m9 the working mans version?

[emraphoto]

Haven't Leica 'M' cameras been used professionally for nearly sixty years now? I just wonder what happened to those old photographers? Have they left any DNA that can be cloned? Its only the 'common sense' strand we need, the bit that makes it clear in peoples heads that Leica M's have never been sealed, yet they just about managed to make some people very famous as photographers working in all sorts of climatic conditions.

This whinging about whats wrong with everything I tend to think comes from the 'considering what I spent' mental state. People just aren't prepared to get on and do something nowadays without removing all possible risk's. So they want their 'investment' (lol) bullet proofed just on the off chance it rains on them. Its a great excuse not to do something and become famous.

Coulda, woulda, gonna,.... if you can't afford a Leica M9 to use, don't blame the Leica M9, look at yourself, you aren't putting the same commitment in that previous generations did. The film Leica wasn't cheap when Robert Frank took it on a low rent road trip around America, the film Leica wasn't cheap when Tim Page spashed around in the mud of Vietnam on his personal mission.

What I'm saying is that its all relative. If you are passionate about doing it, it doesn't matter if an M9 is weather sealed or not, you go and do it. But if you want to talk of doing it what better way than to find fault so nobody can smirk when it doesn't happen 😉

Steve

there is no whining going on.

it is not relative for what i need from cameras... it DOES matter if the M9 is supported and up to the demands i encounter. 100%

i might remind you that there is a significant difference between the innards of Tim Page's Leica and that of an M9.

 

[ottluuk]

Haven't Leica 'M' cameras been used professionally for nearly sixty years now? I just wonder what happened to those old photographers? Have they left any DNA that can be cloned? Its only the 'common sense' strand we need, the bit that makes it clear in peoples heads that Leica M's have never been sealed, yet they just about managed to make some people very famous as photographers working in all sorts of climatic conditions.

---
Steve

I guess dust and weather sealing was much less of a concern with cameras that didn't rely on complex electronics and where you had to put a clean new sensor in after 36 shots...

As to the old pros - didn't they go with the Nikon F? 😀

 

[emraphoto]

I do recommend to spend a little time in the OPs galleries.

Always liked your photography, John.

merci mon ami.

nothing i speak of is meant as a condemnation of Leica nor is it intended to sound 'above' the needs of others. it is supposed to be a dialogue about whether Leica would benefit from positioning the M9 (or future M's) differently. i have my own reasons for shooting M's now but when i first bought into the system it was fueled by the legitimacy that folks like Page created.

 

[emraphoto]

I don't think anybody (or at least most) will get it. Comparing a bottle of Diet Coke with 18-year-old Macallan and saying that it all comes out the same way at the end (in the end...if you know what I mean) completely misses the point of they're friggin' different even though you can pour it in your plastic cup.

Which brings another point of outrage: how come Baccarat glasses are far more expensive than plastic ones? If you drop the plastic glass on the floor, it won't break, but the Baccarat will. For all that money and it breaks?! Who the hell came up with that design? In the end they all hold liquids...why would anybody...I mean...oh the humanity...

i feel 100% confident in saying that you are totally missing my point.

 

[250swb]

there is no whining going on.


i might remind you that there is a significant difference between the innards of Tim Page's Leica and that of an M9.

The innards of his camera and an M9 are different, but I can't say I use my M9 any differently to a film camera, it still gets wet and cold, and hot and dusty. The only 'significant' difference is in photographers heads about whats possible.

Steve

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

The OP does not want to take Baccarat glasses to the Sahara, but a rangefinder for professional photography. He can do that with his film Leicas (provided he takes a couple of screw drivers as well). Not with the M9, even though Leica's marketing would suggest otherwise. As simple as that.

I don't think Leica has ever marketed the M9 as a "rugged weather-sealed" camera you can take to the Sahara.

My point is that people always point to "how expensive" it is, as if the amount paid should make the camera leap over tall buildings and process the images with the HCB premium entitle you to expect something that cannot be expected from it. Disbelief sets in and rage ensues. Hence my purposefully ridiculous comparisons --they are all ridiculous in this tone. People are always blinded by "the expense". It shows a lack of understanding that it is different. Complaining about it shows this lack of understanding. It is not "Leica's shame". The shame is in being so stubborn about wanting to have something be something that it isn't.

It is as simple as that.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

i feel 100% confident in saying that you are totally missing my point.

Perhaps. But at least I can acknowledge that.

 

[ferider]

I don't think Leica has ever marketed the M9 as a "rugged weather-sealed" camera you can take to the Sahara.

My point is that people always point to "how expensive" it is, as if the amount paid should make the camera leap over tall buildings and process the images with the HCB premium entitle you to expect something that cannot be expected from it. ...

You talk about expense, the OP didn't.

I think if Leica would sell a sealed version of the M9, with a professional support model (say, less than a month TAT), even at twice the M9 price, it might actually sell.

 

[antiquark]

Coulda, woulda, gonna,.... if you can't afford a Leica M9 to use, don't blame the Leica M9, look at yourself, you aren't putting the same commitment in that previous generations did.

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/booklet/central_camera_company-1958/central_camera_company.htm
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Adjusted for inflation, a 1958 Leica M3 w/ f1.5 lens is $3600 in todays dollars. A used outfit would only be $1800 in today's dollars! So in fact, the Leica of old was similar (in price) to a Nikon D700 today.

So yeah, Leica has morphed into something other than a tool for journalists in recent years (or recent decades).

 

[emraphoto]

I don't think Leica has ever marketed the M9 as a "rugged weather-sealed" camera you can take to the Sahara.

My point is that people always point to "how expensive" it is, as if the amount paid should make the camera leap over tall buildings and process the images with the HCB premium entitle you to expect something that cannot be expected from it. Disbelief sets in and rage ensues. Hence my purposefully ridiculous comparisons --they are all ridiculous in this tone. People are always blinded by "the expense". It shows a lack of understanding that it is different. Complaining about it shows this lack of understanding. It is not "Leica's shame". The shame is in being so stubborn about wanting to have something be something that it isn't.

It is as simple as that.

Gabriel, this is what i am saying. i didn't say Leica marketed the M9 as such and boy oh boy it let me down. i also made no mention of the price point.

what i did propose is perhaps Leica could benefit from a rethink of it's past legacy. tough, super reliable cameras used by the folks that inspire us. there was no reference to the $ point resulting in some sort of hocus pocus or HCB mode.

i have zero shame in wanting more for Leica and/or rangefinders in general. to further assist in understanding my comments i say all i want is a digital M that is both supported in a timely and professional fashion AND built to handle the demands i place upon it. i would be all over that and work hard at singing its praises.

the entirety of this post was about whether or not rethinking the above might benefit the company.

 

[GSNfan]

But even if M9 was dust proof and water proof, you still have to change lenses, because unlike pro DSLRs it does not come with zoom lenses which means you have to change lenses and in the process expose that sensor to dust and sand of far of places.

 

[emraphoto]

The innards of his camera and an M9 are different, but I can't say I use my M9 any differently to a film camera, it still gets wet and cold, and hot and dusty. The only 'significant' difference is in photographers heads about whats possible.

Steve

Steve, this is a comment made without any understanding of what i need from a camera. from years of experience, and a very rocky M8 experience i can tell you, without reservation, that it isn't all in my head.

 

[emraphoto]

But even if M9 was dust proof and water proof, you still have to change lenses, because unlike pro DSLRs it does not come with zoom lenses which means you have to change lenses and in the process expose that sensor to dust and sand of far of places.

my current M's have had the same lens on them since i owned them.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

You talk about expense, the OP didn't.

It implies it and others have run with it. I addressed the thread in general, and still have.

I think if Leica would sell a sealed version of the M9, with a professional support model (say, less than a month TAT), even at twice the M9 price, it might actually sell.

It would be even more expensive. They are very @n@l-retentive, and every millimeter inside that body is precious. Adding seals would probably mean even tighter tolerances, some pretty innovative materials for sealing every nook and cranny. And for what? The main people who purchase these --and everybody knows it-- want them for the name, for its looks, not to take over to Antarctica or the Sahara. They are not aiming for the Indiana Jones of the Associated Press market; that market is pretty well served by Nikon and Canon, and they have a pretty good established line-up of different bodies and lenses to suit those needs.

Also, it wouldn't end there: you'd need an auto-cleaning sensor. The lenses you'd be putting in there also aren't exactly weather-rugged (as we all know, Nikon and Canon provide lenses which are rugged enough and which also minimize the blowing of air onto the sensor). The rangefinder is a fine (as in "delicate") piece which would not withstand the rigors of in-the-middle-of-the-action reporting bangs and abuses.

It just doesn't make sense to beat that dead horse to a pulp.

 

[pachuco]

Good question, John. My wildly speculative opinion right now is that perhaps Leica has made a calculated business decision to specifically avoid the market we belong too. Perhaps they feel that the return on investment for such a specific tool would put them in a bind financially?

Well, who know really. I'm going to refill my mimosa now.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It implies it and others have run with it. I addressed the thread in general, and still have.



It would be even more expensive. They are very @n@l-retentive, and every millimeter inside that body is precious. Adding seals would probably mean even tighter tolerances, some pretty innovative materials for sealing every nook and cranny. And for what? The main people who purchase these --and everybody knows it-- want them for the name, for its looks, not to take over to Antarctica or the Sahara. They are not aiming for the Indiana Jones of the Associated Press market; that market is pretty well served by Nikon and Canon, and they have a pretty good established line-up of different bodies and lenses to suit those needs.

Also, it wouldn't end there: you'd need an auto-cleaning sensor. The lenses you'd be putting in there also aren't exactly weather-rugged (as we all know, Nikon and Canon provide lenses which are rugged enough and which also minimize the blowing of air onto the sensor). The rangefinder is a fine (as in "delicate") piece which would not withstand the rigors of in-the-middle-of-the-action reporting bangs and abuses.

It just doesn't make sense to beat that dead horse to a pulp.

Funny: it always used to. We're back to the gorillas.

Cheers,

R.

 

[GSNfan]

my current M's have had the same lens on them since i owned them.

But I assume you're also not going to rely on a single M9 for a month in Sahara, which means you have to carry at least two other bodies for back up and maybe a couple of P&S as well.

And in case those two back up bodies are also M9 then wouldn't that make you too rich to be a real PJ?

 

[Roger Hicks]

It implies it and others have run with it. I addressed the thread in general, and still have.



It would be even more expensive. They are very @n@l-retentive, and every millimeter inside that body is precious. Adding seals would probably mean even tighter tolerances, some pretty innovative materials for sealing every nook and cranny. And for what? The main people who purchase these --and everybody knows it-- want them for the name, for its looks, not to take over to Antarctica or the Sahara. They are not aiming for the Indiana Jones of the Associated Press market; that market is pretty well served by Nikon and Canon, and they have a pretty good established line-up of different bodies and lenses to suit those needs.

Also, it wouldn't end there: you'd need an auto-cleaning sensor. The lenses you'd be putting in there also aren't exactly weather-rugged (as we all know, Nikon and Canon provide lenses which are rugged enough and which also minimize the blowing of air onto the sensor). The rangefinder is a fine (as in "delicate") piece which would not withstand the rigors of in-the-middle-of-the-action reporting bangs and abuses.

It just doesn't make sense to beat that dead horse to a pulp.

And, indeed, they never did. Hardcore, macho smash-the-camera-about photojournalism is a tiny market, and it's not actually what most of the great Leica photographers ever did.

More gorillas.

Cheers,

R.

 

[emraphoto]

But I assume you're also not going to rely on a single M9 for a month in Sahara, which means you have to carry at least two other bodies for back up and maybe a couple of P&S as well.

And in case those two back up bodies are also M9 then wouldn't that make you too rich to be a real PJ?

of course. a good point.

don't mistake me for a 'real photojournalist'. i am a photographer with agendas.

but no matter what song i sing i do not have the cake for multiple M9's. i do have the means to shoot and M9 and a couple of film M's though.

 

[emraphoto]

Good question, John. My wildly speculative opinion right now is that perhaps Leica has made a calculated business decision to specifically avoid the market we belong too. Perhaps they feel that the return on investment for such a specific tool would put them in a bind financially?

Well, who know really. I'm going to refill my mimosa now.

would it be a mistake to count the return on what is spent building a unit as the only benefit from such a move? i know Canon and Nikon specifically flog who is using their gear regularly.

i reckon a mimosa sound real good right now. tired of writing letters to folks trying to convince them to give me money.