Lss
Well-known
If you don't use it much, might as well sell it.
Fraser
Well-known
While my M9 was away being fixed in Germany I bought an x100, it was a brilliant camera but when my M9 came back sold the fuji the main reason was I reckoned if I had them both I wouldn't use the M9 enough!
I've decided to keep my M9 I'm not going to upgrade to the M as I have no interest in electronic viewfinders etc. Neither is a rare camera so if you sell one you can always buy another in the future, it also depends how much cash you have tied up in Leics lenses.
I've decided to keep my M9 I'm not going to upgrade to the M as I have no interest in electronic viewfinders etc. Neither is a rare camera so if you sell one you can always buy another in the future, it also depends how much cash you have tied up in Leics lenses.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I would not sell it if the M9 is my only rangefinder.
But you have the M2.
So sell it before the price goes down further.
You can get a whole bunch of fresh film for your M2 *and* still have the budget to upgrade your X100s when the time comes.
But you have the M2.
So sell it before the price goes down further.
You can get a whole bunch of fresh film for your M2 *and* still have the budget to upgrade your X100s when the time comes.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
So... a little different perspective...
You bought an M2, so you obviously like the coincident rangefinder camera. How important is it to you to have a single set of lenses that work for both film and digital? How important is a rangefinder viewfinder to your style?
I went the opposite direction and dumped the DSLR gear and went all Leica for my paid work: an M9-P, an M8 and an M4-P and eight lenses (five VC, five Leitz Canada) and my bag has never been lighter, or my paid work so easy and pleasant to do!
Until this week, Leicas were the only cameras I had. I broke down this week and picked up a Panny GX1 because I bought a sailboat, and taking the M system out on the water just seems foolish as I need those bodies for work. If the GX1 goes swimming, I'm not out of business. My gear is insured, but the time out of commission for one of the bodies would be a pain. I even considered an X100, but the Panny won at $285 shipped including the zoom.
You bought an M2, so you obviously like the coincident rangefinder camera. How important is it to you to have a single set of lenses that work for both film and digital? How important is a rangefinder viewfinder to your style?
I went the opposite direction and dumped the DSLR gear and went all Leica for my paid work: an M9-P, an M8 and an M4-P and eight lenses (five VC, five Leitz Canada) and my bag has never been lighter, or my paid work so easy and pleasant to do!
Until this week, Leicas were the only cameras I had. I broke down this week and picked up a Panny GX1 because I bought a sailboat, and taking the M system out on the water just seems foolish as I need those bodies for work. If the GX1 goes swimming, I'm not out of business. My gear is insured, but the time out of commission for one of the bodies would be a pain. I even considered an X100, but the Panny won at $285 shipped including the zoom.
cz23
-
I let go of my M9 last year. Rationally, it seemed the right decision, and still does. But there is even now an emotional attachment to it unlike I have experienced with any other camera. I don't usually advise on buy/sell decisions -- it's just too personal -- but one thing I will say is they are only cameras and just about any is replaceable.
John
John
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Nobody has asked WHY the OP uses his X100 more despite liking the M9 and recognizing the better image quality from the M9. It cannot be high ISO. On LUF Mitch Alland has written an extensive thread proving that, using the proper technique, the M9 is an excellent low light camera.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/292708-m9-colors-night-best-way-shoot.html
The technique is basically: leave at ISO 640, underexpose massively to get a decent shutter speed and push in postprocessing.
It turns out that this reduces noise significantly. Apply a touch of noise reduction and you'll find the M9 is actually very good at low light with a better colour rendition than most other cameras.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/292708-m9-colors-night-best-way-shoot.html
The technique is basically: leave at ISO 640, underexpose massively to get a decent shutter speed and push in postprocessing.
It turns out that this reduces noise significantly. Apply a touch of noise reduction and you'll find the M9 is actually very good at low light with a better colour rendition than most other cameras.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
Plummeted ? A gradual decline is all I see, especially as M240s are, discreet cough, in short/no supply.
Perhaps when shipping resumes they will move down a notch, I'm waiting
doolittle
Well-known
Some questions you might find useful to ask yourself:
- What M mount lenses do you have? Do you need a full frame digital back for those lenses?
- Did you use the M9 more before you got the M2? If so will you start using the M9 again after the novelty has worn off on the M2 or is this a permanent trend?
- Do you need the money (for photography, travel or for life in general)
- Can you achieve the photographs you want to achieve with the rest of the gear you have or do you need the M9 for some of these goals?
- If you do sell the M9 and regret if at a later stage, will you be able to get one again in the same condition for no more than the price you sold it for?
