Looking to get an M9, think it would suit me?

I have a feeling that some perceived differences come from the more accurate colors and white balance of modern CMOS cameras. The "special" rendering of the M9 often vanishes when a grey/white card is used. To be fair, films rarely were particularly accurate neither, in therein may have been lain part of their charm.

The CCD vs CMOS debate is a bit like the fat-pixel theory, and often a case of biases and seeing what we want to see. Speaking off "fat pixels":

If I were out to replicate a look as I have seen in the images by said photographer, I would probably pick an older CCD digital MF back. Not that ticks the other boxes (easily portable, though I have carried a Mamiya with a Pro Back around...the M9 is certainly friendlier in that respect), but the rendering of the lenses and larger sensor go quite a way. Have a look at P30 images. Now the thing to remember - these backs were usually in the hands of skilled people.

More than a certain camera, good photographic skills, the "eye" for composition/motives, use of light, and post-processing skills are required (duh, of course). The line between a "look" and "over-processed" is very fine.

Film was and is cool because weird colors, blown highlights (slides), etc were all OK and even looked good.
 
andrew00 said:
I currently have a Ricoh Gr that I use for my 'DM' pics, and I'm happy with that.

I'm looking for a camera that I can use for the day, my Eggleston camera if you will. (Obviously I know I'm not him lol)
Click to expand...

I would wait a few weeks if Ricoh comes with a New GRIII, most probably with a 24MP sensor which would give you around 15MP resolution in the 35mm (WE) crop mode.

Btw, for Eggelston style colours I shoot Kodak Ektar 100 pushed by 2 stops with my Contax T3. In the past I used my GRII with RawPhotoProcessor(RPP) for this look. But I must admit, I'm also a believer of CCD, it looks different and I don't mind the technical reasons behind. especially the M8, for me the digital cameras which comes closest to the look of film ever. Have to add, and I can't believe what I say
redface.gif
, the Sony A7S first version is also worth a look.

However, imho both WE and MD's look are more based on their post processing/printing, be it the wonderful dyetransfer prints of WE or the marvelous analoge prints from MD, he, or whoever does the post for him, is obviously quit good with SFX too, even I have to admit I'm more a fan of his "older" work on film, although this relies more on the content than the used medium or camera I guess.

Jürgen
 
Sorry it's not the camera that gives Eggelston his "look"!
WE worked mainly with Kodachrome film.
There is no equal or close "app" that can duplicate those colors.
David Alan Harvey, Alex Webb, McCurry, etc.
all built their reputations and portfolios with Kodachrome..
WE has a great sense of color, that being one of his foundations..
If one studies his images, it's not simply color but his actual statements.
I've seen videos of WE using other cameras besides Leica, a Pentax M series..
DAH uses many cameras and when we met using a Nikon DSLR.
If you really want a Leica digital, go for newer than M9.
They are expensive to the point I would never consider.
I've used M8, M9 and Mono (TY all my buddies) and saw nothing special..
Film has a certain look, Velvia (really improved Kodachrome) is available..
Processing expensive and not available on nearest corner.
Even so a LOT OF FILM till one comes up with Leica cost.
Leica seem to require adjustments on regular basis (I own 3).
I firmly believe that a RFDR is not accurate enough for a sensor..
Use of digital sure made me see that!
My Leica M3 is 51 yrs in pro service..
Film a whole other story with a Leica and older lenses !
Daido uses whatever! He sure prints a lot!
I use mostly "toy" digital for nearly all my color!
 
The only disadvantage of M-E is painted letters on the back.
If camera is in use regularly and on the neck strap they worn out quick.
Thick half-case should solve this problem.
 
The M-9 by Leica standards and the industry is old!
Go compare images on a few sites and compare if worth the cost,
of any Leica digital..
Pal's Mono went for sensor renewal/repair and it was away more than 9 months!
 
