Out to Lunch
Ventor
As everyone knows, today the vast majority of professional photographers make a living with any camera but a Leica. Lots of high horses around here... it must be very tiring climbing on and off...
anthony_semone
Established
Wow, sure got a lot more than I expected with this post 
, a statement of my naiveté I expect LOL. I know for an absolute certainty that I shall never earn my living off any photographic effort. If equipment purchases are a reflection of photographic interests, my interests have changed quite substantially over the past 5 years. While aviation photography still captures my attention, I simply cannot afford the Nikon gear that would allow me to do justice to the flying a/c. Also from my perspective (as a pilot as well), once I've seen an aircraft doing an Immelmann, well, save for a/c color and pilot, I've seen enough.
So, with having moved more toward the variability and the challenge of the "street," esp'ly here in Philly where in many districts it's advisable to carry more than a camera (and I do), having the equipment that allows me the opportunity to do that while being more inconspicuous than with my Nikon gear, and at the same time still enjoy a FF sensor, smaller form factor, shooting speed which is up to the task, and having an array of lenses available that fit that purpose, well, I have to consider that an M9 is worth taking a look at.
I appreciate everyone's input. Obviously to me, the comments of those of you who earn a living at photography figure prominently in my decision-making tree. Even so, my own experience with gear will finally determine my choice, though I can say in advance of doing it that I am already into anticipatory seller's regret when I look at the collection of Nikon gear I'd be giving up.
, a statement of my naiveté I expect LOL. I know for an absolute certainty that I shall never earn my living off any photographic effort. If equipment purchases are a reflection of photographic interests, my interests have changed quite substantially over the past 5 years. While aviation photography still captures my attention, I simply cannot afford the Nikon gear that would allow me to do justice to the flying a/c. Also from my perspective (as a pilot as well), once I've seen an aircraft doing an Immelmann, well, save for a/c color and pilot, I've seen enough.So, with having moved more toward the variability and the challenge of the "street," esp'ly here in Philly where in many districts it's advisable to carry more than a camera (and I do), having the equipment that allows me the opportunity to do that while being more inconspicuous than with my Nikon gear, and at the same time still enjoy a FF sensor, smaller form factor, shooting speed which is up to the task, and having an array of lenses available that fit that purpose, well, I have to consider that an M9 is worth taking a look at.
I appreciate everyone's input. Obviously to me, the comments of those of you who earn a living at photography figure prominently in my decision-making tree. Even so, my own experience with gear will finally determine my choice, though I can say in advance of doing it that I am already into anticipatory seller's regret when I look at the collection of Nikon gear I'd be giving up.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Peter,
And your point is?
Most professionals probably use DSLRs, whether bloated 35mm style (Nikon or Canon) or with a lot more megapixels (Hasselblad, S2, Pentax...).
The kind of cameras they use aren't consumer electronics. A camera the size of a cigarette packet, with no real viewfinder, usually is.
Sure, any camera can be used professionally. But if part of your livelihood involves using a camera, every professional I've ever known would agree that it makes most sense to use the camera(s) you're most comfortable with. "Most comfortable with" embraces lots of things: image quality, reliability, ease of use, personal preference. That fairly seldom includes crop-sensor cameras with adapters to bodge manual-focus lenses onto them.
There's a lot to be said for high-end point-and-shoots, including those with manual override (I'm thinking of the Fuji X100). But to propose a piece of consumer electronics with an unsuitable manual-focus lens on the front as a substitute for an M9, whether for an amateur or for a professional: well, I can't quite see the point.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I know! That Nikon high horse has the best ISO and autofocus and color rendition. Or so I've read in almost all Leica-related threads.
I bought the Leica M9 as it uses the lenses that I prefer, in the manner that they were intended. Full-frame, RF-Coupled, no need for an IR cut filter. I have shot higher ISO images with the M9 than in 48 years of shooting film. I really can't think of anything that Leica could put into an M10 that would make me sell off the M9 to buy one. I've been using "store-bought" DSLR's since 1993. I prefer the M9 over any other digital camera that I've handled.
I guess that I use an Olympus EP-2 "professionally". Mine is modified for full-spectrum visible+IR, use it in the Lab. It was much cheaper than having Kodak make a custom camera for me again.
I guess that I use an Olympus EP-2 "professionally". Mine is modified for full-spectrum visible+IR, use it in the Lab. It was much cheaper than having Kodak make a custom camera for me again.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Brian,
Same here. But we have an unfair advantage: we have actually tried them.
Cheers,
R.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Well, many professional photographers make a living by using the "green square" or P mode.
I'm also pretty sure it's irrelevant to this conversation, but since somebody else mentioned something irrelevant I'd just thought I'd add my twopence to the elusive high-horse spooking (which does not even begin to address the OP).
I'm also pretty sure it's irrelevant to this conversation, but since somebody else mentioned something irrelevant I'd just thought I'd add my twopence to the elusive high-horse spooking (which does not even begin to address the OP).
MCTuomey
Veteran
Tony, I wouldn't/didn't sell any of my dSLR gear to fund my M9. I sold some of my rangefinder gear and saved up. I still shoot a variety of subjects and didn't want to give up the diverse capability of my Canon kit. So, the M9 for me is luxury. I don't need it, but I sure want it for its portability, image quality, and fun-in-use factor.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
anthony
If you can't afford the Nikon gear to allow you to do justice to flying a/c do you really believe that Leica will be any cheaper new? I agree that once you have seen an a/c do an immmelmann you have seen them all. Of course you could say that of any photographic subject regardless of equipment use to that the photo with. I still don't know why you are hung up on FF sensors as you appear to not have any legacy Leica lenses to use on a FF sensored camera. Do you have any experience focusing a manual focus rangefinder camera? It can take some getting used to if all you have used are auto-focus cameras. If you just want to talk yourself into an M9 you are doing a good job, go for it.
Bob
If you can't afford the Nikon gear to allow you to do justice to flying a/c do you really believe that Leica will be any cheaper new? I agree that once you have seen an a/c do an immmelmann you have seen them all. Of course you could say that of any photographic subject regardless of equipment use to that the photo with. I still don't know why you are hung up on FF sensors as you appear to not have any legacy Leica lenses to use on a FF sensored camera. Do you have any experience focusing a manual focus rangefinder camera? It can take some getting used to if all you have used are auto-focus cameras. If you just want to talk yourself into an M9 you are doing a good job, go for it.
Bob
anthony_semone
Established
Hey all,
I very much appreciate the commentary, as well as the sage advice from those who have/are using both DSLR and/or M9. Yes, Bob, I've owned and used a Zeiss Ikon ZM with multiple Voigtlander lenses. Sold it here on the board; lenses, too. A bad mistake. You know, one of those "I really regret it moves." I'm now using a Contax G2, arguably a rangefinder of sorts. Hung up? I don't know. I know just that I prefer the pictorial rendition of FF of my D700 to the crop frame of my D300. when my son and I did the RedBull Air Races last year in NJ, lugging that sucker of a D700 around along with an 80-400 or the 200-400VR I rented for him, well, all that weight was just more than I wanted to deal with. Moreover, as I think I mentioned here before, I enjoy shooting on the streets and I'd prefer to be less intrusive when photographing people in public. Not easy with the D700 and whatever lens I put on it. That's just me. I'm not trying to make policy for anybody else. I gave my Oly E-P2 to my son for a Christmas present last year, and, while I took some pretty good pictures with it in Paris, having hooked up with an adapter some of my VC lenses, I just didn't like the ergonomics of it. If I had wanted to talk myself into an M9, I wouldn't have asked for ya'll's advice
I very much appreciate the commentary, as well as the sage advice from those who have/are using both DSLR and/or M9. Yes, Bob, I've owned and used a Zeiss Ikon ZM with multiple Voigtlander lenses. Sold it here on the board; lenses, too. A bad mistake. You know, one of those "I really regret it moves." I'm now using a Contax G2, arguably a rangefinder of sorts. Hung up? I don't know. I know just that I prefer the pictorial rendition of FF of my D700 to the crop frame of my D300. when my son and I did the RedBull Air Races last year in NJ, lugging that sucker of a D700 around along with an 80-400 or the 200-400VR I rented for him, well, all that weight was just more than I wanted to deal with. Moreover, as I think I mentioned here before, I enjoy shooting on the streets and I'd prefer to be less intrusive when photographing people in public. Not easy with the D700 and whatever lens I put on it. That's just me. I'm not trying to make policy for anybody else. I gave my Oly E-P2 to my son for a Christmas present last year, and, while I took some pretty good pictures with it in Paris, having hooked up with an adapter some of my VC lenses, I just didn't like the ergonomics of it. If I had wanted to talk myself into an M9, I wouldn't have asked for ya'll's advice
Last edited:
Ben Z
Veteran
Guys who don't own an M9 can come up with 7000 reasons why it's a bad choice (well, 6995 ), and guys who own one (like myself) can come up with a like number of reasons why it's a good choice. Thus you're left pretty much in the same quandary as you started. My suggestion, as it would be with any purchase of that magnitude, is to try before you buy, and I don't mean dry-firing it a few times in the store.
The problem is greater when finances put you in an either-or situation where you have to sell your SLR gear to get into the M9. Honestly, after having had an M8 and now an M9 (for a year), I can still say I would not have bought one if I needed to sell my Canon stuff. There's just too many things an SLR does more conveniently than a rangefinder (and a few the reverse). As it is, I'm very happy with the M9. If it were my only camera, I would be less happy...by a lot.
The other problem is the current cost of the lenses. I had a dozen or so which I've owned for many years. If I had to buy lenses, new or used, at their going prices, I would not have gotten into Leica M. I do not have money spilling out of my pockets or growing on a tree in my backyard. An M9 and 3 lenses can easily set you back $18000-20000.
), and guys who own one (like myself) can come up with a like number of reasons why it's a good choice. Thus you're left pretty much in the same quandary as you started. My suggestion, as it would be with any purchase of that magnitude, is to try before you buy, and I don't mean dry-firing it a few times in the store. The problem is greater when finances put you in an either-or situation where you have to sell your SLR gear to get into the M9. Honestly, after having had an M8 and now an M9 (for a year), I can still say I would not have bought one if I needed to sell my Canon stuff. There's just too many things an SLR does more conveniently than a rangefinder (and a few the reverse). As it is, I'm very happy with the M9. If it were my only camera, I would be less happy...by a lot.
The other problem is the current cost of the lenses. I had a dozen or so which I've owned for many years. If I had to buy lenses, new or used, at their going prices, I would not have gotten into Leica M. I do not have money spilling out of my pockets or growing on a tree in my backyard. An M9 and 3 lenses can easily set you back $18000-20000.
anthony_semone
Established
Ben,
excellent point of view, sir, thank you
excellent point of view, sir, thank you
anthony_semone
Established
Thomas, yes, I do shoot color, although I did not consider DR loss compared to film.
thank you, sir,
tony
thank you, sir,
tony
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Tony
I sold my 1Ds3 after getting my M9. It wasn't really getting any use - actually it wasn't really getting any use since I got my ZIs. One day I expect I'll buy another dslr, but not until I have need of it - for what I'm enjoying at the moment the rf's are great. I tend to use the M9 for every day around the children and film for black and white elsewhere, but it's not hard and fast.
Having one lens mount and the same frame size simplifies things, for I am simple...
Mike
I sold my 1Ds3 after getting my M9. It wasn't really getting any use - actually it wasn't really getting any use since I got my ZIs. One day I expect I'll buy another dslr, but not until I have need of it - for what I'm enjoying at the moment the rf's are great. I tend to use the M9 for every day around the children and film for black and white elsewhere, but it's not hard and fast.
Having one lens mount and the same frame size simplifies things, for I am simple...
Mike
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Hey all,
I very much appreciate the commentary, as well as the sage advice from those who have/are using both DSLR and/or M9. Yes, Bob, I've owned and used a Zeiss Ikon ZM with multiple Voigtlander lenses. Sold it here on the board; lenses, too. A bad mistake. You know, one of those "I really regret it moves." I'm now using a Contax G2, arguably a rangefinder of sorts. Hung up? I don't know. I know just that I prefer the pictorial rendition of FF of my D700 to the crop frame of my D300. when my son and I did the RedBull Air Races last year in NJ, lugging that sucker of a D700 around along with an 80-400 or the 200-400VR I rented for him, well, all that weight was just more than I wanted to deal with. Moreover, as I think I mentioned here before, I enjoy shooting on the streets and I'd prefer to be less intrusive when photographing people in public. Not easy with the D700 and whatever lens I put on it. That's just me. I'm not trying to make policy for anybody else. I gave my Oly E-P2 to my son for a Christmas present last year, and, while I took some pretty good pictures with it in Paris, having hooked up with an adapter some of my VC lenses, I just didn't like the ergonomics of it. If I had wanted to talk myself into an M9, I wouldn't have asked for ya'll's advice
anthony
As you have had experience with manual focus RFs there should be no surprises then. You did not say you had any experience before with MF RFs. I can well understand wanting something lighter and less obvious. You have tried an alternate format, Oly EP2, and found it wanting. I don't understand what you mean by pictorial rendition between FF and APS-C but it does bother you. Looks like you know what you are getting into and there is only one solution, an M9. Have fun with it.
