M9 Review

[Bill Pierce]

Here is a rather intelligent review of the M9 which deals with both its strengths and weaknesses. And the majority of the reader responses are absent the fanatic quality Leica reviews seem to draw out of normally sane people.

http://photoog.com/2010/12/leica-m9-review/

 

[35mmdelux]

Thanks for sharing!

 

[MCTuomey]

Thanks for the link. I agree - the review is balanced as are the postings. Characterizing the M9 as being as mediocre digital solution in a light and pleasant-to-use body makes sense to me, although "mediocre" feels too negative. Maybe better to say "average" because that's probably how it compares with the nikon/canon/pentax/sony small format digital sensors. Yeah, "average electronics" in a great form factor sounds right.

I'm not technical - I can only say I like the prints from my digi M coupled with Zeiss lenses. I process through Capture One and like the color and tones I'm getting.

Fwiw, I bought into the M8 when it got to what I considered a tolerable price, interesting that the author finds the M8 a digi M5 (although I think he says later the M8 might present value priced b/w $2-2.5K). I'd enjoy an M9 but only at a third of its current price.

 

[Rob-F]

Every time I consider getting an M8 or an R-D1, I run across something that convinces me to stay with my D300 (or even get a D700).

 

[jsrockit]

I didn't buy a digital Leica because I think it gives me the best bang for my buck or because I think it has the best IQ available. I bought it because I'm a diehard rangefinder user and I really don't care for DSLRs. Anyone who does not have a preference for rangefinders will never understand why we would pay a premium for technology that's a few generations behind. If you prefer using DSLR cameras, and are looking for bang for the buck, it is hard to beat Canon and Nikon. Digital Leicas will always look over-priced in comparison. I personally don't think it is fair to compare a rangefinder to a DSLR. It's too much of a niche vs. mainstream thing.

 

[jky]

I didn't buy a digital Leica because I think it gives me the best bang for my buck or because I think it has the best IQ available. I bought it because I'm a diehard rangefinder user and I really don't care for DSLRs. Anyone who does not have a preference for rangefinders will never understand why we would pay a premium for technology that's a few generations behind. If you prefer using DSLR cameras, and are looking for bang for the buck, it is hard to beat Canon and Nikon. Digital Leicas will always look over-priced in comparison. I personally don't think it is fair to compare a rangefinder to a DSLR. It's too much of a niche vs. mainstream thing.

My D700 is the best camera I've used... but it doesn't have the same fun factor as my old M8. I much prefer shooting with RFs as I get more enjoyment throughout the whole process when capturing an image. There have been many instances however, that the Nikon allowed me to capture pics that I know (from several years with RFs) I wouldn't have otherwise gotten with my Leica... but again - it's just not as fun... hope this makes sense.

The M9 is expensive and had there not been another venture with higher priority than my mere hobby, I would be shooting with one right now (along with that beautiful new 35 'lux)...

Btw, nice balanced responses to the review posted...