Switch from M9 to OMD - Am I Stupid?

I meant to add ... the other thing I'd consider in your shoes would be to take the M9 and just treat it like a camera and let it do it's job. If you're worried about it failing at some point pick up a used X100 before you go as a back up and sell that when you return.
 
Fraser said:
If it was me I would keep the M9 get a 35mm lens for it and some insurance and take one camera one lens on your trip.
Click to expand...

That makes very good sense. I would have my Olympus Mju in a bag with some film, and would take the X100 perhaps too. This would allow me to take the C Sonnar 50 and my tiny VC 25 f4 for the M9. I don't really get selling Leicas for the reasons often repeated above. It's a camera. If I went to Lisbon, say, and didn't have a 25 and the Zeiss C Sonnar I'd be unhappy. I once went to Italy for a month without a camera as my M4 had just been stolen. I lasted two days without a camera and bought an M4-2 and 50 Summicron. I could happily go around the world with just the X100 and have done this with just the Olympus mju.
 
your reasoning in post #1 makes perfect sense if you can deal with the four thirds aspect ratio, which rules out any of those cameras for me personally.
 
It does seem odd to undertake such a trip without the camera you love. Surely this is what insurance is for? If you feel the M9 is not flexible enough for you with two lenses, that is another matter.

If the M9 fails during the trip, you can buy a P&S and deal with the financial impact when you get home (sell M9, sell compact - whatever).
 
Pablito said:
your reasoning in post #1 makes perfect sense if you can deal with the four thirds aspect ratio, which rules out any of those cameras for me personally.
Click to expand...
The OM-D provides a 3:2 aspect ratio at 14 MP. Aperture, for example, then treats the RAW files as genuine 3:2 RAW files. Whether it makes sense to shoot 16 MP files and only ever use 14 MP is a question for you and your hard disk supplier. The UI and ease of use of different aspect ratios is one of the strong points of OM-D and EVF cameras in general.
 
Lss said:
The OM-D provides a 3:2 aspect ratio at 14 MP. Aperture, for example, then treats the RAW files as genuine 3:2 RAW files. Whether it makes sense to shoot 16 MP files and only ever use 14 MP is a question for you and your hard disk supplier. The UI and ease of use of different aspect ratios is one of the strong points of OM-D and EVF cameras in general.
Click to expand...

I asked this question in an olympus forum and there I learned that switching to 3:2 reduces the field of view and your wideangle lens is not so wide anymore. In some cases this might be a problem.

I decided against the OM-D. Using a camera in reduced resolution is not so smart and 4:3 is an aspect ratio I really hate and never use.
 
tom.w.bn said:
I asked this question in an olympus forum and there I learned that switching to 3:2 reduces the field of view and your wideangle lens is not so wide anymore. In some cases this might be a problem.
Click to expand...
The sensor is not multi-aspect, so it crops the top and bottom parts to get from 4:3 to 3:2. The field of view on the long edge is thus unchanged. Same thing to go from 4:3 to 16:9. It crops from left and right to get 1:1 (height remains at maximum). There is even a 3:4 aspect ratio (giving a view 645 users know well) that crops even more than the 1:1 ratio. This I consider useful only for some special cases, and I expect to never use the option. Well, never say never.

I decided against the OM-D. Using a camera in reduced resolution is not so smart and 4:3 is an aspect ratio I really hate and never use.
Click to expand...
If you never use 4:3, then one naturally looks at other than native 4:3 cameras first. There is however no problem in using the cropped modes when it is what you need to work the way you want. It can be very smart.
 
From somebody who people say is mad to move from digital back to films....... my answer would be No, you are not stupid.

If what ever options you choose serve your purpose....... go ahead. People can say what ever, at the end of the day you will be the one using the camera(s) and you will decide if the output is up to your expectations.

A camera is just a tool.
 
I think a OMD and a couple good lenses like the Panasonic 7-14, a Leica 25 or Panasonic 20, and a 45-200 is a good place to be to cover all your bases. Frankly you cant go wrong with a kit like that. However the Leica is a Leica and it takes beautiful photos....it really is not an easy choice...
 
I do not own an m9 (was very near to buy one) or an om-d (just waiting for the photokina). One more thing to consider is that if unfortunately during your journey something should go wrong with the m9 the chances to have it repaired in a short time are not many. With a couple of om-d you'll have at least a backup camera, just in case. And I guess with a 25/1,4 + 45/2 you'll get real good results. Just my opinion...
robert
 
Plenty of options here for you and i'm now gonna chip in with my sixpence worth of advice....Keep the M9 and just get out there and shoot. It's built like a tank, You'll be fine.
 
sold RD-1

sold RD-1

I sold off my RD-1 to fund the OMD.

Had very little to do with the cash value or the sensors or IQ, or any of that other stuff .....

I know this is RFF, and I know what a coupled rangefinder is! IF you need/want/love that method of shooting, there is but one way to get it, and that is a CRF. ( period, full stop, etc...)

Just for me, I made the decision, for my shooting habits, a D300 was too big, and a CRF was just too much work to get the image. Thus and OMD.

A range finder camera is a personal thing, you bond or you don't, with an Voigtlander R, an M6, and an RD-1 over several years, I gave it a go, and while the RD-1 IQ and feel grabbed me, int the end, the range finder did not.

