Why have you sold your M9

felix5616 said:
I am interested in buying a Leica M9. I would like to know the reason why Leica M9 users sell their cameras.
Click to expand...

unless u like film, theres no reason to buy a m9 and sell it. m9 is everything a digital m body should be other than ur record u image using a sensor instead of film.
 
Don't know of any. Undoubtedly a few around. Right now most folks are trying to buy one, not sell. I wouldn't dream of selling mine. Nor did I sell my two M8s.
 
inzite said:
unless u like film, theres no reason to buy a m9 and sell it. m9 is everything a digital m body should be other than ur record u image using a sensor instead of film.
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't go that far!

I traded for mine outright, but if I had shelled out 7k cash, I would have been pretty disappointed. Here's reasons I might sell (i'm not going to, but here are some reasons for the OP... these are well known, and I knew what I was getting into before trading into an M9, for the most part... just now I know from first hand experience):

1. Low light performance is just poor. 1250 is pretty much the absolute cap... heck, it gets noisy immediately if you have push anything shot for color at 800 for that matter. Compared to Canon or Nikon CMOS chips (from 3-5 years ago even) that is pretty pathetic. I have a 5D mk2 and I can out-shoot it in daylight without any issue. Damn, it can get sharp images and the glass available to it is awesome. Wait... I'm doing reasons to not keep it.... I just got a Nokton 1.1 and plan to do some night shooting ASAP to test it's true limits. As of right now this is most disappointing aspect of the camera. If you nail exposure perfectly then I think it performs marginally better than a 5D until 800 iso.

2. No video is a disappointment. Sure 95% of the RFF'ers might feel that statement is down right tacky... even sacrilegious. But damn, this thing would be awesome if it did video. I would love to be able to film with M glass. Part of me hopes some underground hacking effort is underway to add this functionality. :eek: (yes I know that there aren't Digic processors in there to support this... let me have my dream dammit)

3. White Balance, ISO setting, and other menu features are a pain to get to compared to my RD-1. If that EPSON analogue interface was on the M9 I'd be over the moon, and forget the two listed above.

4. It's driving the price of used lenses up. Ok, I'm stretching for reasons.

Frankly, I feel like the camera is worth no more than 4k.

Let me explain, it's better than a 5D in IQ (my belief, not fact... but the AA filter on the 5D is the reason for the difference). Now here's the rub... it's nowhere near 3x the cost better. When the price falls to a value=performance amount (4k), then definitely get one. That honestly feels like THE true value equivalent to me. 7k is way overpriced for what comes out of the camera compared to other full frame cameras. That statement might upset some people, but I think if you own other FF systems and look at the files objectively, it's pretty obvious.
 
I've got one and I'm not selling it.

Fates, don't forget a 1Ds3 still costs the same as an M9 and there is no obvious sign of imending replacement, yet it produces files similar to the 5D2.
 
Since I got mine used, there was someone who chose to sell his M9 to me. The reason given was to raise some money to pay bills of some sort.

I can grasp the concept of selling gear to buy other gear, but I don't think that was the situation in this case...
 
fates said:
. 7k is way overpriced for what comes out of the camera compared to other full frame cameras. That statement might upset some people, but I think if you own other FF systems and look at the files objectively, it's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

Well I guess you could put a price on what comes out of the camera, but its a hard sum to do.

I've never particularly looked at price, but rather value has driven me over the years. Camera's get me to where I want to be (photographically speaking) and a valuable camera is nothing like a costly camera. A Canon 5dMkII DSLR wouldn't get me the photographs I want to make in the way I want to make them. So that would be a costly camera in my estimation, its going to get in the way, and every penny spent on it is wasted. On the other hand a Leica M9 is a valuable camera, not for what it cost, but for what it does and the way it allows me to work. Every penny spent on it is fully utilised and of value.

How important the photographs you make are to you can drive expenditure. They are important to me, which makes the M9 seem cheaper than some less expensive cameras. There was a time, before the M9, when I would use a DSLR, a compact camera, a rangefinder, a P&S, and a medium format camera. They all slotted in to make a set of camera's that fitted my purpose, but none was 100% right on its own. With some, like the DSLR, there was the constant knowledge that it wasn't quite up to the job, so it was regularly upgraded hoping for better. But since the M9 (over a year now) I have used it for 99% of the photographs I make, and only the P&S gets a look in. So that makes all that other kit very expensive, moreso than the M9 if I added it all up.


Steve
 
Backa$$wards answer: the only reason I don't have an M9 is lack of funds. When I'm done saving and selling, I will get one.
 
It is a lot of money. I bought my M9 in the mid-$5K as a demo camera, and I think I paid essentially a $1.5K premium to have a warrantied full frame camera that takes M lenses.

And I sold my M8 immediately. There were many features of the M8 that I liked, but finally got fed up with swapping UV/IR filters. And I even now read that the M9 does benefit from the occasional UV/IR usage.

Maybe I won't sell my M9, but, reasons I would sell are:

- too much money tied up into the M9

- some day, film is better, and I don't need the turnaround of digital

- when I do need the instant turnaroudn, there are less expensive options for digital shooting (e.g 99.7% of the time, I'm using my Pana GF1 with its superb autofocus and 20mm lens). And I bought the M to 4/3rd adapters, and even the R to 4/3rds, and haven't used them.

Vick
 
fates said:
Well, I wouldn't go that far!

I traded for mine outright, but if I had shelled out 7k cash, I would have been pretty disappointed. Here's reasons I might sell (i'm not going to, but here are some reasons for the OP... these are well known, and I knew what I was getting into before trading into an M9, for the most part... just now I know from first hand experience):

1. Low light performance is just poor. 1250 is pretty much the absolute cap... heck, it gets noisy immediately if you have push anything shot for color at 800 for that matter. Compared to Canon or Nikon CMOS chips (from 3-5 years ago even) that is pretty pathetic. I have a 5D mk2 and I can out-shoot it in daylight without any issue. Damn, it can get sharp images and the glass available to it is awesome. Wait... I'm doing reasons to not keep it.... I just got a Nokton 1.1 and plan to do some night shooting ASAP to test it's true limits. As of right now this is most disappointing aspect of the camera. If you nail exposure perfectly then I think it performs marginally better than a 5D until 800 iso.

2. No video is a disappointment. Sure 95% of the RFF'ers might feel that statement is down right tacky... even sacrilegious. But damn, this thing would be awesome if it did video. I would love to be able to film with M glass. Part of me hopes some underground hacking effort is underway to add this functionality. :eek: (yes I know that there aren't Digic processors in there to support this... let me have my dream dammit)

3. White Balance, ISO setting, and other menu features are a pain to get to compared to my RD-1. If that EPSON analogue interface was on the M9 I'd be over the moon, and forget the two listed above.

4. It's driving the price of used lenses up. Ok, I'm stretching for reasons.

Frankly, I feel like the camera is worth no more than 4k.

Let me explain, it's better than a 5D in IQ (my belief, not fact... but the AA filter on the 5D is the reason for the difference). Now here's the rub... it's nowhere near 3x the cost better. When the price falls to a value=performance amount (4k), then definitely get one. That honestly feels like THE true value equivalent to me. 7k is way overpriced for what comes out of the camera compared to other full frame cameras. That statement might upset some people, but I think if you own other FF systems and look at the files objectively, it's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...


Sorry, this needs a bit of a flame. It is nonsense.

