Leica M9... Legendary vs Nothing

[Turtle]

I dont get it either. Lleica made the M9. They did their best. Hopefully it will do well enough that we will see more models in the future. I doubt I will buy a M9, though I have thought about it, but will stick with film. Maybe the M10 will tip me over. People forget the paltry R&D budgets Leica has to work with, but I do agree on one point: they could have fundamentally updated the chassis of the camera to allow for more rapid SD card access, better grip (subtle contour perhaps), better menu controls and weather sealing. People say that the lenses are not water reistant, but its a lot easier and cheaper to give a lens a CLA after water seeps in than deal with wet circuitry in a dead $7k camera. Apart from that I think the noise issue is manageable (but needs improvement on updated models) and the IQ seems very good.

 

[Keith]

The thing that worries me about future didgital M's is the price ... well that's a lie actually because I probably won't be buying! 😛

From M8 to M9 we had a 45% increase in price ... admittedly the new camera has a full frame sensor so part of it is obviously justified. Any potential M10 though, whatever it's improvements may be, is likely to be close to $10000.00 ... is there a point where even Leica's most loyal customers say "enough is enough" ... I have to wonder?

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

What we can clearly learn from this is that it is very hard to put a camera on the market which does hardly pay off for the company - Leica is still making losses - and that there is only a small group that is and will use these type of cameras. I myself never bought new cameras (apart from the Canon G2 for my wife), and think most of us won't do, so the actual customer group for Leica is very small especially in the west - their biggest market is supposed to be in HongKong and Japan. Typically also Leica to come out with a new model in economic hard times: the first Leica with a coupled rangefinder, the Leica II, came on the market in 1932!

 

[Pickett Wilson]

"Leica should be able to blow Canon and Nikon out of the water, but they aren't. What happened to the camera maker that more-or-less invented photojournalism?"

How do you figure a company that has been selling 140 cameras a month, like Leica said they have been doing, should be able to blow Canon and Nikon out of the water?

What happened was the camera they have been building went out of fashion 50 years ago and they never innovated. How can they compete with Canon and Nikon? Canon sold millions of cameras last year. Leica a few thousand. And Canon sold that many cameras because they weren't selling $7,000 cameras with a focusing system precious few want.

The M9, whether it turns out to be a great camera or merely good, is the best Leica could do with the time and resources they have. Leica has been one bad decision away from disaster for many years.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In the 1930s Leica brought out the 1 (interchangeable lenses instead of fixed) followed by II (rangefinder) followed by III (slow speeds from 1-1/20 as well as 1/20-1/500) followed by IIIa (top speed 1/1000) followed by IIIb (viewfinder and rangefinder closer together).

In other words we're seeing exactly the same marketing strategy as in the 1930s: incremental improvements. Those who buy them to use will keep them indefinitely, until something REALLY better comes along, and those who must have the latest and the best will buy the latest model.

This is exactly what I expected from Leica. Those who are always waiting for the next, improved model are not, and have never been, their core market. Nor are those who whinge and snivel about what Leica should do. You buy a Leica, and take pictures with it (or not). End of story.

Cheers,

R.

 

[johannielscom]

What Roger says.

Shoot, don't hoot.

 

[blondie1]

But than we do not need a highly solid camera that is very expensive. A camera for a lifetime. Solidity is a far lesser value nowadays. We need something else.

Some of you guys need to get real and enter the modern age. We aren't living in 1960 anymore, at least not last time I checked. Either they release a new camera every few years for people to buy or they go broke and we all lose out. Which would you prefer?

 

[eleskin]

We "Baby" the Digial M and they are "Not" tools! RUBBISH!!!!!

We "Baby" the Digial M and they are "Not" tools! RUBBISH!!!!!

I had to respond to this silly comment. I have been shooting with Leica M's for over 25 years all over the world (third world, first world, cold, hot, wet, etc,,,) and I have never been consumed by treating my camera like a "BABY" and if it was not a tool, why do I have tens of thousands of photos, both FILM and DIGITAL?

Yes, I know there are some who "BABY" their Leicas, but I know people who "BABY" anything they buy because that is the way they are. I prefer to make my M's UGLY by wrapping them in ELECTRICAL TAPE and placing them in an ugly bag for stealth on the street. It works. It worked in Gaza City, it worked in Moscow, and everywhere else I have been!!!!!

After all, they are "TOOLS", and I LOVE THE PHOTOS THEY MADE MORE THAN THE CAMERAS!!

SO THERE!!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, I know there are some who "BABY" their Leicas...

I once asked someone at Leica and they reckoned it's about 50%.

Like you, I've been using Leicas a long time -- about 40 years in my case -- and like you, I don't baby 'em and like you I've taken many thousands of pictures both film and digital, on three continents.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Richard Marks]

In the 1930s Leica brought out the 1 (interchangeable lenses instead of fixed) followed by II (rangefinder) followed by III (slow speeds from 1-1/20 as well as 1/20-1/500) followed by IIIa (top speed 1/1000) followed by IIIb (viewfinder and rangefinder closer together).

In other words we're seeing exactly the same marketing strategy as in the 1930s: incremental improvements. Those who buy them to use will keep them indefinitely, until something REALLY better comes along, and those who must have the latest and the best will buy the latest model.

This is exactly what I expected from Leica. Those who are always waiting for the next, improved model are not, and have never been, their core market. Nor are those who whinge and snivel about what Leica should do. You buy a Leica, and take pictures with it (or not). End of story.

Cheers,

R.

But Roger in the 1930's Leica and Contax were in a dominant position at the forefront of professional photgraphy. Leica are now confined to producing "luxury goods" that only a few can afford. Times change.

Richard

 

[aniMal]

I can just say one thing, and that is that my M8 felt just like working with other Ms from the first hour or so. Actually got a great "leica moment" shot that same afternoon!

There is nothing in the handling that is annoying to me, except the self timer before getting used to the feel of the lever.

The most important thing is that there is a shutter dial, aperture and focusing ring - the rest is really just getting on with photographing!

 

[Roger Hicks]

But Roger in the 1930's Leica and Contax were in a dominant position at the forefront of professional photgraphy. Leica are now confined to producing "luxury goods" that only a few can afford. Times change.

Richard

Dear Richard,

No they weren't! They were regarded as toys for rich amateurs and eccentrics. Real photographers in the UK used quarter-plate and half-plate (amateur) or half-plate and whole-plate (professional). In the USA 5x7 inch and 8x10 inch replaced half-plate and whole-plate; news photographers mostly used 4x5 inch and were deeply mistrustful of 'postage stamp sized negatives'.

Income differentials were greater in the 1930s and the rich could afford a lot more material goods than the poor, which was why Leica and Contax did quite nicely, thank you.

Cheers,

R.

 

[parsec1]

In the 1930s Leica brought out the 1 (interchangeable lenses instead of fixed) followed by II (rangefinder) followed by III (slow speeds from 1-1/20 as well as 1/20-1/500) followed by IIIa (top speed 1/1000) followed by IIIb (viewfinder and rangefinder closer together).

In other words we're seeing exactly the same marketing strategy as in the 1930s: incremental improvements. Those who buy them to use will keep them indefinitely, until something REALLY better comes along, and those who must have the latest and the best will buy the latest model.

This is exactly what I expected from Leica. Those who are always waiting for the next, improved model are not, and have never been, their core market. Nor are those who whinge and snivel about what Leica should do. You buy a Leica, and take pictures with it (or not). End of story.

Dear Roger
You have mentioned taking pictures with your cameras . Thank you
Something of anathema on this forum
Regards
Peter

 

[parsec1]

Dear Richard,

No they weren't! They were regarded as toys for rich amateurs and eccentrics. Real photographers in the UK used quarter-plate and half-plate (amateur) or half-plate and whole-plate (professional). In the USA 5x7 inch and 8x10 inch replaced half-plate and whole-plate; news photographers mostly used 4x5 inch and were deeply mistrustful of 'postage stamp sized negatives'.

Income differentials were greater in the 1930s and the rich could afford a lot more material goods than the poor, which was why Leica and Contax did quite nicely, thank you.

Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger
I remember somebody saying at the Express about 'pulling a 3 yarder' just before his retirement.
Regards
Peter

 

[JohnTF]

When I bought my F2 and lenses in the 70's, I had to think about the money it took, and make a decision. I never bought a new car, worked a couple of jobs, and I had to think about the $400 or so, and paid it off in a few months.

I was able to peddle my old equipment, and this started a pattern of periodic upgrades, but the technology was moving relatively slowly. Think multicoating and match needle.

I have to think a bit harder about $7000, but it is in the ball park, perhaps down to wiggle room in the pricing, and perhaps a few more months payments.

I do not expect Leica to "show me love", but a nice rent to own would net them a very good return in today's market. Could push some people off the fence. I would not be surprised if some smart shops would agree to such a deal in an economy where an 18% or so return on investment in a year would be not considered a foolish move.

Something to nudge me.

If I were actively in this for the money, yeah I would probably have ordered one already.

Roger is correct in the LF comment, to the point that you might not be considered pro at all back in the day, unless you had a big camera. I was shooting my miniature Rollei 6x6 TLR for money work, and 35mm for most journalism, which was borderline radical.

I had a big flash though.

Regards, John

 

[Richard Marks]

Dear Richard,

No they weren't! They were regarded as toys for rich amateurs and eccentrics. Real photographers in the UK used quarter-plate and half-plate (amateur) or half-plate and whole-plate (professional). In the USA 5x7 inch and 8x10 inch replaced half-plate and whole-plate; news photographers mostly used 4x5 inch and were deeply mistrustful of 'postage stamp sized negatives'.

Income differentials were greater in the 1930s and the rich could afford a lot more material goods than the poor, which was why Leica and Contax did quite nicely, thank you.

Cheers,

R.

Dearest Roger

Apologies if i am a little wrong with my dates! I was not there. But I am sure that you will agree that even in the 1930's if one wished to shoot 35mm there was not much choice. Leica and Contax were a long way ahead of the 35mm alternatives. Now there are other ways of capturing the same image.

I think the real issue is that the rate of change of development is now staggering in the industry in general and my impression of the M9 is of being a bit better but after 3 years in the making and 1.5x the price. It just seems frustratingly slow for not a lot. Do not get me wrong I can afford one but I really do not want to at the moment.

Richard

 

[JohnTF]

Dearest Roger

Apologies if i am a little wrong with my dates! I was not there. But I am sure that you will agree that even in the 1930's if one wished to shoot 35mm there was not much choice. Leica and Contax were a long way ahead of the 35mm alternatives. Now there are other ways of capturing the same image.

I think the real issue is that the rate of change of development is now staggering in the industry in general and my impression of the M9 is of being a bit better but after 3 years in the making and 1.5x the price. It just seems frustratingly slow for not a lot. Do not get me wrong I can afford one but I really do not want to at the moment.

Richard

Probably the best reason stated yet, you do not owe any further. I assume you retain the option of changing your mind down the line? ;-)

Still, nice to have options.

I hope you are not implying that Roger was there in the 30's at the launch of the 35mm era? ;-) I know he is quite a bit too young for that. ;-)

Regards, John

 

[Richard Marks]

Probably the best reason stated yet, you do not owe any further. I assume you retain the option of changing your mind down the line? ;-)

Still, nice to have options.

I hope you are not implying that Roger was there in the 30's at the launch of the 35mm era? ;-) I know he is quite a bit too young for that. ;-)

Regards, John

Dear John
Of course. I would love to be proven wrong, but my early impressions of the M9 are not making me reach for my wallet. Actually after selling my M8 with perfect timing I am really enjoying a break from rangefinders. A 70-200 Nikon zoom wow! Its a great new toy! Also Nikon 14-24 stunning optic on a D700. Both of these optics are not possible with rangefinders so my images are different and its quite refreshing. Also all my old Nikon manual focus glass has come out again and are amazing on a D700. I am having a great time. I am also using my hasselblad gear more. Its actually a cooling off period for me to see if I miss digital RF's. In time I may decide that they are vital, but i will need to be convinced that it can take images not possible with my current gear and that the cost is justifiable.

I am not implying that Roger was there in the 1930's but equally citing early historical arguments in support of leicas current position is not really all that helpful. I think that is perhaps how they have got into difficulty. The first few years of digital technology they were in denial and did not invest (yes i was there for this!!) and just shrugged off the DRF development as "impossible" and hoped we would stick with film RF's. Suddenly an Epsom appears and they are rushing a half baked offering onto the market place.

Best wishes


Richard

 

[parsec1]

The first digi that I had was around 1995 a kodak /nikon hybrid made for AP photographers on their behalf. It cost about 15 grand (pounds GB) and was about 3 meg if I remember correctly but that and a Mac was certainly the way to go.

 

[Ben Z]

my early impressions of the M9 are not making me reach for my wallet.

Me too, except in my case it's the price plus early memories of the M8 (not to mention my experiences with an early M7) that are holding me back. The price is close to 1.5X what I paid for my M8 new, and nobody can convince me it won't drop in a similar manner when (not if) Leica rolls out an M10 in another 3 years. Also, if the M9 proves to be bug-free from the get-go, it will be the first Leica camera to do so in a long time.

A one-stop improvement in high-ISO sensor noise might be a huge thing to some people, but to me who has only rarely cranked the M8 to 640, and mostly shoots 160 (which is the base of the M9 BTW, the 80 is a "pull" similar to the "LO" setting on my Canon), it's not a huge thing.

Full-frame likewise is a huge thing to some, but not to me. I have lenses down to 12mm (18mm effective on the M8). Unlike a cropped DSLR, the M8 doesn't have a squinty tunnel viewfinder. And I'm more of a tele guy than a wide angle guy anyhow.

The IR filters I still think are an embarrassing band-aid on the M8, but they work. I always did and always will keep a filter on my lenses permanently for protection anyway.

Do I want an M9? Well, if it doesn't turn out to have any major undiscovered bugs or they get worked out, then sure. But I can wait as long as it takes to get a factory demo and put the saved thousands to better use.

I am really enjoying a break from rangefinders. A 70-200 Nikon zoom wow! Its a great new toy! Also Nikon 14-24 stunning optic on a D700. Both of these optics are not possible with rangefinders so my images are different and its quite refreshing.

Truth be told, unlike some who say they shelved their DSLR after getting an M8, I've continued to use mine as much or more than my M8. Other than for ease of travel (which I haven't been doing as much of in the past couple years) I have always liked reflexes better. Which is another reason putting $7K more into Leicas is not making a lot of sense to me.