Shoot what you like best! Price be damned, you live once.

Dave
 
I'm also very intrigued by the OM-D and would like to get my hands on one for a few days to give it a real try out, but losing my M9 to fund it...no, I'm not sure about that. Having made that personal statement it does sound rather like you have a large financial issue with owning the M9, based upon it hindering you in your photography or at least in your travel photography. As such what you propose makes a great deal of sense to me. You'll have a kit that you can get great images with, the versatility of a 24-100mm zoom plus two good primes and another body to rely on if the other failed...or simply if you wish to use two bodies at the same time.

Once you return the M10 may well be on sale or very much on the horizon which means M9 bodies will no doubt be widely available and probably a much cheaper option than when you initially purchased your current one, leaving you with the choice to stick or twist.

My advice would be to simply do what allows you to capture what must surely be an incredible trip. Digi M users can get enough stick from film M users at times but to come on RFF and suggest you'll dump the system for M4/3s was always going to shake the nest a little. We all have our vested interests, passions and blind spots so its truly down to you but you've certainly had some good advice and alternative options.

Good luck with the decision and enjoy yourself, it will be an amazing time.

MattFidler said:
Plenty of options here for you and i'm now gonna chip in with my sixpence worth of advice....Keep the M9 and just get out there and shoot. It's built like a tank, You'll be fine.
Click to expand...

Good to see another Ipswich based photographer on RFF, I'm rarely in town but I'll keep an eye out for another Leica user when I'm in.
 
Thanks for all your comments, thoughts and advice.

I'm going to try and sell some other kit, a few bits and bobs here and there and see if I can't stump up the money without selling the M9....yet. AT least that way I can ensure the OMd does what I want and need on a long term basis before deciding whether I ploughed too much of my budget into the M9.

Thanks again everyone
 
I vote for M8 and OMD/X-E1 plus M lens that can be used for both cameras.


Bring analog camera (film) also good, you always get different experience with analog camera. I prefer with AF ; Contax T3 (small and good result).


Good luck for your choose and trip, and don't forget to share photos with us.


~ron~
 
This is my M9 travel story: In 2009 I began to plan a lifetime dream of going to Japan. Naturally, the question of what cameras to take with me was foremost in my mind, and the M9 had just been announced. Until then, my only rangefinder was a Zeiss Ikon. I usually shot with a 5D Mark II and swag of L-lenses, but the thought of lugging the Canon rig around Japan put a shudder through me. So after much thought, and that gutwrenching moment of committing more money to a single camera body than many people put into a car, I got a black M9.

For two months solid I shot with it every day to learn its quirks and limitations. I found it profoundly different from shooting with the Ikon, but I still loved it. I went to Japan with the M9 as my primary camera and the Ricoh GRD III and Canon S90 as complementary/backup, and returned with some of the best photos I had ever taken in my life.


M9 - Yasakuni Shrine by Archiver, on Flickr

On the trip, I discovered a few more limitations of the M9 that only became apparent during travel.

One, I was paranoid about getting water on it. One day it absolutely poured in Tokyo and I hardly took a photo, so there was a big chunk of the day missing. My friend and I looked like we had fallen off a boat, we were so wet. I wished for a weathersealed camera like a Nikon D700 and 24-70 on that day, believe it or not.


Nara 3 by Archiver, on Flickr

Two: as small as the M9 is, it's not as light as it could be. At night I would ditch my shoulder bag, put the Voigtlander 35/1.4 on the M9 and sling it over my shoulder, but even then it was a bit niggly.


M9 + CV35/1.4 - Shimbashi by Archiver, on Flickr

Three: after I got back, I found that I had hardly taken any video of Japan. Over the years I've become increasingly fond of video for personal documentation, and as wonderful as my M9 photos were, I really missed having video. The Canon S90 did pretty well for video, but it meant putting down the M9 and pulling out another camera, which was sufficiently disconnecting that I just didn't do it.

Enter the OM-D. The Oly solves the three problems I had with the M9. It's much smaller and lighter, it's weathersealed, and its video mode is good enough for me to use it as a B-cam along with the 5D Mark II for work. I've just picked up the Pana 12-35 and I can see this being a serious traveling powerhouse combination.

The only problem I have with the OM-D is that the image quality is nowhere near the M9. Sure, it shoots much better high ISO images, but at low ISO there is simply no comparison. The M9's images are just so much richer, fuller, more detailed and deep.


M9 - Arashiyama Bamboo Forest by Archiver, on Flickr

Ultimately, losing that image quality is the price you will pay for gaining a much smaller, lighter, cheaper and more versatile camera. The OM-D is no slouch when it comes to IQ, but it's no M9. If I was going to do Japan again and had to choose between the M9 and the OM-D plus weathersealed lenses, I would have to think very, very hard, and probably still go with the M9. Just how important is the M9's image quality to you, and is the OM-D an acceptable substitute?
 
I understand completely. I had an M9 and it got stolen. I am waiting for the insurance to pay out. Meanwhile, I just got an OM-D (as in: an hour ago) and my first impression is: I love it! I do miss the iq of the M9, and especially using the lovely summilux 50 as a 50. At the moment I am not sure if I would be willing to walk around with a 5500 euro camera, although I would consider an ME now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom