back alley
IMAGES
i am amazed at what seems like quite a few folks moving to the m9 camera.
i am, at once, both surprised and envious.
there seems to be such a resistance to digital here at rff and yet a proliferation of m8 and m9 cameras exists.
i don't really have a point to this...just an observation...and a wish for a pay increase...
i am, at once, both surprised and envious.
there seems to be such a resistance to digital here at rff and yet a proliferation of m8 and m9 cameras exists.
i don't really have a point to this...just an observation...and a wish for a pay increase...
Jodorowsky
Well-known
I think an M9 would 'do it' for a rangefinder lover.... I borrowed one for a bit, but looked forward to getting my M8 back. The M9 is great, and one appreciates the difference between the 8 and 9, but it's just double cream instead of single. The M8 is still cream. As is the Epson, i imagine. Rangefinders are the greatest camera form for bonding with, whether film or digital. They're organic, whether electronic or analogue. They sit in your hand, and let you compose with both eyes open, take a shot, and carry on looking. They allow you to look and therefore to see an evolving scene. When you see something beginning to happen through your eyes, you only have to raise the camera, and it's almost like there's no break. They work for a reason, as do SLR's. It's not a fight between Betamax and VHS.....etc, etc, I'm rambling now. My point is that people will be drawn to rangefinders, whatever the form. They're seen generally as rather esoteric or eccentric. They're neither, and if they were, this forum wouldn't exist....
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
no argument from me...i love rangefinders, always have, always will...the move to digital was a much easier one for me than i ever thought it would be.
Jodorowsky
Well-known
I think today is the day that I realised that I love rangefinders too.
Mackinaw
Think Different
I would love to, but perhaps another day. Until then I am happy with my film. I just need to shoot more, in any media.
back alley
IMAGES
i'm a saturday shooter...and i find it hard to do otherwise, despite always having a camera with me.
Jodorowsky
Well-known
In a couple of years, an M8 will probably sell for £1000, but will probably never fall much below that. In two years, a used M9 will be 4 years old, and will probably sell for £2300. I'm just guessing.... There'll always be at least £1500 between an 8 and 9. Probably.
There'll always be at least £1500 between an 8 and 9. Probably.
The M9 is a great camera. I could have picked up a D3x for all of my Nikon lenses, still shoot with an F2AS and an F2Sb.
But I wanted a rangefinder camera. Last year, I bought a slightly used M8 to try it out. I liked it, and the M9 corrects all of the M8 issues. No need for an IR reflecting filter, manual lens coding, full 16-bit uncompressed raw, and is full frame. Add the 2-Stop improvement that I am getting in high ISO performance, and I am very, very happy with the purchase.
But I wanted a rangefinder camera. Last year, I bought a slightly used M8 to try it out. I liked it, and the M9 corrects all of the M8 issues. No need for an IR reflecting filter, manual lens coding, full 16-bit uncompressed raw, and is full frame. Add the 2-Stop improvement that I am getting in high ISO performance, and I am very, very happy with the purchase.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I don't find it at all amazing that people are so readily accepting the M9. With it you get you RF experience in FF digital form. In the SLR world I found it easy to go to the D700 from my film SLRs. I will wait for a pay raise or the price of a used M9 to drop before contemplating one though.
Bob
Bob
traveler_101
American abroad
In a couple of years, an M8 will probably sell for £1000, but will probably never fall much below that. In two years, a used M9 will be 4 years old, and will probably sell for £2300. I'm just guessing....
The M9 is attractive because it is full frame, but it is just too expensive. Even if you are right about the price drop (a calculation that does not account for the coming depreciation of most western currencies), 2300 GBP amounts to $3850, or over 20,000 Norwegian kroner. In the American patois, 'that's a lot of dough where I come from'. . . It's best for me not to think about it.
thegman
Veteran
I like my range finders, but I see them as a "film" thing, don't ask me why. If were to go digital, I'd see no reason to stick with the range finder concept.
jarski
Veteran
In a couple of years, an M8 will probably sell for £1000, but will probably never fall much below that. In two years, a used M9 will be 4 years old, and will probably sell for £2300. I'm just guessing....
been doing similar estimations. am thinking of buying M9 when start to see used ones going around 2-2.5k€. bought M8 little less than that (late 2009), and been happy with it. probably am not going to sell it, but retire as backup.
srtiwari
Daktari
I am one of the people that gave in to buying the M9. Just got mine 2 days ago, and I'm off on an exciting journey. I can tell you, though, its not what I had expected.
