kbg32
neo-romanticist
For some of us, money does not grow on trees. I have invested in two digital Ms. Not like I can go out and purchase a third.
Sorry Jaap, with all due respect, I am not a dentist by profession.
Last edited:
kbg32
neo-romanticist
peter_n
Veteran
Sounds like the defect rate is still fairly high, there was a thread here a year or so ago and the defect rate was about 25% I think. Unlike the OP I've not bought simply because of the unreliability; this is just a pleasant hobby activity for me but I want to enjoy my hobby in my limited spare time, not be frustrated.
My substitute is a Fuji S5, great camera but I can't use my wonderful Leica glass with it. I'm looking at the GXR, maybe they'll improve the finder or go full-frame next year. My sympathies to the M8/M9 users who've had a bad experience.
My substitute is a Fuji S5, great camera but I can't use my wonderful Leica glass with it. I'm looking at the GXR, maybe they'll improve the finder or go full-frame next year. My sympathies to the M8/M9 users who've had a bad experience.
I'd be curious to see how this rate was determined and how it was extrapolated out to cover all of the M9s in existense.
hendriphile
Well-known
I think someone coined the term "digital rot" to describe this phenomenon?
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Well, I don't think it is confined to digital cameras only. I think any post 1990s film camera with circuit boards and LCDs may be difficult to get repaired now too. Mechanical parts can generally be custom made in a pinch but circuit boards and the like not so much.
Bob
Messsucherkamera
Established
My take
My take
Reading posts like this and the original poster's story of woe really puts the brakes on my thoughts of buying an M9-P. I never cared for the M8/8.2 due to its miniature sensor. The M9 removed that objection but apparently it is not without its own inherent problems.
This makes me think that sticking with my film Leicas and shooting film is the way to go. Yes, film costs money - $3.99US for Kodak Tri-X 36 at B&H and about $0.40US per roll to develop my own Tri-X. some will find fault with film cameras on this point. As for me, I say so what??
I can buy and process a whole hell of alot of Tri-X for $8000US, plus sales tax or shipping and insurance, which is the cost of an M9-P.
Computers cost money; external hard drives for backup cost money; iPads cost money; software costs money; printers cost money; Color Munkis cost money; card readers cost money; memory cards cost money; inks and printing papers cost money. Digital is far from free once you buy the camera, which is a point many digital disciples conveniently overlook.
With all the tons of cash one has to invest to get set up to work digitally, I can't see an economic advantage to digital. The one place digital reigns supreme is in convenience and instant gratificatiion for the impatient - there's no denying that. But that instant gratification comes at a horridly high cost.
Professional photographers who shoot weddings and commercial jobs or who work in photojournalism may well have to bite the bullet and endure the economic bloodletting that digital requires to get set up - and to keep up with the latest advances in technology. That goes back the demands of the client or the boss for instant gratification - I get that. But still, the godawfully high price of admission to the digital realm remains.
I know that this post will cause some who work digitally to take great umbrage. All I'm saying is that for alot of applications, working with film and film cameras makes alot of sense - economically and otherwise.
Case in point: After 90 months of use, my MP needed some minor work. Sherry Krauter repaired it for $127 (plus shipping & insurance). My M4-P is still running strong after two years of use with no repairs needed (yet). Not a bad track record of reliability in my opinion, given that Phil's M8 and M9 have spent 20% of their life at Leica NJ in the repair shop (that has got to suck, Phil - I feel your pain). Film or digital, every camera is going to crap out at some point. It appears that for film M cameras, that point is a long time in coming compared to the digital M cameras.
I'm not here to "dog" anyone or their camera choice or the way they choose to create photographs, whether it's by film, digital or wet plate. I'm just saying that film Leicas seem to be alot more reliable than M8 and M9 cameras. Film Leicas are alot more economical to purchase and do not require thousands and thousands of dollars in computers and other electronic equipment to support their use. Film Leicas also seem to be readily repairable by numerous technicians; they also have a vast supply of parts that are readily available. Not so (apparently) with sensors and some other repair components for the M8/M9.
It all comes down to this: Digital offers one set of advantages and problems, film offers another. We pick whichever set we can best operate and live with. Some people demand instant gratification. Some demand to hell and back reliability. I choose the latter, not the former so I stick with film Leicas (and Nikons).
Just some food for thought. Your milage may vary.
My take
Reading posts like this and the original poster's story of woe really puts the brakes on my thoughts of buying an M9-P. I never cared for the M8/8.2 due to its miniature sensor. The M9 removed that objection but apparently it is not without its own inherent problems.
This makes me think that sticking with my film Leicas and shooting film is the way to go. Yes, film costs money - $3.99US for Kodak Tri-X 36 at B&H and about $0.40US per roll to develop my own Tri-X. some will find fault with film cameras on this point. As for me, I say so what??
I can buy and process a whole hell of alot of Tri-X for $8000US, plus sales tax or shipping and insurance, which is the cost of an M9-P.
