Jump to content

Is the M9 the best bang for your buck entry into Leica digital?


Kupo43

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Long time photographer here.

Started on Rollei TLRs back in the 1960's, then M2, then M4, then Nikon Fs and then pretty much everything else from Minox to Sinar.

 

Switched to digital with the Nikon F5 / Kodak DCS760s.

Since then it's been Nikon digital pretty much all the way until my present D810/800E setup, been updating lenses etc., and then added a Hassy H3Dii 31 for work.

Tried out a Fuji X Pro 1, still have it but don't use it much.

Tried the Japanese Pana-Leicas, still own a Typ 114, which my GF promptly "exchanged" her Nikon DSLR rig for and said "out of my dead and cold hands." So I guess I still have that... :)

 

Still missing that essential feel for a camera though, one that just fits and I can forget it, so I kept on searching.

 

We have a Leica store here so I tried everything there.

Finally settled on a used M9, which handles close enough to my M2/M4 for me not to have to think about the camera, just take the picture.

 

End of story.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shoot, forgot to mention that the M9 was not my first digital Leica.

It was a D2, which is still with me, sensor changed back in the 90's and still shooting great!

(Of course, a lot of folk think it's not a real Leica, but the combination of that sensor with that incredible Summicron... : )

Just sayin'...

 

Back on topic, my M9 is going between a 50 'cron ver 5, a 45/2 Contax G in a mount with 6-bit, and a 50 Summitar that's going to have its front element repolished and recoated soon. The first two lenses are running lens Taabs, which I can't live without, even though the custom mount on the Contax lens means that infinity is at the wrong end now that the screw drive runs the focus direction in reverse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't need a digital camera.  your M6 and the universe of film stocks are more than enough to keep you busy and happy.  You are only wasting your money on obsolete digital technology, which will dwell in your subconscious

 

 

Yeah. Film will eventually replace obsolete digital. It still has worse resolution, ISO sucks, and darn expensive processing. Cause it's still bleeding-edge. But as soon as the technology is improved the old digital crap will be finally rendered obsolete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Film will eventually replace obsolete digital. It still has worse resolution, ISO sucks, and darn expensive processing. Cause it's still bleeding-edge. But as soon as the technology is improved the old digital crap will be finally rendered obsolete.

 

Actually, for some folks, it is.  There is more discussion of how the impermanence of digital is beginning to weigh on a generation who have grown up with impermanence.  It's a fascinating and cautionary tale about how humans view their world.  The truth is that there's room for both.  I have and shoot both film and digital.  Each is better suited for some tasks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, for some folks, it is.  There is more discussion of how the impermanence of digital is beginning to weigh on a generation who have grown up with impermanence.  It's a fascinating and cautionary tale about how humans view their world.  The truth is that there's room for both.  I have and shoot both film and digital.  Each is better suited for some tasks. 

 

 

This is very personal, though I believe that rather than "impermanence" we are talking about "nostalgia" here.

In any case, suggesting that one is "wasting money on obsolete digital technology" is hilarious (and I assume the quoted comment was ironic).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, for me it depends on the number of frames you take.

At work I'm expected to turn out hundreds of frames per day. It's always been so, in terms of 135-36 is was around 40+ rolls per day. On Leicas.

This means that for my application, digital can make a lot of financial sense.

 

However, if that might be hundreds of frames per year, that's perhaps a roll or two per week... and for me, that says 'M2/M4/M6 time'.

 

CheshireCat, I agree. This is all very personal. I simply prefer the slimmer bodies of the M2/M4s to the M9, let alone the M240, but really, any Leica beats no Leica at all :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Over the years, I have owned all of the film M Leicas, including some of the rarer ones (fwiw; they all shoot the same!). I still have an M2 and an M4, both of which I love dearly.  On the digital side, I've had M8, M8.2, M9, M9-P, M240, M240P, M Monochrom, and Monochrom 246.

 

Now that's off my chest, I have to admit to recently returning to a black M9-P, which has been recently serviced at Wetzlar with the new corrosion-resistant sensor fitted.  Although I now shoot a lot with a Q and an SL, I love the M9's CCD colour rendition, and couldn't be happier with my 'new' M9-P.  So yes, in my view pretty good bang for buck.

 

And I think these M9s (and especailly M9-Ps) with the new sensor fitted will be soon overtaking the early M240s in value and desirability; if nothing else (IMHO at least) they are closer to the original M concept in size and weight.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 what jcraf said. Although I haven't owned and used all of the cameras he has, I have at least rented/tried almost all of them out.

 

Some of them I picked up, shot a couple test frames just in case, and then put down again.

Mostly my first impressions proved valid (uncomfortable, too big/heavy/wrong fit-in-hand with the lenses I use, etc.)

Others I liked right off the bat, then grew to like not-so-much.

The M9 was immediate-like, and a keeper right from the get-go. M240 was too similar to my other cameras in output and a shade too wide and heavy for my hands. MM similarly, though the output is stunning.

 

Since I'm a film guy, live view doesn't really matter to me (I have other cameras for that), so the quality of the LCDs etc., is really immaterial to the final products that come out of a camera, IMO. However, your mileage may vary so I'd suggest you do what I did, which is take a bunch of SDXC cards to your nearest camera dealer and try out as many as you can, if you can.

 

If not then unless you have the money to buy them all and then return most of them, it will be buy/trade/sell/buy/trade/sell until you get to your optimum setup. I guess that's what most of us non-millionaires do.

 

Ah well, we all get there, one way or another :)

Edited by ChrisRL
Link to post
Share on other sites

And I think these M9s (and especailly M9-Ps) with the new sensor fitted will be soon overtaking the early M240s in value and desirability; if nothing else (IMHO at least) they are closer to the original M concept in size and weight.

 

 

Again, it is all very personal.

 

For people coming from film, I can understand why weight and size may seem more important than a good LCD, Live View, and quite superior ISO/push performance.

 

But don't forget that the M has higher dynamic range and battery life.

About the M9 "CCD look" (mainly due to color rendering at low ISO), very few people can notice the difference. And you can simulate it quite well in post.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, it is all very personal.

 

For people coming from film, I can understand why weight and size may seem more important than a good LCD, Live View, and quite superior ISO/push performance.

 

But don't forget that the M has higher dynamic range and battery life.

About the M9 "CCD look" (mainly due to color rendering at low ISO), very few people can notice the difference. And you can simulate it quite well in post.

Yes, you're right about the M240 series features you mention.  Going back to the M9's LCD was a shock, as was the good old 'clockwork toy' shutter, but neither is a show-stopper.

The camera for sure has it's limitations (for high ISO stuff I'd use the SL), but I just prefer the M9 in general.  As you say, it's a very personal thing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The great thing about the M9 is the quality of the files at low  ISO,  and the utter simplicity of operation.(The same is true in spades for the Monochrom,  except the high ISO is brilliant.)   I have one at Solms for a sensor replacement,  and am using  as backup the Q, a very popular camera that is both a good deal,  with its fast 28 mm lens and incredible processor,  and a very competent piece of equipment.  If 28mm is your focal length, as it is mine,  this is something to be considered.  If you deduct the price of the lens,  the body is a steal. And unlike any of the other cameras,  it has instant closeup capacity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...