Bobfrance
Over Exposed
With respect Roger I think it's more about value, which in this case is cost in relation to the benefit the camera (and lenses) brings to you as a photographer. I wouldn't be willing pay over a grand for a marginally better viewfinder.
The OP clearly has a finite amount of money (as most of us do!) or he wouldn't be faced with the quandary of having to sell gear to make his purchase. It's a sizeable sum and many would be troubled by the prospect of losing a chunk of their cash in a short time if they decide to change again.
Bob.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Your decision, but:
I've got an M9, MP and Zeiss Ikon. I wouldn't swap the MP for an M2 and M9, though I might very well swap for an Ikon and the M9. Age and the difficulty of being sure you get a good M2 in a reasonable time are factors here.
I, and your mileage may vary, like the field of view of any particular lens being the same on all the bodies - it makes my life easier, which is a good thing.
If I didn't feel able to use a lens or body because it was worth so much I would conclude it was better sold to fund something I would use.
Of the bodies, I'm least attached to the M9 even though it's really useful and makes lovely pictures. It lacks the mechanical feel of the others. It also seems the most easily replaceable down the line.
Mike
I've got an M9, MP and Zeiss Ikon. I wouldn't swap the MP for an M2 and M9, though I might very well swap for an Ikon and the M9. Age and the difficulty of being sure you get a good M2 in a reasonable time are factors here.
I, and your mileage may vary, like the field of view of any particular lens being the same on all the bodies - it makes my life easier, which is a good thing.
If I didn't feel able to use a lens or body because it was worth so much I would conclude it was better sold to fund something I would use.
Of the bodies, I'm least attached to the M9 even though it's really useful and makes lovely pictures. It lacks the mechanical feel of the others. It also seems the most easily replaceable down the line.
Mike
If you prefer digital, go M9. If you prefer film, keep the MP.
doolittle
Well-known
I see the word 'investment' has come up in this thread, as it sometimes does. Cameras and lenses aren't normally* investments, they are really collectibles. Collectibles, unlike investments, do not generate cash flow. The only time they develop cash is on their eventual sale. Predicting future values is pure speculation and things can change rapidly.
I guess don't let perceived values overly influence your decision.
*there is a case to be made for those who make money from selling their images etc.
**Above not my own insights, paraphrasing Margin of Safety- Risk-Adverse Value Investing Strategies for the Thoughtful Investor by Seth A Klarman
I guess don't let perceived values overly influence your decision.
*there is a case to be made for those who make money from selling their images etc.
**Above not my own insights, paraphrasing Margin of Safety- Risk-Adverse Value Investing Strategies for the Thoughtful Investor by Seth A Klarman
maddoc
... likes film again.
I have yet to see an M2 in a mechanical condition close to an actual MP and a price tag below US$2000. Most M2 cameras are worn out user cameras and you always have the risk of the prism separating after a slight impact. Additionally, many of the take-up spools of the older Leica cameras have a tendency to slip resulting in either uneven or shifted frame-spacing. If you scan film, it will drive you crazy.
The 35mm Summilux-M has it flaws and prices have gone crazy but it is now really difficult to get a nice copy so I would either use it or sell it for a profit and never ever look back ... It works nice with the M9, though.
The 35mm Summilux-M has it flaws and prices have gone crazy but it is now really difficult to get a nice copy so I would either use it or sell it for a profit and never ever look back ... It works nice with the M9, though.
Robin Harrison
aka Harrison Cronbi
Good point. Probably not too comfortable. The M9 would be worth twice what I paid for my M8.2. And I'm earning half as much money as I was when I bought that (more twisted logic.)
All the 35s I have are superior in at least one aspect over the others.
I print up to 17" wide, which is certainly pushing it for 10MP, although the M8 holds up much better than most at this resolution.
Ha, nice try, but I'm a full-on digi-film schizophrenic, torn between the two. If I had infinite time and money, I'd be a film man through and through. But for me digital allows for a rapid editing and sharing of images that film can't. Digital provides a lower barrier to entry, in terms of my time, which is a very finite and limited resource, which I'm sure many amateurs can sympathise with.
thegman
Veteran
If you're printing 17" wide, M9 has to be on the cards, just for the MP count.
I only shoot film, and time can be an issue, except that I get my lab to scan, so they're all ready for uploading right away. If I want a big scan, I'll scan myself to get the most out of the negative I can.
For me, the M9 is too much money to dangle round my neck, I'd be wary of it, and not take it places I should, but for you, it may just be the ticket.
I only shoot film, and time can be an issue, except that I get my lab to scan, so they're all ready for uploading right away. If I want a big scan, I'll scan myself to get the most out of the negative I can.
For me, the M9 is too much money to dangle round my neck, I'd be wary of it, and not take it places I should, but for you, it may just be the ticket.
Glass Addict
Established
The answer is clear based on your responses. I think you already know what you want, it's just a matter of getting some comfort feeling from community that you made the right decision.
M9 + M2.
M9 + M2.
Robin Harrison
aka Harrison Cronbi
Thanks for the input, all.
Looking at the responses and votes, the majority believe:
- M9 and M2 over M8 and MP
...but...