Computers cost money; external hard drives for backup cost money; iPads cost money; software costs money; printers cost money; Color Munkis cost money; card readers cost money; memory cards cost money; inks and printing papers cost money. Digital is far from free once you buy the camera, which is a point many digital disciples conveniently overlook.
With all the tons of cash one has to invest to get set up to work digitally, I can't see an economic advantage to digital. The one place digital reigns supreme is in convenience and instant gratificatiion for the impatient - there's no denying that. But that instant gratification comes at a horridly high cost.
Professional photographers who shoot weddings and commercial jobs or who work in photojournalism may well have to bite the bullet and endure the economic bloodletting that digital requires to get set up - and to keep up with the latest advances in technology. That goes back the demands of the client or the boss for instant gratification - I get that. But still, the godawfully high price of admission to the digital realm remains.
I know that this post will cause some who work digitally to take great umbrage. All I'm saying is that for alot of applications, working with film and film cameras makes alot of sense - economically and otherwise.
Case in point: After 90 months of use, my MP needed some minor work. Sherry Krauter repaired it for $127 (plus shipping & insurance). My M4-P is still running strong after two years of use with no repairs needed (yet). Not a bad track record of reliability in my opinion, given that Phil's M8 and M9 have spent 20% of their life at Leica NJ in the repair shop (that has got to suck, Phil - I feel your pain). Film or digital, every camera is going to crap out at some point. It appears that for film M cameras, that point is a long time in coming compared to the digital M cameras.
I'm not here to "dog" anyone or their camera choice or the way they choose to create photographs, whether it's by film, digital or wet plate. I'm just saying that film Leicas seem to be alot more reliable than M8 and M9 cameras. Film Leicas are alot more economical to purchase and do not require thousands and thousands of dollars in computers and other electronic equipment to support their use. Film Leicas also seem to be readily repairable by numerous technicians; they also have a vast supply of parts that are readily available. Not so (apparently) with sensors and some other repair components for the M8/M9.
It all comes down to this: Digital offers one set of advantages and problems, film offers another. We pick whichever set we can best operate and live with. Some people demand instant gratification. Some demand to hell and back reliability. I choose the latter, not the former so I stick with film Leicas (and Nikons).
Just some food for thought. Your milage may vary.
Last edited:
Mrbessar4a
Member
The idea that "no other camera comes close" to the output of your digital M, is just not accurate. I'm pretty sure a Pentax 645D more than surpases the quality of an M9. Same goes with the D3X or the 5D Mark II with the right optics. Hell even the X100 is better than the M8 within it's limitations.
*shrug*
I'm just saying don't box yourself into thinking you can't make quality pictures if your not using a Leica.
*shrug*
I'm just saying don't box yourself into thinking you can't make quality pictures if your not using a Leica.
LCT
ex-newbie
Matter of tastes...
Mrbessar4a
Member
Exactly my point. If you go around thinking that you can only make good pictures with one kind of camera you're ignoring what's out there. My taste perfers how Fuji renders color, and the 23mm EBC is outstanding. If you don't think so that's okay, but I'm sure if you were given an X100 as a gift you would manage to make it work for you. And I don't think that "nothing comes close" to it at all. I know lots of things do. If all the X100s in the world fell into hell, I'd find another camera and make it work for me.
Last edited:
Mrbessar4a
Member
Reading posts like this and the original poster's story of woe really puts the brakes on my thoughts of buying an M9-P. I never cared for the M8/8.2 due to its miniature sensor. The M9 removed that objection but apparently it is not without its own inherent problems.
This makes me think that sticking with my film Leicas and shooting film is the way to go. Yes, film costs money - $3.99US for Kodak Tri-X 36 at B&H and about $0.40US per roll to develop my own Tri-X. some will find fault with film cameras on this point. As for me, I say so what??
I can buy and process a whole hell of alot of Tri-X for $8000US, plus sales tax or shipping and insurance, which is the cost of an M9-P.
Computers cost money; external hard drives for backup cost money; iPads cost money; software costs money; printers cost money; Color Munkis cost money; card readers cost money; memory cards cost money; inks and printing papers cost money. Digital is far from free once you buy the camera, which is a point many digital disciples conveniently overlook.
With all the tons of cash one has to invest to get set up to work digitally, I can't see an economic advantage to digital. The one place digital reigns supreme is in convenience and instant gratificatiion for the impatient - there's no denying that. But that instant gratification comes at a horridly high cost.
Professional photographers who shoot weddings and commercial jobs or who work in photojournalism may well have to bite the bullet and endure the economic bloodletting that digital requires to get set up - and to keep up with the latest advances in technology. That goes back the demands of the client or the boss for instant gratification - I get that. But still, the godawfully high price of admission to the digital realm remains.
I know that this post will cause some who work digitally to take great umbrage. All I'm saying is that for alot of applications, working with film and film cameras makes alot of sense - economically and otherwise.
Case in point: After 90 months of use, my MP needed some minor work. Sherry Krauter repaired it for $127 (plus shipping & insurance). My M4-P is still running strong after two years of use with no repairs needed (yet). Not a bad track record of reliability in my opinion, given that Phil's M8 and M9 have spent 20% of their life at Leica NJ in the repair shop (that has got to suck, Phil - I feel your pain). Film or digital, every camera is going to crap out at some point. It appears that for film M cameras, that point is a long time in coming compared to the digital M cameras.
I'm not here to "dog" anyone or their camera choice or the way they choose to create photographs, whether it's by film, digital or wet plate. I'm just saying that film Leicas seem to be alot more reliable than M8 and M9 cameras. Film Leicas are alot more economical to purchase and do not require thousands and thousands of dollars in computers and other electronic equipment to support their use. Film Leicas also seem to be readily repairable by numerous technicians; they also have a vast supply of parts that are readily available. Not so (apparently) with sensors and some other repair components for the M8/M9.
It all comes down to this: Digital offers one set of advantages and problems, film offers another. We pick whichever set we can best operate and live with. Some people demand instant gratification. Some demand to hell and back reliability. I choose the latter, not the former so I stick with film Leicas (and Nikons).
Just some food for thought. Your milage may vary.
Film is film and film is great, but if you want to share your pictures these days to a wider audience digital is the fastest and easiest way to go. If you wanna do those things you gotta buy everything you listed plus a scanner. There are trade offs. Luckily most people have computers anyways, and photography isn't that expensive when you're not buying Leica.
dotur
od karnevala
www.ivanlozica.com
I have sold my M8 after 2 years of stress and unreliability. Now I am happy shooting film with M3, M6, CL and IIIf RD.
As for digital, my M and L39 lenses work fine on Pana G1, though with known limitations.
Canon 5D is my digital flagship for fieldwork, Digilux 3 with D Summilux 25 is my beloved choice for pleasure, and there is always good old Panasonic LC1 as a reliable backup...
As for me, digital M is just another word for expensive trouble. True, the results may be nice, but there is definitely too much pain for the pleasure given.
I have sold my M8 after 2 years of stress and unreliability. Now I am happy shooting film with M3, M6, CL and IIIf RD.
As for digital, my M and L39 lenses work fine on Pana G1, though with known limitations.
Canon 5D is my digital flagship for fieldwork, Digilux 3 with D Summilux 25 is my beloved choice for pleasure, and there is always good old Panasonic LC1 as a reliable backup...
As for me, digital M is just another word for expensive trouble. True, the results may be nice, but there is definitely too much pain for the pleasure given.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A half truth at best. I know very well what else is out there (bear in mind that I write for the photo press), and I know what it can deliver. I just prefer using Leicas, and I am utterly convinced that you get the best pictures with the cameras you prefer using.
Cheers,
R.
Amen to that!
LCT
ex-newbie
It's just that i compared raw files from both. There's just 2 or 3 parsecs difference but it's just me
presspass
filmshooter
I've had an M8 since they came out, bought to take the occasional color shot when I only had Leicas with me. So far, it's been fine. No lines, no lockups, nothing. I do use the profiles posted some years ago with Capture to get the color close and then tweak in PS. I don't use it every day, or even every week, but I've found it reliable. Maybe they're like VWs - when you get a good one, they go forever; when you get a bad one, it's one problem after another.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
For what I use, yes. Matter of taste. Medium format is not for me. Defeats the purpose of carrying around a compact system.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Cheers Roger!
uhoh7
Veteran
OK my monthly hair brained scheme to find a used M9 is taken care of.
Thank you.
Now I just have to ignore the shots
Those DSLR FFs are too huge for me.
Someday we will see something "M9-like", reliable and not so expensive.
I am shooting some 645 and even 35 with my old contax IIIa, but it's impractical and expensive--for me---as anything but a historical excercise.
I admire those who make it work
Thank you.
Now I just have to ignore the shots
Those DSLR FFs are too huge for me.
Someday we will see something "M9-like", reliable and not so expensive.
I am shooting some 645 and even 35 with my old contax IIIa, but it's impractical and expensive--for me---as anything but a historical excercise.
I admire those who make it work
Mrbessar4a
Member
Well a Pentax K-5 is just as small as an M9, very compact! And the, Limited lenses are MUCH smaller than Leica lenses, except maybe the Summarits that hardly anybody talks about. It's also quieter than an M4, and has all the dynamic range the M9 doesn't have, and all the high ISO the M9 SHOULD have, and the price that looks very good compared to Leica luxury. Anybody who likes Leica glass should like Pentax Limited glass. All metal gorgeous constructions, unique characteristics, perfect contrast and bokeh... There's an option!
I didn't mean that you should go out and buy a 645D, you just said that nothing comes close to Leica quality. That's just a myth I'm tired of hearing. Most camera systems come very close and in some cases surpass. People just LIKE using Leica's, as I do! But they're not better than anything else out there at anything other than BEING handmade rangefinders.