Is the M9 Worth the cost?

Nusson, I wouldn't condemn the camera out of one bad experience. No camera is perfect, not even a Leica (believe it or not), and there will be individual cases of manufacturing flaws.

And I'll agree that the electronics aren't up to the level of the latest Japanese cameras. But frankly, shooting a Leica is not really about the latest technology. In a lot of ways, it's about what I call minimalism-- going back to shooting with the least amount of technology getting in the way. Doing the work yourself. Just like they did in the old days.

And I like that. I love what my DSLRs can so, but in some ways it doesn't feel like I'm really photographing when I'm using them. I just point and they do all the work. I look at using a Leica as the photographic equivalent of working out. Using a Leica FORCES you to use those photographic muscles, so to speak, keeps you sharp and keeps you fit.

For me, it's a pleasure to take out the Leica after using my DSLRs, and shoot the way I did when I first started.

Gotta admit, the LCD is not that big an issue for me. I never had that many issues when I shot JPEG, and frankly the DNGs I get out of it are killer sharp.

Just my two cents....
 
erdnusscn - sorry to hear about your bad experience.

It is true, that if you zoom in on the LCD, the image will not be as sharp as what you see on the computer or in print. The camera does not render 1:1 on the LCD when zoomed in. I cannot say if that is an "LCD issue", or a design choice to limit the time lag or power consumption when rendering an image if you want/need to chimp.

Dynamic Histogram
For critical exposure situations, I do like the LCD and associated histogram behavior. I think it is unique in the digital world. The histogram shows a curve for what is displayed. When you zoom in, and then pan, the histogram continuously re-calculates.

A example situation where this is helpful is shooting a show, where perhaps the performer or their face is the key element in the scene to expose properly, and you don't have a spot meter. Take a shot, zoom in on the face and view the histogram for clipping. Works very well. You will have to understand that the performers face will be more sharp than what youre seeing, but getting exposure correct is a higher priority for me.

erdnusscn said:
<snip>But the point is, even small camera like Lx3 produces better Jpegs than the M9.
Click to expand...

The LX3 is a great little camera, I have one as well. Never noticed superior jpegs. Sometimes the LX3 is a better choice if some fill flash is absolutely required.

erdnusscn said:
I also have the 5d2 and like it very much except its size and weight.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no kidding. Those lenses are tiny too. And you look like a 'photog' everywhere you go.. :rolleyes:

Good luck w/ your quest!
 
JSU said:
So we hear from one Canon user. Would you please also refer to a direct comparison with either the Nikon D3S or D3X, or even the older D3 or D700.
Click to expand...

I suppose you didn't read the review. This is not a direct comparison, just a very balanced review about a short use of the M9. So every open minded Nikon user could come to the same conclusion.
 
Double Negative said:
I'm a Canon and Leica shooter... So I can speak from my own experience in this regard. Like any SLR vs. RF comparison - it's silly. They're different tools and not mutually exclusive. There are things each system does better/worse than the other. That's all.
Click to expand...
Well said, sir.
 
I have 5 Canon's I use and an M9. Just like above, use what works. There are times when I can't get done what I need to with the M9 and times when a big SLR is too invasive and spoils the flow. They are tools.

As to the original question. Really, there is only one person who can answer that, and you probably already know the answer.
 
Last edited:
erdnusscn said:
I also have the 5d2 and like it very much except its size and weight.

I certainly know i should shot DNGs with a M9 and i did. But the point is, even small camera like Lx3 produces better Jpegs than the M9. In my opinion a better Camera should produces better Image, even in Jpeg format.

And i know exactly the difference between a dead pix and a hot pix. I shot digital since 2003 and have used several digital Cameras such as F717, LX2, Lx3, GRD2, 350d and the 5d2. My dealer did make some test shots yesterday with the M9 which i had returned and he confirmed that there are dead pixels. Otherwise i would change for a new one and would not get my money back.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why jpeg output would matter if you plan to use raw images for your processing. ;) Heck, because I plan to use the DNGs, I have my M8 set to NOT generate jpegs.
 
I'm not as good as a photographer as he is and i'm not a good writer in general, but i use Nikon for most of my work and i'm considering to switch to all Leica. Take it for what its worth.
 
M9 and Filter

M9 and Filter

I will probably buy a M9 by Christmas [my Christmas present]; I have question though. I most of life I have shot a M3 using Tri-X with a yellow filter protecting my lens. My only experience with a digital camera is a Canon G11 I bought to explore digital and color cheaply; so what filter are people using to protect their glass?
 
My Nikon & Leica glass are protected using B+W for both and also Nikon L37c on a couple of Nikkors.
For example about 12 years ago I bought a Nikon 300/4 AF. Spent a silly amount on an 82mm Nikon L37c. When I bought my Nikon 80-200 2.8 I bought a B+W 77mm. As for my Leica glass, all B+W.

Steve.
 
Last edited:
No camera in a world worth so much, especially digital camera which is obsolete after few years (no matter how you look at it). But hey, if you have 7K to drop on something you want- more power to you.
 
MIkhail said:
I could not agree more.
Read this please:
http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html
Conclusion:
"For a working photojournalist in a combat situation, I would judge the Leica M8 to be unusable".
Click to expand...


so how many of us (including the OP) are photojournalists working in combat situations?
along the same lines, it might be interesting to note that Kamber is by now using the M9 as his main(?) camera (see http://vimeo.com/14393531 and http://blog.leica-camera.com/interview/an-interview-with-michael-kamber-of-the-new-york-times/), and incidentally it is also the M9 we're talking about in this thread, not the M8.

that being said, the extra expenses over the M8 are really something to ponder on. personally, I'm so happy with the M8 that precisely because of that, I plan to get an M9 at SOME point (hoping for used prices in the 3k€/3.5k$ range once a M10 has been announced). i would like to keep the M8 though and use it as a second body, since I think the two would complement each other quite well due to the different crop factors.
 
Last edited:
I have a friend that used his M8 in combat situations for two years in Iraq, and now uses an M9 in Afghanistan.

Works for him.

For professional use, I've spent over $25K buying a digital camera. That was cheap compared to having one made. Having one made was closer to $1M.
 
Last edited:
maenju said:
so how many of us (including the OP) are photojournalists working in combat situations?
along the same lines, it might be interesting to note that Kamber is by now using the M9 as his main(?) camera (see http://vimeo.com/14393531 and http://blog.leica-camera.com/interview/an-interview-with-michael-kamber-of-the-new-york-times/), and incidentally it is also the M9 we're talking about in this thread, not the M8..
Click to expand...

The first video made me think that these cameras should be weather sealed.
 
Hehe, yep, was thinking the same when watching it -- interesting that they left it in the video, since it's coming from Leica actually. Anyway, there is probably no one would disagree with that...
 
Thanks again for all the comments and replies. If I try to honestly digest all of the comments it boils down to desire versus need. I don't need a camera like the M9, but if I want it and can afford it, then it is worth it to me.

Anything else is trying to rationalize an emotional decision. Thanks for helping me clarify. I certainly admire the technical qualities of the M9, but I have to think long and hard on how much of a want the camera truly represents.

That, coupled with used M7 prices which are a third of the M9 make it hard to dismiss the film alternatives. For the price of the M9 I can get a mint used M7, and at a full compliment of lenses. Hard to ignore that.
 
I've used canon dslr's for several years. I currently own a 50d, ids mark 2 and a mark 3. 6 months ago I got hooked on Leica and now own several including the m9. I use the Leica's 75% of the time.. I think it's a perfect combo to have both. Use depends on what and where I shoot which I do for pure fun not professional. It took me a few months to justify the m9 but I'm glad I pulled the trigger. If you ask one thing that has helped me it's this.

Since I'm an amateur I got lazy with the canon stuff, I just held the button down. The leica has taught me more about photography than any class or book. The m9 is no different than leica film other than digital ( I turn the instant preview off so I spend more time getting a good shot the first time).

That's my 2 cents worth. Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom