and control than film. 280 rolls of 36 exposure film gives me 10640 photos, if I allow for the 38 exposures I get from my M7. I shot that number of photos in a matter of months with the M9.

So for me, shooting with the M9 is much more cost effective than the M7, particularly if I shoot at reasonable volumes. Sure, I could cut that cost down by using black and white, developing by myself, perhaps buying film in bulk and loading my own cassettes, but I don't know if I could be bothered doing that, not to mention lose the versatility of variable ISO's and the M9 sensor's extreme sharpness.
 
Archiver said:
To buy a roll of Fuji Superia XTRA 400 in Australia is about five dollars. Dev/scan/print is $20 in a Fuji lab, which is where I get it done. Maybe only a touch less if you don't want the prints. Therefore, a roll of film with processing costs me $25.

Say I could get a M9 for $7000. That's only 280 rolls of film in value. If I shot a roll per week that would last me for nearly six years, assuming that the price of film or processing did not go up in that time. I'd be stuck with Fuji lab level scans and be subject to the abilities of the lab techs (many of whom are good, I'll admit).

Or, $7000 buys me a M9, which allows me to shoot virtually unlimited photos, at a range of ISOs, at much higher per-pixel sharpness and control than film. 280 rolls of 36 exposure film gives me 10640 photos, if I allow for the 38 exposures I get from my M7. I shot that number of photos in a matter of months with the M9.

So for me, shooting with the M9 is much more cost effective than the M7, particularly if I shoot at reasonable volumes. Sure, I could cut that cost down by using black and white, developing by myself, perhaps buying film in bulk and loading my own cassettes, but I don't know if I could be bothered doing that, not to mention lose the versatility of variable ISO's and the M9 sensor's extreme sharpness.
Click to expand...

Not a lot, assuming decent fresh film and chemicals and printing on good paper to a reasonable size. I still shoot almost exclusively film for B+W (yes, I convert step-by-step illustrations and the like from digi), but film sure as hell ain't to save money. Or time!

Cheers,

R.
 
I want someone to give me one for free... at which point it would be used for colour.

B&W film is simply magic. I am using a 5dII for colour and am reminded of why I took to RFs like a duck to water.
 
Archiver said:
To buy a roll of Fuji Superia XTRA 400 in Australia is about five dollars. Dev/scan/print is $20 in a Fuji lab, which is where I get it done. Maybe only a touch less if you don't want the prints. Therefore, a roll of film with processing costs me $25.

Say I could get a M9 for $7000. That's only 280 rolls of film in value. If I shot a roll per week that would last me for nearly six years, assuming that the price of film or processing did not go up in that time. I'd be stuck with Fuji lab level scans and be subject to the abilities of the lab techs (many of whom are good, I'll admit).

Or, $7000 buys me a M9, which allows me to shoot virtually unlimited photos, at a range of ISOs, at much higher per-pixel sharpness and control than film. 280 rolls of 36 exposure film gives me 10640 photos, if I allow for the 38 exposures I get from my M7. I shot that number of photos in a matter of months with the M9.

So for me, shooting with the M9 is much more cost effective than the M7, particularly if I shoot at reasonable volumes. Sure, I could cut that cost down by using black and white, developing by myself, perhaps buying film in bulk and loading my own cassettes, but I don't know if I could be bothered doing that, not to mention lose the versatility of variable ISO's and the M9 sensor's extreme sharpness.
Click to expand...

I think one of my fellow Kiwis made the same or a similar argument when the X100 was being discussed. It's all true film is getting bloody expensive downunder

If by some stroke of luck i was to win lotto tonight i would buy one and a few lenses on Monday

No other way i will ever own one but that's ok too
 
Roger Hicks said:
Not a lot, assuming decent fresh film and chemicals and printing on good paper to a reasonable size. I still shoot almost exclusively film for B+W (yes, I convert step-by-step illustrations and the like from digi), but film sure as hell ain't to save money. Or time!

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
If you live in Australia you can get your film in bulk or buy some from someone's stockpile, a roll of 36 exp Ilford HP5+ can cost $2.50. Processing: $10 for 1 litre of ID-11, which will develop 30 rolls. Fixer: $5 for the same amount. Scan with a cheap epson scanner: $200 new and decent quality too. Shooting one roll a day will cost $934 per year. That's 7.5 years until you could have saved money with an M9. Although I am only a recent digital convert, I can say I get significantly more keepers out of 36 shots in film than I do with digital, and to me, film and processing is more fun.
 
I'm getting one, I love film, but I don't love to sit behind a scanner for hours after having paid way too much money to get it developed in the first place. Labs over here are starting to charge crazy amounts of money for development, let alone scanning and/or printing. I wish I could find the patience to develop and print my own stuff, but I would rather just go out and shoot some more... For me, the M9 is expensive, but I know it'll be worth it 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom