Sell Gear to buy a M9? Help

LeicaFoReVer said:
I will think again thanks, however the focus turning while changing aperture makes me use it less. I like the images from it though.
Click to expand...


Adjust the aperture first then release the focus lock and use the RF.


Regards, David


PS I think your plan is OK. Ask to see the letter from Leica saying that the sensor has been changed.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
It is current truth. Once Leica will stop supporting film M (it will happen sooner or later) it will become just another mossy fim gear, which is sold for less and less.

Plus, it is anti-photography to treat cameras as "investment".
Cameras are for taking of images, not for sitting on them and watching their prices. And any digital camera including quirky M9 is more convenient and often more reliable than film cameras.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.
 
Yes keh doesn't apply this code to that item but anyways I need to wait until I sell all. It started to seem a bad idea anyway as still would force my budget. I started thinking this when I saw the M9 with 1800$ price tag with original sensor. Anything above that price can force the budget. Not impossible but, will have to wait. I still think that I need to sell all, at least to get ZM lens (or more ZM lenses if I dont buy a digital full frame M) to downsize to the M6 and leica iiif

p.s. I strongly believe that film Leica is still the most reliable for the long run, more than Contax G or Oly OM4 (maybe I can have fully mechanical OM body and keep 35 f2 as I like that lens and system too)
 
LeicaFoReVer said:
Snip ... I strongly believe that film Leica is still the most reliable for the long run, more than Contax G or Oly OM4 (maybe I can have fully mechanical OM body and keep 35 f2 as I like that lens and system too)
Click to expand...

I see the M6 as the best long term Leica camera with a meter.

There are a lot of OM cameras a lot cheaper than the OM-4 and they are all good. In my part of the world the OM10 (even with the manual adapter) is dirt cheap and the OM-1's and the OM-2's are a bargain. If you need a camera that takes macro lenses then the OM's are a good idea.

Regards, David
 
The prices of the M240 are also dropping. I echo Godfrey’s comments. I had an M9 and the M240 is far superior. The shutter action in the M9 is maybe one of the most miserable I have ever experienced barring my Zenit TTL. The feel is crunchy, uneven and scratchy. The noise the shutter makes after release almost sounds like an old Polaroid SX70.
If any Japanese mfg released a camera like this at any price point they would have been pilloried. But Leica somehow got a pass selling this for $7k new.
What else sucks about it? Check out the rear LCD. Again completely unacceptable on a $100 camera yet ok for Leica to put it on a $7k camera.
The M240 completely fixes these issues, the camera is very smooth and responsive. The shutter action is delightful. The LCD is fine. Resolution is improved. Battery life is much better. Reliability is there. Even the rf stays calibrated longer in my experience.

IMO a used good condition m240 is a superb buy in the digital world.
 
Corran said:
Convenience also doesn't equal better photographs...and often leads to the opposite. IMO.
Click to expand...

I would say this is subjective. Anything that gels with a person can make a person do better. I can't see how using the right thing for the photos you wants to make will have the opposite effect.
 
If he gels with the M6 what does he gain with an M9? More convenience, easier to shoot a bunch of images, but why? Stick with film. M9 is a waste of time. Speaking from experience - been there, done that. Still have the M6, btw.
 
LeicaFoReVer said:
Thank you guys all. Will follow classifieds here too. Maybe an M9 with replaced sensor can fall here with 2k price tag.
Click to expand...

I've seen private sale M 240s for $2200 so watch for them too. I bought mine for $2550 and that included an extra battery, thumbs up, EVF and all original packaging.

Shawn
 
Corran said:
If he gels with the M6 what does he gain with an M9? More convenience, easier to shoot a bunch of images, but why? Stick with film. M9 is a waste of time. Speaking from experience - been there, done that. Still have the M6, btw.
Click to expand...

Your film bias is strong here. What does he gain with the M9? Perhaps he doesn't have a darkroom? With the digital, he can now work on photography whenever he wants. And let's not act like taking a lot of photos is a bad thing. The only way to get better is to make photos. I've used both as well and having a thorough and easily accessible workflow (whether film or digital) is the best thing you can do for your photography. If the guy wants a digital camera and he feels it is right for him, it probably is.
 
Huss said:
The prices of the M240 are also dropping. I echo Godfrey’s comments. I had an M9 and the M240 is far superior. The shutter action in the M9 is maybe one of the most miserable I have ever experienced barring my Zenit TTL. The feel is crunchy, uneven and scratchy. The noise the shutter makes after release almost sounds like an old Polaroid SX70.
If any Japanese mfg released a camera like this at any price point they would have been pilloried. But Leica somehow got a pass selling this for $7k new.
What else sucks about it? Check out the rear LCD. Again completely unacceptable on a $100 camera yet ok for Leica to put it on a $7k camera.
The M240 completely fixes these issues, the camera is very smooth and responsive. The shutter action is delightful. The LCD is fine. Resolution is improved. Battery life is much better. Reliability is there. Even the rf stays calibrated longer in my experience.

IMO a used good condition m240 is a superb buy in the digital world.
Click to expand...


Never heard Bessa L or Canon 5D shutters?

With those and me on the street people were looking around "that was this?" after I was taking candid picture.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Never heard Bessa L or Canon 5D shutters?

With those and me on the street people were looking around "that was this?" after I was taking candid picture.
Click to expand...

I have a Bessa L but I am unsure what you mean. The shutter action on mine is delightfully crisp. The sound is a little loud.
 
jsrockit said:
Your film bias is strong here. What does he gain with the M9? Perhaps he doesn't have a darkroom? With the digital, he can now work on photography whenever he wants. And let's not act like taking a lot of photos is a bad thing. The only way to get better is to make photos. I've used both as well and having a thorough and easily accessible workflow (whether film or digital) is the best thing you can do for your photography. If the guy wants a digital camera and he feels it is right for him, it probably is.
Click to expand...

So what? It's a valid question. It seems a lot of folks, especially the older ones, are simply getting more lazy. I talk to a lot of folks who used to shoot film and then they switched to digital, and most if not all say they liked the photos more on film but digital is easy and convenient. Funny how that works.
 
Corran said:
So what? It's a valid question. It seems a lot of folks, especially the older ones, are simply getting more lazy. I talk to a lot of folks who used to shoot film and then they switched to digital, and most if not all say they liked the photos more on film but digital is easy and convenient. Funny how that works.
Click to expand...


"They liked the photos more on film". So, do we like how picture looks or what is on the picture?
I'll be first to admit. Yes, it looks more pleasing on film, but too often for images without content.
With digital we are often insecure this way. I see many cute images with film M. Just because it is on film. Add lith and it looks even better.
But I have seen only few good photogs with digital M.
Digital doesn't make dross looks cute, film does. But it is still dross without content most of the time.
 
Most people shoot for themselves (family/travel/whatever), so I would say that the content that is important to them is not important to anyone else, pretty much by definition. Except maybe in the far future, if it is re-discovered, as those who enjoy collecting or looking at old found photos would attest.

I know many (including myself, in the past) who shoot digital images at such an amount that they never even get edited or looked at again. Heaven help those who shoot in RAW only without a JPEG duplicate, and sometime in the future someone wants to look at them, if the disk is even able to be viewed.

The occasional disciplined digital shooter who shoots with precision and restraint is the exception, not the rule. I have seen numerous events where the parent strolls up with a DSLR and shoots 200 frames in under a minute of their kid doing something or receiving an award, whatever. How many fps does the typical DSLR have these days anyway...
 
The question is not about quantity of frames, but quality of the content in them.
My impression is what many likes film just because how it looks, without the content.
And it is not something I'm into. Winogrand, HCB used film just because nothing else was available. BG switched to digital, but it didn't changed the value of the content on his pictures.
Five out of seven in my family doesn't care if picture is on film or digital. All it has to be - good family picture, portrait and so on.

My local media would not even take film content, they need it digitally taken.
I got published, was one of the winners in international content. All with digital. Including M-E pictures.

JPEG1 vs RAW is as old as film. Wanna PP? RAW in LR, negative in DR. Like it SOOC? JPEG1, Instax, E6, its the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom