squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
raid
Dad Photographer
The M9 is an excellent camera for my photography needs. The colors come out beautiful and natural looking, and as long as the sensor works, the M9 is for me the camera to go to. The second version Summilux 35mm works very well with the M9. I don't own any Leica glass that is wider than 35mm. I would invest into 35-50-90 classic focal length lenses.
lawrence
Veteran
I have a couple of M6TTLs and now want to buy my first digital Leica, which will become a new home for my 'Cron 35mm ASPH. The M9-P looks very nice and the price is in the right ballpark, however I wonder how safe it is to buy a low milage copy of this camera? I know nothing about digital Leicas, however a recent trip has convinced me of the benefits of a digicam for travel and although my little FujiFilm X30 is a neat little machine I'd like to buy something with better IQ. I'd also rather buy something in the £2,500 range than a new camera at £4,000 Any thoughts would be appreciated.
uhoh7
Veteran
A M240 is running around 2600 pounds. It's not going to have any sensor issues needing Leica support and is a very tough and great camera.
nobbylon
Veteran
Lawrence,
I dont see any problem buying low mileage as Leica will sort the sensor out anyway. Many will advocate the 240 but to me it's too bloated with stuff I dont need in a Leica rangefinder. I also wanted the CCD sensor in the older camera. For info my BP M9P was £2k with a new sensor. No regrets selling my M2 and M6 and haven't shot a frame on my M4 since purchasing the digital,
regards john
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Stuff you don't like you can switch off on the M240. Once you get to know the camera, though, you find that it all hangs together rather well.
nobbylon
Veteran
I'm sure it does but there's no point in spending the extra if you don't need the extra features. In my case I also wanted to try a CCD sensor and see if I could get on with the camera as I hadn't given it a fair attempt last time around. I've gone for a simplicity approach, shoot in A mode with a 35 or 50, hover between 200 and 400 iso and use it as I used film M's. it's turning out to be quite refreshing having the basics and concentrating more on the pictures instead of the feature set in a digital camera.
lawrence
Veteran
Thanks for the advice everyone. Please explain why you would want a CCD sensor, is it better in some way than the newer sensor?
maggieo
More Deadly
Thank you, guys!
The Sonnar M9-P is a great combination, because the focus is quick, the lens is sturdy and light and the photos are just luminous. Oh, and my favorite lens on the M9-P is the C Biogon 35/2.8, which is just an amazing little lens.
Zeiss C Biogon 35/2.8 on Leica M9-P, January 26, 2013 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
Oh, and the guy in this photo, taken with the C Biogon, complimented me on my camera, saying, "that's a really nice Fuji you've got there!"
Tall Bike Test Ride, Oakland, CA, July 26, 2014 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
uhoh7
Veteran
Such an innocent question....
The bottomline is the M9 and M240 files look quite different out of the camera. Often with editing they look more alike, to the point you can't tell the difference.
Somebody went to alot of trouble to make the M9 files look something like Kodachrome color slides, and if you like that look you often don't need to do much to the files.
Here is one straight out of the M9:
Golden Trailer by unoh7, on Flickr
We all have different tastes and plenty of people see this shot and want to fix something. Honestly, I don't.
Now here's the same lens, 28 cron, on the A7 with Kolari thin filter mod, which is a CMOS sensor:
DSC05423 by unoh7, on Flickr
They are very different shots of course. And the M240 will shot the cron a bit better than this camera. It did take a little extra time with the Sony to get to that point.
Here's the M9 again in a spot close to the A7 shot but a different time:
caddylac by unoh7, on Flickr
and another:
L1029975 by unoh7, on Flickr
Now A7 again:
Doors by unoh7, on Flickr
Train Station by unoh7, on Flickr
As you can see the A7.mod is no slouch. All these are with the 28 cron. Sometimes after editing I can't tell which camera shot it. And the 240 is better.
The lens corrections in the 240 are a little different from the M9 which you notice with certain lenses, while others you can't really tell. So you have lots of people who just love the 240. And you have others who went back to the M9 because they liked the files better:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/229885-did-anyone-go-back-to-m9-after-m240/
The cheapest good FF M camera is a used A7 $700 + Kolari thin filter mod $400 = 1100. It shoots all film lenses well. Any mount can be adapted. But no OVF rangefinder, instead a electronic viewfinder.
raid
Dad Photographer
Composition is more important than choice of digital camera.
uhoh7
Veteran
Sure, but when choosing a camera, it's one composer. So the question is how to do best justice to those compositions, no? In that quest, I need a camera that's going to let my lenses talk. The real choice in the end is the lens. Obviously the shooter must set it and point it, but he will be doing that with any camera, or just the eye
nobbylon
Veteran
I've used Nikon digital for quite a few years and always felt that I spent too much time getting colours how I wanted. I'm not into spending too much time post processing and others raved about the ccd vs cmos so I thought I'd try it myself. I'm happy with my choice so far. More natural skin colour and more zap to the pictures with very little after effort on my part. Others I'm sure will be able to explain it in more technical terms.