The Eggleston strength you feel comes from his printing which is an old and very expensive method that gives colors neither digital or C41 will.
 
I fail to see the point the role a M9 plays in the OP pursuit of photography. I also fail to see why someone admiring Eggleston should use the same equipments as he did...

If you want a Leica then grab a Leica. Enjoyment doesn't need much excuse.
 
Like many others I have the M9 with ancient (1930's) and modern (2017) glass in front of it and I don't think the word I would use about it is "need" but "like" and "enjoy" come into it. And the output from most cameras depends on how you set them up and how you tweak the file afterwards.

So I reckon that if you buy an outfit based on the M9 then you should have modern glass (meaning expensive) and really it should be Leica glass. If you want the other popular makes of glass then a lot cheaper cameras will take them; thinking CZ and CV as I type that...

Regards, David
 
I thought about an M9 at the end of last year but ended up spending a bit more on a good used M262. The big concern I'd have with putting my money in an M9 at this point in time is potential sensor issues, particularly now that Leica have closed their free repair programme.
 
The key consideration for M9 today is either already having the updated sensor or buying at price that reflects need for sensor replacement (which can also take weeks/months).
 
I have the M9-P in silver. Fell in love with it. Currently in for free sensor replacement - or maybe just remapping the sensor for a dead pixel. But I think it has the rot. Got the MM back from free sensor replacent in two weeks. Both cameras are wonderful and connect me continuously with my whole experience since getting an M2 at 17. My M2 is also old technology, 60 years old this year, but effectively the recently released MA. I can live with the M9 a while yet. There’s more to these things than the specs. As said above, you want it. Might as well get it.
 
If you don't like digital cameras, get a film camera, a good lens, and a lot of film, for the same cost as a working Leica digital.
In the end it is an itch you will scratch.

Phil Forrest
 
I have the M9, and also a Fuji X100, and a Fuji X20. For digital street photography, I most often use one of the Fuji cameras, because they are smaller than the M9 and are dead quiet, so therefore less intrusive. Their zoom lenses make instant focal length adjustment possible without changing lenses. And they have optical viewfinders. The Fuji X100 is the most Leica-Like to shoot with. It's just like shooting with my M2 and 35mm Summicron!

As others have said, if you want an M9, buy one; but I can think of better cameras for the job, at a much lower price.
 
My M9 sensor was replaced in 2014 with the older sensor, two years after purchase. Because of that, I am still covered for a new sensor with my 6 year old camera, if it had developed the sensor rot.
 
Interesting that you use the GR as your Daido camera and are looking for an Egglestone camera, as the GR can take superlative colour images as long as you shoot raw and process accordingly. I'm quite the fan of these photographers as well, and agree with your perspective of them looking like types of memories.

Daido has used a slew of cameras over the years, including SLR's, the GR series, the digital GR series, a Nikon Coolpix zoom, and very recently the Sony RX0, according to a post in Tokyo Camera Style's Instagram page.

The M9 is still my favourite camera after almost nine years, and I do love the colours it produces. The sensor was designed by Kodak, and the word is that they attempted to replicate the look of Kodachrome. How close they came, I don't know, but I love the colours.

I think you'd be able to take Egglestone type images with the M9 and a fast 35. If you can't afford/find an older 35mm Summilux or Summicron, look for a Voigtlander Nokton 35/1.4. The Zeiss 35's have a very contrasty and modern look that the Egglestone photos don't really have.

As someone mentioned above, the Fuji X100 is a very decent camera and suits the Egglestone style, although you'd have to play with the colours in Lightroom a bit to make it the way you want. It's been years since I bought mine, and I'm still trying to get a 'look' that I'm completely happy with. You can get an original X100 very cheaply these days.
 
I enjoyed reading this thread. I am considering purchasing a M9 and wanted to see what you all had to say. I mostly shoot film with M3's and have a darkroom at home.
I feel like I should update my digital camera, (Fuji X100) to the Leica family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom