katgut@earthlink.net
Established
Check out the recent test on Luminouslandscape.com comparing two MF digital cameras with an M9 and Canon 1 series. It might make you change your mind.
achi4
Member
The actual difference between the M8 and the M9 for taking pictures of (grand)children is negligible to me. Both have the perfect viewfinder and no-delay shooting to catch the fleeting moment.
I also have used GF1 with and without EVF viewfinder and although the image quality is fine viewing on a screen or a less than excellent viewfinder makes it more of a guessing game.
I also have used GF1 with and without EVF viewfinder and although the image quality is fine viewing on a screen or a less than excellent viewfinder makes it more of a guessing game.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The bottom line is simple. An RF is certainly not the best tool for chasing young children around. A Canon T2i or Nikon D7000 with a couple of primes would be about the same weight as an M9 and a couple of primes (maybe weigh less). And their fast autofocus would simply blow an RF away for keeping up with kids.
Since you've owned an RF before, and quickly sold it, I suspect that you already realize this. I guess the question is, why do you want an M9 when just about any consumer level DSLR will do just as well for shooting the grandkids?
If you want a $7,000 Leica and can afford it, just buy it. Incredibly neat toy.
Since you've owned an RF before, and quickly sold it, I suspect that you already realize this. I guess the question is, why do you want an M9 when just about any consumer level DSLR will do just as well for shooting the grandkids?
If you want a $7,000 Leica and can afford it, just buy it. Incredibly neat toy.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
First of all, the obvious disclaimer. No-one can make your choice for you -- but you're not asking them to. Those who've bought an M9 obviously think it's worth the money to them. Those who haven't bought one will have done so (or rather, not done so) for one of two reasons. Either it's not worth the money to them or they can't afford it.
To me, it is worth the money, and all the stuff about SLRs, MF, snapshot cameras, etc. is irrelevant. You want the fast feedback of digital, and you like the way a Leica feels and handles; the reason you sold the M7 was not because it was a Leica, but because it was film. You want to choose between an M8/M8.2 and an M9.
The M8 is a very fine camera (I have one). The M8.2 is an even better camera (I had one on loan for a year). But the M9 (again, I have one) has all the advantages of the M8.2 PLUS full-frame PLUS no UV/IR filter PLUS a far more film-like look. As soon as I got my hands on my loaner M9 I knew that unless I could persuade Leica to give it to me (no luck, alas) I'd have to buy one sooner or later.
You're 60 years old. So am I. At our age, we should get many years use out of an M9. Keep waiting, and you can die while you're waiting. Yes, it's a hell of a lot of money, and unless you are quite unbelievably rich (and possibly even then), you'd need to be a fool to spend $7000 on a camera without thinking hard about it and seeking advice.
You've given us a lot of information. I suspect that's because you're clarifying things in your own mind. It's like talking to a friend: the mere fact that there's someone to discuss it with makes it easier (and, indeed, compulsory) to marshall your arguments. Certes, compared with any of the other suggestions made here, I'd vastly prefer a Leica for photographing children: I have no children (and therefore no grandchildren) but friends do, and I'm generally fond of children (I can afford to be -- there's no downside!) and I like to photograph them.
So yes, I'd go for the M9. And before you get too hung up on 'low ISO', the M9 is pretty damn' good at anything up to 1250, and excellent up to 650 or so. The Summarits (I assume Elmarits was a slip of the memory) are f/2,5, which at 650 is identical to an f/2 at 400. You've more d-o-f with the slower lens, too, though I have to confess that my 'standard' lens is a 35/1.4 and has been for years.
Good luck with your decision, and I'm sure that we'd all be interested to know what you finally decide. If you're interested, you'll find reviews of all three digi-Ms, plus the Summarits, plus other Leica and Leica-fit lenses, on my website (in the signature)
Cheers,
R.
To me, it is worth the money, and all the stuff about SLRs, MF, snapshot cameras, etc. is irrelevant. You want the fast feedback of digital, and you like the way a Leica feels and handles; the reason you sold the M7 was not because it was a Leica, but because it was film. You want to choose between an M8/M8.2 and an M9.
The M8 is a very fine camera (I have one). The M8.2 is an even better camera (I had one on loan for a year). But the M9 (again, I have one) has all the advantages of the M8.2 PLUS full-frame PLUS no UV/IR filter PLUS a far more film-like look. As soon as I got my hands on my loaner M9 I knew that unless I could persuade Leica to give it to me (no luck, alas) I'd have to buy one sooner or later.
You're 60 years old. So am I. At our age, we should get many years use out of an M9. Keep waiting, and you can die while you're waiting. Yes, it's a hell of a lot of money, and unless you are quite unbelievably rich (and possibly even then), you'd need to be a fool to spend $7000 on a camera without thinking hard about it and seeking advice.
You've given us a lot of information. I suspect that's because you're clarifying things in your own mind. It's like talking to a friend: the mere fact that there's someone to discuss it with makes it easier (and, indeed, compulsory) to marshall your arguments. Certes, compared with any of the other suggestions made here, I'd vastly prefer a Leica for photographing children: I have no children (and therefore no grandchildren) but friends do, and I'm generally fond of children (I can afford to be -- there's no downside!) and I like to photograph them.
So yes, I'd go for the M9. And before you get too hung up on 'low ISO', the M9 is pretty damn' good at anything up to 1250, and excellent up to 650 or so. The Summarits (I assume Elmarits was a slip of the memory) are f/2,5, which at 650 is identical to an f/2 at 400. You've more d-o-f with the slower lens, too, though I have to confess that my 'standard' lens is a 35/1.4 and has been for years.
Good luck with your decision, and I'm sure that we'd all be interested to know what you finally decide. If you're interested, you'll find reviews of all three digi-Ms, plus the Summarits, plus other Leica and Leica-fit lenses, on my website (in the signature)
Cheers,
R.
agricola
Well-known
lencap
I'm your age. Have grandkids, and an M4 and Nikon AF.. I don't attempt to shoot them with the Leica, unless they are asleep or engrossed in something.
Some sort of AF is a godsend if they are moving. Even if only a little bit. AFS is really good.
I'm your age. Have grandkids, and an M4 and Nikon AF.. I don't attempt to shoot them with the Leica, unless they are asleep or engrossed in something.
Some sort of AF is a godsend if they are moving. Even if only a little bit. AFS is really good.
thegman
Veteran
Worth the money? Not for me, If I was in the habit of spending that kind of green (which I'm not, I'm Scottish), then I'd buy an MP and an awesome trip somewhere.
Worth it to you? Well, only you can answer that, if you can afford it without sleepless nights, and it'll bring you happiness, then why not? If you decide you don't like it, or it's too much money to dangle round your neck, then sell at a small loss.
Only thing I will say is for that sort of money, make sure you're insured appropriately.
Worth it to you? Well, only you can answer that, if you can afford it without sleepless nights, and it'll bring you happiness, then why not? If you decide you don't like it, or it's too much money to dangle round your neck, then sell at a small loss.
Only thing I will say is for that sort of money, make sure you're insured appropriately.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
My advice is you should make sure you're very happy using a rangefinder camera before buying an M9. As many have mentioned, if you're not 100% happy using a rangefinder camera there are many other cameras that will do the trick for much less money. Rangefinders aren't for everyone; they make up a tiny portion of the camera market.
Best of luck with your decision.
Best of luck with your decision.
People have been taking pictures of Kids running around, bouncing around, and at play with manual focus cameras for a much longer time than they have with AF cameras.
M8, with uncoated CZJ Sonnar 5cm F1.5, at F4.
Jupiter-3, at F4.
You can use an AF-SLR for pictures like these as well. But I notice that at the Playground, most people with DSLR's wait for the kids to come to a stop before taking the picture.
M8, with uncoated CZJ Sonnar 5cm F1.5, at F4.
Jupiter-3, at F4.
You can use an AF-SLR for pictures like these as well. But I notice that at the Playground, most people with DSLR's wait for the kids to come to a stop before taking the picture.
Last edited:
Eric T
Well-known
I have an M8 and Canon 5D2. Both give me great images. But is find myself using the 5D2 less and less over time because of its size. It is so easy to take the M8 with me everywhere. However, for low light situations, the 5D2 is my choice.
I am probably going to buy the M9. Many of the compromises present in the M8 are gone in the M9.
I am probably going to buy the M9. Many of the compromises present in the M8 are gone in the M9.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
lencap
In my first post I tried to remain neutral in my reply. Now I will say what I really think about your situation. From your post you say you have had trouble with composure/framing and exposure with the M7, FM2 and your digital cameras. I don't think buying an M9, or any other camera, would be a magic cure all for this. I think you said it takes experience and that takes time. Using a RF to photograph kids in motion is entirely possible but requires a level of skill that takes time to acquire to be able to consistently get in focus shots. You will have the same, possibly less of, a learning curve with a AF camera. AF may get you better results more quickly. There are plenty of small AF digital cameras with the equivalent focal lengths that you like to use that might work better for you in the near term.
You are not looking at a $7K investment when buying an M9 but considerably more if you have to purchase several lens also. I agree a college fund is a far better investment that any camera even a Leica. If you can reasonably do both at the same time then there is no conflict. If you can't then you have to decide which has priority.
I think you would be better off with a much cheaper AF digital camera solution that if used correctly will give you perfectly acceptable images. It would also allow you to establish a college fund at the same time. So no I don't think an M9 purchase would be worth it. Keep in mind what free advice is worth though.
Best of luck in coming to a decision.
Bob
In my first post I tried to remain neutral in my reply. Now I will say what I really think about your situation. From your post you say you have had trouble with composure/framing and exposure with the M7, FM2 and your digital cameras. I don't think buying an M9, or any other camera, would be a magic cure all for this. I think you said it takes experience and that takes time. Using a RF to photograph kids in motion is entirely possible but requires a level of skill that takes time to acquire to be able to consistently get in focus shots. You will have the same, possibly less of, a learning curve with a AF camera. AF may get you better results more quickly. There are plenty of small AF digital cameras with the equivalent focal lengths that you like to use that might work better for you in the near term.
You are not looking at a $7K investment when buying an M9 but considerably more if you have to purchase several lens also. I agree a college fund is a far better investment that any camera even a Leica. If you can reasonably do both at the same time then there is no conflict. If you can't then you have to decide which has priority.
I think you would be better off with a much cheaper AF digital camera solution that if used correctly will give you perfectly acceptable images. It would also allow you to establish a college fund at the same time. So no I don't think an M9 purchase would be worth it. Keep in mind what free advice is worth though.
Best of luck in coming to a decision.
Bob
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I'm with Roger on this one. But I am also the sort of person who gets a tremendous amount of pleasure out of these sorts of tools. If, no when, I get an M9, I will probably wrestle with some of the issues you have articulated. But fundamentally I will make the purchase because in all the years I have been taking pictures I have never wasted a moment of regret on the equipment that I purchased, even at moments when I could not afford it. If you are a similar sort of fool, then purchase the camera and have as much fun as you can with it.
Ben Marks
Ben Marks
lencap
Established
My thanks for all of the comments - very useful. As someone noted my original post was more of a "sounding board" for my own thoughts - and the level of detail was listed to help outline the choices and questions I had.
Collectively you've allowed me to remember and realize:
1) The photographer's skill is the basis of whatever pictures are taken.
2) Buying the "best" camera made doesn't do a thing to improve the photographer's skill without proper training and experience
3) Investing in a M9 isn't a decision to be made on a whim but requires an honest assessment of "why" am I buying this particular camera - It's a tool, not a statement of self worth. And as a tool, is the M9 the best tool for the photographs I plan to take?
All of these questions were behind my original post, but not clear in my mind. Your kind comments and knowledge of both cameras and photography helped clarify these thoughts so I can honestly look at them and come to an informed decision. Thank you.
As of now it seems that:
1) I should buy some film and shoot with my FM2 for a while to get reacquainted with both film and the form factor of the FM2, which as been noted isn't significantly different in weight from the Leica camera. The real weight is the lens choices and if I stick with primes I should be able to overcome some of the weight. Yes, the Leica lens choices are significantly less weight, and that's why I am considering the Leica option.
2) Determine why the FM2, and the M7, didn't meet my needs/expectations. Is it the delay of processing film or something else?
3) Consider what a digital format workflow will require. I've got a new iMac, but there is a lot to learn if I process RAW files as well as storage issues. Photoshop, Aperture, etc. all have a learning curve and to get the best out of a digital camera I will have to do two things - learn more about basic photography skills (regardless of film or digital) and learn how to process digital images (only needed with a digital camera). I had considered the former, but hadn't really considered the later - which will require significant effort and skill.
4) Given all of this, it may be that my aversion to film is more of a "mental" issue instead of an equipment issue. What I don't like about my current digital pictures is that the quality is low. My digital cameras range from a iPhone 4 to a Nikon fixed lens model with aperture and shutter priority controls. I don't have a full DSLR setup -- largely because of the bulk of the lens options and the "cheap" feel of entry level plastic cameras. I guess I am forced to admit that I'm somewhat of an equipment "snob". I bought the M7 because of the Leica reputation, a desire to work with a rangefinder and the "feel" of the camera in my hand. I still like all of those things about Leica. I bought the Nikon FM2 for similar reasons - I like the feel of high quality equipment, and the Nikon has that. Yes, the lens quality of a Nikon may not be as good as a Leica, but my photography skills are the limiting factor here - not the camera.
5) Maybe my desire to use high quality gear, in this case Leica, is motivating me more that I realized. As many have pointed out there are a variety of digital options that will accomplish what I need/want that are far less costly than a Leica, and which may better suit my needs (fast moving children are hard to pose).
6) Thanks to all - you've helped clarify the main issues - what do I need versus what do I want; am I getting the right tool for the job, or am I using the job as an excuse to get a new tool. I'm not sure I have an answer yet, but at least I can more honestly frame the questions.
I also realized that any pictures I take digitally will require far more than "point and shoot" to get anything worthwhile. The learning curve for digital is, at least to me, not trivial and requires me to consider priorities as well as camera equipment. (Do I really want to buy Photoshop and in effect become both a photographer and a photo processor - I always sent my film pictures to a good lab realizing that developing film is an art best left to professionals if you don't know what you're doing).
Lots to think about, but the internal debate is clearer now. Thanks again.
I am a member of several forums and I must say that this forum is exceptional. In the space of a few hours the quantity and quality of the replies have helped clarify things for me that I've struggled with for weeks. Well done.
Collectively you've allowed me to remember and realize:
1) The photographer's skill is the basis of whatever pictures are taken.
2) Buying the "best" camera made doesn't do a thing to improve the photographer's skill without proper training and experience
3) Investing in a M9 isn't a decision to be made on a whim but requires an honest assessment of "why" am I buying this particular camera - It's a tool, not a statement of self worth. And as a tool, is the M9 the best tool for the photographs I plan to take?
All of these questions were behind my original post, but not clear in my mind. Your kind comments and knowledge of both cameras and photography helped clarify these thoughts so I can honestly look at them and come to an informed decision. Thank you.
As of now it seems that:
1) I should buy some film and shoot with my FM2 for a while to get reacquainted with both film and the form factor of the FM2, which as been noted isn't significantly different in weight from the Leica camera. The real weight is the lens choices and if I stick with primes I should be able to overcome some of the weight. Yes, the Leica lens choices are significantly less weight, and that's why I am considering the Leica option.
2) Determine why the FM2, and the M7, didn't meet my needs/expectations. Is it the delay of processing film or something else?
3) Consider what a digital format workflow will require. I've got a new iMac, but there is a lot to learn if I process RAW files as well as storage issues. Photoshop, Aperture, etc. all have a learning curve and to get the best out of a digital camera I will have to do two things - learn more about basic photography skills (regardless of film or digital) and learn how to process digital images (only needed with a digital camera). I had considered the former, but hadn't really considered the later - which will require significant effort and skill.
4) Given all of this, it may be that my aversion to film is more of a "mental" issue instead of an equipment issue. What I don't like about my current digital pictures is that the quality is low. My digital cameras range from a iPhone 4 to a Nikon fixed lens model with aperture and shutter priority controls. I don't have a full DSLR setup -- largely because of the bulk of the lens options and the "cheap" feel of entry level plastic cameras. I guess I am forced to admit that I'm somewhat of an equipment "snob". I bought the M7 because of the Leica reputation, a desire to work with a rangefinder and the "feel" of the camera in my hand. I still like all of those things about Leica. I bought the Nikon FM2 for similar reasons - I like the feel of high quality equipment, and the Nikon has that. Yes, the lens quality of a Nikon may not be as good as a Leica, but my photography skills are the limiting factor here - not the camera.
5) Maybe my desire to use high quality gear, in this case Leica, is motivating me more that I realized. As many have pointed out there are a variety of digital options that will accomplish what I need/want that are far less costly than a Leica, and which may better suit my needs (fast moving children are hard to pose).
6) Thanks to all - you've helped clarify the main issues - what do I need versus what do I want; am I getting the right tool for the job, or am I using the job as an excuse to get a new tool. I'm not sure I have an answer yet, but at least I can more honestly frame the questions.
I also realized that any pictures I take digitally will require far more than "point and shoot" to get anything worthwhile. The learning curve for digital is, at least to me, not trivial and requires me to consider priorities as well as camera equipment. (Do I really want to buy Photoshop and in effect become both a photographer and a photo processor - I always sent my film pictures to a good lab realizing that developing film is an art best left to professionals if you don't know what you're doing).
Lots to think about, but the internal debate is clearer now. Thanks again.
I am a member of several forums and I must say that this forum is exceptional. In the space of a few hours the quantity and quality of the replies have helped clarify things for me that I've struggled with for weeks. Well done.
Last edited:
If the FM2 is too heavy and big, why would he want to go this route?
back alley
IMAGES
is it worth it?
if you want a full frame digital rangefinder...then yes...it's the only game in town.
if you just want images and the tool is less important then there are lots of ideas above.
if you are ok with a non full frame, as am i, then there is the used market for m8 and even the rd1.
if i had the ready $$ i would buy an m9 in a heart beat...vanity or not, talent or not. i am a dedicated rf shooter, it's what i enjoy and this is a hobby for my enjoyment...
if you want a full frame digital rangefinder...then yes...it's the only game in town.
if you just want images and the tool is less important then there are lots of ideas above.
if you are ok with a non full frame, as am i, then there is the used market for m8 and even the rd1.
if i had the ready $$ i would buy an m9 in a heart beat...vanity or not, talent or not. i am a dedicated rf shooter, it's what i enjoy and this is a hobby for my enjoyment...
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
I own both the FM2 and the Leica M7, among others.
I'm still trying to get my head around your reasoning, which in my mind is flawed. First off, the FM2 isn't bigger than a rangefinder.
If you use a Nikkor 50 1.8 AIS on the FM2, I hardly think it's too heavy to carry around. I hear this argument a lot on this forum and frankly, it's not true. An SLR like an FM2 with a 50 1.8 AIS is just about the same size as a rangefinder with a 50 2.0.
People are right, it's not the camera that makes the photo, it's what the photographer does with the camera.
On one hand, you're saying the M7 and the FM2 aren't inconvenient (how far is your local lab). And then you throw in the college fund, saying it's a better investment
. You're kind of all over the map and cross-rationalization is not the answer.
First off, if you want great shots of your grandkids in low light and you want digital, get a D700 and the new 24 1.4 AFS or the 34 1.4 ASPH from Nikon. For the money, you can't get anything better for low light, fast AF and IQ.
The other lens you might want to consider is the new 85 1.4 AFS.
Check out the Nikon Cafe "Lens Lust" section for some examples. There are some shots of kids that will make the argument better than anything I could say.
If it's all about getting better pictures, then the first step is to become a better photographer. While shooting your grandkids is your main focus, becoming proficient with whatever camera you have in a wide variety of photographic situations and subjects must be kept in mind.
Taken with Rollei twin lens on Tri-X
Nikkor 24 2.0 AIS on F2AS on Tri-X
Nikkor 135 2.0 AIS on F2AS Tri-X
Nikkor 135 2.0 AIS on F2AS on Tri-X
Nikkor 24 1.4 AFS on D3
I'm still trying to get my head around your reasoning, which in my mind is flawed. First off, the FM2 isn't bigger than a rangefinder.
If you use a Nikkor 50 1.8 AIS on the FM2, I hardly think it's too heavy to carry around. I hear this argument a lot on this forum and frankly, it's not true. An SLR like an FM2 with a 50 1.8 AIS is just about the same size as a rangefinder with a 50 2.0.
People are right, it's not the camera that makes the photo, it's what the photographer does with the camera.
On one hand, you're saying the M7 and the FM2 aren't inconvenient (how far is your local lab). And then you throw in the college fund, saying it's a better investment
. You're kind of all over the map and cross-rationalization is not the answer. First off, if you want great shots of your grandkids in low light and you want digital, get a D700 and the new 24 1.4 AFS or the 34 1.4 ASPH from Nikon. For the money, you can't get anything better for low light, fast AF and IQ.
The other lens you might want to consider is the new 85 1.4 AFS.
Check out the Nikon Cafe "Lens Lust" section for some examples. There are some shots of kids that will make the argument better than anything I could say.
If it's all about getting better pictures, then the first step is to become a better photographer. While shooting your grandkids is your main focus, becoming proficient with whatever camera you have in a wide variety of photographic situations and subjects must be kept in mind.
Taken with Rollei twin lens on Tri-X
Nikkor 24 2.0 AIS on F2AS on Tri-X
Nikkor 135 2.0 AIS on F2AS Tri-X
Nikkor 135 2.0 AIS on F2AS on Tri-X
Nikkor 24 1.4 AFS on D3
Last edited:
Ben Z
Veteran
I have an M9. I use it for travel photography. I also have a 5D and a 20D, and those would be what I'd use for children at play. I'm not saying AF is better for that kind of photography, only that it is better for me doing that kind of photography. I happen to like wide-aperture shooting, as well as maintaining a comfortable working distance, so shooting a 35mm lens at f/8 to cover focusing errors won't get me the look I want. To save my life I can't get a decent keeper rate shooting a 90/2 wide open on my M9 when subjects are flitting around. With the 85/1.8 on my 5D, it's a cinch. If you don't currently have the experience necessary to get consistently good results with manual focus on erratically-moving subjects, how many unrepeatable shots of your grandkids are you willing to miss while you're learning?
A Canon Rebel DSLR with a 35 f/2 EF or 50/1.8 or /1.4 EF is actually lighter than an M9 with the same kind of lens, and not significantly larger.
A Canon Rebel DSLR with a 35 f/2 EF or 50/1.8 or /1.4 EF is actually lighter than an M9 with the same kind of lens, and not significantly larger.
Last edited:
The OP stated that the lens choices for the FM2 are typically heavier than for the Leica, and noted that the body weight was about the same. This tends to be true for wide-angle lenses and is true for the majority of 50mm lenses. Telephoto lenses are about the same. I have many F-Mount lenses and RF mount lenses that bear this out. The exception is for the Retina IIIS and Retina Reflex-S. The lenses for the Retina line were RF coupled and worked on the SLR's, ie the lenses are useable on the RF and SLR bodies.
MikeL
Go Fish
I think Joe sums it up best. Do you really like to work with rangefinders?
SLRs obviously have more flexibility. If you prefer to have autofocus, just want the photos, and/or don't care about using rangefinders, than it is a no brainer. I'll eat ramen and fork out the dough someday since I prefer using a rangefinder. I'll miss some shots with kids, but my kid photos aren't paying the bills.
Ben Z
Veteran
My Nikon F series lenses all have aluminum helicoids vs brass in my Leica RF lenses, so the equivalent focal length/max. apertures are quite nearly the same. The AF lenses are lighter still, because the innards are mainly plastic, and in most cases the outtards are too. It's the volume of the SLR lenses that's significantly greater. That's primarily why I prefer the Leica for travel. Weight-wise, there isn't much of an advantage if any, but it fits in a bag half the size, which is a lot easier to port around on subways, busses, and to keep secure in congested areas.
ederek
Well-known
lencap, I think your time spent reflecting has proven most insightful. You probably won't read this right away, as youre either out shooting the FM2 or on the way to the lab w/ some exposed rolls..
Order 2 sets of prints for any rolls with your grandson, and get a nice storage box for prints. You can keep a set and the negs, and give the second set to your grandson on each visit to add to the growing collection. Handing over the prints from last time would be a nice start to any visit. Some years down the road, your grandson will dig the box(es) out of the closet or drawer and have a look at images in a manner that will be quite uncommon in those future days..
I was going to suggest the route of a D700 or even a used 5D to get started. Not sure now given your comments on the "digital darkroom" side of the house, which I agree can be significant. You'll want the best tools, and they are an investment in both time and money.
One recommendation would be to embark on the Digital Darkroom path prior to switching to Digital Capture, be it a P&S, u4/3's, dSLR, future x100 or an M8/9 system. I'm assuming you don't have a traditional darkroom at your disposal now.
A scanner, additional storage w/ backup, memory upgrade for the mac, software such as Lightroom (start with this then add Photoshop if needed) and the best B&W printer you can swing would take care of things.
If (when) you do carry on down the digital route w/ an M9, then all of this still applies. You can still make prints to add to the photo box. Even the scanner may still be used, as you'll probably want to capture your grandson's portraits via Medium or Large format at that point.
ps - I do think the M9 was worth the cost, but I already had an M4 with Digital Darkroom to build on..
Order 2 sets of prints for any rolls with your grandson, and get a nice storage box for prints. You can keep a set and the negs, and give the second set to your grandson on each visit to add to the growing collection. Handing over the prints from last time would be a nice start to any visit. Some years down the road, your grandson will dig the box(es) out of the closet or drawer and have a look at images in a manner that will be quite uncommon in those future days..
I was going to suggest the route of a D700 or even a used 5D to get started. Not sure now given your comments on the "digital darkroom" side of the house, which I agree can be significant. You'll want the best tools, and they are an investment in both time and money.
One recommendation would be to embark on the Digital Darkroom path prior to switching to Digital Capture, be it a P&S, u4/3's, dSLR, future x100 or an M8/9 system. I'm assuming you don't have a traditional darkroom at your disposal now.
A scanner, additional storage w/ backup, memory upgrade for the mac, software such as Lightroom (start with this then add Photoshop if needed) and the best B&W printer you can swing would take care of things.
If (when) you do carry on down the digital route w/ an M9, then all of this still applies. You can still make prints to add to the photo box. Even the scanner may still be used, as you'll probably want to capture your grandson's portraits via Medium or Large format at that point.
ps - I do think the M9 was worth the cost, but I already had an M4 with Digital Darkroom to build on..