Ansel
Well-known
Your question is essentially a monetary one, as I am guessing you would not sell it if you had lots of cash, and as such I think only you can really decide what to do with your money.
jarski
Veteran
M9 is holding its value for a good while still, unless full frame mirrorless shows up. and even then lure of rangefinder keeps it from dropping rock bottom a la old dSLR's.
__--
Well-known
The conventional wisdom is that the M9 is not good at high-ISO; but I think that the technique described in this thread (shooting at ISO 640 and pushing in LR5) shows the M9 to be a great camera for night photography, taking into account its color rendition that I feel is better than what the X100s or most other cameras offer.
EDIT: I just noticed Jaap's posting above (post #26) on the same subject.
—Mitch/Paris
Tristes Tropiques
[Direct download link for PDF file of book project]
roboflick
Well-known
Sell it!
I'm glad I sold mine, I love my Leica film bodies but could never get used to the shutter lag and slow buffer. Sell it and buy one again in a year if you really miss it, FF nex and M 240 will drive prices lower.
Nik
I'm glad I sold mine, I love my Leica film bodies but could never get used to the shutter lag and slow buffer. Sell it and buy one again in a year if you really miss it, FF nex and M 240 will drive prices lower.
Nik
raid
Dad Photographer
I used the M9 extendively during a vacation trip to Italy recently. I set the camera to ISO 600~800, and the images looked beautiful. I did not know how to use LR then, but now I could use noise reduction and other useful adjustments for such situations. Some people claim that the M9 sensor was developed with Kodak around Kodachro,e. Is this true or just a myth?
JSU
-
I began using Leicas in 1969, first using a M4 in 1973 and buying my first M3 & M2 in 1974.
Various CaNikons came and went through the years, as did different M bodies and lenses. Whether I was using Canon or Nikon for my SLR needs, there was always a Leica or two or three in my kit.
Then came 2003 and my newspaper went digital. The film SLR's were sold, but the core of my Leica kit went into the safe. I was for a time, using only DSLR's.
I retired at the end of 2008 and in 2009 returned to my Leicas, the tried and trued M6's for film and a pair of new M8.2 bodies for digital.
The M8.2 is in its core a Leica, but with one glaring asterisk, the crop factor which significantly redefines any lens. You can't discard the outer projection of a lens and retain its essence.
Last October, the realization the M9 would go away with the introduction of the M 240 prompted me to move-on from the crop sensor bodies to the full frame M9. With the M9 I finally had the camera I wish I could have had when my job mandated I go digital.
With the emergence of the Type 240, it became obvious to me that the M9 and M-E would be the last M cameras with the pure mechanical rangefinder and less complicated approach sans video and live-view. I prefer the esthetics of the M9-P to the M-E so that is what I use.
I waited a long time for this camera and in just less than a year, feel I am finally getting a full appreciation of its potential. Integral with its potential is also using my rangefinder mount lenses to their full potential rather than cropping off a substantial portion of the image.
I'm not bothered limiting my ISO choice for the M9 to only 1600, I can't recall ever using any film in my various film Leicas rated any higher. I know how to make images to my liking in any light with an ISO rating of 1600 and lower. If I had any real issue with the ISO range of the M9, it's that I can't easily do ISO 25 or even 64. That's life.
I am not a videographer, I don't want my cameras cluttered with such a capacity, I will never use it. The optical projected frame masks of every Leica M camera up through the M9 and M-E are a comfortable constant, I see no point in changing now.
I have no interest in reinventing the basic rangefinder camera with an electronic VF or live-view on a rear screen. I have no interest in moving-on from a full frame format for my rangefinder lenses.
I like my pair of M9-P bodies, they are the closest thing to a digital M6. I waited a long time (July, 2003 to the end of 2012) for what I consider the proper digital Leica. My M9-P cameras (and associated lenses) will be the very last photographic items I might ever sell, hopefully they never will be sold, hopefully they will also be supported by Solms for many years to come.
Various CaNikons came and went through the years, as did different M bodies and lenses. Whether I was using Canon or Nikon for my SLR needs, there was always a Leica or two or three in my kit.
Then came 2003 and my newspaper went digital. The film SLR's were sold, but the core of my Leica kit went into the safe. I was for a time, using only DSLR's.
I retired at the end of 2008 and in 2009 returned to my Leicas, the tried and trued M6's for film and a pair of new M8.2 bodies for digital.
The M8.2 is in its core a Leica, but with one glaring asterisk, the crop factor which significantly redefines any lens. You can't discard the outer projection of a lens and retain its essence.
Last October, the realization the M9 would go away with the introduction of the M 240 prompted me to move-on from the crop sensor bodies to the full frame M9. With the M9 I finally had the camera I wish I could have had when my job mandated I go digital.
With the emergence of the Type 240, it became obvious to me that the M9 and M-E would be the last M cameras with the pure mechanical rangefinder and less complicated approach sans video and live-view. I prefer the esthetics of the M9-P to the M-E so that is what I use.
I waited a long time for this camera and in just less than a year, feel I am finally getting a full appreciation of its potential. Integral with its potential is also using my rangefinder mount lenses to their full potential rather than cropping off a substantial portion of the image.
I'm not bothered limiting my ISO choice for the M9 to only 1600, I can't recall ever using any film in my various film Leicas rated any higher. I know how to make images to my liking in any light with an ISO rating of 1600 and lower. If I had any real issue with the ISO range of the M9, it's that I can't easily do ISO 25 or even 64. That's life.
I am not a videographer, I don't want my cameras cluttered with such a capacity, I will never use it. The optical projected frame masks of every Leica M camera up through the M9 and M-E are a comfortable constant, I see no point in changing now.
I have no interest in reinventing the basic rangefinder camera with an electronic VF or live-view on a rear screen. I have no interest in moving-on from a full frame format for my rangefinder lenses.
I like my pair of M9-P bodies, they are the closest thing to a digital M6. I waited a long time (July, 2003 to the end of 2012) for what I consider the proper digital Leica. My M9-P cameras (and associated lenses) will be the very last photographic items I might ever sell, hopefully they never will be sold, hopefully they will also be supported by Solms for many years to come.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Shutter lag?
You're a very special person to be able to notice 0.09 second....Nor is the buffer slow, but it is limited in size. What is the buffer speed on your film bodies?http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...30720-leica-m8-m8-2-m9-m9p-3.html#post1615269
FF Nex will be not very suitable for lenses shorter than 35 mm....
- if it ever comes past the vaporware stage.
maitani
Well-known
Sold my M9 5 months ago, mainly because I got a good price for it and I feared an extreme depreciation of the M9 after the M-240 introduction, with the intention getting one back sometime later, but it didn't really happen. (nor the introduction of the M-240 nor the depreciation of the M9), I might go for an M9-P if I can find a decent priced one mid-term, but I'm not in a hurry, as my M8 is still giving me a lot of joy and great pics. I find the combination of M8 (as IR /BW/minor crop) together with the M9 to be near perfect.
nor the depreciation of the M9), I might go for an M9-P if I can find a decent priced one mid-term, but I'm not in a hurry, as my M8 is still giving me a lot of joy and great pics. I find the combination of M8 (as IR /BW/minor crop) together with the M9 to be near perfect.sig
Well-known
Sell it. If you for any reason at all miss it, need it, feel insecure and so on, you can buy another one.
raid
Dad Photographer
I use my M9 on several days each week, so I do not have your problem where the M9 just sits there. It is a superb camera with hardly any equivalent or better digital RF camera around. Its subtle colors can be mind blowing.
roboflick
Well-known
Shutter lag?
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...30720-leica-m8-m8-2-m9-m9p-3.html#post1615269
FF Nex will be not very suitable for lenses shorter than 35 mm....
Jaapv
I did notice the shutter lag compared to the instant response of my m3.
The buffer is limited in size and fills up quickly. The time spent dumping the data annoyed me.
check out this article for some information you might find useful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_lag
I noticed the shutter lag difference, but maybe your neurons don't fire fast enough to tell the difference
Nik
JSU
-
Of particular note, I've never had to wait, even a mili-second, for a film Leica to "wake up."
The buffer of a M9 is limited, as is also write speed. Absolutely I can shoot 8 shots faster with my M6 than I can with my M9. If you're shooting landscape or still life it may not be an issue. If you are shooting portraits or street you might have to adjust your technique and pace when going from a M6 to a M9.
The buffer of a M9 is limited, as is also write speed. Absolutely I can shoot 8 shots faster with my M6 than I can with my M9. If you're shooting landscape or still life it may not be an issue. If you are shooting portraits or street you might have to adjust your technique and pace when going from a M6 to a M9.
Jaapv
I did notice the shutter lag compared to the instant response of my m3.
The buffer is limited in size and fills up quickly. The time spent dumping the data annoyed me.
check out this article for some information you might find useful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_lag
I noticed the shutter lag difference, but maybe your neurons don't fire fast enough to tell the difference
Nik