What is it that draws you to a Digital M? Poll.

[Roger Hicks]

Other- Form Factor.

From what ive seen, my 5D Mark II makes much better images than the M8/9, but Id much prefer the smaller M and lenses in my hands.

Dear Harry,

I find that all my cameras make pretty similar images when left to their own devices. It's only when I point them at something and press the button that I get pictures at all.

Also, I find it hard to see how a 5D can be used to make better pictures than an M9. As good, maybe (depending on the photographer). Better, how?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm sure he is only talking about technical quality and not the content. And when we reduce this further on talking about high iso noise then the statement is absolutely true that the 5D makes better pictures. But as we all know, high iso noise is not the only factor for good technical picture quality.

High ISO, fair enough. I hadn't thought of that.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I do understand that like film, digital output is equally dependant on post production. Ergo, the skill of the user.

Having said that, a good proportion of the digital-M images ive seen have odd colour casts, clipped highlights, less than expected tonal graduation. The M9 is a camera I wanted to love, but after seeing so many disapointing results from it online; im actually glad its out of my price league.

Perhaps its unfair to blame the camera.

Regards,
Harry.

Dear Harry,

Perhaps the words on line are something of a clue: you're looking at more or less (usually MUCH more) compressed JPEGs, rather than at TIFFs.

Do you discern an underlying tendency in the colour casts? It occurs to me that may people may post-process to give the colour they like, and that this may not suit others' ideas of how the colours should be. I don't know, of course: it's just a suggestion.

Put it this way: I was about as un-disappointed as I could get with the M9, so I'm a little surprised at your reaction. I'm not saying you haven't seen what you've seen, just that I'm surprised because your experience doesn't accord with mine.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[mathomas]

Left out:

- Traditional exposure controls (my primary reason)
- Compactness
- Lust

And the options should have been checkboxes.

 

[ederek]

I like the M4 better than the M9 *except* for:

* built-in metering (which is making me lazy with exposure)

* ability to shoot more on a card (which leads to overshooting)

* ease of sharing images (that should be left on the hard drive)

* shooting in color (which I'm not ready for)


p.s. ~ I chimped while shooting the M4 last weekend and just saw vulcanite! 😱

 

[Lss]

I answered all the above, as there are so many important things. The focusing and framing approach is the main reason, though.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Had a lot of money tied up in Leica glass, so didn't want them sitting on the shelf in the Age of Digital. Also, M works better in some situations than a noisy SLR--and nice to have a digital model for that kind of work.

 

[back alley]

i use the original digital rf, the rd1...great camera, great colours and higher iso usability...don't leave home without it.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The cute hipster college girls are drawn to it.

Phil Forrest

 

[Roger Hicks]

How about "Lack of Choice"?

And to those who can't see the appeal, how about 'lack of money'?

I prefer my 1972 Series III Land Rover to a Range Rover. If I could afford a new Range Rover every year, I might feel differently.

(Or of course I might not.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Some people, including myself do not live in countries where you could walk into a photo shop, have your film developed and printed. In 99% of the countries where I've lived during the past 21 years, you could not buy chemicals, printing paper either. And so digital has its advantages. An interesting dichotomy... today you can access low-tech in high tech countries, only. Or in other words, film and film based photography has become a luxury.

 

[luuca]

size of M-system gear
optics
build quality

 

[deirdre]

Does anyone believe their M8 or M9 will still be working 50 years later, like an M3?

This has been a question I've been considering as I think about the leap into digital M. Sure, I could get a film one, but I'd get it as a backup body, probably an M6 TTL.

I can see that the majority of the money will be in the lenses over time, so getting another body seems less daunting. Do I believe there will be Leica-related service available? Yes, up to a point. Do I believe there will be after-market service available for longer than that? Experience (with other products) has taught me yes.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Dan,

As they've said they'll service them for 20 years, this suggests to me that they aren't expecting many failures.

Cheers,

R.

 

[robert blu]

I like to shoot RF and I'm used both to my m7 and Bessa R. Sometimes I find myself thinking about the possibility to buy an M9 mainly when:
1- need film with different film than the one I have in the camera
2- desire to shoot just a few frames and see the result before to finish the film in the camera, let say 10 frames.
3- scanning is not a problem for me, but spotting the dust takes sometimes a lot of time...
robert

 

[Ronald M]

Am attracted for all the above. won`t buy one because it costs too much, painted finish, focusing issues, proprietary battery as sole source of power, no weather sealing.

Maybe someday when I have $7000.

But my Nikon D3 is pretty heavy and I dream of how light my Leicas are.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Am attracted for all the above. won`t buy one because it costs too much, painted finish, focusing issues, proprietary battery as sole source of power, no weather sealing.

Maybe someday when I have $7000.

But my Nikon D3 is pretty heavy and I dream of how light my Leicas are.

Dear Ronald,

If that's your dream, how is the money a waste?

Expensive, yes. Not worth it to you, quite possibly. But as soon as you say 'I dream of how light my Leicas are' you've demonstrated that it ain't a waste.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mcary]

Dear Ronald,

If that's your dream, how is the money a waste?

Expensive, yes. Not worth it to you, quite possibly. But as soon as you say 'I dream of how light my Leicas are' you've demonstrated that it ain't a waste.

Cheers,

R.

JMO but someone who spends $500 for something they hardly ever use is the one wasting money not the person who spends $7000+ on something they enjoy using everyday.
Given the choice of buying new car for $20,000 or a late model used one for $10,000 plus an M9 I'd pick the latter as a car to me is just something to get me from point A to point B.

 

[Roger Hicks]

JMO but someone who spends $500 for something they hardly ever use is the one wasting money not the person who spends $7000+ on something they enjoy using everyday.
Given the choice of buying new car for $20,000 or a late model used one for $10,000 plus an M9 I'd pick the latter as a car to me is just something to get me from point A to point B.

A beautiful analysis. How much use and pleasure do you get from your purchases?. You and I are of one mind on this, except perhaps 'every day'. Often several days will go by without using my M9. But then, often several days will go buy without either Frances or I using any of our vehicles...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pablito]

I use a digital M because it works exactly like my film M but makes my job easier.

I'll be the first to admit any pro Nikon or Canon could achieve the same results. But I prefer working with my Leica because of the way it works.

I would LIKE to use a digital M because it works exactly like my film Ms but I CANNOT AFFORD IT. End of story.