yossarian123
Sam I Am
This decision has been coming for a while. Ever since I bought my M8 the D700 has been sitting there unused. It hasn't seen any action at all in a couple of months, not a single frame. Even before my M8 I was using it less and less in favor of film M bodies. So now I've got this expensive unused digital SLR and I'm thinking to myself that it makes no sense to have this pile of (potential) cash sitting on my shelf. Why not sell it (plus a lens), plus my M8? then I'd have just enough cash to buy an M9 and call it a day. It sounds pretty reasonable until I repeat it in my head - then it sounds kind of crazy.
Has anyone else here gone from D700 to M9? Any regrets that I should be aware of? I think I would miss the idea of my D700 more than I'd miss the actual camera since it's not being used.
Has anyone else here gone from D700 to M9? Any regrets that I should be aware of? I think I would miss the idea of my D700 more than I'd miss the actual camera since it's not being used.
yossarian123
Sam I Am
Another reason for the M9 lust: I have this uncontrollable urge to see my 40mm summicron without a crop factor.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Not specifically from D700 to M9, but my DSLR and SLR kit has been sitting completely idle all year. I'd rather work with the M9 or the Bessa III right now, so I should probably put SLRs up for sale and done with it. Better to have the money in the bank to go traveling with.
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
Will the sale of the M8 and D700 fully fund your M9 purchase? No brainer!!
yossarian123
Sam I Am
Not quite. But if I sold a Nikon lens (105DC) then I'd have enough.
magicianhisoka
Well-known
Just enjoy yourself 
No one can fault that!
No one can fault that!
Stuart John
Well-known
Spend a few weeks shooting the D700 and then decide if you want it or need it.
f6andBthere
Well-known
bugmenot
Well-known
Sell a few more lenses and buy the new Leica M
( just a suggestion, don't brick me D: )
( just a suggestion, don't brick me D: )
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I've not shot a single frame with an SLR of any kind since getting my M7 in 2006.
To the high ISO clowns: Get a life. Those of us over 30 were crazed by ISO 3200 when it appeared, then realized that 800, 1000 or (gasp) 1600 really was plenty fast 99.9% of the time. Oh right, not when you need f22 at 2am in some cave somewhere...
To the high ISO clowns: Get a life. Those of us over 30 were crazed by ISO 3200 when it appeared, then realized that 800, 1000 or (gasp) 1600 really was plenty fast 99.9% of the time. Oh right, not when you need f22 at 2am in some cave somewhere...
nanthor
Well-known
The M9 just put in the classifieds looks like a great deal, if you can negotiate a payment method that protects you. Then you wouldn't need to sell the lens. When I switched from the M8 to the M9 it was a revelation, the FF sensor and using lenses as they're designed made a big difference. Good luck, Bob.
bugmenot
Well-known
High speed and sports photography require a high enough ISO to allow very fast shutter speeds. Simply because YOU do not need high ISO does not automatically extend that need to everybody else. I also personally know a large number of folks OVER 30 who melt away just by looking at high ISO shots from today's FF DSLRs.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Plus-X at ISO 125...
Godfrey
somewhat colored
LOL! but I do agree.
The film I've used in the Bessa III*so far is ASA 100. And that's with an f/3.5 lens. This notion that the only thing that matters is whether my camera can distinguish a black cat in a coal field at midnight on a moonless night is a little too much.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
High speed and sports photography ... are not the sorts of things that people considering replacing their DSLR for a Leica M are most apt to do. ;-)
That said:
Keith McKay @ Sulby Bridge - Isle of Man, Manx GP 2000
Leica M6TTL, Elmarit-M 90mm f/2.8
ISO 200 @ f/8 @ 1/125 second (or thereabouts)
f6andBthere
Well-known
Due to necessity I use my D700 predominantly in the ISO 3200 to 6400 range. Thanks for your generalisation.
bugmenot
Well-known
That wasn't the point. I was simply replying to somebody, who was making a general claim that all photographers over the age of 30 consider high ISO to be unnecessary, and anybody who has a need for it or talks about it is a "clown".
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Higher ISO than 800 or 1600 is vastly over-rated. The situations when it might matter are extremely small, and for years and years many of us made due in fine fashion without having ISO 3200 or more. Not saying that it isn't the bees knees being able to shoot at ISO 3200, just saying that basing a purchase on something that you'll need rarely at most is foolish. Better not buy anything but a full-size pick-up truck because I mighty have to move sometime in the next five years...
And anyone trying to use an M9 to shoot sports is not going to be very happy most of the time.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Thank you. You understand my point. All this concern that ISO isn't high enough when 1600 allows one to shoot in most ANY situation acceptably is a gear-head/tech-geeks silliness in my opinion. Feel free to consider me a fool, many do. I shoot film as much as I do the M9
I also have been seen shooting with an 8x10 camera, at (gasp) ISO 50. WTF?
f6andBthere
Well-known
So now after firing off the insults you offer a rational, sensible and polite point of view!
Better late than never I guess.
Better late than never I guess.