MartinP
Veteran
Clearly the M9 is finished. Completely washed up. If anyone wants help to get rid of such an out of date camera, just send me a pm and I will take it off your hands. I will even pay half the postage.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
downstairs
downstairs
f6andBthere
Well-known
Tongue in cheek here sorry. Refering to Leica's three years on M9 as the 'old girl' is pretty ironic in many ways because it's never really been part of the loop that constantly makes digital technology obsolete so rapidly at the moment. That said I think a new sensor would be nice and if they can pop one in that gives the 'old girl' usability up to 3200 ISO (it won't need 205,000
) the jobs done and the camera will keep on selling extremely well as it is IMO.If they can do this without gouging their customers too severely, as in try and keep it under eight grand, it will continue on happily in the face of whatever opposition is thrown at it I'd suspect!
I own a D700 and am a huge fan of the camera but I seldom use it for recreational shooting ... it's just not fun. I'm personally finding less time to be able to use film these days and the Nikon is the only digicam I own.
All the chatter over the new Fuji gets one thinking because hey, it does look nice ... and as I said it's getting harder to find the time to shoot film these days. The Fuji with a decent range of lenses would probably set me back three and half grand guessing at prices but suddenly I find myself thinking about the M9. I can get a new M9 for $6500 and guess what ... I already have lenses ... 15mm, 25mm, 35mm and 50mm that will fit it and I know I'd be able to focus it manually because that's all it has on offer. For some reason I don't quite understand, the more I read about the X-Pro1, the less I want one ... and here I am musing about the M9!
ramosa
B&W
Leica's a status symbol?
Perhaps, for some. Not for all. I know no photographers in real life. No one I know has even heard of Leica. I see no photographers except by utter chance. I don't hang out in camera shops. I sure don't care what folks online think of my camera equipment. I have my M8 labels covered with gaffer's tape and have a camera bag that doesn't scream "camera bag." I seek no attention with this or any camera, well unless it would be with the photographs it produces. If the Leica provides me with any sense of status, thus, it'd need to be an internal thing. But it doesn't function even that way for me. It means nothing to me to own a Leica, aside from having a camera that I really like to use. If I thought I could get the same images and have the same user experience with another camera (say the new Nikon D800 with 35mm and 50mm primes), I would do it to save the money ... To the contrary, though, I recall deriving much more attention (including that affixed to status) when I used to lug around a D70 and huge 17-55mm zoom.
Perhaps, for some. Not for all. I know no photographers in real life. No one I know has even heard of Leica. I see no photographers except by utter chance. I don't hang out in camera shops. I sure don't care what folks online think of my camera equipment. I have my M8 labels covered with gaffer's tape and have a camera bag that doesn't scream "camera bag." I seek no attention with this or any camera, well unless it would be with the photographs it produces. If the Leica provides me with any sense of status, thus, it'd need to be an internal thing. But it doesn't function even that way for me. It means nothing to me to own a Leica, aside from having a camera that I really like to use. If I thought I could get the same images and have the same user experience with another camera (say the new Nikon D800 with 35mm and 50mm primes), I would do it to save the money ... To the contrary, though, I recall deriving much more attention (including that affixed to status) when I used to lug around a D70 and huge 17-55mm zoom.
elverket
Member
1: It's the user experience.
- When you are actually using a camera, the specs never matters. How does it feel in your hand? How do the menus work? Is the button placement right? In this regard I really appreciate what has been left out in a Leica. I don't want to apply 3D filters and sync wirelessly with 10 other cameras and zooming from 18 to 400mm in a second - I just want to take pictures. It's about focus, and to me focused equipment lead to more focused results.
2: It is art.
- That is not to say that any camera can be used to create first rate art, but very few cameras are art objects in their own right. Most Leica cameras are, whether you choose to use them as such or not.
- When you are actually using a camera, the specs never matters. How does it feel in your hand? How do the menus work? Is the button placement right? In this regard I really appreciate what has been left out in a Leica. I don't want to apply 3D filters and sync wirelessly with 10 other cameras and zooming from 18 to 400mm in a second - I just want to take pictures. It's about focus, and to me focused equipment lead to more focused results.
2: It is art.
- That is not to say that any camera can be used to create first rate art, but very few cameras are art objects in their own right. Most Leica cameras are, whether you choose to use them as such or not.
hteasley
Pupil
I recently got an X10, and I've come to find that while it's a nice camera, and takes decent snaps, I am so completely out of the automatic mindset that I have a hard time with it. I want to shoot the way the the M9 lets me, makes me shoot. While the X-Pro1 sounds awesome, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get on with it.
Archiver
Veteran
There aren't many cameras that excite me now, even though many of the newly announced ones have a lot of potential. Even though the X-Pro 1 has autofocus and a rangefinder-like body, I have not seen anything from the samples that make me think that it's going to be as good as the M9. If I want to shoot M-lenses on an aps-c sensor I have a Ricoh GXR for that, and it gives me DSLR image quality with M-mount lenses already.
The problem is that the Fuji sensor is an unknown quantity, and if the Fuji F30 and X10 are anything to go by, Fuji has great sensor ideas but the implementation always has issues. At least with the M9, you might not have ISO over 2500 but everything up to then is free from weirdness except for red edge.
As for Leica being a status symbol etc:
I haven't met many other Leica shooters, but most of them have been nice people. I did meet one fellow who was a bit of a git, though. He said things like, 'I took a photo in a temple in Marrakesh with the M8, and I was able to handhold it in low light because it was a rangefinder. The tour guide said he'd never seen such a good photo of that temple.' How the heck could the tour guide tell anything from the M8's crappy LCD??? I don't think that he was a pompous Leica git; more like a pompous git who happened to shoot Leica.
I'd never use a Kodak Easyshare because it takes crap pictures. So no, I wouldn't have an Easyshare around my neck. But I put heaps of other cameras around my neck including the GRD III, Sigma DP1 and DP2, Canon G10, Ricoh GXR and whatever else I have. I love the Sigma and Ricoh cameras for, among other things, their unrecognizability. No one pays any attention to them, no one asks about them, and they deliver great image quality.
People wearing a Leica as jewelry: how do you know this? Just because someone has a Leica around their neck, it is jewelry, but if they have an Easyshare around their neck, it's not? I guess that those kinds of people are out there; heck, I've heard about mainland Chinese walking into Leica boutiques and buying a complete M9 kit because it is the most expensive thing they have, but I've never met anyone like that, thank goodness.
The problem is that the Fuji sensor is an unknown quantity, and if the Fuji F30 and X10 are anything to go by, Fuji has great sensor ideas but the implementation always has issues. At least with the M9, you might not have ISO over 2500 but everything up to then is free from weirdness except for red edge.
As for Leica being a status symbol etc:
I haven't met many other Leica shooters, but most of them have been nice people. I did meet one fellow who was a bit of a git, though. He said things like, 'I took a photo in a temple in Marrakesh with the M8, and I was able to handhold it in low light because it was a rangefinder. The tour guide said he'd never seen such a good photo of that temple.' How the heck could the tour guide tell anything from the M8's crappy LCD??? I don't think that he was a pompous Leica git; more like a pompous git who happened to shoot Leica.
I'd never use a Kodak Easyshare because it takes crap pictures. So no, I wouldn't have an Easyshare around my neck. But I put heaps of other cameras around my neck including the GRD III, Sigma DP1 and DP2, Canon G10, Ricoh GXR and whatever else I have. I love the Sigma and Ricoh cameras for, among other things, their unrecognizability. No one pays any attention to them, no one asks about them, and they deliver great image quality.
