with the hulabaloo, isn't the M9 still the "thing"?

kshapero

kshapero

South Florida Man
Local time
2:23 PM
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
10,052
1. a real rangefinder
2. Full frame (21mm is 21mm)
3. Simple to use
4. Manual focus (I really can hyperfocal)
5. Optical VF


What else? Who else tops this?
 
No one tops it because there is no equivalent ... it's the only horse in the race so even it was a 'dog' it's still the winner!

Your point is lost on me here. :D
 
it can't fit into my shirt pocket like my rx100...
it has no thumb lever like my rd1...

there are lots of cameras on the top of lots of lists...
 
back alley said:
it can't fit into my shirt pocket like my rx100...
it has no thumb lever like my rd1...

there are lots of cameras on the top of lots of lists...
Click to expand...


A Leica fan would suggest your shirt pocket is at fault here! :p
 
That it has no direct feature for feature competition is a circular failure. Not enough market to sell a million pieces so CaNi-con won't take a chance and even if someone else did build one just a good it would be about the same price anyway do the same limited market. It's closest competition is an M8-2.


By the way, what 'huabaloo' are you talking about?
 
I have a Vivitar Slim and Wide that will fit in a shirt pocket and only weighs 3.4oz. with film. So that tops it for shirt pocketability.
 
For what it does (which I still consider outstanding) it is the only game in town. In light of all the other cool cameras out there (my definition for hullabaloo), no one IMHO has got there yet. Since I can not afford an M9, I wish for a more affordable rig with all that an M9 is. Until then.........I wait.
 
I can only guess what the real intention was, but I would, if in a charitable mood, hazard that the OP means the M9 is possibly the first digital camera that is fairly immune to being superseded. It hits all the marks that one would want a digital M to hit: full-frame, works like an M should. That whatever else comes out, there's no real need to replace an M9. There's no "if only it wasn't a crop sensor" or "if only it had a real optical VF" or whatever other complaint one might make. You can always complain about low-light performance, but eh, why don't you complain about film's low light performance while you're at it.

That's what I read as the intent. My uncharitable self says, "Not interested in the discussion, no matter what was meant."
 
hteasley said:
I can only guess what the real intention was, but I would, if in a charitable mood, hazard that the OP means the M9 is possibly the first digital camera that is fairly immune to being superseded. It hits all the marks that one would want a digital M to hit: full-frame, works like an M should. That whatever else comes out, there's no real need to replace an M9. There's no "if only it wasn't a crop sensor" or "if only it had a real optical VF" or whatever other complaint one might make. You can always complain about low-light performance, but eh, why don't you complain about film's low light performance while you're at it.

That's what I read as the intent. My uncharitable self says, "Not interested in the discussion, no matter what was meant."
Click to expand...

Snapsort, a site I only recently discovered generates a point estimate of IQ on a scale from 1 to 100. Not intending to start a brouhaha here, or even continue one, but it is interesting that they provide moderate marks for the digital M's, marks beaten by other cameras they review -- obviously using criteria different from the OPs five checkpoints. Anybody look at those assessments and have comments?

Giorgio
 
kshapero said:
1. a real rangefinder
2. Full frame (21mm is 21mm)
3. Simple to use
4. Manual focus (I really can hyperfocal)
5. Optical VF

What else? Who else tops this?
Click to expand...

Maybe ask this after Photokina and there will be another answer ;)
 
zuiko85 said:
I have a Vivitar Slim and Wide that will fit in a shirt pocket and only weighs 3.4oz. with film. So that tops it for shirt pocketability.
Click to expand...

best plastic lens camera I've ever seen. probably the best bang for the buck I've ever got in a camera, 10 quid!
 
kshapero said:
1. a real rangefinder
2. Full frame (21mm is 21mm)
3. Simple to use
4. Manual focus (I really can hyperfocal)
5. Optical VF


What else? Who else tops this?
Click to expand...

Show me a camera and I'll show you a list of five points that are topped by no other camera :D
 
Not everyone can get along with a RF. I mean I have a M4-2 but for many/most applications I prefer my OM-1 more. I bought a Leica because I thought I always wanted one and decided to get it for my retirement present to myself. It's smooth, quite, nice bright VF/RF, and since it probably sat unused in a sock drawer for 30 years the bottom speeds from 1 sec. to 1/8 sec. dropped out 1 month after I got it. But I don't hand hold any longer than 1/15 anyway so no big deal. Since 2 of the 3 lenses I have for it are CV and not Leica's stratospheric priced offerings Leica snobs would say I don't really have a Leica anyway.

Yeah, an M9 is the the real deal if you love RF viewing and focusing and FF digital (actually as Keith says, the only deal) but SLR folks can be glad that even in FF digital there is at least some competition and for that graybeard film it's wide open guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom