migrating to m9...

[Keyne]

I moved from other digital cameras to an M8 and hopefully will never have to go back to an SLR (film or digital). I just love the ergonomics of the Leica M. I do wish the M8 had some more analog views for ISO and always showed the selected shutter speed in the viewfinder, but honestly I don't really care. I love the M8 and will keep it till it dies; it is just so much fun to use I cant imagine ever using something else.

 

[jaapv]

Completely agree. But for me, it's about outcomes. Show me the great photos that only a Leica could make 😉

Well, assuming I could make great photo's -which is quite doubtful-, I could not make them with anything but a Leica, as I don't own any other brand....🙄😛

 

[shadowfox]

Would I like using an M9, with 99% of certainty, Yes!

However, living where I am and doing what I do, I only get to *really* do some street photography probably once in a year when I can travel to places where people actually walk on streets, not in their cars or indoors all the time.

So I could never justify the asking price of M9 (which I think is fair, btw) no matter what.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Got the M9 as a matter of necessity. I like shooting film, but I have to face the fact it is disappearing, and that the future is digital. Didn't want my M lenses to become museum pieces--and there are still times and places where a rengefinder is a better camera to use than an SLR...

Went with the M9 because they fixed a number of the glitches that made the M8 a less than perfect camera....

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Completely agree. But for me, it's about outcomes. Show me the great photos that only a Leica could make 😉

It's never been about outcomes for me. There are plenty of ways to take good photos. I just love the M system. Every minute I'm using the cameras, I feel pleasure. That's what it's about.

 

[Doug]

... But for me, it's about outcomes. Show me the great photos that only a Leica could make 😉

Since this is not going to happen, it makes for a reliable personal reason to avoid the expense! 🙄🙂

 

[hteasley]

It's never been about outcomes for me. There are plenty of ways to take good photos. I just love the M system. Every minute I'm using the cameras, I feel pleasure. That's what it's about.

On the one hand, I can agree with that. M cameras are really wonderful to use. But part of why they're wonderful is that there is no better camera, that I've handled, to get quick, manual shots. SLRs might produce great images, but in my hands, there are often one of two outcomes:

1. I got the shot, but because it was on automatic something (aperture, focus, whatever), it chose something I would not have on the auto setting.

2. I tried to keep it manual, but the controls are laid out poorly enough that I miss the shot.

So the shots I got were often not the results I wanted. That happens less with my Leicas. I miss shots, but not really more than with the SLR, and I like my results better now. So it's equal part, pleasure to use and results.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

For me, it's all about the lenses. The M9 takes the lenses that I like shooting with, SLR's do not.

 

[furcafe]

I believe Leica made that decision a long time before the M9.

I thought I was prepared for all of the M9s issues, but I only realized over the weekend that Leica in sheer stupidity made the shutter dial rotate the wrong way.

 

[Tim Gray]

I'd get an M9 if they weren't so damn expensive. Until I either make more money, the price of the M9 drops, or they stop making film, I'll stick with film. I've got nothing against digital, even though I do like wet printing B&W, but there's really not the motivation for me to stretch that much to get an M9 at this point.

I could easily picture myself using them side by side. Heck I started on digital.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

For me, it's all about the lenses. The M9 takes the lenses that I like shooting with, SLR's do not.

Agreed--I quite like the Pentax primes I use with my SLR, but the M system really does deliver.

 

[n5jrn]

I have nothing against the M9; it simply doesn't make sense for me.

At the rate I shoot, the price difference between an M9 and a used M2 or M3 can pay for many years of film and developing costs. By which time depreciation will probably have caused the M9 to lose over 50% of its market value.

 

[tbarker13]

I'll get an M9 at some point. But for now, it just doesn't make sense.
I'm starting to do more weddings. And for the price of an M9 body, you can get a Nikon D700 (with a D7000 as a backup) along with a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8.

 

[hausen]

I completely agree with JSRockit. Is just as much about the process of taking a photo for me than just the result. I am very kinaesthetic and the feel of the the M9, it's relatively small size, ergonomics etc are all worth the money to me. If you like RFs and want to shoot digital and you can afford it then everything else seems to me to be a compromise. I had the X100 for 2 weeks, borrowed the Ricohs and Sigmas from friends and they were just that, compromises. In my eyes life is the journey not the destination so I might as well use what I want in that journey rather than justifying why I won't spend $7k on a M9. That is me though and I have no interest in saying I am right to make others wrong. My 5d, 24TS-E and 16-35/2.8 all sold last night so there are more funds available for lenses for M9. Happy days.

 

[jaapv]

I have nothing against the M9; it simply doesn't make sense for me.

At the rate I shoot, the price difference between an M9 and a used M2 or M3 can pay for many years of film and developing costs. By which time depreciation will probably have caused the M9 to lose over 50% of its market value.

Are you a camera trader or a photographer?😕

 

[Roger Hicks]

I completely agree with JSRockit. Is just as much about the process of taking a photo for me than just the result. I am very kinaesthetic and the feel of the the M9, it's relatively small size, ergonomics etc are all worth the money to me. If you like RFs and want to shoot digital and you can afford it then everything else seems to me to be a compromise. I had the X100 for 2 weeks, borrowed the Ricohs and Sigmas from friends and they were just that, compromises. In my eyes life is the journey not the destination so I might as well use what I want in that journey rather than justifying why I won't spend $7k on a M9. That is me though and I have no interest in saying I am right to make others wrong. My 5d, 24TS-E and 16-35/2.8 all sold last night so there are more funds available for lenses for M9. Happy days.

Beautifully put. But it seems that quite a lot of people do not, in fact, buy cameras to use. they buy them to try, to play with, and to sell on. There's nothing wrong with that -- most of us have done it -- but it strikes me as a cardinal error, when you are passionate about taking pictures, to make any more compromises than you have to the camera with which you are hoping to take your best pictures or even (in my case) that you are using as part of your livelihood.

'Any more compromises than you have to' has normally come down to money alone for me, which is why I don't have an S2 as well as the M9. But worrying about depreciation is something I've never done, even as a professional. No 'serious' camera I've ever bought (as distinct from cameras to play with, or cameras to buy and sell) has ever been bought with the idea that I'll be selling it in a few years (or even a few months). Rather, it is fully depreciated in use, and any residual value is a bonus. Or would be if I ever got around to selling my old 'user' cameras that I've used to help earn a living.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bizarrius]

when i migrated to leica i did it to use film, i never thought i would go back to digital. i was happy with the leica but i didnt realise that using a leica made me happy instead of using film.
i thought that it was film that made my love for photography grow bigger by the minute.
when i ended up developing 10 rolls every sunday and had to do contacts, prints, evaluate, scan etc. i started looking at smething that would give me more time to shoot than inhale chemicals and make a mess out of the kitchen. at first it was the m8 checking out, the iso and the 1.3x kept me away from it.
then i started looking at the m9 even if i didnt have the money for it.
a sudden change of plans in my life gave me a few more bucks so i went for it.
turns out high iso is never what i wanted, since i sold the d700 a year ago and the m9 never goes higher than 400 for color and the black and white pictures look amazing even with 2500.

my regrets are for all the money i spent on nikon, mamiya, pentax and film leicas before i realised that all i needed was the m9. every day i find my self surprised of how tis camera fits my hands, eyes and brain. its like this camera was made for me.

so yea, i know the op only started this thread to have an excuse to migrate. we are just waiting to see if you are going for the black or the chrome now 😀

 

[Mcary]

Beautifully put. But it seems that quite a lot of people do not, in fact, buy cameras to use. they buy them to try, to play with, and to sell on. There's nothing wrong with that -- most of us have done it -- but it strikes me as a cardinal error, when you are passionate about taking pictures, to make any more compromises than you have to the camera with which you are hoping to take your best pictures or even (in my case) that you are using as part of your livelihood.

'Any more compromises than you have to' has normally come down to money alone for me, which is why I don't have an S2 as well as the M9. But worrying about depreciation is something I've never done, even as a professional. No 'serious' camera I've ever bought (as distinct from cameras to play with, or cameras to buy and sell) has ever been bought with the idea that I'll be selling it in a few years (or even a few months). Rather, it is fully depreciated in use, and any residual value is a bonus. Or would be if I ever got around to selling my old 'user' cameras that I've used to help earn a living.

Cheers,

R.

The way I look at it I don't buy cameras I rent them. So for me the question comes down to do I feel I got my money's worth during the time that I owned something, not the difference between the price I paid and what I got for selling it. Examples I paid about $2600 for a Canon 5D and sold it 30 months later for $1200 so it basically cost me $46.00 a month and to me that a pretty good deal for a full frame DSLR. Then there the 20D I bought for $1500 and donated four years to a local gallery so it ended up costing me about $36 a month.
PS I've only had my M6 for about 8 months and only had an M8 for 5 months, before selling it but feel that I've already gotten my money's worth out of both.
I'm sure they'll be a Digital M in my future, just not sure when 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

The way I look at it I don't buy cameras I rent them. So for me the question comes down to do I feel I got my money's worth during the time that I owned something, not the difference between the price I paid and what I got for selling it. Examples I paid about $2600 for a Canon 5D and sold it 30 months later for $1200 so it basically cost me $46.00 a month and to me that a pretty good deal for a full frame DSLR. Then there the 20D I bought for $1500 and donated four years to a local gallery so it ended up costing me about $36 a month.
PS I've only had my M6 for about 8 months and only had an M8 for 5 months, before selling it but feel that I've already gotten my money's worth out of both.
I'm sure they'll be a Digital M in my future, just not sure when 🙂

Dear Mike,

I see your point, but we have different world-pictures. Quite honestly, I've forgotten what I paid for most of my cameras (except the most recent, the M9). If I don't reckon I can get both the enjoyment and the earnings out off a camera over its probable minimum lifetime, regardless of residual value, I won't buy it.

There's also the point that because I buy them as part of the business, I have to look at what they'll earn me or (in the case of a digicam vs. film) what they'll save me. Even across 5 years, an M9 is under $100 a month (hardly a disaster); saves a good deal more than its cost in film per month, unless I'm using it very little; and earns a fair amount more than $100 in the vast majority of months

Yes, I could use a cheap DSLR. For that matter I could eat at McDo's. Someone said somewhere that it's all about 'outcomes'. Yes, exactly. If I enjoy myself, that's a good outcome.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

For me, price becomes justifiable when I get the results I want. From a commercial perspective one should take into account the value of the images sold on, but if you are considering the value of hte images in more subjective terms, nobody can tell you that you are wrong. I bought a 24 Lux asph and wondered if I had done the right thing. After some of the best images of my life, I have not given it another thought. Had I been worrying about depreciation and value over time, I doubt I would have been able to focus fully on taking decent pictures. It is a tool, albeit an expensive one. That said, I would not pay $200 for a camera strap. That is not value to me (even if I could resell it at the same price in five years), but my $6k 24 lux very much was. I can't put a value on those pictures (well, I probably could), but I know it was very much the right choice. Better still, I still have the lens and it has many more pictures to take!