M9 Review

[Benjamin Marks]

I am always surprised by the level of emotion that these things stir up. I should say, I will own an M9 when I can afford it. And for that to happen either my bank balance will have to increase or the price will have to decrease. But I have already started plotting and my guess is that it will take about three or four years for the stars to allign. In the interim I will be happily chugging away with the gear that I already have. I think that the shutters on the cameras I own right now will outlast my natural life span, if used at their current rate. So: no photo emergency. And as I was able in my 30's to afford the cameras that I wanted but couldn't afford in my 20's (Nikon F3, Leica R4sp, Leica M6 e.g.) and now in my 40's have been able to purchase the cameras that I wanted but couldn't afford in my 30's (Hassie, RB67, 8x10), I have no doubt that in my 50's I will be able to afford the cameras that I want today. Honestly, in the era of film cameras it would have been folly for me to be so worked up because I couldn't have what I couldn't afford at that instant.

I think the intensity of the current product desire has been heightened by short e-product cycles. Hey -- I skip three or four generations of computer chip upgrades and it hasn't broken me yet.

Ben Marks

 

[AusDLK]

As the author of the review that spawned this thread, my personal M9 arrived a little over a week ago.

Okay, I am one who can afford such things (but have/will happily replenish my checking account with the sale of a WATE, an R-D1, a mess of UV/IR cut filters, and my trusty M8.2).

I have to say that I am immensely satisfied. The M9 is the camera I have been waiting for for years. Perfect, no. Suitable for all photo projects, no. Perfect for over my shoulder with the lens of the day, totally. I find it so much more satisfying then the M8.2 in ways that are hard to verbalize.

I have personally experienced the arrogance of Leica too. There is definitely an elitist attitude from many there.

The tool(s) that they produce are very special (and they know it). Leica M cameras bring picture taking joy to some in a way that no other camera can touch. (Guilty here.)

People bitch and moan at one end of the extreme; people don Leica as jewelry at the other.

In the middle are serious photographers who find ways to get their hands on very special picture taking machines (ones they can afford or ones that they scratch and save for) and never regret it.

 

[250swb]

The 5DMII is light years ahead of an M8 already. It will remain so for as long as the owner keeps it. It will never be worse than the M8. I think your logic is a little odd.

Lol, you get the same thing with 'classic' car enthusiasts who reckon their 1980's Ford Escort is more advanced than a 1960's E Type Jaguar, and on paper they are..............

Its only 'light years ahead' IF it is 'light years ahead' that you want, otherwise its redundant garbage. Get your head around that simple fact and you've cracked the code.

Steve

 

[photogdave]

Lol, you get the same thing with 'classic' car enthusiasts who reckon their 1980's Ford Escort is more advanced than a 1960's E Type Jaguar, and on paper they are..............

Steve

Haha! I get the same thing with my Vanagon Westfalia! Sure it doesn't have air bags, but can your SUV sleep four comfortably and cook you breakfast in the morning?

 

[Nikon Bob]

I think you guys are funny. You missed the best reason of all to buy a Canon or a Nikon DSLR, and that is you can repeat the exercise every 9 months when a new one is released!

Of course you shouldn't factor in the amount of money you lose selling your 'old' body, nor should you consider all the new accessories you need each time the DSLR out evolves its add-ons. And not to forget the fact that zoom lenses are always open to improvement and a new one will go nicely with the new body thank you. No, don't do those sums, they don't fit the theory.

On the other hand, you might suppose an awful lot of Leica M photographers have had their lenses for many years, because they don't really get any better and need improving. And you might also suppose the body gets a good life before being thought of as embarrassingly naff when it hasn't got the latest D** or Mk*** designations.

Now obviously you might want to pick holes in my theory, but its the wider picture I'm looking at, and that is not all photographers are as short term, because without thinking I could throw a blanket across all of you, I'd bet their aren't many with a main DSLR that is more than two years old (or at least in the wider forum population).

I'll admit I like the latest bit of kit myself, but I think it is wrong to suggest all these endless streams of Canon's and Nikon's don't cost much, they do, IF you honestly work it out over a period of time equivalent to the lifespan of a Leica M and its lenses. In comparison to a latest DSLR the M9 will have a Galapagos tortoise like lifespan compared to the Canon or Nikon's mayfly like existence. The reviewer said there may not be any need for an M10, making the M9 a good bet for longevity. And not only that, I'm sure the M8 will still be going strong and make a desirable camera long after the 5d MkII is in the front window of a charity shop, so to speak.

Steve

Nobody is duty bound to up grade their DSLR every nine months or even jump into a new tech at the start. I did not buy a DSLR till Nikon gave me what I wanted in the form of a D700. I see no reason to upgrade until it dies. I have the option to use my old lenses to boot, just as a Leica owner would moving to an M9 from film. Leica does seem to up grade it's lenses fairly regularly just like other manufacturers do. So much for the theory that they don't need to be/can't be improved. You are probably right that the M9's body will last but the electronics will die just like any other digital. The makes it an expensive mausoleum for electronics.

Bob

 

[Sam N]

Perhaps Leica should have looked at better priced M9's as a way to get people to buy the money makers...lenses. I believe this is why we can find low priced dslrs. Give them an affordable body and they'll end up buying more lenses.

The problem with this is that even their lenses are WAY too expensive. With Voigtlander/Zeiss making M-mount lenses now, this wouldn't work at all.

Zeiss 35/2 = $880
Latest Summicron 35 = $2800
The Leica price is more than triple the Zeiss.

Summarit 35/2.5 = $1600
Voigtlander 35/2.5 = $330
The Leica is almost FIVE times the price.

Sure, you can argue the Leica lenses are better, but at some point you get diminishing returns in quality for your money. They're certainly not 3-5 times better.

 

[shadowfox]

The M9 is "the best." It is the best full-frame digital rangefinder. Nothing else compares. And what it is mostly compared to doesn't always make sense to me.

How can you compare it to a DSLR except to say that it is totally different?

Fully agree. The M9 is a *true* digital Leica M-body. Why is it true? because it is full-frame unlike M8. Being full-frame is far more important in the Leica-land because of the price (some say 'quality') of the lenses.

Going by that definition, any comparison to similarly priced cameras (which happens to be all DSLR's) are pointless.

No matter how you slice it, using an M9 will be different than using a Nikon D3x or Canon 1D*whatever mark*.

So until Cosina/Epson comes up with R2-D2 or Zeiss with DIkon or Nikon with SP-D or some sort, $7k is a fair price for a camera that has no equal... so far.

 

[Nikon Bob]

The M9 is the best FF DRF by default being the only one in its class. A pretty easy thing to accomplish. The point in comparing it to DSLRs is only to show that there are better FF senors already on the market for several years now at a less cost, D700 is but one example. DSLRs are not the same form factor as the M9 granted but the heart of any digital camera is the sensor and associated software that produce the final image. The penalty that you pay for wanting the RF form is a high price for a sensor that is not even as good as what was on the market several years ago. That is the rub for me and I don't want the RF form factor bad enough to pay the cost penalty. Some people do and more power to them.

Bob

 

[burt]

The M9 is the best FF DRF by default being the only one in its class. A pretty easy thing to accomplish.......

If you think that's an easy thing to accomplish, I keep wondering what great creation you made for mankind.

 

[Bike Tourist]

"Okay, there are fast primes too for these DSLRs but it is a rarified breed that actually uses them. "

I think the same could be said of the entire Leica lineup! My fast Nikon prime doesn't cost nearly as much as a fast Leica prime. (Of course, I would gratefully accept the Leica rig if it were offered.)

But, if I have to buy my own equipment (and I do) then his comparison to the D700 really validates what I've thought all along — the D700 is one hell of a camera for the price.

 

[Nikon Bob]

If you think that's an easy thing to accomplish, I keep wondering what great creation you made for mankind.

The point was it is easy to be the best if you are the only one running, not that it was an easy task to get a FF DRF on the market. As for the second part of your question, nothing yet but I am working on it. How about you got anything cooking?

Bob

 

[burt]

The point was it is easy to be the best if you are the only one running, not that it was an easy task to get a FF DRF on the market. As for the second part of your question, nothing yet but I am working on it. How about you got anything cooking?

Bob

It's probably best not to get in discussion with someone on a rangefinderforum who doesn't like the rangefinder form factor enough.

Ciao.

 

[Nikon Bob]

It's probably best not to get in discussion with someone on a rangefinderforum who doesn't like the rangefinder form factor enough.

Ciao.

Oh I like it enough just not enough to drop the kind of dough the M9 is just for that. When I want the RF form factor I am content to use my M4, M4-P or one of several other RF film cameras. I guess I am just not blinded by the name Leica anymore or enough as the case may be.

Bob

 

[shadowfox]

Oh I like it enough just not enough to drop the kind of dough the M9 is just for that. When I want the RF form factor I am content to use my M4, M4-P or one of several other RF film cameras. I guess I am just not blinded by the name Leica anymore or enough as the case may be.

Bob

Same here, while I really admire the M9 as a heck of a camera, there are other things photographically-speaking that would be more satisfying for me to go after for about the same cost, like a proper darkroom

 

[Frankie]

When in doubt, get back to the basics.

When in doubt, get back to the basics.

The RF camera comprises of a RF, a shutter and a film transport system.

Leica has not changed its RF in 50 years, and nobody bothered to challenge it...until the Zeiss ZM, and succeeded in the first attempt...

Leica has not changed its shutter for 50 years until the M8. No one was impressed with the new one.

The film transport system is now a basic computer and memory card writer. No original R&D was evident.

The film has been replaced by a Kodak chip...a left over 6.8 micron version without the latest anti-bloom technology.

So, what is there to celebrate...the off-set micro lens and 6-bit encoding innovation?

This innovation will look silly in light of newer chips with less "hooding" and longer bit-depth, all with wider ISO ranges...enough to waste a couple of bits to even out pixel vignetting.

Besides, Leica will have to retool if it wants to use the newer 6 micron Kodak chip. Hardware solution in the computer age sucks.

I am now seriously thinking of making a M2/3/4/6/7 retrofit system...the CCD and the basic computer all contained in a 45 x 90 x 6mm box fitting into cavity where the camera back door now sits. Linking up a battery [where the film cartridge sits] and a CD card writer [over the take up spool space] are child's play.

If the final package comprises of a CCD with the same or better vignetting behaviour as film, ISO 200~3,200 or better, AND removable...; will anyone buy it at $1,000?

Ironically, no one can even criticise the RF, the shutter, the camera body...; Leica did all of it. Essentially, will you prepay $1,000 for film/processing for all times?

 

[_mark__]

Interesting thread!

My opinion is the M9 is overpriced but the images are fantastic, as are the M8's.

But I have two questions that I cannot rationalize.

To those who bought the M8.2 new, believing the full frame sensor to be "impossible" (Leica rhetoric), only to have it superseded in 8 months by the M9. Do the obvious lies from Leica leave a bitter taste in your mouth or are you happy with your camera?

Stability, production costs and longevity used to be the foundation for Leica's pricing structure, it now is not, so what I just don't get is -contemporary cad/cam techniques make the machining and assembly of camera components a lot more cost effective but this is never reflected in the pricing context of a modern Leica camera, why?

 

[Frankie]

Simple answer: Leica sells myth.

 

[photogdave]

Interesting thread!

My opinion is the M9 is overpriced but the images are fantastic, as are the M8's.

But I have two questions that I cannot rationalize.

To those who bought the M8.2 new, believing the full frame sensor to be "impossible" (Leica rhetoric), only to have it superseded in 8 months by the M9. Do the obvious lies from Leica leave a bitter taste in your mouth or are you happy with your camera?

Stability, production costs and longevity used to be the foundation for Leica's pricing structure, it now is not, so what I just don't get is -contemporary cad/cam techniques make the machining and assembly of camera components a lot more cost effective but this is never reflected in the pricing context of a modern Leica camera, why?

