Leica M9... Legendary vs Nothing

[lainer]

If Leica decided to bump up the prices on the M9, because of the demand for it, I'd sell my M8.2 and lens and go back to Nikon. I just think that's unethical to do. As it stands, I still find it hard to justify the price I spent on this used M8.2 and lens. It's more money than I've ever spent on a camera system. I still grapple with that in my mind. Then I worry about bringing such an expensive piece of gear out in public to shoot. Maybe I'll get over it as I do it more often, but it is nerve wracking.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I also believe in the "Ayn Rand" philosophies regarding the silliness of all things "retro" and the notion that something is better because it is old.

I don't think you'll find anyone here who thinks that something is better because it is old. Rather, some of the good things in the world happen to be old. The M design is, in my view, an excellent one--the most satisfying camera system I've used. The M8 (when working!) is, to me, perfect.

Ayn Rand was an old hand at inventing shallow motivations for people she disliked, then looking down at them for embracing these imaginary ideals. I feel as though this happens a lot here, when it comes to Leica cameras. You don't want an M8 or M9 because you'd prefer a different and more affordable design. That's totally legit, and I appreciate what you're after--in large part I agree, your vision of a well-designed digital-from-the-ground-up camera is a good one. But there is no reason to put down digital M lovers based on a shallow notion you just made up for them.

Personally, I don't give a crap about retro. There are new cameras that look, feel, and work great. But there are old designs that are good, too, and the fact that they are old doesn't mean they're obsolete.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't think you'll find anyone here who thinks that something is better because it is old. Rather, some of the good things in the world happen to be old. The M design is, in my view, an excellent one--the most satisfying camera system I've used. The M8 (when working!) is, to me, perfect.

Ayn Rand was an old hand at inventing shallow motivations for people she disliked, then looking down at them for embracing these imaginary ideals. I feel as though this happens a lot here, when it comes to Leica cameras. You don't want an M8 or M9 because you'd prefer a different and more affordable design. That's totally legit, and I appreciate what you're after--in large part I agree, your vision of a well-designed digital-from-the-ground-up camera is a good one. But there is no reason to put down digital M lovers based on a shallow notion you just made up for them.

Personally, I don't give a crap about retro. There are new cameras that look, feel, and work great. But there are old designs that are good, too, and the fact that they are old doesn't mean they're obsolete.

Quite. But there are those who whose craving for novelty is such that they wonder why bicycles still only have two wheels. SO 19th cenutry!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bill58]

I wonder how many M8s Leica is selling now? My guess is zero.

 

[swoop]

If Leica decided to bump up the prices on the M9, because of the demand for it, I'd sell my M8.2 and lens and go back to Nikon. I just think that's unethical to do. As it stands, I still find it hard to justify the price I spent on this used M8.2 and lens. It's more money than I've ever spent on a camera system. I still grapple with that in my mind. Then I worry about bringing such an expensive piece of gear out in public to shoot. Maybe I'll get over it as I do it more often, but it is nerve wracking.

I've already dropped my M9. That was nerve racking. It held up fine. Luckily it was two feet onto carpet.

I've dropped my M8 twice. It slipped out of my hands onto a table. About a foot drop. And it once came undone off the strap and fell four feet onto grass. Held up just fine.

I justify the fact that I spent money on these cameras to use them. If I don't use them. What's the point. There's an inherent risk to being alive. You take your chances.

 

[lainer]

Wow. I'm so surprised the M9 held up fine from being dropped. I would think that the M9 due to the digital innards wouldn't fare as well as a film M. Nice to know that you can still use it. I know my M8.2 does feel like a solid hunk of metal, so that sets my mind at ease.

Your heart must have stopped when you dropped that M9 though. Ouch!

I'm new to Leica, and Leica digital. I started out using film back in the days, so I'm used to shutter speeds and aperture. I only have a little experience with rangefinders. Each time I use the M8.2, I find it pleasing and meditative. It's like I'm playing my guitar. I slow down and think, and compose the picture. It's like the old days of film. The viewfinder is so bright and a dream to use. My eyes aren't what they used to be, so this is a welcome surprise. I love the files and can ONLY imagine how beautiful the M9 files are with the details due to the full frame sensor.

I'd be mad if they bumped up the prices on the M9 for those waiting on the list though. If someone were on a list, then the price should remain the same. Just my opinion.

Meanwhile, I love this M8.2. I only have the one lens, but it's a beauty. So many people have complimented the pictures, stating that it looks like cinema film. It's haunting!

 

[lainer]

Oops. Also, I love this rangefinder forum. I've learned a lot from it. Some of the photos I've seen here are absolutely gorgeous. It gives me inspiration to shoot better.

Oh, on another note, I bought one of those Thumbs Up Grip Levers and a Bip soft shutter release. What a difference in how I can now hold this camera! It feels so much safer in my hands! The Bip is awesome too. I love the fluid shutter now. Match Technical is a gem company. I am impressed by their designs. I love seeing great inventions.

I was checking out those beautiful Luigi cases, but didn't know how feng shui they were in the design. I know you can change the bottom plate to allow quick access to the SD card, but I don't think I'd be able to do those alterations. I like the black case due to it blending in with the camera and not drawing attention. Did you guys see the rainbow cases? Wow! What cases or bags do you recommend? I would like a small bag to fit the Leica body and lens, and maybe one or two lenses with minimal accessories.

 

[literiter]

I have not seen the M9 in person up close, and I have never spoken to the Dalai Lama, but the pad of my index finger actually touched a M8 last year, if you can believe.

During the rapture that ensued I had the vision that my truly Legendary M2 was CLA'd finally and I did so by sending it to Gerry Smith at Kindermann in Toronto.

I am blessed.

 

[lainer]

That reminds me of an article of Ken Rockwell comparing the M3 to the M9, stating that the M3 was better in so many ways, but then choosing the M9 because everyone is going digital. LOL!

Anyway, having not experienced a film Leica, I am curious to know what a M3 would be like compared to a M8.2. That would be a lovely combination to go out and shoot. Any suggestions?

I can't help but feel nostalgic about film. I guess because that's what i grew up with, and loved first.

My only irritation is that I don't develop myself and have no scanner. More costs. And the scanners are becoming scarce I hear. How sad is that? I heard the Epson V700 and the dedicated Nikon scanners were awesome.

 

[dreamsandart]

I can't help but feel nostalgic about film. I guess because that's what i grew up with, and loved first.

Same here, film is great. I still get a charge out of taking a roll of film out and loading the camera, winding on and hitting that familiar Leica shutter release.

But without a darkroom, half the thrill is missing, and I don't see a darkroom in my near future. So... digital.

Although the M8 was revolutionary for Leica and its users, it just never got my blood moving. It wasn't one thing, it was all the compromises together. But with the M9 everything that made me hesitate have been pretty much taken care of, and its not all the individual things that have been addressed, but the sum of them that make it the camera I feel I can move to with digital and still have my M-series.

The M9 just seems like the camera that will define the M experience with digital. If the M8 after 3 years still (and for years to come) is a very useable camera and makes people happy, I see the M9 lasting even longer as a medium for digital M photography.

 

[jamato8]

I have one arriving tomorrow. I started shooting Leica in the late 1960's, a IIIC with a Summitar, that I still have. Then a DS M3 and a M2. I would still use them but alas, film and I will only develop my own BW so digital, once it got fairly good, got my business. Now back to Leica, for certain types of work, and happy for it. The M9.

 

[jaapv]

If Leica decided to bump up the prices on the M9, because of the demand for it, I'd sell my M8.2 and lens and go back to Nikon. I just think that's unethical to do. As it stands, I still find it hard to justify the price I spent on this used M8.2 and lens. It's more money than I've ever spent on a camera system. I still grapple with that in my mind. Then I worry about bringing such an expensive piece of gear out in public to shoot. Maybe I'll get over it as I do it more often, but it is nerve wracking.

I wonder how all these guys with many thousands of dollars spent on their golf clubs manage to hit a ball...Or those three-hundred thousand bucks plus sailing boats manage to get out of the marina...

 

[parsec1]

What would you have had Leica to do? Whether you like it or not, if you want a FF digital rangefinder camera, the M9 is your option. Is it the best camera on earth? Of course not. Is it going to be the Leica you'll pass on to your grandchildren? Probably not. Will you want something better in a few years? Probably so. Will you be able to get your investment mostly back in five years like same film M's of yore? Almost certainly not.

Look, I personally think $7,000 is too much to pay for a digital M. But if you want a new one, the M9 is your choice. The world has moved on. Things will never be like they were (or like our faulty memories think they were).

All of these angst filled threads bemoaning the fact that Leica will not be in the future what it was in the past is nothing but short-sightedness and revisionist history. Move on!

Mercedes,Porche ,Rolls Royce ,Bentley Aston Martin etc etc don't test disfunctional cars 'on the market' and have to introduce new models to compensate for bad or short sighted development that you might get from Japan. ie Toyota . What makes Leica (known as the Rolls Royce' of cameras) any different. Move on ? Don't you mean move over and let me get the ' suckers cash' before anybody else.

 

[parsec1]

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?

'Modern Age' what the hell is that ? Your expected to pay huge ammounts of cash for anything you are given 'Like it or Lump it' Thats extortion not a 'Free market economy'
Thats turkeys voting for christmas or in the States perhaps 'Thanksgiving'.
When did we get to the state where you buy a $50'000 car and be told by the salesman "Think yourself lucky I 'allowed' you to buy it at all " !

 

[parsec1]

I wonder how all these guys with many thousands of dollars spent on their golf clubs manage to hit a ball...Or those three-hundred thousand bucks plus sailing boats manage to get out of the marina...

They don't get out of the marina.
As a long time National newspaper photographer(Beatles Aberfan etc) and myself sailed from Bradwell Marina in Essex we passed one of the $300000 boats with some of our contempories in the well deck drinking their Gin and Tonics.
Perhaps its just as well they never leave the Marina. Saved the coastguard a lot of trouble and I found out that none of them could navigate anyway.

 

[parsec1]

Quite. But there are those who whose craving for novelty is such that they wonder why bicycles still only have two wheels. SO 19th cenutry!

Cheers,

R.

Can spend quite a lot of money on a two wheeler these days Roger. Carbon fibre and all that new gearing technology etc. Most definatley not 19th century other than when it rains you still get wet.
Regards
Peter.

 

[parsec1]

Photojournalism isnt the same as it was 50 years ago. Neither are the cameras. Fact of the matter is most working news/ sports photographers dont care about photography enough to want a boutique item that 'doesnt even' have auto-focus. DSLR's are to them like a hammer is to a carpenter.

Oh Dear this sort o remark makes my blood pressure go sky high.
'Photojournalisim ' as you think it is isn't dead it just you can't make any real money from it anymore. The starving children are still here the poverty and all the 'social injustice' is still with us, except now everybody else has a 40inch plasma tv enough to eat and a roof over their heads in the 'modern world ' and couldn't care less for anything but the newest 'Toy to impress their friends'
A few months ago I had a job in Africa where I had to heave a 25 K Billingham withh 2 dslrs and lenses and flashes on average 15 miles a day on foot for a week ..the whole bloody week 7days and managed to get 2 hours on a beach throughout.
I dumped the lot and brought 2 M9s and 3 lenses.
What a Frackin relief !!!
BTW I have black taped over the Leica motifs on the front of them.
Many on this forum might do well to remember its the pictures you shoot that really matters.

20 years ago in 'Fleet Street' we used to refer to our cameras as 'Toys'
Jeez everybody has a dlsr (including my 12 yr old grandaughter) now and to most thats all they are...the latest toys.
Recently a guy I know well swapped his two D3s for D3x's I didn't even know he had any of that sort of gear. " Use them often " I inquired " Not really he replied last time was about 18 months ago I shot some pictures of the kids on the beach and 'wired them back home to the wife" "Lives a long way off " I asked "no he replied back in the village " (2 miles down the road)
God help us !!!!.
Yep I know he can spend his money on what he wants.....But as the saying goes 'A fool and his money are soon parted' and thats what our current 'Modern world' is , as most camera manufactures and some people on here refer to and rely on.

 

[swoop]

20 years ago in 'Fleet Street' we used to refer to our cameras as 'Toys'
Jeez everybody has a dlsr (including my 12 yr old grandaughter) now and to most thats all they are...the latest toys.
Recently a guy I know well swapped his two D3s for D3x's I didn't even know he had any of that sort of gear. " Use them often " I inquired " Not really he replied last time was about 18 months ago I shot some pictures of the kids on the beach and 'wired them back home to the wife" "Lives a long way off " I asked "no he replied back in the village " (2 miles down the road)
God help us !!!!.

The thing I see a lot that irks me is people who buy cameras and then suddenly they're a photographer. Everytime I see a photographers website the first place I go to is their Bio or resume and 9 out of 10 of these people had careers in retail or computers or whatever job that was so far away from photography and they went out and bought a fancy camera and suddenly they're a photographer with wedding rates and on the bottom of every page "will travel for portrait and documentary work." And then 8 out of 10 have other jobs to pay their bills. It disgraces photography as a career and takes money out of the pockets of people who do it for a living.

I got an assignment from an e-zine to cover FashionWeek. And I was shocked by how many people in the photo pool had dinky Canon rebels and Nikon D5000's with kit lenses. And space is so tight there it's a miracle to have elbow room. but it's chocked with people who obviously have no business being there. I'd hate to think how many of the people with pro gear who were there just had more disposable income.

I know there are plenty of people who have side jobs. Auto repair, drywall, painting, cleaning, plumbing. Stuff they do for extra cash. But it seems a lot more common with photography.

As for photojournalism in particular. I think digital made the job easier but it also helped kill it. With everyone and their mother (and granddaughter) now owning a digital camera of some sort, there are images of everything everywhere. And with wannabe photographers they are giving away their images just to say they're published. The worst thing for me is that I work freelance for two different newspapers. One of them has a staff photographer and she hands out assignments when she can. But she has a roster of about 6 photographers she circulates through and there's only so much work to go around to the freelancers outside of the stuff she covers herself. And the other paper has no staffer, and won't be hiring anyone anytime soon. When I started freelancing they dangled the opportunity of being staff in my face. That was two years ago. What they do most of the time is give reporters P&S cameras and have them take photos for their own stories. This happens a lot at the smaller papers. The only time I get work from them is when they only need photos, or when a reporter puts in a photo request. Most of my income comes from selling spot news photos. Which still requires a photojournalist to be vigilant and be quick on the scene.

I think the worst part of the digital is when I see an ad for someone looking for a photographer and it specifies what camera you must own or how many megapixels or they want to know what camera you use. It's insulting.

 

[parsec1]

The thing I see a lot that irks me is people who buy cameras and then suddenly they're a photographer. Everytime I see a photographers website the first place I go to is their Bio or resume and 9 out of 10 of these people had careers in retail or computers or whatever job that was so far away from photography and they went out and bought a fancy camera and suddenly they're a photographer with wedding rates and on the bottom of every page "will travel for portrait and documentary work." And then 8 out of 10 have other jobs to pay their bills. It disgraces photography as a career and takes money out of the pockets of people who do it for a living.

I got an assignment from an e-zine to cover FashionWeek. And I was shocked by how many people in the photo pool had dinky Canon rebels and Nikon D5000's with kit lenses. And space is so tight there it's a miracle to have elbow room. but it's chocked with people who obviously have no business being there. I'd hate to think how many of the people with pro gear who were there just had more disposable income.

I know there are plenty of people who have side jobs. Auto repair, drywall, painting, cleaning, plumbing. Stuff they do for extra cash. But it seems a lot more common with photography.

As for photojournalism in particular. I think digital made the job easier but it also helped kill it. With everyone and their mother (and granddaughter) now owning a digital camera of some sort, there are images of everything everywhere. And with wannabe photographers they are giving away their images just to say they're published. The worst thing for me is that I work freelance for two different newspapers. One of them has a staff photographer and she hands out assignments when she can. But she has a roster of about 6 photographers she circulates through and there's only so much work to go around to the freelancers outside of the stuff she covers herself. And the other paper has no staffer, and won't be hiring anyone anytime soon. When I started freelancing they dangled the opportunity of being staff in my face. That was two years ago. What they do most of the time is give reporters P&S cameras and have them take photos for their own stories. This happens a lot at the smaller papers. The only time I get work from them is when they only need photos, or when a reporter puts in a photo request. Most of my income comes from selling spot news photos. Which still requires a photojournalist to be vigilant and be quick on the scene.

I think the worst part of the digital is when I see an ad for someone looking for a photographer and it specifies what camera you must own or how many megapixels or they want to know what camera you use. It's insulting.

Couldn't agree more particulaly your last paragraph except my grandaughter wants and is probably more than likely to be a vetinary surgeon.