People wearing a Leica as jewelry: how do you know this? Just because someone has a Leica around their neck, it is jewelry, but if they have an Easyshare around their neck, it's not? I guess that those kinds of people are out there; heck, I've heard about mainland Chinese walking into Leica boutiques and buying a complete M9 kit because it is the most expensive thing they have, but I've never met anyone like that, thank goodness.
swoop
Well-known
With all the new cameras available and announced there is still no direct competition to the M9. None of them are full frame and use M mount lenses. That's really all these cameras need to be able to do. Honestly if Fuji's new XPro1 was full frame I'd jump on it in a heartbeat. But it's not, and therefore is not even in the same league as the M9.
Considering its predecessors the D4 will be an amazing camera I'm sure. But for all it offers in the way of auto focus, ISO quality, connectivity features, it's not the subtle tool that the M9 is.
I love my M9. I've loved every Leica I've owned. But it is getting increasingly difficult to work with it. I once said that if the M9 had a 5D mk2 sensor it'd be perfect. But even that really isn't enough. Fuji is very close to producing my opinion of the ideal camera with the XPro1. A subtle camera, classic ergonomics, optical viewfinder,auto focus, ISO quality. But it is going to be missing the distinct character of being full frame. I'm just hoping that if the XPro1 does well they may consider another system with full frame.
Considering its predecessors the D4 will be an amazing camera I'm sure. But for all it offers in the way of auto focus, ISO quality, connectivity features, it's not the subtle tool that the M9 is.
I love my M9. I've loved every Leica I've owned. But it is getting increasingly difficult to work with it. I once said that if the M9 had a 5D mk2 sensor it'd be perfect. But even that really isn't enough. Fuji is very close to producing my opinion of the ideal camera with the XPro1. A subtle camera, classic ergonomics, optical viewfinder,auto focus, ISO quality. But it is going to be missing the distinct character of being full frame. I'm just hoping that if the XPro1 does well they may consider another system with full frame.
Dylan Hope
Established
Why would I take a Kodak Easyshare camera onto the streets with me when I could bring my slightly larger Leica loaded with the one product I care about from Kodak?
As for the topic at hand, all I see the Fuji doing is taking sales away from other mirrorless cameras. People who want a rangefinder will buy a rangefinder, because they operate very differently to MILC/MEVIL/Whatever cameras.
Leica only has to start worrying once Fuji integrates a digital rangefinder patch into an optical viewfinder.
f6andBthere
Well-known
Reddot9
This Is Not Here
250swb
Well-known
Questions like this make me laugh.
If a camera makes good pictures today, it will surely make good pictures tomorrow, and the day after, and the year after. If you don't accept this is the case then it means all the photographs you ever made need an excuse applied to them along the lines of 'I'm sorry, but this was made with an inferior older camera'. Unless you just throw them all away and start again with each new camera.
And one of the very reasons Leica users will keep with the M9 (and it is the same reason they kept with their film M's) is the simplicity of operation and the simplicity of the menu. For instance if the M10 was released as a mega technological wonder camera with as many bells and whistles as the X-Pro1 then Leica would still need to produce the M9 alongside it to cater for a substantial number of its customers (and not the whining 'I need this' or 'I need that' lobby).
So you need to ask yourself exactly what will the X-Pro1 do to produce better photographs? Lets think of an example we all may understand. Ask yourself this, if the Canon 5dMkII, the Leica M9, the Nikon D700 are so great, why is it that hardly anybody in the world has made 'better' pictures with them than Cartier Bresson's sometimes out of focus B&W images of half a century ago? Where are the gods of the 5dMkII that will be around in museums in fifty years? Yes there are some, but it won't have been the make of camera that made the difference you can be sure of that. Which brings us back to the Fuji X-Pro1. All the excitment and talk of a camera that makes others obsolete is generated by two factions, the photographic industry, because they want your money, and then from those photographers who always live in hope that the next best thing will make them a photographic god. But you can be sure that when released the majority of talk about the X-Pro1 will be about how it works and bokeh tests, and rarely will it be used for anything meaningful.
Steve
c.poulton
Well-known
This all smacks of the percieved need to jump on the digital camera upgrade bandwagon and upgrade multiple times just because there are 'newer cameras out there.
From what I can tell (I'm a die hard film shooter currently wedded to an M2) the M9 is a perfectly adequate camera that will continue to take perfectly adequate photographs for many years to come.
From what I can tell (I'm a die hard film shooter currently wedded to an M2) the M9 is a perfectly adequate camera that will continue to take perfectly adequate photographs for many years to come.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Why is the M9 getting harder to work with?
Even a D100 is a very capable camera and for press use, it's far more than enough for the printed page on newsprint or online. The upgrade fever is marketing bliss, too bad the D4 announcement hasn't dropped the price of black paint M2 bodies lately...
And what the heck is up with extremely high ISOs these days? Has the world gotten darker? If I recall correctly, only 60 years ago 400 ISO was the cutting edge of the envelope and pushing it was the only way to get higher speeds. What did folks do before that? Heck, most photographers were working with lenses that had f/2.8 or f/3.5 apertures then but just held their cameras still. Super high ISOs take the life out of images because they allow us to freeze that action, but the action has movement. Why freeze life when it is the movement that makes life worth living? Maybe we're too shaky these days.
The M9, in spite of all that I've ranted about its issues and Leica service, is still the best miniature format digital camera out there and it's probably going to stay that way for a while.
Phil Forrest
Even a D100 is a very capable camera and for press use, it's far more than enough for the printed page on newsprint or online. The upgrade fever is marketing bliss, too bad the D4 announcement hasn't dropped the price of black paint M2 bodies lately...
And what the heck is up with extremely high ISOs these days? Has the world gotten darker? If I recall correctly, only 60 years ago 400 ISO was the cutting edge of the envelope and pushing it was the only way to get higher speeds. What did folks do before that? Heck, most photographers were working with lenses that had f/2.8 or f/3.5 apertures then but just held their cameras still. Super high ISOs take the life out of images because they allow us to freeze that action, but the action has movement. Why freeze life when it is the movement that makes life worth living? Maybe we're too shaky these days.
The M9, in spite of all that I've ranted about its issues and Leica service, is still the best miniature format digital camera out there and it's probably going to stay that way for a while.
Phil Forrest
flash
Member
My two favourite cameras of all time are the M9 and the Xpan. One by Leica and one by Fuji. Fuji MF cameras are superb and if the Xpro1 is even close it's going to be spectacular. The Fuji has the Xpan grip. I'm already sure I'm going to like it. But it's not an M9.
The M9 may be the last of its type. A full frame 35mm CCD sensor. The Fuji and the M10 (probably) will have CMOS sensors. And they just look different. The M9 is the only
Y current camera that renders like the CCD MF cameras. The Olympus E1 is still highly regarded by some because of its CCD sensor. There are dozens of cameras that shoot great high ISO images. But there's only one that renders like the M9 at low ISO.
I'll get the Fuji. But it won't replace my M9s. It'll replace some of the other digitals I've got. I like the size and shape of the M9. The Fuji is almost exactly the same size. Sometimes I need AF, macro, zoom lenses. The Fuji will fill those needs. The Fuji won't replace my M9 but it will sit proudly next to it in my camera bag.
Gordon
The M9 may be the last of its type. A full frame 35mm CCD sensor. The Fuji and the M10 (probably) will have CMOS sensors. And they just look different. The M9 is the only
Y current camera that renders like the CCD MF cameras. The Olympus E1 is still highly regarded by some because of its CCD sensor. There are dozens of cameras that shoot great high ISO images. But there's only one that renders like the M9 at low ISO.
I'll get the Fuji. But it won't replace my M9s. It'll replace some of the other digitals I've got. I like the size and shape of the M9. The Fuji is almost exactly the same size. Sometimes I need AF, macro, zoom lenses. The Fuji will fill those needs. The Fuji won't replace my M9 but it will sit proudly next to it in my camera bag.
Gordon
f6andBthere
Well-known
This is no laughing matter ... I'm in danger of blowing $6500.00 on a camera I swore didn't really interest me until the Xpro hit the airwaves.
Some great posts in this thread thanks all ... no hysteria ... just solid advice and opinions!
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
I wonder why only those that own Leicas object to them being called status symbols? I'm not implying anything. I have no dog in this fight. I don't own any Leica gear, but I would buy some if I thought it suited my needs--and still might buy a lens or two in the future.
If you have seen any of the recent Leica store fronts, I've been to the one in Hong Kong, it is hard to deny that the company itself clearly sees its products as a luxury brand which is akin to a status symbol.
"I bought the Mercedes LSR MacLaren because it suited my needs. Oh, some people view it as a status symbol? I had no idea. I guess that might be true for some people, but not for me."
*edit --maybe they object to it because they think the camera being a status symbol implies that they didn't work hard to be able to buy it or something, like it was just something handed to them. I dunno
If you have seen any of the recent Leica store fronts, I've been to the one in Hong Kong, it is hard to deny that the company itself clearly sees its products as a luxury brand which is akin to a status symbol.
"I bought the Mercedes LSR MacLaren because it suited my needs. Oh, some people view it as a status symbol? I had no idea. I guess that might be true for some people, but not for me."
*edit --maybe they object to it because they think the camera being a status symbol implies that they didn't work hard to be able to buy it or something, like it was just something handed to them. I dunno
dave lackey
Veteran
I wonder why only those that own Leicas object to them being called status symbols? I'm not implying anything. I have no dog in this fight. I don't own any Leica gear, but I would buy some if I thought it suited my needs--and still might buy a lens or two in the future.
If you have seen any of the recent Leica store fronts, I've been to the one in Hong Kong, it is hard to deny that the company itself clearly sees its products as a luxury brand which is akin to a status symbol.
"I bought the Mercedes LSR MacLaren because it suited my needs. Oh, some people view it as a status symbol? I had no idea. I guess that might be true for some people, but not for me."
*edit --maybe they object to it because they think the camera being a status symbol implies that they didn't work hard to be able to buy it or something, like it was just something handed to them. I dunno
As a multiple Leica user, I am qualified to give you my perspective. As in all things in life, there is a distribution curve for everything. In this case, Leica owners who have money, I reside on the left (almost zero), and struggle to buy film after paying rent, buying groceries and paying medical bills.
On the opposite end (the right end) of the distribution curve are people who own Leicas and have a lot of money and then there are the majority somewhere in the middle, hence a bell-shaped curve.
Now, where in this distribution is the status symbol bias? It is merely an illusion invented by those who have some need to think that a Leica is a luxury item and is owned only by rich/snobs/fill-in-the blanks.
All of this crap about Leica rangefinders being so expensive when the top of the line Nikon DSLR is more expensive than the M9. Those who complain about expense forget that the S2 is almost $30,000 and then you have to buy the expensive lenses! So, why is the S2 NOT mentioned? Because the petty arguments are at the low end of the Leica line, NOT the high end where S2 gear is aimed at high-end professionals to accomplish a specific task.
So where is the problem with a $1500 M6, or a $2300 M8 or even the current M9? What are they some kind of low-end status symbols? Where is the problem? It is somewhere between the ears of those talking about Leica who have some axe to grind.
Same with high-end cars. Same with those driving by luxury gated subdivisions. Pick your pleasure and bitch about it. It's a free country.
I don't know about you, the reader of this diatribe, but I can not afford to buy cheap any longer. Disposables are slowly being deleted in my life, and replaced by what I need/want that is either functional, beautiful, or both and that will last a long, long time.