Let's be fair. They never said "impossible". They said it couldn't be done with the technology that was available to them at the time (and that was with the release of the M8, not M8.2).
The technology became available after the M8.2 so they used it and created a DIFFERENT camera at a different price point.
I don't see why people have a problem with this. Nikon did the exact same thing for even longer.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Interesting thread!

I have two questions that I cannot rationalize.

To those who bought the M8.2 new, believing the full frame sensor to be "impossible" (Leica rhetoric), only to have it superseded in 8 months by the M9. Do the obvious lies from Leica leave a bitter taste in your mouth or are you happy with your camera?

Stability, production costs and longevity used to be the foundation for Leica's pricing structure, it now is not, so what I just don't get is -contemporary cad/cam techniques make the machining and assembly of camera components a lot more cost effective but this is never reflected in the pricing context of a modern Leica camera, why?

Among my friends and associates, the digital M has been a bit of a disappointment. The first batch had a high return rate. I thought I was unique in going through three M8’s before getting one that worked. I was flabbergasted when I found out I wasn’t alone.

The M8.2 and the upgrades for the M8 made a big difference. But getting your camera or cameras upgraded was expensive. Remember, a working stiff is probably going to have to have more than one body when a camera system is really most suited to fixed focal length lenses. (The “tri-focals” are a little slow and limited for news work.) He will certainly need a back-up body.

Between the general economic difficulties of the time and the decline in the specific job market, not too many photojournalists are going to be able to afford a couple of M9’s and some lenses. Perhaps the final kicker is the digital Leica’s failure to match the high ISO performance of its digital DSLR competition, something that’s pretty important to a news shooter.

Right now, the only photojournalists I know who are using M9’s are photographers who field tested the cameras before their official release. I’m sure that there are working stiffs with M9’s; they are just not among my associates.

They are certainly no complete replacements for a Leica, but photojournalists are experimenting with a variety of the smaller digitals. Canon ads have made everybody aware that some of the Seven photographers are using G10’s, G11’s and S90’s. There are no ads out there, but one of my favorite photographers, who did his turn as the head of Magnum, who is as much of an equipment mavin as anybody at that agency and a brilliant photographer, has been using a G10 for quite awhile. It’s small; it’s quiet; it accepts Leica bright line finders. At its low ISO’s it delivers plenty of quality for big prints. Sadly, you can’t turn to your digital Leica when you need the highest quality at high ISO’s any more than you can turn to your small sensor camera. Everyone hoped that the M8’s replacement would return the digital Leica to the world of available darkness, but it didn’t work out that way.

 

[Peter Klein]

Bill: I know you're right about the D700 (for example) vs. the M8/9 for really hardcore available darkness. But my M8 at 640 is fine for the territory where we used Tri-X pushed to 800. I've used it at 1250 with a bit of external noise reduction, and it did fine in B&W at that speed.

Now if you want to shoot color where you would need 1/15 at f/1.4 at ISO 1600, yes, the D700 is going to give you that a couple of extra stops leeway where the M8 or 9 would start to falter.

My problem is I don't want to schlepp a D700 around. Or a 1Ds Mark whatever. Those things weigh almost as much as a Speed Graphic when you add a high-end lens. I also just prefer the RF way of seeing and focusing. Fortunately, as an amateur, I can make the choice to shoot within the limitations of my equipment. I'd rather carry around an M8 and 35/1.4 than a D700.

But I do understand that if your fire-breathing editor sends you to Murky Hollows Cathedral to get a full-color shot of the Cherubic Penumbral Boys' Choir, and it's f/1.4, 1/30 sec and ISO 6400 to get the shot at all, you have no choice--you have to bring out the heavy artillery from Brand N or C.

Can you imagine the D700 sensor and electronics, with the right offset microlenses, inside an M-mount RF body?

The devil of the digital age is that when you buy a camera, you essentially buy all the "film" you'll ever use with it. When we were young, camera choice was a matter of optics and ergonomics. Everyone could take advantage of advances in film. Now the camera is the whole ball of wax. Leica is much less able to compete with the consortiums of Japan, Inc. when they have to do everything, not just make a precision RF, film transport and the world's best optics.