Pioneer
Veteran
The M8,M9 MM and Mtyp240 are all the same size....
The size difference is not terribly significant but the M is bigger. Like everything else in the world the Leica M continues to get porkier and porkier.
In your opinion it doesn't really matter because the additional features are to your liking. In my opinion I have no need for those additional features so I see no need for the increase in weight and size.
danielsterno
making soup from mud
Rented a M9 last weekend anticipating that I would buy one but wanted to live with it for a few days. I have a M6/M5 & a 35/50mm Cron thus it would be a nice compliment to what I have while my only digital is a x100 which I enjoy. So, first evening a little night street and evening in a restaurant on Fri., day 2-street on Saturday/misc and day 3-got shut down by very bad weather Sunday so limited real use. My first impression was not great based on images though loved the feel/interaction (poor images, chalk that up to user error, meaning white balance and ISO challenges in restaurant learning curve). Day 2 was good on street. few keepers… my net is I wanted more time with it though I feel for a M9 going at 3-3500. the value TO ME is half that based on other options in Jan. of 2015. Again thats my knee jerk based on my experience- I wanted to love it despite knowing its over priced and I would have to sell a few things (M5/x100) to get it…. I remain open minded to the idea?? I voted #1, too much money for the value but nothing like the rangefinder user experience-nothing. Whats that value?? stay tuned.
EpicRavenLord
Member
2 reasons
2 reasons
Simply the cost of a M240 plus a 50 f/1.4 lens.
However lens options are also a deciding factor. If you want 85 or 135 + for portrait length rangefinders are not ideal. Also the price of Leica lenses. Summicron, Summilux, Noctilux = BIGBUCKS
The one body one lens could however be beneficial to ones photography. Having shot spring , summer and fall of 2014 with a M5 with a 50/f2 I would love a M240… for me rangefinder focusing kills any autofocus system Ive used. My keeper rate with rangefinder focusing is around 95% as where my AF rate is closer to 70%… why? Because sometimes the camera gets it wrong…. but you can't blame the camera with MF (unless its misaligned)
2 reasons
Simply the cost of a M240 plus a 50 f/1.4 lens.
However lens options are also a deciding factor. If you want 85 or 135 + for portrait length rangefinders are not ideal. Also the price of Leica lenses. Summicron, Summilux, Noctilux = BIGBUCKS
The one body one lens could however be beneficial to ones photography. Having shot spring , summer and fall of 2014 with a M5 with a 50/f2 I would love a M240… for me rangefinder focusing kills any autofocus system Ive used. My keeper rate with rangefinder focusing is around 95% as where my AF rate is closer to 70%… why? Because sometimes the camera gets it wrong…. but you can't blame the camera with MF (unless its misaligned)
JHP
Well-known
If I buy a digital M, then my film M's would be neglected.
David Strachan
Member
....but, Leica need not be rediculously expensive
....but, Leica need not be rediculously expensive
I'm sticking with the APS H sized sensor, and the M8 does it for me. The camera and old Leica lenses are very affordable. And very reliable...at all focal lengths.
I am determined not to go FF, with all the massive costs, and questionable image quality improvement.
I like the ol' M8 so much my "new" silver M8 has just arrived from England, and in perfect order <5,000 actuations.
cheers Dave S
....but, Leica need not be rediculously expensive
I'm sticking with the APS H sized sensor, and the M8 does it for me. The camera and old Leica lenses are very affordable. And very reliable...at all focal lengths.
I am determined not to go FF, with all the massive costs, and questionable image quality improvement.
I like the ol' M8 so much my "new" silver M8 has just arrived from England, and in perfect order <5,000 actuations.
cheers Dave S
David, there is logic in what you say about certain advantages to the M8 size sensor. Is your other M8 black? Having one black and one silver surely puts things in harmonious balance!
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
- Too expensive, for two reasons...
First, the cost of a new digital Leica is simply way beyond what I could spend on anything at the moment.
Second, I feel that the digital Leica's are too expensive for what they are - as beautiful as they are, as gorgeously made and enjoyable to use, they are still a digital object vulnerable to the digital upgrade cycle. They are full of bits and pieces that will become outdated and/or fail, and if I'm honest with myself, I expect I would get 5 years of use before 'updating'. The simple fact of life is that modern things aren't designed forever.
First, the cost of a new digital Leica is simply way beyond what I could spend on anything at the moment.
Second, I feel that the digital Leica's are too expensive for what they are - as beautiful as they are, as gorgeously made and enjoyable to use, they are still a digital object vulnerable to the digital upgrade cycle. They are full of bits and pieces that will become outdated and/or fail, and if I'm honest with myself, I expect I would get 5 years of use before 'updating'. The simple fact of life is that modern things aren't designed forever.
David Strachan
Member
David, there is logic in what you say about certain advantages to the M8 size sensor. Is your other M8 black? Having one black and one silver surely puts things in harmonious balance!
Hi Doug
Thanks for the reply.
Yes, I can tell them apart! And have different lenses, or B&W tuned on one camera.
I read of one user who had over 100,000 clicks on each of two M8's...wow, hope that's me in the future.
cheers Dave S
raid
Dad Photographer
My M8 "clicks" with more confidence than my M9. It has no buffering delay like the M9. It really is a good deal.
Axel
singleshooter
... because its too expensive - and because this cutie recently solves 90% of my Leica M needs:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Because I had a number of them lying around already...
Yoh
Newbie
Too expensive.
Peter_S
Peter_S
reliability (lack thereof),constant sensor dust, high repair costs; relatively heavy.
Image quality was not a reason (had an M8.2, loved the camera in principle).
Image quality was not a reason (had an M8.2, loved the camera in principle).
Photog9000
Well-known
I voted for "too expensive".
When I was working and making a living with my photography, I spent some sizable dollars but usually bought used (except for my first Nikon D2H) to save cash. Also I very seldom bought fast zooms that were of the Canikon variety opting instead for the Tokina Pro series zoom lenses. That stuff held its own for the purpose I bought it for. Since retiring, I sold all the Nikon/Tokina stuff as I wanted to lighten the load and go in another direction from what the SLR/DSLR gear would get me to do. The Fuji X100S and X-E1 (paired up with an old Yashica Electro35 GS that once belonged to my dad) take care of my needs. I did keep my Nikkor 1,8/85mm but no longer have any zooms opting to go with prime lenses.
When I was working and making a living with my photography, I spent some sizable dollars but usually bought used (except for my first Nikon D2H) to save cash. Also I very seldom bought fast zooms that were of the Canikon variety opting instead for the Tokina Pro series zoom lenses. That stuff held its own for the purpose I bought it for. Since retiring, I sold all the Nikon/Tokina stuff as I wanted to lighten the load and go in another direction from what the SLR/DSLR gear would get me to do. The Fuji X100S and X-E1 (paired up with an old Yashica Electro35 GS that once belonged to my dad) take care of my needs. I did keep my Nikkor 1,8/85mm but no longer have any zooms opting to go with prime lenses.
nightfly
Well-known
I did buy one for the same reason I ended up buying a film Leica eventually, because as much as I tried to avoid it, it's the only thing that does exactly what I want it to do and nothing else and the images out of it, an M9, are gorgeous. Once I started doing color work, it became much more appealing than film.
I love that I can use it exactly like my m4-P and not know know it's digital to the extent that the first time I shot with it, my thumb went for the wind lever.
At around $3000 used it's (barely) justifiable for me. My GR series digital cameras, which everyone seems to love are still like using a computer. The M9 I can look at it and know the aperture and shutter speed and go out and use it and never turn on the screen. When I get home I can "develop" my images quickly and move on with less fuss than when I was dealing with film and almost as much delight.
I wish it was thinner and lighter and had a built in grip. Otherwise pretty happy.
Before I bought my film Leica I had various equivalents and probably if I totaled up the "poor man's Leicas" I had, I could have just bought a real one straight away. Once I got one, I stopped buying other substitutes and just shot. I haven't bought many digitals because the images never satisfied me, but the M9 sensor hits a sweet spot.
Just figured I'd give a counterpoint.
I love that I can use it exactly like my m4-P and not know know it's digital to the extent that the first time I shot with it, my thumb went for the wind lever.
At around $3000 used it's (barely) justifiable for me. My GR series digital cameras, which everyone seems to love are still like using a computer. The M9 I can look at it and know the aperture and shutter speed and go out and use it and never turn on the screen. When I get home I can "develop" my images quickly and move on with less fuss than when I was dealing with film and almost as much delight.
I wish it was thinner and lighter and had a built in grip. Otherwise pretty happy.
Before I bought my film Leica I had various equivalents and probably if I totaled up the "poor man's Leicas" I had, I could have just bought a real one straight away. Once I got one, I stopped buying other substitutes and just shot. I haven't bought many digitals because the images never satisfied me, but the M9 sensor hits a sweet spot.
Just figured I'd give a counterpoint.
lukitas
second hand noob
Too expensive.
Saving for a new M with one(!) prime lens would cost me at least four years of oats and peas, no steak, and very little cheep beer.
The Fuji XE-2 goes a long way towards the M for a tenth of the cost, and in a lot of ways it goes way beyond.
IMHO, Leica should bring out a cheaper M, maybe with a lower pixel count. Sixteen million is enough for most purposes. Maybe they should marry Fuji, that would be interesting.
Saving for a new M with one(!) prime lens would cost me at least four years of oats and peas, no steak, and very little cheep beer.
The Fuji XE-2 goes a long way towards the M for a tenth of the cost, and in a lot of ways it goes way beyond.
IMHO, Leica should bring out a cheaper M, maybe with a lower pixel count. Sixteen million is enough for most purposes. Maybe they should marry Fuji, that would be interesting.
Last edited:
arseniii
Well-known
I voted too expensive. However, in reality M9 is affordable now (unlike M) to a middle class man. So, the real reason is that modern ff dslrs suit better to my needs AND at a lower cost!
Manuel Patino
Established
I did not vote, but the thread is interesting. I did end up buying a used M240 and yes, the entry fee into the digital M is a bit high. And that's not even thinking about the lenses! I started with film years ago with Polaroid, 35mm SLR, 120 TLR and a variety of cheap 110 cameras. Fast forward to the last few years, I entered into the digital photography with a Casio camera that was just terrible, left it in favor of cheap pre-loaded film cameras which made lots better images. But them, digital cameras got better and I bought a number of them (P&S) until I bought a Nikon DSLR which hooked me back into shooting photos for the fun of it.
The progression to the digital M took me past the Nikon D60 into the M43 Olympus and Panasonic cameras and lenses (great systems BTW). I still have my OMD EM1 body a few decent lenses. Then a friend sold me his RD-1 and naturally, the disease progressed and I had to have the M240 body (I rationalized that since I had the CV lenses and the Industar 50 f3.5, I would not need to spend another small fortune in lenses... Of course, that did not work out as planned but that's another story.
The cost of the Leica definitely makes you think a lot before pulling the trigger. And yes, as others have said, risking the loss or damage of such expensive items is a bit daunting for those of us who can't easily get that sort of discretionary funds.
But at the risk of creating a debate of film vs digital, I personally find shooting with the digital cameras more satisfying and incredibly less expensive. I still shoot film with a couple of vintage SLRs and a Mamiya f220. and waiting for film to comeback from developing is not my cup of tea. Also, the processing of film is more expensive that the occasional printing of a chosen digital file... I really love the handling and the experience of the digital RF M240. And I simply love the Leica lenses. Also, IMHO, the other digital cameras/lens combinations I had and still have do not produce as many "keepers" as the Leica M/Leica lens do.
I respect the opinions of all those who choose not to buy the digital M body, but aside of the price issue (which is quite significant), I disagree in that film is somehow more satisfying to shoot with or that a Fuji x, y or z is just as good or better than the digital M. Of course, it's just my personal opinion and predilection.
The progression to the digital M took me past the Nikon D60 into the M43 Olympus and Panasonic cameras and lenses (great systems BTW). I still have my OMD EM1 body a few decent lenses. Then a friend sold me his RD-1 and naturally, the disease progressed and I had to have the M240 body (I rationalized that since I had the CV lenses and the Industar 50 f3.5, I would not need to spend another small fortune in lenses... Of course, that did not work out as planned but that's another story.
The cost of the Leica definitely makes you think a lot before pulling the trigger. And yes, as others have said, risking the loss or damage of such expensive items is a bit daunting for those of us who can't easily get that sort of discretionary funds.
But at the risk of creating a debate of film vs digital, I personally find shooting with the digital cameras more satisfying and incredibly less expensive. I still shoot film with a couple of vintage SLRs and a Mamiya f220. and waiting for film to comeback from developing is not my cup of tea. Also, the processing of film is more expensive that the occasional printing of a chosen digital file... I really love the handling and the experience of the digital RF M240. And I simply love the Leica lenses. Also, IMHO, the other digital cameras/lens combinations I had and still have do not produce as many "keepers" as the Leica M/Leica lens do.
I respect the opinions of all those who choose not to buy the digital M body, but aside of the price issue (which is quite significant), I disagree in that film is somehow more satisfying to shoot with or that a Fuji x, y or z is just as good or better than the digital M. Of course, it's just my personal opinion and predilection.
Oops, bought a M9.
Martin Carone Santos
Member
Because it doens't use film!