Why have you sold your M9

This thread reminds me of those Bait and Switch ads. I was looking forward to seeing why someone sold their M9 too. Not sure why, as I'll certainly never buy one, but I was curious anyway.
 
There was an M9 for sale on another forum. The gentleman that owned it had passed away, and a friend was selling some of the gear to benefit the widow.
 
A better question might be, "Why would anyone buy an M9 in the first place?" Or any small format camera in this price range? It's madness, madness I tellya! If I had the funds to blow that kind of money on a camera (and I don't) I'd get one of these (and only then if I could write it off my taxes...)

pentax_medium_format_645.jpg

Pentax 645D 40 megapixel medium format camera.

Mmmmmmmmm.... Yummmy. (Lust, lust, lust...) Now there's a camera that's really worth 9-10 grand US... and a bargain at that price! (I wonder how much it would cost with a silly red dot?)

Seriously... I'll never get why folks blow a wad on small sensor "upscale" digicams or "upscale" small format film stuff. IQ and image sophisitication is constrained by the size of the film plane, and high-end lenses and stuff are only squeezing the last couple drops of this out of the medium - and those tiny incremental gains usually only evident under a loupe, or some kind of MTF chart testing. It's like spending $5,000 for a hydraulic press to get a few extra more drops of orange juice out of an orange than your run of the mill dollar store traditional orange juicer.

Jump up to the next format for real gain...

Now you can - for roughly the same price...

It's a few dollars more, but c'mon M9 people, don't penny pinch!
 
Last edited:
If the performance of the Pentax 645D was really a huge jump, yes, that would be money well spent. From what I've seen out there on the camera it is a bit of a disappointment. Maybe that is why it is JDM only?

Now an S2 would be a definite IQ jump... but then that camera is only worth 17k, by my highly scientific value v. performance method. 🙂


As for the off-topic nature of this thread, idk... I've tried to express some of the "trader's remorse" that I felt a few days after I took possession of the camera and began shooting in the field. I don't find myself selling anytime soon, as I've said... but it is something I considered from early pixel peeping (with the default compression turned on). After turning that off, and I started running some 13x19 prints, I calmed down. As of right now I am enjoying the results, despite my opinions of value.
 
fates - you like the results, they're good. But they're simply not that much better - if at all, than other full frame sensor cameras that cost much less... and that whole "form factor" thing isn't enough to make up the cost differential. The reason it's not that much better is that there's no "magic Leica pixie dust"... small format output is small format output for the most part. You're disappointed, but you've made your purchase and are now (no offense) justifying keeping it.

Again - please don't take offense. This is what I'm hearing. She's that beautiful woman you've lusted after, finally got a date with, and now that you got her, are finding her annoying and are quetioning "what did I ever see in her in the first place?" My bet is you'll hold on to it for a while - a year or so, then sell...
 
Felix.

I ordered an M9 in December 2009. It took 6 months to arrive. In that time I lurked on all the relavant formums sponing up information. I was very concerned (and pissed off because I already had a deposit paid) when I started noticing second hand ones coming on the market in the US the following month.

Curiosity got the better of me - so I used to email the sellers and ask them why they were selling. Call me Doris. The most common reason given was being new to rangefinders and not being able to focus. Next reason was guilt for excessive consumption.

Keeping mine.
 
Naw, you're talking about my ex-wife, not my camera. 😉

The results are definitely better in terms of sharpness and daylight shooting IQ. The form factor is pretty good if I'm in the mood for a rangefinder, that is full frame... wait... what other option do I have? That seemingly inexpensive 800 dollar RD-1 got me down an expensive path I tell you... but I've gotten snaps with both the RD-1 and the M9 that I wouldn't have gotten from not carrying a DSLR.

But if you're not careful, you'll get me GAS'n for medium format film again. I sold one of my RB67 kits (still have one left) and I've been thinking about the Plaubel Makina 67 some nights... Yes, the way med. format renders can be superior, but so far the digital options just aren't in my budget or a form factor I'm excited to carry around (this week).

