migrating to m9...

Just sold an M8 after using it for about six months, was more a case of liking the M6 more then not liking the M8. The fact that I like being able to use small and fairly fast F 1.4 or F -2 35mm lens as they were meant to be used and that I shoot mostly B&W helped tip the scales in favor of keeping the M6. My film and chemical cost average maybe $50 or $60 so getting an M9 would make little sense for me at this time.
 
i'd like an m9 just because...it's new and cool etc.
my needs are more than met by having 2 rd1 bodies though.

it's the gas...
 
back alley said:
i'd like an m9 just because...it's new and cool etc.
my needs are more than met by having 2 rd1 bodies though.

it's the gas...
Click to expand...


If you did (hypothetically) get an M9 then you'd have to go through the process of re-evaluating your lens collection because of the lack of crop factor.

It's a slippery slope Joe ... and as you've stated many times you are very happy with your Epsons.
 
Had mine a month now and I couldn't be happier about it. It obviously has its quirks but I really love using rangefinders and digital suits my lifestyle now. Is better than I thought it would be and I have rotated out all my Canon DSLR 13x19 prints at home and replaced with new M9 shots and even my wife can tell the difference in the Leica look. Is a no-brainer I feel and I am like a pig in s**t.
 
I am officially announcing that I am migrating to an M9, it just might take 10 years or so to get there.
 
I own an M8 and like it a lot (though I've been shooting much more film than any of my digicams lately). I don't like the crop factor, though.

I really never thought I'd get an M9, but I just had a stroke of luck: the small company that I work for got bought out last week. My stock options turned into $$ overnight. It's not instant-retirement money, or house money, or even new car money, but it's definitely M9 money.

So now I'm considering an M9. Sort-of. Of course, I'm also considering all the other toys that kind of money could buy. Dog help me.
 
back alley said:
i am amazed at what seems like quite a few folks moving to the m9 camera.

i am, at once, both surprised and envious.
Click to expand...

Ditto.



back alley said:
there seems to be such a resistance to digital here at rff and yet a proliferation of m8 and m9 cameras exists.
Click to expand...

I'm both surprised and not surprised: surprised that pseudo-fundamentalism is strong, no matter what the subject is, all over the world. Not surprised that humans, as a whole, are very much afraid (or very mocking) of that which they don't understand or don't want to understand.


back alley said:
i don't really have a point to this...just an observation...and a wish for a pay increase...;)
Click to expand...

'tis all good. :cool:
 
back alley said:
there seems to be such a resistance to digital here at rff and yet a proliferation of m8 and m9 cameras exists.
Click to expand...

A lot more 5Dll's and D700's I would think ... not as much street cred in owning up to those though! :D
 
If you like RFs, there are only two reasons not to buy an M9. One is that you prefer the look of film (which I do in B+W) and the other is the price. I've used film Ms for close to 40 years and digital Ms since a couple of months after the M8 came out, but the vast majority of my B+W is still film.

When I started shooting, in the 1960s, the difference is size and complexity between RFs and SLRs was much smaller, but bloat set in long before digital: Canon's later film SLRs, in particular, were absurdly huge. I made myself very unpopular with a Canon rep in the 90s by saying that I preferred smaller, lighter cameras -- so I used medium format!

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
helenhill said:
I might be coming to my senses...
maybe just a ricoh GXR or Fuji X100 :p

and a new Scanner for Film... :D
Click to expand...

Haha Helen, we have the same disease. I keep getting hot and cold on the M9. The difference though is the M8.2 is my favorite camera (and I prefer digital to film these days), so the M9 should just be better.

I have to agree with Roger's accessment above. I am fine with the way digital looks, so it has just come down to money. I can afford to do it, but it still feels insane at times.
 
I'm a huge fan of Leica, I've been shooting with them for years. But honestly (and IMHO only) I haven't seen a great photos from an M9 that couldn't have been captured and wouldn't still be a great photo with any other major digital camera. I love the form factor of the Leicas, but I no longer believe that candids actually yield great photos (at least the vast majority of them do not). In the end, my best photos are where I'm engaged and intereacting with the subject, not trying to shoot from the hip. So for me, the discrete nature of the M no longer adds value other than the size (which is awesome, but possibly not $7K awesome ;)).
 
jsrockit said:
I have to agree with Roger's accessment above. I am fine with the way digital looks, so it has just come down to money. I can afford to do it, but it still feels insane at times.
Click to expand...

Ditto on that, unfortunately or not.

Bob
 
AndrewNYC said:
But honestly (and IMHO only) I haven't seen a great photos from an M9 that couldn't have been captured and wouldn't still be a great photo with any other major digital camera. I love the form factor of the Leicas...
Click to expand...

But that's just it... it isn't about the technical ability of the sensor (though some will argue that), but it is about the size, ergonomics, simplicity, and mechanical optical rangefinder that makes it appealing.
 
jsrockit said:
But that's just it... it isn't about the technical ability of the sensor (though some will argue that), but it is about the size, ergonomics, simplicity, and mechanical optical rangefinder that makes it appealing.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. But for me, it's about outcomes. Show me the great photos that only a Leica could make ;)
 
AndrewNYC said:
Completely agree. But for me, it's about outcomes. Show me the great photos that only a Leica could make ;)
Click to expand...

I agree though...results wise. If I was immune to ergonomics and didn't hate DSLRs, I would be using something other than a Leica. Unfortunately for me and my wallet, I just like the way a Leica feels in my hand and the simplicity it offers. It is worth the premium (for me) for one simple reason... it makes me happy and is a joy to use. A DSLR just isn't.
 
jsrockit said:
I agree though...results wise. If I was immune to ergonomics and didn't hate DSLRs, I would be using something other than a Leica. Unfortunately for me and my wallet, I just like the way a Leica feels in my hand and the simplicity it offers. It is worth the premium (for me) for one simple reason... it makes me happy and is a joy to use. A DSLR just isn't.
Click to expand...

Amen to that.
 
Doug said:
The M9 has its quirks too, not quite as settled as the M8 quirks. :confused: There is more infrared hitting the sensor than with a filtered M8, so for high-IR situations the M8 is preferable. Yes, IR Cut filter could be fitted to the M9, but the corner effects would take special post-processing. And if you WANT the IR, an unfiltered M8 is the answer. The "Italian flag syndrome" (reddish corners and edges especially on the left, often with cyan on the right, mostly with compact wide angles) is seen in the M9 as well as some medium format digitals... this may be further addressed in firmware, and can be dealt with in special post too.
-dropping pixel-peeping but this reveals defects and errors all too readily!
!
Click to expand...

These problems are very easily solved by using C1, and shooting an LCC profile. The resulting correction in raw conversion is one mouseclick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom