M9. One of THOSE cameras?

[Wayne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Years ago I owned a Nikon D700. That camera is now gone; but the lesson learned will now stay with me forever: some cameras should not be sold; they will always be good enough, and without substitute.

 

The M9 story started with my gnawing desire to own the "iconic" MM1. I found a good deal from a reputable dealer and purchased the MM1. Unfortunately, when the MM1 arrived there was a rangefinder alignment problem. Back it went...to be gone for about 10 days. As luck would have it, at this exact time, somebody traded in a low shutter count M9 at my favorite camera shop- an event that has never happened before...with any digital M. I couldn't resist the urge to try it out. To make a long story short, the MM1 made it back with adjusted rangefinder, and turned out to be everything I imagined. I reluctantly decided to keep the MM1 and return the M9. I mean, who buys two digital Leica Ms in one week?

 

After shooting the MM1 with some of my old LTM lenses I found myself spending quite a bit of time reviewing the images from both the MM1 and the M9. Thoughts of my old D700 images came to mind; not that they are exactly the same, but, very unique and satisfying... hitting a "sweet spot." I further realized: it does not matter how much time passes, (the D700 has been gone for three or four years) every time I viewed the images, I was going to wish I had kept that M9.

 

Fortunately, the M9 was still unsold. I made a bee-line back to the store, sheepishly apologized for my fickle nature, (they understood) and bought the M9 again.

 

It has been over a month since this chain of events. I feel strangely satisfied; aside from buying a 28mm, 5.6 LTM Summaron (a lens I have desired since buying my first Leica) the need to acquire more gear is gone. It is kind of like my 1978 911sc- my Porsche dream car when I graduated in 1978: once it was in the garage, I stopped looking at other cars...even other Porsches. That was 10 years ago. Good enough. No substitute.

[essvaun]

To quote Avon Barksdale, 'aight!

I had a D700, one of two camera's I miss, with a 50mm on it, it was just great. But I worked through some Fuji gear and a HB 500cm (the other camera I miss) but the M9-P I got lucky with (half price of new, shutter count of about 1200) is just it. I know one day it'll stop working but until then I just walk past camera stores, I never trawl KEH or BH. Just don't need/want another camera. Perfect? No. Perfect for me? Yes.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[elgenper]

I´m another owner of both the M9 and the MM1.  Never even thought of selling either.  The M9 sensor is starting to show signs of needing replacement; I´ll try to postpone sending it in until after the autumn colour season....  .  Hopefully, I´ll get it back before Xmas.

 

Owned several non-Leica cameras before those 2; don´t miss a single one of these!

[antigallican]

I read this with some feeling. I have been using an M9 for a couple of years, but  (in my mid-60's) have found the focussing more and more difficult. I proved it to myself by using one of those slrkit targets :-(

Now I have a Nikon D750 which focusses perfectly every time -I just have to get it lined up over the right bit of contrast. I use manual focussing and just one focussing spot, but of course the camera does the tricky bit. It's so disappointing!  I think the M9 is going to have to go.

[Luke_Miller]

I read this with some feeling. I have been using an M9 for a couple of years, but  (in my mid-60's) have found the focussing more and more difficult. 

I'm now in my mid-70s and using manual focus bodies more often than when I was younger. My cataract surgery corrected my astigmatism and now with the correct diopter on my Ms I am happy with my ability to focus.  My M9 has been replaced with a M Typ 240, but my MM 1 has an appeal that I don't find in the Typ 246.

[antigallican]

I'm now in my mid-70s and using manual focus bodies more often than when I was younger. My cataract surgery corrected my astigmatism and now with the correct diopter on my Ms I am happy with my ability to focus.  My M9 has been replaced with a M Typ 240, but my MM 1 has an appeal that I don't find in the Typ 246.

 

Hi Luke, trouble is, it has to get much worse to get cataract surgery in the UK. My sight has only deteriorated enough to be a PITA!

[Wayne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You know, one of the things that has struck me about discussion on rangefinder focus is the fact that it seems to always center on the practical mechanical and optical aspects of linkage and what is happening in the rangefinder patch. My eyes are not perfect, so my results from rangefinder usage are sometimes imperfect. After months of experimenting with the tilt of my head; the distance between my eye and viewfinder window, I have finally figured out, I will never be quick with rangefinder focus, but I can be acceptably accurate. I do wear glasses, and my vision is correctible to 20/20. I have tried the adjustable diopter from Really  Right Stuff- and found it to work- but, ultimately, discovered I am just as well off, wearing my glasses (bifocal,) accepting the fact that I will never have the framing advantage that people with perfect have, taking my time, experimenting, and enjoying the result.

 

In furthering my enjoyment, I have found the pre-aspherical 35mm Summilux to be of greater benefit than the adjustable diopter. It is the lens that continues to teach me, perfect focus is not necessary to absolutely fantastic photographs.

[Luke_Miller]

Hi Luke, trouble is, it has to get much worse to get cataract surgery in the UK. My sight has only deteriorated enough to be a PITA!

 

Mine were bad enough to keep me from driving at night.  Since the cataracts develop slowly I really had no concept of how much my daytime vision was being affected.  After the surgery I was just amazed by the difference.  Colors were much more vibrant and contrast (important for focusing) was dramatically better.  At least you can look forward to being able to focus better in the future after your cataracts get bad enough for surgery.

[exile]

I've been shooting with the same M9 since 2009. Had rangefinder readjustment once. I just love it. Better high ISO would be nice, as would live view for macro shots, and I believe these benefits have been provided in subsequent models but I have so far not considered the cost of upgrading to be worthwhile. When my M9 finally succumbs to all the abuse I've given it, I'll start looking at the latest Leica body and no doubt after a few months use to assess the myriad cumulative incremental improvements, be grudgingly thankful I was forced to move on.... But right now I don't see any individual improvement that justifies me splashing so much cash.

[pgk]

Perfect? No. Perfect for me? Yes.

 

The M9 is one of those cameras which, if you use it within its limitations, will always deliver.

 

Mine will be replaced when they fail or if I am finally a better photographer than they can deliver for . I suspect the former.

[DMOEsq]

Wayne-

Congrats!  Same obsessions.  Equally satisfied.  '87 triple black 911 Carrera and my M9.  No reason to look elsewhere.  Have been enjoying both for several years.  Quality is quality, and quality satisfies.  Enjoy both.  Now go drive somewhere fast and take lots of photos!  All the best!

 

Don

 

Years ago I owned a Nikon D700. That camera is now gone; but the lesson learned will now stay with me forever: some cameras should not be sold; they will always be good enough, and without substitute.

The M9 story started with my gnawing desire to own the "iconic" MM1. I found a good deal from a reputable dealer and purchased the MM1. Unfortunately, when the MM1 arrived there was a rangefinder alignment problem. Back it went...to be gone for about 10 days. As luck would have it, at this exact time, somebody traded in a low shutter count M9 at my favorite camera shop- an event that has never happened before...with any digital M. I couldn't resist the urge to try it out. To make a long story short, the MM1 made it back with adjusted rangefinder, and turned out to be everything I imagined. I reluctantly decided to keep the MM1 and return the M9. I mean, who buys two digital Leica Ms in one week?

After shooting the MM1 with some of my old LTM lenses I found myself spending quite a bit of time reviewing the images from both the MM1 and the M9. Thoughts of my old D700 images came to mind; not that they are exactly the same, but, very unique and satisfying... hitting a "sweet spot." I further realized: it does not matter how much time passes, (the D700 has been gone for three or four years) every time I viewed the images, I was going to wish I had kept that M9.

Fortunately, the M9 was still unsold. I made a bee-line back to the store, sheepishly apologized for my fickle nature, (they understood) and bought the M9 again.

It has been over a month since this chain of events. I feel strangely satisfied; aside from buying a 28mm, 5.6 LTM Summaron (a lens I have desired since buying my first Leica) the need to acquire more gear is gone. It is kind of like my 1978 911sc- my Porsche dream car when I graduated in 1978: once it was in the garage, I stopped looking at other cars...even other Porsches. That was 10 years ago. Good enough. No substitute.

[jonoslack]

Hi Luke, trouble is, it has to get much worse to get cataract surgery in the UK. My sight has only deteriorated enough to be a PITA!

Hi There

I'm in a similar position to you, although my cataracts are obviously not developed as much as yours. But when they do I'll definitely get the surgery done privately . . . . It should cost about the same as a good Leica lens, life is too short to wait!

Until then contact lenses make focusing so much easier than glasses (I use mono-vision, with a different strength lens in each eye).

[sblitz]

Hi There

I'm in a similar position to you, although my cataracts are obviously not developed as much as yours. But when they do I'll definitely get the surgery done privately . . . . It should cost about the same as a good Leica lens, life is too short to wait!

Until then contact lenses make focusing so much easier than glasses (I use mono-vision, with a different strength lens in each eye).

 

I had mine taken out a year ago and the difference is amazing ..... in terms of light, color and focus (back to 20-20 and mild reading glasses). Brought the RF very much back into use, especially the old film models where the view screens aren't quite as bright as the new ones (M-A or my now gone M9, sorry I sold it). Living in the US, the choice was made by my eye doctor when my regular glasses could no longer get my vision correct. If you need a great surgeon here in NYC, let me know ......

[Chazphoto]

Hi all,

 

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I am heartened.  I clocked back into this site after re-entering the Leica M9 world a week ago and the top thread is this one.  I knew I would regret selling my first Leica M9 (my first Leica) a couple of years ago, but I thought that I wasn't good enough for it/wasn't going to get good enough photos and couldn't afford to have it lying around for fun.  I was wrong and have just bought a low mileage M9-P, which is more fun than I've had with my trousers on in a long time.  In the first 172 photographs I've taken, a high percentage are absolute rubbish, but even those I enjoyed trying to make.  I have hopes that one or two will be worth saving, but whether or not that is the case the enjoyment in using the camera far outweighs the cost and difficulty.