The bottom line is that you can pick one up at reasonable money, try it and in the unlikely event you don't like it, sell it on with little if any loss.
nobbylon
Veteran
Maggieo said,
C Biogon 35/2.8, which is just an amazing little lens.
Couldn't agree more. It's either this lens or a 50 Planar/Summicron that I'm using.
The 35 Biogon-C is such an amazing little lens for very reasonable money. Many complain about it being only 2.8 but i'm pretty sure it's only because they've got stuck in that 'must have fast glass trap'
One thing I have found is that it needs to be coded or set up as a v4 35 in camera to avoid vignette. I can't find anything to fault this lens.
regards john
C Biogon 35/2.8, which is just an amazing little lens.
Couldn't agree more. It's either this lens or a 50 Planar/Summicron that I'm using.
The 35 Biogon-C is such an amazing little lens for very reasonable money. Many complain about it being only 2.8 but i'm pretty sure it's only because they've got stuck in that 'must have fast glass trap'
One thing I have found is that it needs to be coded or set up as a v4 35 in camera to avoid vignette. I can't find anything to fault this lens.
regards john
lawrence
Veteran
Such an innocent question....
The bottomline is the M9 and M240 files look quite different out of the camera. Often with editing they look more alike, to the point you can't tell the difference.
Somebody went to alot of trouble to make the M9 files look something like Kodachrome color slides, and if you like that look you often don't need to do much to the files.
Thanks for your reply, there are some lovely colours from the M9 in your photos which would be hard to improve on. I will give this issue a bit more thought before deciding. For me the alternative to one of the Leicas is a Nikon D750
Richard G
Veteran
The colours in that Cadillac photo are very convincing. I agree with Maggie about the C Biogon Zeiss. I am almost always using an f2.8 lens lately, 28, 35 and 50. Compactness is so important for an every day camera to go everywhere. (Which is probably the only reason why I have the v4 Summicron on my M9-P at the moment...That is one tiny lens.) The C Biogon is great for architecture. I think in tonality it shines more with film (Tri-X) than on the digital Leicas. But the colours are beautiful.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
uhoh7
Veteran
Other misnomers about the M9/M9p...sort of: ISO and low light.
Here is M9 with 75 Lux at ISO 800:
Parker by unoh7, on Flickr
The M9 is very close to the Sony A7 in ISO performance, real world. There are various tactics, but I usually just set my ISO to 800 in an environment like this.
Another thing this shows is that yes, you can use a fast lens WO without an EVF. Many have claimed this is near impossible with the M9, but it's no harder than with the A7 EVF. In fact my keeper rate in low light is often higher than the Sony.
The trick is to know the lens well. Calibration does not have to be perfect, if you know how much "english" to give it. Luckily, this 75 Lux is perfect.
So, if you have a fast lens the M9 is fine after dark. The most useful is the CV 35/1.2 because you have a little DOF WO:
Contemplation by unoh7, on Flickr
But, if on a budget the Canon 50/1.4 LTM and CV 35/1.4 are great on the M9. In fact, no digital camera is more faithful to the huge gamut of LTM, M and Contax/Nikon (via amedeo) lenses. Even the mis-behavors can be dealt with, like the older CV 15s, in post, if you really want to. More fun is to just shoot the greats and edit little:
Yellow Flecks by unoh7, ZM 18/4
But the M9 RAWS handle changes with little increase in noise:
High Rock Garden by unoh7, ZM 18/4
Here is M9 with 75 Lux at ISO 800:
Parker by unoh7, on Flickr
The M9 is very close to the Sony A7 in ISO performance, real world. There are various tactics, but I usually just set my ISO to 800 in an environment like this.
Another thing this shows is that yes, you can use a fast lens WO without an EVF. Many have claimed this is near impossible with the M9, but it's no harder than with the A7 EVF. In fact my keeper rate in low light is often higher than the Sony.
The trick is to know the lens well. Calibration does not have to be perfect, if you know how much "english" to give it. Luckily, this 75 Lux is perfect.
So, if you have a fast lens the M9 is fine after dark. The most useful is the CV 35/1.2 because you have a little DOF WO:
Contemplation by unoh7, on Flickr
But, if on a budget the Canon 50/1.4 LTM and CV 35/1.4 are great on the M9. In fact, no digital camera is more faithful to the huge gamut of LTM, M and Contax/Nikon (via amedeo) lenses. Even the mis-behavors can be dealt with, like the older CV 15s, in post, if you really want to. More fun is to just shoot the greats and edit little:
Yellow Flecks by unoh7, ZM 18/4
But the M9 RAWS handle changes with little increase in noise:
High Rock Garden by unoh7, ZM 18/4
nobbylon
Veteran
That last one is stunning
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I quite like M9 noise. I think 640 is my favorite ISO setting.
Those are indeed really nice pictures, uhoh.
Those are indeed really nice pictures, uhoh.