1. Low light performance it the best you will get from any CCD camera. Compared to the 5 D the level is approximately the same, with the less processed look going to the M9 and the smoother result to the 5D (at least if you do the postprocessing yourself, if the camera has to do it, the 5D color goes haywire). Some Nikons are indeed more low-light capable - but are of course no small rangefinders. If you are unable to get perfectly clean images from up to ISO 1600 and good ones at 2500 it is pilot error, plain and simple. I would say you can't outshoot it but that you are unable to out-process it.
2. How would you do video on a CCD? You need a CMos for that - and you would lose the low-ISO performance you like. And video without zoomlens?
3. Is it that difficult to press one button ?
4. You are indeed stretching...
5. If you think you are overpaying, don't buy it. For the moment please point out any other handbuilt, rangefinder full-frame camera of the size and performance at 4K.
As for obvious, looking at the (fairly large) number of users coming over from high-end DSLRs on LUF that are enthusing about the M9 files, maybe not that obvious.
 
It seems almost the only way to get a used one is to give the owner "an offer he can't refuse" - this may result in legal repercussions however.
 
Aside: Jaap, maybe you should periodically re-post/re-start your thread on processing high iso digital M files. The short answer is that high iso M files clean up pretty well if you know what to do and which tools to use.

Right out of camera RAW, a 5D or 5D II file at equivalent iso looks better and processes faster than the digi M - I think *Fates* is correct in this regard. But it's a premature judgment to state, for example, that higher iso digi M files are poor. They take certain post-processing noise management well and will print very well too.
 
Sure, Mike, maybe I got a bit riled up - but pilot error it is. And those "too expensive" comments, well, after 90 years maybe they are getting stale....:rolleyes:
 
I think it's early days yet. I saved for years to get this camera, not giving it up any time soon. Don't get too hung up about absolute quality . . . will it do what you need it to do? Anybody who has three grand lying around can get a camera that will do OK. But how to do you work? What look do you like from your lenses? How to do you like to travel? What reaction do you want from your subjects? How does the gear fit into that picture? I certainly had much time to second guess the decision to purchase something this expensive BEFORE the purchase. No sense in revisiting that now.
 
no need to flame... everyone is entitled to their own responses. OP was looking for feedback... good and bad. Its why there is a market for so many choices of camera.

1. Id still say that in low light, both Canon and Nikon have options that can rival or beat the M9 in controlling noise even with good post process technique. Its even more so with the later cameras.
2. Video isnt important for me but i can see its importance to some. I decided a dedicated camcorder is a better solution for me. We all have different priorities and obviously there is a market out there for video. Working with a software architect at work, he constantly reminds me that the final user experience has no consideration for implementation. A user story is a user story... and prioritized as needed. If it becomes a high priority, effort is alocated to make it happen.... if it means incorporating a cmos sensor.. then be it. Obviously for the M body design, the video isnt a priority over the design built around a CCD. Never the less, its a user story that "fates" is more than welcome to share.
3. I shot with both rd1 and m8 for years.... I would agree. I much prefer the iso dial, for example, over even the push of even a single button. Again, personal preference everyone is entitled. There is no wrong or right here. Note, even the canon and nikon offerings are even not as slick as the rd1
4. yeh i think thats stretching. But I have noticed that Leica products are creeping up over the years making it increasingly difficult to afford. Lucky for me, i am pretty content with what i have now.
5. again... different products are worth different prices to different people. I would agree that its overpriced. It still didnt stop me from making some serious adjustments to pay the price of admission


Would I sell my M9? hell no, more than happy. I sold my entire EOS system to fund it..... no regrets. I considered selling the M8, but I think its a great camera in its own right. Epson, sadly, had to go as I couldnt justify keeping it even though I enjoyed every minute shooting with it
 
Last edited:
Well, given that the difference is either user-driven noise management in the computer and camera-driven noise management on the sensor and in the camera-processing, the choice is not so clear-cut any more. As for the ergonomics of the M9 vs. the RD1, that is indeed personal. The RD1 layout caused me to refuse to buy one and wait for an M, just as I never bought a Bessa, but I can see the opposite exists. As for the proce, it is well-know that ZI admitted they could not produce a ff DRF at a pricepoint that could compete with Leica, so lot of money? Yes, expensive? No
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom