RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I agree. "Professionals" is broad and vague. I'd believe the claim if it was stated as "Pros who exclusively use prime lenses in the 28 mm - 90 mm range are dumping their dSLRs for the M9."
/
anorphirith
Established
strongly agree
parsec1
parsec1
Just ordered 3 bodies and 4 new lenses. Hope to get them before Christmas ( well at least one)
Other collegues have ordered another 9 that I know of.
Be damn glad to leave my Nikon D slr 'Lumps' and huge lenses for someone else to lug about.
What a relief and if it goes as well as it looks what a wonderful drive is to come.
parsec1
parsec1
Ludicrous ? !!!!
Ten photojornalist I know personaly including myself (ordered 3 today)
No good for Sports photographer ..fair enough and I know of no 'sports photographers ' who would want or need one.
If you have ever known a 'photojournalist' then ask them if they would leave carrying 3 D3s lenses flashes et all and all the weight that goes with them as I have in Kashmir and the swat valley for weeks on end and dump the lot for 3 M9s as I will .
Last edited:
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Only a very small part of photographers that like the old way of working; all the others - pros as well as amateurs - consider a camera with non automated diaphragm and focussing far out dated. Further it is still no good for macro and real tele. Pity we belong to that small part and therefore prices will never decline because of the small production figures
jke
Well-known
Perhaps you would agree that the number of photojournalists who are doing things like this has shrunk dramatically in the last several years as the budgets for and numbers of news outlets has similarly shrunk. Part of the problem with news these days. So I obviously don't doubt your switch, just that it may not represent a critical mass of change.
But I do know photojournalists who shoot in places like Kashmir and will ask them. I know they dislike the amount of gear they carry, but some of them also remember lugging film development equipment, scanners, suitcase enlargers, transmitting gear and such.
parsec1
parsec1
Its not the 'old way' instead of lumbering around with an auto everything DSLR and 5- 500 mm lens . Its a different way and a way that has to be learned to be appreciated.
A friend of mine who's first job worked in London for an agency was given when he started because he new nothing about cameras 2 Eos Ds and a wide angle zoom on one and a 35 350 on the other with the controls on both (except zoom) superglued . He managed to get a few pics pap style before joining a local newspaper. Where he learned how to shoot real pictures and brought himself an M8.2 and shoots mostly with this .
He took the time to learn photography instead of wanting the latest camera and there is a great difference and it shows.
JonasYip
Well-known
Well, I'll probably be getting an M9 sooner or later, but I certainly wouldn't give up my DSLR. What I *can* give up is my already neglected M6TTL, and probably one of my R-D1 bodies. But give up the DSLRs... never. The SLRs and RFs serve different purposes...
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
parsec1, I don't doubt what you are saying. But it obviously clearly doesn't apply to most PJ's. PJ's shot with crop sensor cameras for many years (especially if they shot Nikons). The fact is that, over a period of several years, Leica managed to sell fewer than 20,000 M8's. Most of those were sold into the Japanese market, according to Leica. Many were obviously sold in the US to folks who were not professionals.
The question is, why didn't PJ's flock to the M8? I can't see where it was the crop sensor issue. PJ's had shot with crop sensor cameras for years. What is it about the M9 that will make them flock to it, when they pretty much ignored the M8?
When people start talking about all the digital Leica rangefinders Pros are going to buy, the low total number of M8's sold argues against that happening.
I'm glad you can afford to dump an expensive system and drop $20,000 on three new cameras. But I know a lot of PJ's, and those that actually own their own equipment sure can't afford to do that these days.
The question is, why didn't PJ's flock to the M8? I can't see where it was the crop sensor issue. PJ's had shot with crop sensor cameras for years. What is it about the M9 that will make them flock to it, when they pretty much ignored the M8?
When people start talking about all the digital Leica rangefinders Pros are going to buy, the low total number of M8's sold argues against that happening.
I'm glad you can afford to dump an expensive system and drop $20,000 on three new cameras. But I know a lot of PJ's, and those that actually own their own equipment sure can't afford to do that these days.
Olsen
Well-known
Report from one large photo store here in Oslo. The M9 is going to be a huge success with the pro's. They can deduct the VAT and get away with a Net price of NOK 42.400 ($ 7,138,00), not the 53.000 NOK that amateurs have to pay. The manager is of the opinion that far more pro's have come down from the fence this time then when M8 was launched. In Norway, he reckoned, sales could be 30% higher than with M8.
And amateurs, then?
Norwegian photo shops have given up on amateurs when it comes to the really expensive items. Here the VAT plays such a role that they expect that most amateurs will buy their M9 when going on vacations or business trips abroad. Popular tax free outlets are New York, Abu Dabi, Hong Kong, The Canary Islands etc. A few amateurs will still buy their M9 in Norway, but he was far more uncertain about this group.
B & H; whatch out!
And amateurs, then?
Norwegian photo shops have given up on amateurs when it comes to the really expensive items. Here the VAT plays such a role that they expect that most amateurs will buy their M9 when going on vacations or business trips abroad. Popular tax free outlets are New York, Abu Dabi, Hong Kong, The Canary Islands etc. A few amateurs will still buy their M9 in Norway, but he was far more uncertain about this group.
B & H; whatch out!
jke
Well-known
And that's really all I am saying - that you may not be representative of most photojournalists with your purchase. I am certainly not trying to insult you personally, though it seems perhaps from your tone here that I may have in some way. If so, I apologize and respectfully retract the words "old" and "ludicrous" and replace them with "less common" and "slightly silly".
Last edited:
leicashot
Well-known
As a pro photographer myself i think it's risky dumping reliable DSLR's for the new M9's without proper testing.
I will always need DSLR's in my kit, but if I was a full time PJ, I still think it's risky, especially seeing the M9's don't have weather proofing. It's not like an MP that will just keep ticking. Those electronics in the M9 need to be kept well away from extreme weather and that's risky....also batteries are an issue for PJ's going to work in areas with no electricity. Thos batteries run $100+ so a batch of 10, which equals say 2 on a Canon 1D mark III is another $1000.
The M9 is a camera that I would slowly but surely implement into my kit, and where I'd have 3 bodies, I'd have to take 4 M9's just to be sure and that's a costly exercise, even for those like myself that make a sole living from photography.
leicashot
Well-known
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
And I'm not trying to insult anyone, either. But there are Pulitzer prize winning PJ's that can't get enough work to pay their bills right now. I just can't figure out where these crowds of well heeled PJ's are.
wgerrard
Veteran
Parsing that headline:
If 15 M9's ere allotted for the UK, then demand would outstrip supply when customer number 16 arrived.
"Professionals trading in" DSLR's almost certainly means one or customers traded in a DSLR. Many people mistakenly assume anyone with a big DSLR is a pro. Pros might buy M9's, especially with someone else's money, but they aren't about to trade in the tool that provides their livelihood for an untried and unfamiliar camera, especially one that requires the additional purchase of thousands of dollars of lenses.
If Leica in London sold 15 M9's the first day, good. I'm all for that. Now, if they sell 15 a day for the rest of the month, that's something Canon and Nikon and Cosina might notice.
Olsen
Well-known
If they write about 'the economy' they should be busy enough....
parsec1
parsec1
Wasn't the M8 and M8-2 the consumer test cameras and when Leica realised that there was most definatley a market for an M9 from the massivley poor feedback and slow sales of the M8s and its miserable technical performance they reacted.
BTW I personaly have lost 3 Nikon Ds to poor weather sealing over the last 2 years and we all know cameras of all kinds don't swim. I always carried an M6 just incase something happened to my electronic Nikons and it has paid off a few times. Now I will not have to carry two different sets of lenses as well.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Ummm, I don't think Leica portrayed the M8 as "consumer test cameras." Sounds a little revisionist to me. So now the M8 was garbage?
parsec1
parsec1
The M8 wasn't able to compete with my Nikon Ds .
Seriously having to buy IR/UV filters for your lenses aftermarket and $2000 upgrades to make it properly useable...come on now.
ZeissFan
Veteran
While the number is low, I'm impressed that some stores have sold out to pros who traded in their dSLRs. This went against my previous thoughts in which I had said (possibly out loud) that I didn't expect this to happen.
Still, certain photographers won't be able to use a Leica M9, and specifically I'm thinking of sports photographers. I think that most news situations would be able to do well with a Leica, however, the loss of autofocus would be problematic for those who are shooting in some very demanding situations in which there is little or no time to focus.
Still, it's good news for Leica, which is good for the camera industry. And it also might convince Carl Zeiss that there is demand among pros for a digital version of the Zeiss Ikon ... wishful thinking, perhaps.
Still, certain photographers won't be able to use a Leica M9, and specifically I'm thinking of sports photographers. I think that most news situations would be able to do well with a Leica, however, the loss of autofocus would be problematic for those who are shooting in some very demanding situations in which there is little or no time to focus.
Still, it's good news for Leica, which is good for the camera industry. And it also might convince Carl Zeiss that there is demand among pros for a digital version of the Zeiss Ikon ... wishful thinking, perhaps.