Bob
anthony_semone
Established
Hi Bob,
I'm not sure what I mean by it either I'll be getting an opportunity to do a real-world test drive of an M9 when I get back from Paris that won't be just, as recommended by a previous poster here, "dry-firing" in a store. I'll be taking my D700 and some prime, MF lenses to Paris to see how that works for me on the streets over there. Anyways, thanks for your helpful comments,
tony
I'm not sure what I mean by it either
I'll be getting an opportunity to do a real-world test drive of an M9 when I get back from Paris that won't be just, as recommended by a previous poster here, "dry-firing" in a store. I'll be taking my D700 and some prime, MF lenses to Paris to see how that works for me on the streets over there. Anyways, thanks for your helpful comments,tony
nebraska
Member
I sold my Nikon D700 and some other equipment a little over a year ago to buy a M9. I have not missed the D700. No regret whatsoever!! The M9 is a joy to use - it gives me the results that I want. I do not miss the D700's supposed advantages - e.g. high ISO. I hardly ever use very high ISOs. The quality and ease of use of the M9 make up for what I gave up when I sold the bulky D700. There is just no substitute for a RF or the quality of Leica images.
Archiver
Veteran
While this topic comes up all the time, I find myself in a slightly different position than before. I have used Canon DSLR's for a few years, and a M9 for over a year, and I have to say that while the M9 puts the best possible image quality into a camera of that size, it is also a matter of taste as to what you like.
My M9 images all have a certain look that I love. I was just looking through my 5D Mark II images, particularly those taken with the 35/1.4L, and they have a very special something as well. The look of the image is very different from the M9 and Voigtlander 35/1.4, and the ease of use of the 5DII is higher, considering autofocus and framing accuracy.
But for a camera that puts utterly glorious image quality into a very discreet package, the M9 is the one. I will happily wander around the city at night with the M9 tucked inside a jacket rather than the 5DII. Putting the Voigtlander 40/2 Ultron on the 5DII makes it a lot smaller but I don't like the 'look' of the images as much as the 35L.
When I say I'm in a slightly different position, I mean that in the past I might have said that the M9 just plain beats the 5DII due to the balance of size and IQ. Now I say that if the situation is favourable, e.g., I'm indoors or am otherwise in a safe situation, I'd shoot the 5DII as well.
My opinion might change in the next few weeks, as it often does, but hey, that's what being an owner of multiple cameras is all about!
As for why I chose to get a M9: I skipped the M8 mostly because of the crop factor. I like wide angle lenses, and getting a decent 28mm FoV on the M8 would mean a larger, heavier and more expensive 21mm lens. Good luck getting a 35mm f1.4 equivalent on a M8! It would have been more expensive, and sometimes impossible, to buy equivalent lenses for a M8 than to buy the 'real' focal lengths I want and a M9. That, and that the M9 had worked out most of the bugs of the M8, and I was there.
My M9 images all have a certain look that I love. I was just looking through my 5D Mark II images, particularly those taken with the 35/1.4L, and they have a very special something as well. The look of the image is very different from the M9 and Voigtlander 35/1.4, and the ease of use of the 5DII is higher, considering autofocus and framing accuracy.
But for a camera that puts utterly glorious image quality into a very discreet package, the M9 is the one. I will happily wander around the city at night with the M9 tucked inside a jacket rather than the 5DII. Putting the Voigtlander 40/2 Ultron on the 5DII makes it a lot smaller but I don't like the 'look' of the images as much as the 35L.
When I say I'm in a slightly different position, I mean that in the past I might have said that the M9 just plain beats the 5DII due to the balance of size and IQ. Now I say that if the situation is favourable, e.g., I'm indoors or am otherwise in a safe situation, I'd shoot the 5DII as well.
My opinion might change in the next few weeks, as it often does, but hey, that's what being an owner of multiple cameras is all about!
As for why I chose to get a M9: I skipped the M8 mostly because of the crop factor. I like wide angle lenses, and getting a decent 28mm FoV on the M8 would mean a larger, heavier and more expensive 21mm lens. Good luck getting a 35mm f1.4 equivalent on a M8! It would have been more expensive, and sometimes impossible, to buy equivalent lenses for a M8 than to buy the 'real' focal lengths I want and a M9. That, and that the M9 had worked out most of the bugs of the M8, and I was there.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
firstly my answer is no, have not sold my nikon gear for an M9.....you will regret selling your nikon gear because you are not fully convinced.
im sure if you had the available cash, you would keep the nikon gear and go and buy the M9, and so your dilemma is solved.....but will the M9 suit your style of shooting that you have been doing with the D700? or you are just going to bite the bullet and adapt to what the M9 will do for you?
you mentioned the word "seduced".....maybe "lust" is appropriate
.....i think renting is the smart option, and that lust may wane a little and you can think clearly.....(women do it to you as well)cheers.
Hatch
Established
I'd say wait for the M10.
And then get the M9!
For fast action and macro work you can always get a cheap crop DSLR.
And then get the M9!
For fast action and macro work you can always get a cheap crop DSLR.