- keep the glass, stupid
So if I were to go down the M9 route, I would be better advised taking a more measured view of my lens arsenal, or try to find the funds from elsewhere (selling MF or digital gear the most likely route).
Two things for me to do before taking this any further:
- consolidate my 35s
- decide if I can free up more capital elsewhere
Looking at the responses and votes, the majority believe:
- M9 and M2 over M8 and MP
...but...
- keep the glass, stupid
So if I were to go down the M9 route, I would be better advised taking a more measured view of my lens arsenal, or try to find the funds from elsewhere (selling MF or digital gear the most likely route).
Two things for me to do before taking this any further:
- consolidate my 35s
- decide if I can free up more capital elsewhere
ramosa
B&W
Personally, I'd make the trade and then sell the other three 35s and pick up a Cron 35 asph.
Matus
Well-known
Would it make sense to borrow the M9 for a few days, make a few nice shots (in RAW, but you know that) and have them printed LARGE. Do those same shots with M8. Try those 35mm lenses you have and maybe you find a sweet spot.
If you will swap MP for M2 make sure you include CLA in your calculations (or priced of already CLAd M2)
If you will swap MP for M2 make sure you include CLA in your calculations (or priced of already CLAd M2)
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
How about just shooting some pictures?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Completely puzzled. The color signature is not made by the camera but by you yourself in postprocessinqg. The only salmon pink I have seen on the M8 was on photographs of salmons. Sounds like pilot error to me.
Last edited:
Teuthida
Well-known
Keep the MP and sell the M8 and the SUmmilux. Buy a NEX7 and a few VC lenses. Youll then have both the cache of a Leica and kit you'll actually use.
The m9 is only a marginal improvement on the m8. Either camera is going to be a doorstop in 10 years. Maybe you'll use the NEX instead of being afraid of using your camera for fear of depreciation.
The Summilux is a lens, not an investment. If youre afraid to use it, whats the pount?
The m9 is only a marginal improvement on the m8. Either camera is going to be a doorstop in 10 years. Maybe you'll use the NEX instead of being afraid of using your camera for fear of depreciation.
The Summilux is a lens, not an investment. If youre afraid to use it, whats the pount?
Robin Harrison
aka Harrison Cronbi
Have you seen LL's test of the Leica 24 summilux on the Nex-7? It makes that lens look like a dog. Unlike the M9 or Ricoh A12, the Nex sensor doesn't look capable of dealing with the acute angles of incidence produced by RF lenses.
Anyway...an update:
- A spend a long weekend in Berlin shooting with the MP and Summilux and enjoyed every second
- I've hit a bit of a digital 'downer', camera wise and photo wise
- I've just put the M8, and my R-D1, and my A900, and more, up for sale in the classifieds
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Buy a good film M - a nicer M2, a user MP, a decent M6 - and keep only the 35 Lux.
If you need a digital then use your cell phone or pick up a m4/3s Panasonic or something cheap and small.
If you want better image quality then get a better Canikon DSLR and good lenses.
Enjoy the M-film experience, don't blow all that money trying to recreate it with digital. Make digital something all together different and have a direction to your photography, one thing at a time, don't overlap.
Save the rest of your money for a rainy day, travel, experiences, film, scans, prints....
From a financial point of view, the lenses keep appreciating and the digital bodies depreciate very quickly, so why buy digital bodies? Heck the best digital M might be the Ricoh M-adapter.
If you need a digital then use your cell phone or pick up a m4/3s Panasonic or something cheap and small.
If you want better image quality then get a better Canikon DSLR and good lenses.
Enjoy the M-film experience, don't blow all that money trying to recreate it with digital. Make digital something all together different and have a direction to your photography, one thing at a time, don't overlap.
Save the rest of your money for a rainy day, travel, experiences, film, scans, prints....
From a financial point of view, the lenses keep appreciating and the digital bodies depreciate very quickly, so why buy digital bodies? Heck the best digital M might be the Ricoh M-adapter.
Last edited:
Ljós
Well-known
Gabor, of course I cannot argue with your practical personal experience. But I and many others on this forum have found M2s for prices well below 2000 USD that are in very fine condition. True, the risk of prism separation is higher with a vintage M2 than with a MP, but according to TomA, who has handled many a M2 in his days
, there are quite few "goners" because of separation.And the slipping spools: well, sounds like these cameras need a tuneup (which you can factor in and still pay way less than 2000 USD.) Personally, I have never had as nicely spaced negatives as with the M2.
I am by no means dissing the MP - I am very glad that Leica keeps building mechanical Ms. Just saying that a M2 is mighty nice, too.
All the best, Ljós
seakayaker1
Well-known
Anyway...an update:
- A spend a long weekend in Berlin shooting with the MP and Summilux and enjoyed every second
- I've hit a bit of a digital 'downer', camera wise and photo wise
- I've just put the M8, and my R-D1, and my A900, and more, up for sale in the classifieds
I like your decision, keeping the MP & LUX and selling the M8 and other gear to pick up the M9.
Good luck, I do not believe you will have any regrets!