Here are a few thoughts...
At first sight I was just a bit disappointed. A camera twice the price of a new MP should look and feel twice as good. Well, it doesn't !
Firstly, the paint- somehow the chrome on the M6 is more classy looking. In fact, the finish on my earlier M2 is better than anything else.
Secondly, though larger, does not feel as 'dense' as the M6/P etc. Not quite'boggy', mind you, just not quite as solid !
( I wondered if I had done the right thing, buying it)
But two days of fiddling with it, and using it, I'm a convert ! It now feels fabulous, and the concern about the comparative feel of the other M bodies, gently fading.
Most importantly, it produces phenomenal images ! And the debate - whether it replaces/competes/makes redundant film bodies - seems to have resolved. It complements !!
This should allow me to sell the excess film gear I own, so I can limit myself to a couple of M bodies, and a few choice lenses.
One thing that I found very useful was that I could 'test' and compare lenses ( and decide which ones to sell) much easier, as the proof of their performance is immediate. That is much easier to manage than the patently waiting to get the results on film, and then hoping that the differences between lenses was not some inadvertent change in the workflow from shooting to comparing.
And finally, the instant feedback is not really instant, since shooting in RAW, and looking at it on that not-so-great screen tells you little about what the final image could look like. This allows me to be more diligent in applying the settings and double-checking them, and then shooting carefully. And then, waiting to get home to review and 'process' the images. Almost like film !
I'm having a great time, and this is only the third day I've had it !
Here's one of the first pictures I took...
Here are a few thoughts...
At first sight I was just a bit disappointed. A camera twice the price of a new MP should look and feel twice as good. Well, it doesn't !
Firstly, the paint- somehow the chrome on the M6 is more classy looking. In fact, the finish on my earlier M2 is better than anything else.
Secondly, though larger, does not feel as 'dense' as the M6/P etc. Not quite'boggy', mind you, just not quite as solid !
( I wondered if I had done the right thing, buying it)
But two days of fiddling with it, and using it, I'm a convert ! It now feels fabulous, and the concern about the comparative feel of the other M bodies, gently fading.
Most importantly, it produces phenomenal images ! And the debate - whether it replaces/competes/makes redundant film bodies - seems to have resolved. It complements !!
This should allow me to sell the excess film gear I own, so I can limit myself to a couple of M bodies, and a few choice lenses.
One thing that I found very useful was that I could 'test' and compare lenses ( and decide which ones to sell) much easier, as the proof of their performance is immediate. That is much easier to manage than the patently waiting to get the results on film, and then hoping that the differences between lenses was not some inadvertent change in the workflow from shooting to comparing.
And finally, the instant feedback is not really instant, since shooting in RAW, and looking at it on that not-so-great screen tells you little about what the final image could look like. This allows me to be more diligent in applying the settings and double-checking them, and then shooting carefully. And then, waiting to get home to review and 'process' the images. Almost like film !
I'm having a great time, and this is only the third day I've had it !
Here's one of the first pictures I took...
luuca
Well-known
I admit I was scared when I sold all my dslr gear and moved to m9... now after 3.000 shots I can say it was (for me) the right decision
M9 is... a joy to use, simply what I needed.
M9 is... a joy to use, simply what I needed.
I shoot rangefinder cameras because of the lenses: I like the selection that goes back 80 years. I can use my 1932 Summar and other classic lenses as intended: full frame, RF coupled, and no need for the IR cut filter.
The older lower-contrast lenses are especially nice on Digital cameras, where intensity clipping takes place more easily than it does with a film camera. High-contrast lenses tend to saturate highlights and clip shadows with Digital.
Subhash, good comments! I see we share some views. I have migrated to the M9 too, but there were more intermediate steps. I already had and favored medium format RF and SLR gear, as well as an M2. I found a digital Pentax handy for gear shots, documenting maintenance and such tasks. Fast results, useful.
