Leica M9... Legendary vs Nothing

[edodo]

It is not only the M9 but all digital have a propension to clip highlight and to loose info in the shadows. That is life. I bet that in 5/10 years from now the sensors will be so much dynamic that the price of the M9 might take some serious hit like every digital machine on earth.

 

[jjovin]

It is somewhat irrelevant for me to compare M9 with M6 or another film M. Times change and that is the fact. I congratulate Leica for making M9 even though I will never be able to afford one.
But I can still dream of it.

The comparison will become more relevant when digital reaches the stage when different sensors are plugged in and out of camera bodies like film is today.

Cheers,
ZS

 

[hiorgos]

First of all, a new M7 is $4400, so more like 2/3 the price of an M9. Then, at roughly $10 per every 36 exposures for film and developing (no printing) if you shoot just 5 rolls a month, in a bit over 4 years you would be even with the M9 money-wise. And the M7 would then be worth $2000. That's $2400 in depreciation and $2600 in film/processing, or a total cost of $4800. In four years if the M9 is only worth $2200 it would've cost you exactly the same, even before considering all the time you took scanning.

OTOH, buy a used M8 now for $2400 and in 4 years if it's only worth $400, your cost was $2000. Much cheaper than buying a new M7 or a new M9. Cheaper even than if you'd bought a used M7 to begin with.

Staying one generation behind in digital is really the most economical route these days.

Good point.. But I don't have $4000 neither. I mean, it's an expensive toy a M9. I hope that in the next years we can see more affordable digital options!

 

[starless]

There is nothing revolutionary about the M9.

Full frame cameras have been knocking about for quite a while now. The first Digital rangefinders with M bayonet came out 5 years ago. If anything Leica are trailing behind.

As for legendary, it is too early to tell isn't it?
The M3 was not legendary when it came out 50 years ago, but now it is. So ask again in 2059, though I fear the M9 will have long been obsolete by then.

 

[sevo]

As digital cameras are stuck with their sensor (and its future appreciation), it will not be legendary. Well, unless Leica goes broke, making it their last camera, or manages to produce a series of worse follow ups - but given that the sensor in the M9 isn't the best the industry currently has, and that the progress on sensors does not leave much opportunity for a technical degradation, that would be quite a feat...

 

[Benjamin]

Sure, I want the M9, but as I've said before even if I could afford to buy one outright I couldn't afford to replace it.

I treat all my cameras sensibly but they are disposable objects, I care more about the film in them than I do the box that holds it.

Also, classic style to my mind equates to a simple, mechanical, analogue item.

You simply cannot create a classic digital product. Digital Rolex or digital Leica, it's a wash.

 

[rxmd]

You simply cannot create a classic digital product.

Of course you can. It's just that people scoff at them because digital in general is Not Properly Classic for them.

There are lots of classic digital products - some of them were firsts, some of them were outstanding in their class, and some of them were just so quirky and odd. However, just because some people (including you, probably) don't see the aesthetics and/or the significance of a Hewlett-Packard HP-35 (or an Elektronika B3-18 for the FSU guys), a Nikon Coolpix 950, a Hamilton Pulsar, a Game Boy or a NeXT doesn't mean nobody does.

Now I'll get back to fixing A/UX on the Mac SE/30 I use in the kitchen for downloading recipes off the Internet. 😛

 

[Richard Marks]

Legendary of course does not necesarily mean good!
I suspect the IR problems of the M8 may make it something of a legend in years to come. "Here is an authentic magenta cast M8 image. Its so 2007 era dont you think?!"

Richard

 

[TJV]

The M9 is a great camera for what it is, just as a Nikon D700 is a great camera for what it is. They both have strengths and weaknesses but it would be naive to suggest either is a milestone in the evolution of photographic equipment. They are only cameras of tradition design, after all.

I just sold off my entire M kit to get a D700 and suite of lenses, including Zeiss glass. I can honestly say I'm amazed at the results I'm getting and wish I had of made the switch sooner because over the last two years the style I work in and demands of my paid jobs has changed to the point the Leica gear sat at home unused. I would have loved a M9 but the price is way out of what is realistic for me. The low ISO files in particular look VERY tonal and sharp. Each to their own, I say.

 

[James R]

I'm new to the board and plan to buy my first digital M camera--yes, the M9. The arguments on this thread are variations of a theme that can be found on a Nikon or Canon forum when a new camera is released. Why didn't they do this or that? Do we really need this or that?

The sad fact is that RF is not an SLR and will never compete with those cameras. RF is a niche market. For Leica to blow C or N out of the water, they will need to produce a competitive DSLR at a competitive price. And pricing is not a battle Leica is prepared to wage.

Most of the innovative companies of the past are out of business or have been bought out. But, Leica survives and we should be happy about that, even though we pay a premium for that rejoicing. I don't think Leica can survive as a company if it tries to compete with the big boys. So, relax and enjoy that RF experience.

 

[Benjamin]

I'm new to the board and plan to buy my first digital M camera--yes, the M9. The arguments on this thread are variations of a theme that can be found on a Nikon or Canon forum when a new camera is released. Why didn't they do this or that? Do we really need this or that?

The sad fact is that RF is not an SLR and will never compete with those cameras. RF is a niche market. For Leica to blow C or N out of the water, they will need to produce a competitive DSLR at a competitive price. And pricing is not a battle Leica is prepared to wage.

Most of the innovative companies of the past are out of business or have been bought out. But, Leica survives and we should be happy about that, even though we pay a premium for that rejoicing. I don't think Leica can survive as a company if it tries to compete with the big boys. So, relax and enjoy that RF experience.

A good point, well made. Even though I have no interest in buying an M9, or any other digital camera for that matter, I'm glad that Leica has managed to keep it's head above the water, knowing that a digital body is inherent to the survival of the Leica M system.

 

[downstairs]

I voted the M9 best so far but, as I`ve said elsewhere on theis forum and got shot down for saying it, I would have preferred a lean machine - an M for grown-ups. Black & white sensor (Kodak has one on the drawing board), a nipple in place of flash TTL, and perhaps a simple histogram in place of the display. A lot of us use use digital backs and sheet film anyway. We don't need another all-rounder - we just need to carry on with what we have always been doing with the Ms. We've got the lenses and the feel for the thing - just give us a simple body.

 

[Benjamin]

I voted the M9 best so far but, as I`ve said elsewhere on theis forum and got shot down for saying it, I would have preferred a lean machine - an M for grown-ups. Black & white sensor (Kodak has one on the drawing board), a nipple in place of flash TTL, and perhaps a simple histogram in place of the display. A lot of us use use digital backs and sheet film anyway. We don't need another all-rounder - we just need to carry on with what we have always been doing with the Ms. We've got the lenses and the feel for the thing - just give us a simple body.

I'd agree with this as well, though I don't know or trust that a black and white only sensor will get close to what many of us (everywhere) are getting from film.

(B+W) silver halide film is such an incredibly versatile format that I'm not sure that adding such technology to an M body will make for a winning formula, even if many of the famous and amateur users of Leica cameras have used black and white film.

If I were to switch to colour then I would not hesitate in buying a digital body, and almost needless to say the M9 would be top of the list.

However, in the mean time why would one give up an analogue M and a roll of ..... film @ ..... speed and ..... developer @ ..... dilution so as to spend close to four times as much money on a digital body that cannot compete with the performance and versatility of the analogue product?

I would almost certainly agree however, that simplest formula is often the best, and surely the most effective. I also feel that the M9 is definitely getting close to what many have been asking for, and that I have no doubts that it is an excellent and most worthy camera.

 

[downstairs]

... However, in the mean time why would one give up an analogue M and a roll of ..... film @ ..... speed and ..... developer @ ..... dilution so as to spend close to four times as much money on a digital body that cannot compete with the performance and versatility of the analogue product?
...

It is a sore point. Quite a few professionals had to give up their darkrooms when ecology regulations made b&w impossible. Beyond keeping a log of chemicals we had to contract out liquid waste disposal. My contractor was picking up 100 litres of tap water from me a week, regardless of darkroom inactivity. I am now a clandestine developer - an unregulated amateur developing and contact printing at home over the kitchen sink. The darkroom has become a computer room.
My analog M's go back to 1957. They sit there in the safe waiting for a 35mm scanner that can match an M8.

 

[Richard Marks]

I'd agree with this as well, though I don't know or trust that a black and white only sensor will get close to what many of us (everywhere) are getting from film.

(B+W) silver halide film is such an incredibly versatile format that I'm not sure that adding such technology to an M body will make for a winning formula, even if many of the famous and amateur users of Leica cameras have used black and white film.

If I were to switch to colour then I would not hesitate in buying a digital body, and almost needless to say the M9 would be top of the list.

However, in the mean time why would one give up an analogue M and a roll of ..... film @ ..... speed and ..... developer @ ..... dilution so as to spend close to four times as much money on a digital body that cannot compete with the performance and versatility of the analogue product?

I would almost certainly agree however, that simplest formula is often the best, and surely the most effective. I also feel that the M9 is definitely getting close to what many have been asking for, and that I have no doubts that it is an excellent and most worthy camera.

Dear Benjamin

I have a lot of sympathy with what you say. Certainly the very best obtainable from film can be better than the very best digital, but on average I believe the high end digital cameras are producing better black and white for an awful lot of people with a lot less effort. Lots of reasons for this; reproducability, freedom from darkroom artefacts, huge choice of materials and effortless image editing.

Choices of film for black and white are still not too bad, but if you want anything other than Illford in the UK then it is tough going to keep a consistent supply and very expensive.

I still do both and find the film process very relaxing and do not really like computers but the reality is that digital monochrome is getting scary good. When did you last give it a try?

Best wishes

Richard

 

[Uncle Bill]

I have been following this thread from start to finish and some of the thinking on here made me leave RFF for about a year. My question just how many of you are paying the mortgage/rent with photography? Honestly, most photojournalists I know are using Nikon D3's and those in the wedding business, Canon 5D MK IIs.

I should state right off the bat, I am not a pro photographer though I do some event photography for the local chapter of my professional association (IABC). For me photography is a hobby and from where I am sitting, the M9 just plain does not make sense for me.

At some point I am going to have to get a digital body for event photography as I might called on to do that more and more as a PR practitioner. If I need a top drawer full frame body, I'll get a D700 or a Sony Alpha A900. Even with a couple of lenses to go with them, I will still have money left over for a pre-loved Leica MP or a mint overhauled Rolleiflex 80 f2.8 F and a vacation.

Why would I drop almost $10K USD on a piece of technology that will depreciate roughly 80% in the space of 36 months and may be unsupportable ten years down the road?

I'm in this to make brilliant photographs and provide counterbalance to what I do for a living which I also love.

 

[vladhed]

Hehe, I like Rockwell - he's funny:

"The M9 does make a great exposure preview system for use with the M3. "

 

[Bugleone]

Can anyone direct me to any site on the web where there are side by side comparisons that show the M9 to have less allround image quality than ANY 35mm frame of comparable iso..?

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have been following this thread from start to finish and some of the thinking on here made me leave RFF for about a year. My question just how many of you are paying the mortgage/rent with photography? Honestly, most photojournalists I know are using Nikon D3's and those in the wedding business, Canon 5D MK IIs.

I should state right off the bat, I am not a pro photographer though I do some event photography for the local chapter of my professional association (IABC). For me photography is a hobby and from where I am sitting, the M9 just plain does not make sense for me.

At some point I am going to have to get a digital body for event photography as I might called on to do that more and more as a PR practitioner. If I need a top drawer full frame body, I'll get a D700 or a Sony Alpha A900. Even with a couple of lenses to go with them, I will still have money left over for a pre-loved Leica MP or a mint overhauled Rolleiflex 80 f2.8 F and a vacation.

Why would I drop almost $10K USD on a piece of technology that will depreciate roughly 80% in the space of 36 months and may be unsupportable ten years down the road?

I'm in this to make brilliant photographs and provide counterbalance to what I do for a living which I also love.

Assuming you're talking about the M9 in the highlighted bit, why should it depreciate 80% in 3 years (M8s haven't)? Also, Leica have promised to support it for 20 years.

My living comes from writing and photography; I use Leicas for the great majority of what I do; and the M9 makes eminent sense to me. The only photojournalist I know well (i.e. personally) in the UK ordered an M9 the day they came out, and I'm told he wasn't the only one.

Cheers,

R.

 

[johannielscom]

If the M9 would be unusable after 10 years, I would have paid about EUR 1,40 a day to shoot it.

Assuming I'd never make a buck off it, that is, else it will be less.

If I had and could miss the money to buy one, I'd do so in the blink of an eye and not give it second thought. And, I would indeed use it as an exposure preview system for my M3, too.

Anyone willing to extend me a loan, to be paid back in ten years time, paying EUR 1,50 a day? 😱 🙂