 

I too have increasingly poor vision and am working with my varifocals and imperfect framing (there's a good comment on Overgaard's website where he points out that I you use a dioptre - which I did before - you then can't see the menu without putting your specs back on).  Even without glasses, though, you get a sense of when the rangefinder is focused or not - sort of a "least imperfect focus" test!

 

Glad to be back and to be back amongst you.

 

Thanks

 

Chazphoto

[Tom Johnston]

M9, no need for anything else (for my needs). I don't even think about selling it. Like others here, there are things I've sold and regretted, but won't make that mistake with this one.

Mine had the sensor replaced as part of the goodwill program last year. Its like a new camera all over again.

[jonoslack]

Hi all,

 

 

I too have increasingly poor vision and am working with my varifocals and imperfect framing (there's a good comment on Overgaard's website where he points out that I you use a dioptre - which I did before - you then can't see the menu without putting your specs back on).  Even without glasses, though, you get a sense of when the rangefinder is focused or not - sort of a "least imperfect focus" test!

 

Glad to be back and to be back amongst you.

 

Thanks

 

Chazphoto

HI There Chaz

I found shooting RF with varifocals particularly frustrating - Contact lenses are a much better bet if you can manage them - I have a reading lens in my left eye (so I can read the dials on the top) and a distance lens in my right eye (for the rangefinder). It works really well, don't need a diopter on the camera, and have almost never worn glasses in the last 10 years.

[jaapv]

Have you tried the new "night" contacts, Jono? Wear them during sleep, they will bend the cornea into shape, which will last throughout the day without any lenses. (disclosure, a friend of mine is an optician,and he gets raves about the system)

I wear glasses with double lenses, and am quite happy, can't stand varifocals eitherr.

[pgk]

..... can't stand varifocals eitherr.

 

Years ago I was given some advice by an opthalmic surgeon friend. He said that the sooner you adopt varifocals the better, because they can take a lot of getting used to and its best to do so earlier rather than later. So as soon as my eyes started to shift I went for varifocals which I now use happily, and with my cameras too. It took me several years to be totally comfortable with them and I would never buy anything other than the 'best' or 'premium' versions, as the cheaper versions are, of course, the worst to use and get used to.

[kentishrev]

I read this with real interest.  Every so often, a camera or lens appears that seems to cure GAS.  Can that really be so?  I shoot both Leica and Pentax (Pentax came first, naturally), and with a digital body and a film body, I collected lenses at a ridiculous rate.  However, once I had the Limited 31mm, and a Voigtlander Nokton 50mm, I never bought another lens for the Pentax.

 

Moving to Leica, I bought an M3, but found it hard as a starter.  So the M6TTL came along at the start of the year.  I love it and get a real thrill to just travel with it.  The M3 will be sold soon.

 

Looking at digital Leica too (for economy of lenses), and the M9 threads appear far more loyal to the model than the 240 or MM ones.  Aside from the M-D, but that's another story perhaps.  So maybe an M9 is the one I need to aim for, with replaced sensor, to ease the GAS.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Wayne]

I read this with real interest.  Every so often, a camera or lens appears that seems to cure GAS.  Can that really be so?  I shoot both Leica and Pentax (Pentax came first, naturally), and with a digital body and a film body, I collected lenses at a ridiculous rate.  However, once I had the Limited 31mm, and a Voigtlander Nokton 50mm, I never bought another lens for the Pentax.

 

Moving to Leica, I bought an M3, but found it hard as a starter.  So the M6TTL came along at the start of the year.  I love it and get a real thrill to just travel with it.  The M3 will be sold soon.

 

Looking at digital Leica too (for economy of lenses), and the M9 threads appear far more loyal to the model than the 240 or MM ones.  Aside from the M-D, but that's another story perhaps.  So maybe an M9 is the one I need to aim for, with replaced sensor, to ease the GAS.

 

Aside from the joy of viewing M9 images, another great aspect of M9- and MM1- is size and weight. Although I have never used, or even held, one of the later M Digitals, I see they are larger and heavier. Ideally, at least for me, the digital M would be no larger than M7; but I know that is a practical impossibility. Given recent trends, M9 is going to be about as small and light as digital M will ever be. Given M9 will be completely serviceable for some time to come, I doubt prices will continue to plummet, like those of the M8/M8.2.

 

Oddly enough, I, too, have Pentax equipment. My prized equipment from that mark is two Pentax AP (first Asahi film SLR camera marketed in USA) bodies and a fairly complete set of early M42 Pentax lenses. Both bodies have been restored and, pleasantly, seem as though they could have been manufactured by Leica. I love them. Watching things come into focus on those old screens seems magical.