raid
Dad Photographer
"The SONY release is a sneaky attempt to kill RF photography as we know it."
Who said these words?
Who said these words?
jarski
Veteran
Sony. M9 isnt worth whats asked for it. if both were same price, then the question would be harder to answer.
YYV_146
Well-known
At the SAME price I'd get both...But in no ways is an M9 remotely worth $4,000 unless you absolutely value the RF experience.
The M9 is going to be worth maybe $2,500 in 2-3 years, the A7r maybe a bit less than $1,200 if Sony depreciation rules hold. So actual financial burden of owning both cameras is similar, but if one goes for the A7r one could also enjoy a $2,000 lens during that period.
The M9 is going to be worth maybe $2,500 in 2-3 years, the A7r maybe a bit less than $1,200 if Sony depreciation rules hold. So actual financial burden of owning both cameras is similar, but if one goes for the A7r one could also enjoy a $2,000 lens during that period.
koven
Well-known
m9
99999999999999
99999999999999
froyd
Veteran
M9 for me, but better yet would be a digital M4 or possibly a digital R2M if I ever wanted a meter.
leicapixie
Well-known
I find the excitement for a camera, that almost nobody has handled, truly "amazing".
The Sony may well be all it claims. Time will reveal.
A set of lenses? What lenses? Oh Zeiss. Wonderment.
I see and read folks using manual focus on auto focus bodies..Why?
They cost way more than Nikon, losing features.
Oh they have a special look.
Since arrival of digital, i have been given or bought,
for almost nothing, all sorts of cameras and lenses.
Almost all have very good lenses.
Leica-M is a RF. It has a whole heap of lenses available,
that were made and designed for it..
Sure you can fit other lenses on an M body. I won't.
I cannot afford an M-9 or 240.
I have no desire to start a new system like the Sony.
The fact is like many, I am using smaller cameras.
I could easily go to an i-phone.
If it's good enough for National Geographic photographers,
i guess it's good enough for me.
If i won the Lotto, well then that's different. Yup!
I would have an M-9/Monochrome/240 in my grubby paws with a few new Leica lenses,so fast, my head would spin.
The Sony may well be all it claims. Time will reveal.
A set of lenses? What lenses? Oh Zeiss. Wonderment.
I see and read folks using manual focus on auto focus bodies..Why?
They cost way more than Nikon, losing features.
Oh they have a special look.
Since arrival of digital, i have been given or bought,
for almost nothing, all sorts of cameras and lenses.
Almost all have very good lenses.
Leica-M is a RF. It has a whole heap of lenses available,
that were made and designed for it..
Sure you can fit other lenses on an M body. I won't.
I cannot afford an M-9 or 240.
I have no desire to start a new system like the Sony.
The fact is like many, I am using smaller cameras.
I could easily go to an i-phone.
If it's good enough for National Geographic photographers,
i guess it's good enough for me.
If i won the Lotto, well then that's different. Yup!
I would have an M-9/Monochrome/240 in my grubby paws with a few new Leica lenses,so fast, my head would spin.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Breathtaking, but then again, when you consider the fact that people have been clamoring for a full frame mirrorless interchangeable lens compact for years, the truly amazing part is that people haven't been getting hurt in the preorder stampede.
Seriously, what's really remarkable to me is the way in which the RF/OVF experience has become such a minor part of RFF. I suspect it's because a lot of those people, old members, are just off doing their thing rather than following with bated breath the latest developments in consumer camera technology.
traveler_101
American abroad
I think the first question you must answer is whether you are looking for a digital system to shoot M or LSM lenses? If that's the point--great manual focus lenses plus digital convenience, then the M9 makes sense. At the same time in digital terms the M9 with its high price and outmoded sensor makes no sense at all.
Some of us have been looking for another way to preserve M lenses in an updated digital camera, but so far it's been largely a pipe dream:Digital is all about constant updating of sensor technology and is a chaos of competing sensor sizes and designs (it is really insane actually, but it is what it is). Some wish to walk in the Brave New World in its own terms:
There is a strong logic to this argument. But it also opens the question of whether SONY A7 is the right digital camera. That depends on what you are looking for. Before you jump on SONY's bandwagon, take a look at the lenses (yet to be released) that go along with the full fame camera; they will undoubtedly be quite large and bulky. The smaller lenses of m43 are better, but they are matched by a smaller sensor. Fujifilm is very popular compromise right now. A strong argument can be made that the APS-C sized sensor on the Fuji X-Pro 1 is more than good enough for digital.
The larger point, however, is that digital, at least so far, is all about compromise. It has not created its own compelling format yet. That leaves many of us holding on to the "romance" of rangefinder film cameras and accepting digital for its utility:
Therefore you really have to ask yourself, what role do you want a digital camera to play in your photography? If you intend to maintain both film and digital systems could you see yourself taking two cameras with you on trips, for example? If so, don't forget about the size of your new digital camera!
Neither ...
I'm quite happy with my old leica X1 w/ 35 vf,
thats enough Digital sensor- pixel Quality for me and i carry it along with my film camera
perudo
Established
thank you all for your replies
I should have mentionned that I actually do have 3 M lenses and 2 film leicas..... but even if the M9 makes sense, I'm still not 100% convinced...
On the other hand, as said before, we have to wait and see how the A7 actually performs with our M lenses to consider it a true M body alternative.....
I should have mentionned that I actually do have 3 M lenses and 2 film leicas..... but even if the M9 makes sense, I'm still not 100% convinced...
On the other hand, as said before, we have to wait and see how the A7 actually performs with our M lenses to consider it a true M body alternative.....
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
Sony have certainly shaken things up with their full frame offerings. I would expect the "others" are having late night board meetings discussing their options.
This is good thing for us Photogs. It means we get better and better equipment to choose from ever year. I fully expect Nikon to release something spectacular soon.
The things is it's a Sony and that's OK but I personaly wouldn't put my beautiful Leica lenses on a Sony body. Their DSLRs are OK but their smaller cameras feel cheap IMO.
The M9 is a terrific body but it's showing its age. The choice is a tough one expecially when you see the extended grip available for the Sony.
But that cheapness may still be there. I hope it isn't but I fear it will be.
This is good thing for us Photogs. It means we get better and better equipment to choose from ever year. I fully expect Nikon to release something spectacular soon.
The things is it's a Sony and that's OK but I personaly wouldn't put my beautiful Leica lenses on a Sony body. Their DSLRs are OK but their smaller cameras feel cheap IMO.
The M9 is a terrific body but it's showing its age. The choice is a tough one expecially when you see the extended grip available for the Sony.
But that cheapness may still be there. I hope it isn't but I fear it will be.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
If you like gorgeous women, fast cars, Hugo Boss suits the answer is easy -
Harry S.
Well-known
The M9 is the camera highest on my list of "Would love to have but hate to pay for." I don't think its worth the money they ask for it, but that doesn't hinder my interest for one.
f16sunshine
Moderator
What's that.... Hire a photographer (or two)?
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Should clarify, sorry. I'd use mine to shoot weddings and funerals as well as general editorial stuff. Lighting conditions greatly vary, need pretty decent DOF and shutter speed to cover it all.
Not sure if I'd go for either one, I'd very likely still bring a DSLR for a longer lens and as backup. Unless I could get me two bodies that is...
sojournerphoto
Veteran
thank you all for your replies
I should have mentionned that I actually do have 3 M lenses and 2 film leicas..... but even if the M9 makes sense, I'm still not 100% convinced...
On the other hand, as said before, we have to wait and see how the A7 actually performs with our M lenses to consider it a true M body alternative.....
In that case the M9 is the best answer, unless you want to sell your M system and start again. imho
raid
Dad Photographer
This is RFF, so where is the love for RF here? It seems that having a FF sensor camera without a RF is trumping for many people here.
Could ths be the beginning of the end of RF photography?
Could ths be the beginning of the end of RF photography?
sojournerphoto
Veteran
A good question.
- As a young boy I started with a fixed lens rangefinder that belonged to my grandfather
- I 'graduated' to an slr (Canon AE-1) after a year or two, when he saw that I was still interested
- Many years later I bought a Canon 5D, and then a 1Ds3
- One day I tried a Zorki 4k and some HP5, scanned with an low end faltbed
- A few weeks later I bought a Zeiss Ikon and 50 C-Sonnar second hand.
- The I sold the Canon gear
I didn't buy a drf until the M9 (full frame) came along, but by then I was committed to the rangefinder camera and happy to keep shooting film if necessary. I now have an M9 and an MM, which creates more time to shoot and less to process - necessary in a working life - but I still like film from time to time. I've also gained a Mamiya 7ii and a large format camera.
I have become committed to rf's.
For many they are now outmoded, and the major manufactureres would like everyone to think so. They sell cameras that are intended to be replaced on a regular basis. I still have the Ae-1.
Mike
Based on what I already own, I'll take the M9. It's probably the only digital camera I've owned that I miss.
Make a $3000 digital camera with a mechanical rangefinder that has modern specs and you will see the tone change. For now, people have to make do with what is actually available out there.
No.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Hopefully, more people will move into rf photography over time as digial rf's become more affordable, which they will of course. M3's and M4s are affordable now. M6's aren't terribly expensive if you want one to use. Mps are still a bit pricey, but can be found. The same will happen to M8's, 9s etc
Meanwhile, a film Leica or Bessa or Ikon is a very nice way to make pictures.
Edited to add:
Of course, my hope is that I have a suply of new cameras to replace what I have. If they don't break and film continues to be available then I'm set really and don't need any more. However, it would be nice if other people can also have the chance to enjoy our pursuit.