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
As a multiple Leica user, I am qualified to give you my perspective. As in all things in life, there is a distribution curve for everything. In this case, Leica owners who have money, I reside on the left (almost zero), and struggle to buy film after paying rent, buying groceries and paying medical bills.
On the opposite end (the right end) of the distribution curve are people who own Leicas and have a lot of money and then there are the majority somewhere in the middle, hence a bell-shaped curve.
So where is the problem with a $1500 M6, or a $2300 M8 or even the current M9? What are they some kind of low-end status symbols? Where is the problem? It is somewhere between the ears of those talking about Leica who have some axe to grind.
Same with high-end cars. Same with those driving by luxury gated subdivisions. Pick your pleasure and bitch about it. It's a free country.
I don't know about you, the reader of this diatribe, but I can not afford to buy cheap any longer. Disposables are slowly being deleted in my life, and replaced by what I need/want that is either functional, beautiful, or both and that will last a long, long time.
Your diatribe made me think of a couple more questions.
Clearly Leica owners can fall into a position on your bell-curve, but how many on the left side of the bell-curve are simply aspiring to be on the right?
My thoughts were purely a reflection of the company / product as it currently stands and chooses to market itself. I really have trouble conflating the Leica of old with its current state for many reasons.
The trouble with this conversation is that it lumps those who 'bought an old used M4 because his father owned one' in the same camp as someone who 'bought a new M9 on a holiday weekend because it looked cool and he wanted to prove to the bird he was with that he had buying power.'
Not everyone in the Leica camp is effecting Leica's bottom line.
Leica is clearly marketing itself a specific way. Are those who choose to buy NEW Leicas denying this marketing? Do they believe they are immune / above it? Buy the goods in spite of it?
Walk into a Leica boutique. See how you are treated. See how the salesman talks. See the surrounding decore. See the price tag. See the white gloves as he removes the M9 from the case. See the advertising encased in the glossy brochures.
To answer one of your questions, yes, I do think they are some kind of low-end status symbol. I have no problem with it at all.
I'm actually more interested in what contemporary photographers are using, and when I find one that I respect I take note. Usually these photographers are up-and-coming and usually they don't have a showcase of Leicas.
I drive an old Lada Niva, but I don't mind if someone bags on it or laughs. I've invested in it. It cost me about the same as a used M9, but I don't feel the need to defend it or give a tongue lashing to someone who doesn't understand why I like it. I find the Leica owners reaction more interesting then the debate itself.
Sorry for the long post. I had some free-time night.
cheers,
db
P
Peter S
Guest
DB,
You may have a point about the marketing and the boutiques and I think Leica is smart catering to that crowd as well. To be honest I once by chance walked into a Leica boutique in Holland and how much as I liked to see the history (lots of older models as well) I also felt a certain disconnect. I made some sacrifices, saved money and sold equipment to finance a M9; I did not step in my Maserati to go to the Leica boutique and get myself a M9 and a couple of summiluxes to hang around my neck whilst taking pictures with my Iphone because I prefer its autofocus
The majority of the people here do not buy Leica because it is a status symbol, but because it is the equipment they want to use while doing their job/exercising their hobby. Calling their preferred tool a status symbol does not always go down well, they bought it to use it not to flash it around, I think that is where some of the " irritation" comes from.
You may have a point about the marketing and the boutiques and I think Leica is smart catering to that crowd as well. To be honest I once by chance walked into a Leica boutique in Holland and how much as I liked to see the history (lots of older models as well) I also felt a certain disconnect. I made some sacrifices, saved money and sold equipment to finance a M9; I did not step in my Maserati to go to the Leica boutique and get myself a M9 and a couple of summiluxes to hang around my neck whilst taking pictures with my Iphone because I prefer its autofocus
The majority of the people here do not buy Leica because it is a status symbol, but because it is the equipment they want to use while doing their job/exercising their hobby. Calling their preferred tool a status symbol does not always go down well, they bought it to use it not to flash it around, I think that is where some of the " irritation" comes from.