burancap
Veteran
Hmmm. Starting to think a bit more about this. Digital in general. It seems as some jokingly say -they get a new sensor with every film advance. Well, is a lot of this not just that? The same frame of film for thousands and thousands of exposures and though subtle, the general wear and tear that can bring? Dust from lens changes, oil from shutters, heat cycling externally and internally, etc. Not sure where I am headed with this. Maybe that sensor care or maintenance is simply a new fact of life in modern photography, and a facet that did not really exist in the not too distant past? Maybe that some OEMs by design, or by their manufacturing processes are perhaps more susceptible to an increased maintenance regimen and that all of these problems are just to be eventually expected like paint wearing through to brass?
x-ray
Veteran
How many systems have had the problems the M8 and M9 have had? None to my knowledge. I've used digital in my commercial work since the D1 Nikon and never had any serious issues till I bought the M9. I put a lot of miles on a camera in my work too. I know a lot of other professionals and none talk about problems with their cameras. All cameras wear out, that's a fact, but the frame count put on most of the Leica cameras that have had the problems hasn't been that many. 10,000-100,000 frames should be nothing and even 250,000 should be no problem. I've put well over that on some of my bodies with 0 time in the shop.
uhoh7
Veteran
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I'm surprised that Leica hasn't established a regular-checkup type of maintenance contract with its customers.
Maybe this incident would lead to cheaper (at purchase) Leica cameras with some 5-years maintenance contract attached to it.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
To be fair, if someone were to post a similar picture taken using a Sony A7, I wouldn't have no idea which one is Leica or Sony.
You may be able to tell, I'm just saying that I would be clueless.
Now, if you say that you exceedingly prefer to use M9 over anything else out there, that would have made the most sense to me.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Pioneer
Veteran
Nice try Uhoh007, but no dice. I have seen more Nikons in those situations than M cameras, even film Ms. I guess not everyone considers them an anchor.
x-ray
Veteran
It's all about personal choice.
The D1 was a good camera at the time and broke the price barrier. If I remember correctly the bottom of the line Kodak came in at around $14000 and the top of the line around $30,000. Nikon brought the D1 in at $5,000. I bought a D1 and used it till the D1x came out which was a much better camera.
It's been 15 years si cd the D1 came out. I'd guess in 15 years you won't see many if any M9's in service either. Technogy continues to move forward and cameras will only get better.
uhoh7
Veteran
At last we agree, except I will bet you a six pack of nut brown ale there are quite a few M9s in loving service 15 years from today. LOL
Nice try Uhoh007, but no dice. I have seen more Nikons in those situations than M cameras, even film Ms. I guess not everyone considers them an anchor.
I've been skiing for a living for over 30 years. I can tell you nobody free skis with a DSLR. It is used like a speed graphic, dragged into the wild for a special purpose.
Same thing in the backcountry. I hope you see the difference.
What was the whole rationale behind the ur-leica? A hiking camera for the asthmatic Barnack.
Obviously large format cameras have been in the wilderness since the 19th century. But for this purpose the entire journey must be planned around the enterprise.
With an M9 you can travel very fast and very light
L1021313 by unoh7, on Flickr
L1020009 by unoh7, on Flickr
And you can carry the finest 21mm lens ever made.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
Sorry but you're simply making that one up.....
(I grew up in ski country and have been skiing since I was 7.) Check any ski forum about using a DSLR for back country skiing. A lot more DSLRs out there in the mountains then Leica M9s....
And to be frank, the snapshots you're posting here show nothing that makes the Leica M9 9 (and the lenses, too) anything extraordinary over any other digital device......
This kind of 'argument' over gear is really pretty useless. One should just use what works and what one personally prefers to use, and concentrate instead on the image. In the end, that's all that counts.
uhoh7
Veteran
Which is exactly why I'm happy with Leica's decision to stand behind it indefinitely.
Sorry the images from CMOS, CCD and any lens all look the same to you, and that you see no difference in hauling a DSLR, not mention misinterpreting my point altogether.
Perhaps you feel you can edit any image to any condition? One thing I like about the M9 is that it makes images like the ones above (which I enjoy, god help me) with no editing at all.
Again, as I pointed out, large cameras have been dragged everywhere, including on backcountry skis for a hundred years. It does not mean the prospect is optimal. Or usual. Which is why you see forum discussions on the subject. By free skiing I was referring to skiing from lifts, for fun and exercise, where I've never seen a DSLR carried except on a shoot. Most FF DSLRs don't even leave the house except for a shoot.
The most common camera in the backcountry these days aside from the cellphone is is the Sony RX100.
The M9 is a rare camera, period. I think I have the only one in town
Obviously I'm describing my own POV, and why prefer the camera despite it's risks and weaknesses, which have been the subject of multiple posts. I think it's called a discussion. You know, a comparison of viewpoints.
Sadly inflammatory when the subject is Leica digital. LOL
Pioneer
Veteran
I do not disagree one bit that the M9 is a wonderful camera. I love mine and am very glad that Leica is standing behind it.
But to say that the Leica M9 is the "perfect" camera for back country activity is going a little bit too far. It works wonderfully, as does any number of other cameras.
And I agree wholeheartedly over the original purpose of Barnack's wonderful, little, camera. But you must agree that the little Leica has put on an awful lot of weight over the past 100 years. If weight, and ease of carry, were really the topic on the table I think we would be discussing a lot of other cameras before we got to the Leica.
But to say that the Leica M9 is the "perfect" camera for back country activity is going a little bit too far. It works wonderfully, as does any number of other cameras.
And I agree wholeheartedly over the original purpose of Barnack's wonderful, little, camera. But you must agree that the little Leica has put on an awful lot of weight over the past 100 years. If weight, and ease of carry, were really the topic on the table I think we would be discussing a lot of other cameras before we got to the Leica.
x-ray
Veteran
Never been skiing in my life. I would guess a compact camera with a small medium zoom would be a good choice.
In an earlier post someone suggested I might not have been able to afford a backup for my M9. To the contrary, for my work a Leica is simply to limited and imprecise (framing) to put a lot of money into as if $20k is chicken feed. My point, if I were into skiing I would select a smallish dslr or mirror less camera and a moderate zoom. I can't imagine only taking one lens and am M body or dealing with multiple lenses. Just the way I work. And no I wouldn't carry A D4 or even D800.
Make no mistake, I'm a big fan of Leica film bodies. I've used them in my work since 68 for limited commercial and extensively for documentary work. Documentation under poor lighting and where quiet is necessary is where they excell.
It's just a personal taste thing as to how each of us like to work.
In an earlier post someone suggested I might not have been able to afford a backup for my M9. To the contrary, for my work a Leica is simply to limited and imprecise (framing) to put a lot of money into as if $20k is chicken feed. My point, if I were into skiing I would select a smallish dslr or mirror less camera and a moderate zoom. I can't imagine only taking one lens and am M body or dealing with multiple lenses. Just the way I work. And no I wouldn't carry A D4 or even D800.
Make no mistake, I'm a big fan of Leica film bodies. I've used them in my work since 68 for limited commercial and extensively for documentary work. Documentation under poor lighting and where quiet is necessary is where they excell.
It's just a personal taste thing as to how each of us like to work.
uhoh7
Veteran
I do not disagree one bit that the M9 is a wonderful camera. I love mine and am very glad that Leica is standing behind it.
But to say that the Leica M9 is the "perfect" camera for back country activity is going a little bit too far. It works wonderfully, as does any number of other cameras.
And I agree wholeheartedly over the original purpose of Barnack's wonderful, little, camera. But you must agree that the little Leica has put on an awful lot of weight over the past 100 years. If weight, and ease of carry, were really the topic on the table I think we would be discussing a lot of other cameras before we got to the Leica.
The M9 is not perfect in any respect LOL
but regarding footprint we are totally on the same page
Heck, yes the M9 should be smaller. Way smaller. I much prefer the M6 in the hand. At first I ruled it out completely, for both cost and size and used the little Nex 5 with RF glass.
I never believed I would own one, but APS-C drove me crazy. Sony finally made the A7 series, and I went there big time, but was disappointed.
What I realized was that the M9 and the A7 were the same size. In fact with appropriate glass the M9 is often smaller. So, heavy and fat as it is, I can just manage it without much compromise. The cost came way down. I paid 3500 for one LN with brand new sensor.
In the process I fell in love with many other aspects, for example, people love the camera. They think it is a gorgeous thing. That is a huge plus when you shoot a lot of candids with total strangers....and old friends, as I do
DSC06958 by unoh7, on Flickr
I hope one day to see a digital CL
I understand and respect your frustrations with Leica digital. For sure, it's not for everyone. Any many way way better shooters than me use other stuff. But just as the frustrations should have a voice, so should the love
Pioneer
Veteran
Pretty M9.
Actually, my hiking and skiing camera of choice is my Fuji GA645i which, interestingly enough, weighs within a gram or two of a fully equipped M9 with the Summicron 35.
Of course, I have to pack extra rolls of film...but you have to pack extra batteries. Like XRay said, everyone develops their own preferences.
A sample of my most recent trip this fall. Not enough snow to go skiing yet.
Actually, my hiking and skiing camera of choice is my Fuji GA645i which, interestingly enough, weighs within a gram or two of a fully equipped M9 with the Summicron 35.
Of course, I have to pack extra rolls of film...but you have to pack extra batteries. Like XRay said, everyone develops their own preferences.
A sample of my most recent trip this fall. Not enough snow to go skiing yet.
x-ray
Veteran
I guess I'm different than many of the leica users. I don't care how sexy, cute, beautiful or how cool I look with it. It's all about how it fits my needs and if it delivers the images in the end. It's nothing more than a tool to me. Honestly I couldn't care less if Leica made it, Sony, nikon or anyone else. In 68 I almost went Nikon RF rather than Leica. I liked the RF better on the Nikon SP but hated that stupid focusing wheel worse than Leicas locking focusing tab.
I purchased a bunch of new lenses from the dealer I bought my M9 from. My M9 was the silver one and all but my 50 Asph Summilux were black. The sales person commented on how great that chrome lens would look on my silver M9. When he said that I had to stop and think, is this what photography as become?
I'm not trying to put anyone down if that's their thing. I just see my equipment a different way and how I relate to my gear.
I purchased a bunch of new lenses from the dealer I bought my M9 from. My M9 was the silver one and all but my 50 Asph Summilux were black. The sales person commented on how great that chrome lens would look on my silver M9. When he said that I had to stop and think, is this what photography as become?
I'm not trying to put anyone down if that's their thing. I just see my equipment a different way and how I relate to my gear.
x-ray
Veteran
The M9 kit that I used wasn't what I would call lightweight. I carried the body, 3 matteries, 25 Elmar, 35 fle summilux, 50 Asph summux in chrome, 75 summilux and 90 Apo asph. That's some pretty heavy gear in my book. Basically that same package could have been achieved in one medium zoom on a compact DSLR. I don't think my D800 and 24-70. 2.8 would have been any heavier or larger.
Again it's just personal preference.
Again it's just personal preference.
x-ray
Veteran
I bought a new S3 when they came out and bought some nice glass for it but like 1968, I just struck out with the wheel. The wheel annoyed me and was a drag on focusing. It was annoying to me and I wound up selling it. Trust me I wanted to use it and love it but.
I really love the Nikkor glass and even have a beauty of a 105 ltm for my M cameras. I tried to find a clean 35 1.8 ltm but struck out. I think Nikkor glass is first class. The millinium 50 1.4 is one of if not the best all round 50 Ive ever used. It's every bit as sharp as the 50 asph summilux and smoother in tone. It's a real winner.
I think many of us, on an emotional level, want to believe Leica glass is superior but in 48 years of real life experience I have to say there are a lot of really fine lenses out there. What's best for one person isn't for another so I'll put my neck out here and say there is no such thing as superior optics. If sharpness is your thing then your choice might be Leicas asph glass but if it's classic smooth images you might select something else. I went nuts over how sharp the new asph M glass is when I had the M9. Now I've moved full full circle and gone back to more classic glass and film. For my style smooth but not necessarily pixel sharp is what I want. That look suits my style.
x-ray
Veteran
I'm a business man and gear has to earn its keep. At one point I had over $250k in equipment and owned a 6,000 sqft studio. Times change, clients change and I closed the physical studio after 20 years because most of my work became location shooting. Much of that gear was sold too. One thing in my decision was a local source for 20,000 sqft of rental studio space with 10 times the lighting gear I had. I still have a major system but I ha e trimmed it quite a bit.
All my equipment has to earn its keep and must be reliable. If it doesn't then it's gone. The M9 failed both requirements and it's gone.
NazgulKing
Established
In my mind, I find the CCD vs CMOS bit hilarious, considering that CCD rendering in the M9 is a product of its limited dynamic range. In fact, as CCDs go by, the one in the M9 is far behind the best in CCD technology. CCDs used in scientific apparatus are far better than the one used in the M9.
People complain that pictures out from CMOS look "flat" but that's because the files record more color information and are far more malleable than the ones out from the M9. I could achieve similar "look" just by upping the contrast, which in a way, clamps the dynamic range.
People complain that pictures out from CMOS look "flat" but that's because the files record more color information and are far more malleable than the ones out from the M9. I could achieve similar "look" just by upping the contrast, which in a way, clamps the dynamic range.