As I began using the Pentax K100D, I realized I really wanted an RF digital too. I found a demo M8 at RFF sponsor PopFlash at an attractive price, and yielded to temptation. A few months later we went overseas on vacation, and I took only the M8, but I hadn't yet become a "believer" in IR Cut filters and coding.
Then, our local small-town branch of a larger processing lab closed its doors, meaning an 80-mile round trip to drop off and pick up film processing.
Now, having settled the IR issue, I found the M8 to be a delight to use, with great results. I use it like a film M, with the screen turned off. But I do make a few more exposures than with a film camera, as I feel free to explore the subject a bit more. And I think this has resulted in better photos.
The M9 was chance coming together last Fall, a used one from an RFF member who wanted my Nikon RF kit, so we worked out a trade that made it just too easy to accept.
The M9 has its quirks too, not quite as settled as the M8 quirks. 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 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 post too.
I will still use the M8, for its strong points, and the modest "crop factor" has never been a factor for me.
Any focus errors are more prominent in the M9 than the M8 due to the higher resolution. Lenses are likely to need fine adjustment by a technician to match, and aperture-related focus shift becomes more noticeable. One cannot resist the jaw-dropping pixel-peeping but this reveals defects and errors all too readily!
And this is even more true for the Leica S2 dSLR, which I had an opportunity to try a year ago at one of the Roadshow events. Focus is so critical that the AF is more reliable than a (non-magnified) eye at the viewfinder. I like the simple Leica user interface. I only use the more basic features of my Pentax dSLR, while the Leica controls seem more accessible to me.
My modest talents are no match for the quality and capability of the Leicas, but it's comforting to know that the deficiencies are all mine!
As I began using the Pentax K100D, I realized I really wanted an RF digital too. I found a demo M8 at RFF sponsor PopFlash at an attractive price, and yielded to temptation. A few months later we went overseas on vacation, and I took only the M8, but I hadn't yet become a "believer" in IR Cut filters and coding.
Then, our local small-town branch of a larger processing lab closed its doors, meaning an 80-mile round trip to drop off and pick up film processing.
Now, having settled the IR issue, I found the M8 to be a delight to use, with great results. I use it like a film M, with the screen turned off. But I do make a few more exposures than with a film camera, as I feel free to explore the subject a bit more. And I think this has resulted in better photos.
The M9 was chance coming together last Fall, a used one from an RFF member who wanted my Nikon RF kit, so we worked out a trade that made it just too easy to accept.
The M9 has its quirks too, not quite as settled as the M8 quirks.
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 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 post too.I will still use the M8, for its strong points, and the modest "crop factor" has never been a factor for me.
Any focus errors are more prominent in the M9 than the M8 due to the higher resolution. Lenses are likely to need fine adjustment by a technician to match, and aperture-related focus shift becomes more noticeable. One cannot resist the jaw-dropping pixel-peeping but this reveals defects and errors all too readily!
And this is even more true for the Leica S2 dSLR, which I had an opportunity to try a year ago at one of the Roadshow events. Focus is so critical that the AF is more reliable than a (non-magnified) eye at the viewfinder. I like the simple Leica user interface. I only use the more basic features of my Pentax dSLR, while the Leica controls seem more accessible to me.
My modest talents are no match for the quality and capability of the Leicas, but it's comforting to know that the deficiencies are all mine!
Last edited:
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
DANG .... I fell in LOVE today
Playing with Four M9's @ the NY Rff meet up
Coupled with a noctilux, a 35 lux asph, a 35 biogon, 50 summicron v5
Trouble for a Feverish Mind
I am now seriously THINKING bout the M9 &
selling my 50 lux pre asph, 28 Elmarit Asph, IIIa, 50 color skopar,
M3 in the midst of being sold & a little moula
:bang:,,,
Playing with Four M9's
@ the NY Rff meet upCoupled with a noctilux, a 35 lux asph, a 35 biogon, 50 summicron v5
Trouble for a Feverish Mind
I am now seriously THINKING bout the M9 &
selling my 50 lux pre asph, 28 Elmarit Asph, IIIa, 50 color skopar,
M3 in the midst of being sold & a little moula
:bang:,,,