Gregm61
Well-known
The dust spots in the M9 annoy me a lot.
Cloning spots off scanned 35mm negatives is a much bigger PITA than the couple of minutes it takes to clean a digital sensor or remove the few dust spots a digital file might contain.
The dust spots in the M9 annoy me a lot.
Money. I don't have enough of it to drop $8k+ on a camera.
I could get a nice M2 and 7,000 printed photos for that cost, spread over at least 4 years.
I'm not a professional and make virtually nothing from photography, so I'm still a little regretful I paid so much for a new D600. I can't imagine I'd feel any better about a Leica which will depreciate as quickly. Since cameras are like computers, and full of silicon, it's only a matter of waiting a few generations for the new hardware to eclipse the old. Why spend $5K now, when you can spend $1K every two years and end up in 10 years with a much better camera than $5K would buy you today. I'd rather that than end up with a 10 year old formerly $5K camera, which is now nearly worthless.
How do you define "better"?
I have a 6D and an M9 and I use one camera for one type of shooting and the other for another. On a spec sheet, the 6D does dozens of things the M9 can't do, from wi-fi connectivity to video to usable images in the higher ISO range. The list gotta on and on. So is that a better camera? Because when I pick up the M9 and have to slow down and manually compose, expose and focus, it feels more like challenge and reward. To me it feels more authentic as an artist because I feel like I worked for that shot. It's just different.
That's just one man's opinion. Different strokes for different folks.