leica m9: reliable? good performance?

[uhoh7]

The M9 is such great topic

Here is pretty experienced guy who loves the pre-digi Ms goin off on the design of the M9

Basically he says the M3/6 is a wonderful design where everything has its raison d'etre, while the M9 is instead simply designed to appear as much like a M6 as possible. He shows an example. 🙂

 

[Fraser]

The M9 is such great topic

Here is pretty experienced guy who loves the pre-digi Ms goin off on the design of the M9

Basically he says the M3/6 is a wonderful design where everything has its raison d'etre, while the M9 is instead simply designed to appear as much like a M6 as possible. He shows an example. 🙂

Except the one example he uses is rubbish as push button rewind M2 have the recess as well which is already protected😉
I think the design is to stop your hand slipping .

 

[Roger Hicks]

The M9 is such great topic

Here is pretty experienced guy who loves the pre-digi Ms goin off on the design of the M9

Basically he says the M3/6 is a wonderful design where everything has its raison d'etre, while the M9 is instead simply designed to appear as much like a M6 as possible. He shows an example. 🙂

Not, I think, a very good example. Breaking up a large slab of metal with a line or crease is a common trick with designers -- compare a Series II Land Rover door with a Series 1 -- and the reduced line of metal also saves weight. If 'protection' were the sole criterion in the original, a machined semicircle would have been more effective. For an ugly flat plate front, Google Casca. Those are purely aesthetic points: Fraser's argument about stopping your hand slipping is also a lot more compelling, to me, than protecting the rewind clutch lever.

Complaining about the absence of the wind-on lever as somewhere to rest your thumb strikes me as downright feeble. Yes, it feels odd at first, but it doesn't take that long to get used to it. As for 'accessibility' of the battery and memory card, this strikes me as yet another example of someone who thinks that he can design a Leica better than Leica can. What does he want instead? Two little plastic (or even metal) trapdoors? And does he want the 'half melted ashtray' look of a DSLR (also known as the 'part-formed turd' look)?

Yes, it's easy to mock 'design for-the-sake-of-design', including the infamous Nikon red stripe or Leica red dot. But there's often a lot more to design than just wrapping metal and vulcanite around the mechanical or electronic) bits.

Cheers,

R.

 

[PhotoMat]

Oftentimes, the purpose of a crease or a welt on a flat metal panel is more than aesthetics -- it also tends to stiffen and add rigidity to the structure. This is especially true for auto body parts.

That guy doing all the bellyaching has way too much spare time!😉

 

[Jim-st]

At the risk of party-pooping by return to the OP's question, I've been lugging around a GF1 as a backup to my M8, and would commend it over a pair of film cameras - ergonomically at least. It will take ltm or M lenses, uses same recording medium (SD), and takes nice pics (I like to think). Downside: shows just how good the M8's AA-filter-free sensor is, but nonetheless, makes a good backup (which must imply not just a stop-gap fall-back in event of M failure, but also a light-weight, pocketable substitute for the times when the M gets to feeling just a bit too bulky/heavy, IMO)

YMMV, d'accord...

Jim

 

[Keith]

As an add on to my earlier post about the pile of crap Landrover my friend owns that has cost him sixteen grand in repairs in two years:

He loves the thing .... go figure! 😛

 

[Roger Hicks]

Oftentimes, the purpose of a crease or a welt on a flat metal panel is more than aesthetics -- it also tends to stiffen and add rigidity to the structure. This is especially true for auto body parts.

That guy doing all the bellyaching has way too much spare time!😉

We completely agree about the second highlight, and of course what you say in the first highlight is absolutely true for a stamped metal panel but somewhat less compelling (though still true) when you're looking at a large lump of machined brass.

So far he's been attacked on aesthetics, simple engineering, weight saving, providing a better grip...

The question is, are we all rationalizing (from several different directions), or was he right? Somehow I can't being myself to believe it's the latter. It looks to me more as if he had his conclusion ready to hand, and then chose/bent the facts to fit it. One could accuse the rest of us of doing the same, but at the very least, we seem to have rather more argunents than he does.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The M9 is such great topic

Here is pretty experienced guy who loves the pre-digi Ms goin off on the design of the M9

Basically he says the M3/6 is a wonderful design where everything has its raison d'etre, while the M9 is instead simply designed to appear as much like a M6 as possible. He shows an example. 🙂

The guy is digging really deep to rag on an M9 if that's what he is compaining about. Silly. He might as well complain that the M2 and every camera since it removed the recess from the viewfinder and rangefinder windows. They are there "obviously" to reduce flare and reflections from hitting the finder.

The M9 and M8 are as close in handling to a film camera as you can currently find in the digital world. I'm happy that Leica offers a choice that allows me to use lenses made 80 years ago as they were intended: with a rangefinder camera. The M9 and M8 are high-quality cameras, and precision made. All cameras experience some "birthing pains". I was surprised to read a poll on an X100 forum that over 15% of the cameras had developed shutter problems and had to go in for service. The original Nikon F2's had problems with motor-backlash and shutter failure. The first-production Nikon F5 had problems with shutter failures. The original AIS series of lenses changed to a new lubricant that flowed onto the aperture blades.

As cameras go through their production life-cycle, improvements are made. The M9 is a mature prouct at this point, two years into production. Whether a film camera or digital- best not to buy when right out of the gate.

Edit, link to the X100 discussion regarding sticky aperture blades. More than 15% of the responders returned their cameras for warranty wor, and another 20% had the problem but had not yet returned the x100 to Fuji.

http://www.x100forum.com/index.php?...-with-sticky-aperture-blades/page__mode__show

 

[gavinlg]

If I had an M9 I'd thrash the crap out of it. Hopefully I will sometime (own one).
I don't have any reason to think they'd be unreliable. They're beautifully built.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If I had an M9 I'd thrash the crap out of it. Hopefully I will sometime (own one).
I don't have any reason to think they'd be unreliable. They're beautifully built.

Dear Gavin,

Why? Why deliberately abuse it?

I treat mine as gently as I can. As gently as I can, that is, on long motorcycle and Land Rover trips; in rain, or dust; whatever. That's not always very gently. But I certainly don't want to expose it to any more risk than I have to. Any more than I do my Omega Seamaster (45 years old), my Land Rover (39 years old, 150,000 miles in my possession), my BMW R100RS (33 years old, 140,000 miles in 30 years), etc.

Good equipment is designed to be used hard, and to resist occasional abuse. It's not supposed to be thrashed just for the hell of it, and if you do that, it will repay you by breaking down. And serve you right.

Cheers,

R.

 

[uhoh7]

We completely agree about the second highlight, and of course what you say in the first highlight is absolutely true for a stamped metal panel but somewhat less compelling (though still true) when you're looking at a large lump of machined brass.

So far he's been attacked on aesthetics, simple engineering, weight saving, providing a better grip...

The question is, are we all rationalizing (from several different directions), or was he right? Somehow I can't being myself to believe it's the latter. It looks to me more as if he had his conclusion ready to hand, and then chose/bent the facts to fit it. One could accuse the rest of us of doing the same, but at the very least, we seem to have rather more argunents than he does.

Cheers,

R.

Well, one thing for sure, you guys LOVE the thing 🙂 That's what matters.

I certainly agree that use of all the old glass is a must---makes things so much more interesting. And a good and true rangerfinder makes sense--though in a perfect world it would be nice to have an EVF right next to it a la the SP dual eye viewfinders. An articulated state of the art LCD with live view--why not?

It ceratinly seems to be bigger than it needs to be--I'm sure some will consider that a plus--prefering "heft". Not me, I'd prefer something as small and tough as possible for the feature set. Then make it "feel" right.

Some might consider such as mere whining--after all the M9 exists. They built it. There is no real alternative.

It's the same with single track motorcyles. I have two. One is a state of the art KTM paired down to it's minimun with thousands spent to get it "right".

I still don't LOVE it. I've never riden a better one in that form factor---that's the problem.

So I have another one, and it's a hellva lot closer to being right for mountain single track, but also has it's issues. More thousands to mitigate them as much as possible:

Minor drawback is that you basically never sit. However the handling is so far superior to the alternatives we put up with it.

When your passion involves sophistcated tools there is always the desire to see them as close to your personal ideal as can be. As to what that ideal may be--well that comes down to each of us I guess.

 

[jaapv]

Bigger than it needs to be😕 There is not even room for a postage stamp left inside!🙄

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/21331-anatomy-leica-m8.html

 

[uhoh7]

Bigger than it needs to be😕 There is not even room for a postage stamp left inside!🙄

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/21331-anatomy-leica-m8.html

"Is this just my impression or does this thing lack electronics integration ?

Separate circuit boards for separate functions is a nice mantra in practice, yielding an easier development and update process, but even nicer is simplification and a reduction of component count."

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/21331-anatomy-leica-m8.html#post224659

 

[gavinlg]

Dear Gavin,

Why? Why deliberately abuse it?

I treat mine as gently as I can. As gently as I can, that is, on long motorcycle and Land Rover trips; in rain, or dust; whatever. That's not always very gently. But I certainly don't want to expose it to any more risk than I have to. Any more than I do my Omega Seamaster (45 years old), my Land Rover (39 years old, 150,000 miles in my possession), my BMW R100RS (33 years old, 140,000 miles in 30 years), etc.

Good equipment is designed to be used hard, and to resist occasional abuse. It's not supposed to be thrashed just for the hell of it, and if you do that, it will repay you by breaking down. And serve you right.

Cheers,

R.

You misunderstand me Roger, I don't mean I would intentionally be rough with it, I just always have my camera on me, every day, and I use them in adverse weather, travel a lot etc, so they end up getting well used, and well worn in.

To clarify, I would have no hesitation of using an M9 in harsh environments, and doing what I need to do to get the shot I want. In other words, I wouldn't worry about babying it - I think it's tough enough to last heavy/constant use.

 

[jaapv]

"Is this just my impression or does this thing lack electronics integration ?

Separate circuit boards for separate functions is a nice mantra in practice, yielding an easier development and update process, but even nicer is simplification and a reduction of component count."

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/21331-anatomy-leica-m8.html#post224659

Yes it does- the production number is too small to make dedicated electronic integration economically feasable, And it is the difference between hand built and assembled by robots.

 

[uhoh7]

Yes it does- the production number is too small to make dedicated electronic integration economically feasable, And it is the difference between hand built and assembled by robots.

They are building the boards by hand?

I suppose this is their quandry: the digital M9 has a far higher percentage of outsourced components than the M7---at least I assume so. They are not going to build the LCD.

In addition the advances in electronics occur fast--what was expensive when the M8 was designed may now be much cheaper.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/m9-video.shtml

That gives an idea of what is acutally happening at the factory--I'm sure you guys have all seen it.

Again, I can't say the M9 SHOULD be smaller---certainly I would prefer it to be, but you guys are the ones who have laid out the cash--the ones who leica needs to make happy. However it does not seem a stretch to imagine it certainly COULD be smaller.

And size is a value which Leica itself constantly refers to in its press---so I can't see how it's outrageous to lust after a smaller camera with a similar feature set.

 

[jaapv]

The horizontal and vertical dimensions are fine; but the camera should be a bit thinner-very difficult to realize technically.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

After many years of having custom systems built, I'm amazed how small the M9 is and how much is packed into it. It is much cheaper to make an EVF than it is to make an optical rangefinder. Much more precision machining is required. Having metal cut costs a lot, especially when requiring the precision of an RF mechanism.

 

[studio58]

I have shot children and animals with mine. Every one knows there is no tougher gig than that 😛