I'm on the fence: M9 or M10 aka "M"

I've used my M9 for 5 years and am convinced it is the greatest camera I've ever owned but if I was in the market for a new camera, I'd have to go with a M (240). I say this after just having had my M9 sensor replaced and now knowing this camera probably has another 5 - 10 years of life before this is required again. I hate to think like this since other Leicas have lasted me 40 plus years, but digital is a new world and we must keep in mind that the electronics have a life span. If it is 10 years, why let someone else get half of those years?

Still, I love my M9. The only camera I own that shoots better photos is my S2. But I hate carrying that beast around.
 
Bill Clark said:
What about the M-E?
Click to expand...

What about the M-E are you interested in? It's essentially the same as the M9. Some folks feel that there's been a bit of minor bug fixing between then two models, but otherwise they're identical other than for the USB port and frameline selector.

G
 
Bill Clark said:
Isn't the M-E less expensive?

Should this camera be a possibility for purchase by uhoh7?
Click to expand...

It is somewhat interesting, isn't it?

Everyone complains that Leica cameras are too expensive and that Leica should produce an entry level rangefinder.

Leica listens and uses the M9 mechanicals and electronics to produce an entry level digital rangefinder and calls it the M-E.

Thereafter everyone practically ignores the entry level camera and recommends the more expensive option to anyone and everyone, even though the M9 was, and still is, an excellent full frame digital camera.
 
I guess there are different perceptions. Mine is that the M-E is old-tech (in digital terms) and offers slightly less features than a used M9 which can be had for a $1000 cheaper. Plus it's a funny color that you either love or hate.

To have interested me, an "entry level" Leica would have been an M240 minus the movie mode, live view, EVF port and multifunction grip capability, with perhaps the old-style frame line illumination system. Then again I think Leica felt such a camera would compete against the M240 and cannibalize sales; whereas the M-E competes not with the M240 but with used M9s, thus driving some sales in Leica's direction.
 
Pioneer said:
It is somewhat interesting, isn't it?

Everyone complains that Leica cameras are too expensive and that Leica should produce an entry level rangefinder.

Leica listens and uses the M9 mechanicals and electronics to produce an entry level digital rangefinder and calls it the M-E.
Click to expand...

I think it may be because 1) it is basically a barely redesigned camera that was 3 years old already and 2) it still was $5500... which most would not consider entry level.
 
So in other words, what everyone was really saying was;

We want a $7,000 full frame digital rangefinder, but we don't want to pay more than $2,000 for it.

As for an M9 being less expensive than an M-E...of course! The M9 is used. The M-E may not have all the new tech that is built into the M240, but it is still a brand new digital Leica. Unlike the used M9 it still has the warranty that comes with a new product. And at the price of a replacement sensor in an M9, that warranty may be worth having.
 
Pioneer said:
We want a $7,000 full frame digital rangefinder, but we don't want to pay more than $2,000 for it.
Click to expand...

No, they want a $2000 rangefinder that they pay $2000 for. It doesn't need to be made by Leica and may not be realistic, but $5500 is still too much for most to swallow.
 
Pioneer said:
It is somewhat interesting, isn't it?

Everyone complains that Leica cameras are too expensive and that Leica should produce an entry level rangefinder.

Leica listens and uses the M9 mechanicals and electronics to produce an entry level digital rangefinder and calls it the M-E.

Thereafter everyone practically ignores the entry level camera and recommends the more expensive option to anyone and everyone, even though the M9 was, and still is, an excellent full frame digital camera.
Click to expand...

The only thing "entry level" about the M-E is the price, in Leica terms that is.
Leica created the M-E because the needed to be able to offer a second full frame M body in their product line without hurting the sales of the M240, so they stripped down the M9, lowered its price and gave it a new color and name. In retrospect they should have just lowered the M9 price and kept it in the product line. It would then have appeared that Leica was listening to consumer concerns regarding price.
 
Pioneer said:
It is somewhat interesting, isn't it?



Thereafter everyone practically ignores the entry level camera and recommends the more expensive option to anyone and everyone, even though the M9 was, and still is, an excellent full frame digital camera.
Click to expand...

Thats because the ME is identical to the discontinued M9 - which amongst other things means no firmware updates for the M-E

Full disclosure - I bought an M9P instead of an M240 because i prefer the design of the camera. I mean we don't buy Leica because we want the latest in technology-not since the M4.
 
Pioneer said:
As for an M9 being less expensive than an M-E...of course! The M9 is used. The M-E may not have all the new tech that is built into the M240, but it is still a brand new digital Leica. Unlike the used M9 it still has the warranty that comes with a new product. And at the price of a replacement sensor in an M9, that warranty may be worth having.
Click to expand...

Thus far Leica has been goodwilling defective sensors out of warranty. And I suspect that savvy consumers will realize that once the warranty is up on an M-E and it loses that advantage, it may quite possibly have a lower resale value than a fuller-featured, more attractively-fiinished (to the taste of many people) M9 in like condition.
 
Kwesi said:
In retrospect they should have just lowered the M9 price and kept it in the product line.
Click to expand...

Everyone accepts a price-drop on a discontinued item being closed out, but keeping it in the product line at a lower price would have pissed off every customer who ever bought an M9, as well as screwing every dealer with any left in inventory. Stripping it down and painting a funky color was brilliant marketing psychology IMHO.
 
I have always taken excellent care of all my cameras, and especially for the digital ones.
 
jsrockit said:
No, they want a $2000 rangefinder that they pay $2000 for. It doesn't need to be made by Leica and may not be realistic, but $5500 is still too much for most to swallow.
Click to expand...

I certainly understand the sticker shock, but it is entry level in Leica Land. After all, it is the real thing. Unlike Fuji Land or elsewhere where you buy wannabe Leicas.

And before I get flamed out, I have nothing against Fuji. And I prefer Zeiss Ikon, not Leica. It still seems to me that for anyone in the market for a Leica digital rangefinder, the M-E should certainly be on the short list. For everyone that is but this group. :)

Does anyone here actually own and use one that can comment on whether or not it was worth the price for them?
 
Ben Z said:
Everyone accepts a price-drop on a discontinued item being closed out, but keeping it in the product line at a lower price would have pissed off every customer who ever bought an M9, as well as screwing every dealer with any left in inventory. Stripping it down and painting a funky color was brilliant marketing psychology IMHO.
Click to expand...

This is standard practice for Fuji, Sony, et al.
If it was so brilliant they would be flying off the shelves. The only reason people by an M-E over the M9 is for the warranty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom