Is the M9 Worth the cost?

[MCTuomey]

objectively - and i'm referring only to imaging ability - sure it's overpriced. you can buy a dSLR with similar resolution for 1/3 or less the cost of the M9, put a zeiss or leica SLR lens on it, and make beautiful images (talent-dependent) that a viewer won't likely able to distinguish from the M9's images.

if you must have a full-frame digital rangefinder, that's a choice based on preference, style, etc. (i.e. want), not need. you surely don't need a digital rangefinder to make fine images.

subjectively, if your style and shooting preferences require the M9, and you have the means, then the M9 is surely not overpriced. as brian points out, that's a fact: the M9 is backordered.

 

[jaapv]

Well yes- you were able to put an Asahi lens on a Revue 1000 camera, and as long as you used the same film the image was identical - And the Spotmatic cost 750 Marks opposed to the Revue 120 Marks. Yet nobody clamed the Spotmatic was overpriced.

 

[flyalf]

Yes, for me its been worth the cost from upgrading (or changing) from Nikon D700 to M9. If Nikon have had a dFM2, dFE2 or similar I really dont know if the choice would have been the same.

Its also worth the cost moving from Epson RD-1, but barely.

The worth is measured in photo-enjoyment, a really hard currency 🙂

 

[MikeCassidy]

I am a minimalist, though I have four lens for my M3 and own two other cameras I tend to walk with one camera and one lens; sometimes two lens. So without considering cost I have no intention of buying a DSRL and M9; too many cameras. As for bells and whistles, the question revolves around weight vs bells&whistles. Is carrying 40+ oz. camera for 4-7 hrs worth the bells&whistles the difference in money is not that great? I admit that I have an in built prejudice in favor of rangefinders I have been using my M3 for 45 yrs. However I am geek - I can write code; so I am drawn to geeky things; its amazing it took so long for me to even try digital. BTW I add 'grain' to my digital to get around the plastic look.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Unless you have seen the cost breakdown of the Leica M9 and have compared it to the other camera makers you can not say yes/no to that.

But since we are putting our best guestimates out there, I believe Leica is one of the camera makers with the highest markup in the business.

Even if something sells in buckets it does not mean it is not overpriced or have a fair price.

Of course I can.

I know that Nikon produced the S3-2000 and SP-2005 at a loss, and their price is comparable to the M9. The SP-2005 was 690,000 Yen when announced. In the ballpark of an M9. The S3-2000 was 480,000 yen for chrome and 530,000 yen in Black. I do not need a cost breakdown to compare the M9 with similar cameras and note how much they cost. The Sp-2005 and S3-2000 did not require the development of new technology, such as offset micro-lenses and new IR absorbing filters used in the M9. The Nikons were the reincarnation of 1950s classics, and that technology does not come cheap. Like the M9.

This thread is well into "just Venting".