We'll see what next year brings. Until then, I'll keep shooting. I have no remorse during that 1/30 of a second.
 
ricnak said:
Felix.

I ordered an M9 in December 2009. It took 6 months to arrive. In that time I lurked on all the relavant formums sponing up information. I was very concerned (and pissed off because I already had a deposit paid) when I started noticing second hand ones coming on the market in the US the following month.

Curiosity got the better of me - so I used to email the sellers and ask them why they were selling. Call me Doris. The most common reason given was being new to rangefinders and not being able to focus. Next reason was guilt for excessive consumption.

Keeping mine.
Click to expand...



That would have to be the main reason I'd suspect. Jumping straight into rangefinders via the M9 is risky if you've come from a background of DSLRs.
 
funny.. never thought id see the pentax 645d in the same thread wih the m9. I will buy one in the used market some day as i used my 645 quite extensively in past times and still have it. Simply put I had to make a choice between digital M and waiting for the digital 645 ( recall the rd1, m8, m9 all hit us shores well before the 645d). First, Pentax screwed up when they showed off the original 16 mpx version then shelved the project. Bad business decision as by the time they actually went to market with the current version, most smaller shops for which their lower cost 645 system targeted had already decided to go smaller format digital (canon or nikon) or forked the money to invest with Hassy. It showed their lack of commitment. Second, the m body fits my life better these days when camera equipment takes a distant third to family stuff and baby stuff on my travels.

Yeh a bit off topic... but I am a long fan of Pentax but the delays, early offerings in digital, and business decisions have created a love hate relationship. I still look at the spotmatic, mx, 645, and lx then say wtf hapened?

btw... 44x33mm isnt quite 645
 
Last edited:
I'm a Pentax (and Oly, and Yashica...) fan too. I think some of the best cameras came from these scrappy companies. I just think that the digital 645 was a costly undertaking for them. Perhaps they were teetering whether the market would be big enough for it... made some "announcement" gaffes. What have you. I forgive them. It's out. I think the output is amazing from what I've seen... very "medium format"-y. It belongs on a tread about an M9 as a basis for comparison. For not much more cash outlay than an M9, you can now get a 40 megapixel medium format digital camera.
 
Edit: Apologies for the redundancy, my point was already addressed in post #21.


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

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?
.
Click to expand...


With one of these maybe http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,554,00.asp? Or one of these http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/ISS/Products/Interline/index.jhtml?pq-path=11937/11938/14424. Some CCD technologies do support video. The one being used in the Leica M9 apparently does not.

I hope this digression was not too out of place.
 
Last edited:
I have a lot of reasons to buy an M9. My collection of lenses will not work on a Pentax or on an S2. About 70 of them will work on the M9 as they were originally designed. This means full-frame, RF coupled, no need of an IR cut filter.

Reason to sell it? Would be the same as the one sold on the other camera forum, assuming Nikki does not want it.

You buy and use a Leica to have access to some of the most interesting lenses made over the past 80 years. good enough reason for me.
 
jaapv said:
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.
Click to expand...

The low light comment is not nonsense. The M9 is pretty bad by today's standards. Can't hold a candle to my D700. And to somewhat add to that, the indoor white balance and skin tones can be pretty horrid as well.

There is only ONE reason I have an M9... the size and simplicity.
Other than that, it is NOT worth the cost. Not even close. If size doesn't matter you can get better IQ, weatherproofing, features and durability for near half the price. But the M9 is the only game in town at the moment. Exclusivity comes with a (high) price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Roastchestnuts
m8.2 or a m9? In 2024?
4 5 6
Replies
118
Views
8K
stephane_tougard
S
A
Museum Watching
Replies
1
Views
77
Archiver
A
A
M9 memory card malfunction averted
Replies
10
Views
299
Freakscene
Freakscene
PatrickT
How long do we think digital Leica M cameras will last?
5 6 7
Replies
130
Views
6K
Dogman
Dogman
Richard G
Compose within 50mm framelines, anticipate outside them, or just grab a 28?
Replies
13
Views
355
38Deardorff
38Deardorff
Back
Top Bottom