M9 prices

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm getting much more often in trouble if image is perfectly framed and it is tight in VF. With SLR like framing I always have to keep in mind to give more space what in VF, due to crop in printing. With M-E and 35mm lens (my main focal length) I'm framing quicker and without adjustments for prints and I'm having no problems with prints.   

[rrdiaz30]

Here is a collection of data points.  I've watched 3 Leica M9-P's sell on eBay over the last 3 weeks (Mar 07-Mar 29).  Prices were $3900 US, $4300 US & $3800 US.  Strong market.

 

Cheers...Rick

Edited March 30, 2017 by rrdiaz30

[Advertisement]

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

[Martin B]

Here is a collection of data points.  I've watched 3 Leica M9-P's sell on eBay over the last 3 weeks (Mar 07-Mar 29).  Prices were $3900 US, $4300 US & $3800 US.  Strong market.

 

Cheers...Rick

 

Wow....totally unreasonable for this kind of camera IMO if it is not a collector's item in a specific trim version.

[Paul J]

I've been watching M9 prices increase too. Even the non P models.

[JohnnySeven]

Sorry, but if either the display on the back shows severe pixelation under magnification or in the files itself it is a dealbreaker. My Canon 5D MkII display was much better in this regard! 

Im not really too concerned with the display. Its the end result that makes the M9 a great tool.  I use the display for a quick glance to see my composition, that'ts it.  And that's too much.  Spending time looking down at the display (chimping) is stealing time from looking for more pictures to make.  Its the pictures that count, not the pretty electro-gimmicks. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by JohnnySeven

[Adrian Lord]

There was no rear display on the legendary M3.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Im not really too concerned with the display. Its the end result that makes the M9 a great tool.  I use the display for a quick glance to see my composition, that'ts it.  And that's too much.  Spending time looking down at the display (chimping) is stealing time from looking for more pictures to make.  Its the pictures that count, not the pretty electro-gimmicks. 

 

For the price the M9 is still going for (> $2500) it is technologically totally outdated. The only good thing about it where I would agree is the CCD sensor - but which is really bad above ISO 400, too. For > $2500 I want to have an up-to-date digital camera and not compromising in many things this camera doesn't have or can't do. I tested the M9 and liked neither the handling of the camera nor the photo taking process. I find myself much better off with very good M6 film camera. Better price/quality ratio, too. Just my 2 Cents. 

[JohnnySeven]

I think the M9 is one of those little machines that despite what the specs and stats say is a hit with people actually out there using the thing.  Its reliable and has all the Leica M attributes that we like.  Despite the fact that the technology inside isn't up to the last minute's state of the art specifications, it still feels good  to use and with a skilled hand its capable of cranking out nice images. That is what a camera is supposed to do.  I think a good example of another little machine that is completely obsolete is the Fender Telecaster guitar. Its has horrible noisy pickups, simple out of date electronics, it cant trigger digital devices but guitar players agree that its one of the best tools for producing fantastic musical noises  because its basic design is simple, and elegant.  It feels good to hold, hasn't changed much since the 50's, and the more banged up it is the better it seems.  Sound familiar?  Dont worry about the fact that a camera doesn't have a processor capable of complex thought. I don't want to have a conversation with my camera about  Zizek's toilet theory.  (I agree with Zizek by the way)  I want to make pictures with it.  Thats all.  A Tesla self driving car is a great thing.  A 72 Dino is a great thing too. Which is better? What do you want it to do?  What do you want from things?  Deep questions...

Edited April 2, 2017 by JohnnySeven

[Martin B]

I think the M9 is one of those little machines that despite what the specs and stats say is a hit with people actually out there using the thing.  Its reliable and has all the Leica M attributes that we like.  Despite the fact that the technology inside isn't up to the last minute's state of the art specifications, it still feels good  to use and with a skilled hand its capable of cranking out nice images. That is what a camera is supposed to do.  I think a good example of another little machine that is completely obsolete is the Fender Telecaster guitar. Its has horrible noisy pickups, simple out of date electronics, it cant trigger digital devices but guitar players agree that its one of the best tools for producing fantastic musical noises  because its basic design is simple, and elegant.  It feels good to hold, hasn't changed much since the 50's, and the more banged up it is the better it seems.  Sound familiar?  Dont worry about the fact that a camera doesn't have a processor capable of complex thought. I don't want to have a conversation with my camera about  Zizek's toilet theory.  (I agree with Zizek by the way)  I want to make pictures with it.  Thats all.  A Tesla self driving car is a great thing.  A 72 Dino is a great thing too. Which is better? What do you want it to do?  What do you want from things?  Deep questions...

 

Agree that this is all personal preference. What might be worth it for one is totally obsolete for another. The M9 is one of the of cameras which is either liked or disliked. 

[Paul J]

The M9 is so popular and it's prices rising again because it is, generally speaking, all you need. It's the Spartan M with cracking IQ. Now the sensor has a permanent fix it's a no brainer. Especially if you want to try the M system for minimal outlay.

[Lord Lucan]

The M9 is so popular and it's prices rising again because it is, generally speaking, all you need. It's the Spartan M with cracking IQ. Now the sensor has a permanent fix it's a no brainer. Especially if you want to try the M system for minimal outlay.

Yes I think so. M8 is almost retired due to one thing and another going wrong. Well the thing gone wrong could not be put right thats why I say retired.

With M9,perhaps the only entry level M for anyone to join the club. 

[new2leica]

An M9 with a replaced sensor would be worth more than without.  Sure, it's free money-wise but not time-wise.

[John Ricard]

Sold my M9 recently for $1,600.  Had over 135,000 shutter actuations.  I think the price was a good deal for both myself and the buyer.  That camera served me well.   I have the M10 on pre order at 4 places and I'm currently using the original Monochrom as my only Leica.

[JohnnySeven]

I think the buyer got a great deal! 

[Gregm61]

For the price the M9 is still going for (> $2500) it is technologically totally outdated. The only good thing about it where I would agree is the CCD sensor - but which is really bad above ISO 400, too. For > $2500 I want to have an up-to-date digital camera and not compromising in many things this camera doesn't have or can't do. I tested the M9 and liked neither the handling of the camera nor the photo taking process. I find myself much better off with very good M6 film camera. Better price/quality ratio, too. Just my 2 Cents. 

 

I own very nice copies of an M6, M4 and M9-P, the M6's finder updated last year to the MP-type so no more rangefinder patch flare issues, and can tell you which two have seen the least use the past 12 months. Shooting film today is a total PITA. No E6 processing at all in my huge city, much less the 2-3 hour service like I used to have. I hate having to send film off and wait a week or more to get it back. I have several rolls of T-Max 400 to shoot, all the chemicals to process it and a decent scanner to digitize the files, but I've got to be in the right mood to do all that myself and it's been a while since the mood struck me.

 

If the type camera one wants is a manual focus digital rangefinder, full-frame and at $2,500-$3,000, you will be hard-pressed to find anything other than an M9 to fill those specs. New, up-to-date full-frame digital cameras under $2,500 are not rangefinders. New, up-to-date digital rangefinders cost $5,300 and up. That's why people still like the M9/M9-P.

 

As film cameras, the M4 and M6 are totally outdated. Surely a really nice, used Nikon F6 for under $900 would do the job much better and would be a better price/quality ratio, no?

Edited April 7, 2017 by Gregm61

[Martin B]

I own very nice copies of an M6, M4 and M9-P, the M6's finder updated last year to the MP-type so no more rangefinder patch flare issues, and can tell you which two have seen the least use the past 12 months. Shooting film today is a total PITA. No E6 processing at all in my huge city, much less the 2-3 hour service like I used to have. I hate having to send film off and wait a week or more to get it back. I have several rolls of T-Max 400 to shoot, all the chemicals to process it and a decent scanner to digitize the files, but I've got to be in the right mood to do all that myself and it's been a while since the mood struck me.

 

If the type camera one wants is a manual focus digital rangefinder, full-frame and at $2,500-$3,000, you will be hard-pressed to find anything other than an M9 to fill those specs. New, up-to-date full-frame digital cameras under $2,500 are not rangefinders. New, up-to-date digital rangefinders cost $5,300 and up. That's why people still like the M9/M9-P.

 

As film cameras, the M4 and M6 are totally outdated. Surely a really nice, used Nikon F6 for under $900 would do the job much better and would be a better price/quality ratio, no?

 

I agree that shooting film is a pain in the neck if you rely on outside sources where you have no control over, too. But for home processing, film is great IMO - at least it works well for me, and I enjoy doing it. I would never trade my M6 nor M7 in for the M9 - I made my points already clear why the M9 is not for me.  

 

The NIkon F6 works as well for film, too - but it is a much bulkier SLR camera. For shooting inconspicuously the M4 or the M6 are the much better option, also you can fit more in a small camera bag....

 

If it would be a digital rangefinder camera for me, I would go for the M10 which I consider a good release. But paying $$$$ for a technically outdated M9 with less bright viewfinder  - nops, no way. 

[Ko.Fe.]

For the price the M9 is still going for (> $2500) it is technologically totally outdated. The only good thing about it where I would agree is the CCD sensor - but which is really bad above ISO 400, too. For > $2500 I want to have an up-to-date digital camera and not compromising in many things this camera doesn't have or can't do. I tested the M9 and liked neither the handling of the camera nor the photo taking process. I find myself much better off with very good M6 film camera. Better price/quality ratio, too. Just my 2 Cents. 

 

 

You keep on talking how film shooter are you. Do you know what here is no color ISO 1600-2500 films? And do you really think what @1600-2500 you will get as clean print from bw film as from M9? 

I used to shoot bw film @1600 and print from it. In the darkroom. But I quit from pushing film after getting M-E in 2016. Now I do ISO 400 at the box speed and print few times per month. In the darkroom.  I quit from color film because it is bloody expensive and no fun to develop at home. Well, I even did ECN2 at home. Price/quality in color is not worth of the money on film anymore. And if you are scanning color film and ink printing, you are faking it, anyway

 

Yes, where are "up-to-date, not-compromising" <2500$ digital cameras. And, in fact, M10 is "outdated" if compared to these cameras. But, if you are Leica shooter... This January I was about to get Canon 6D which is twice less than <2500$, yet, has better high ISO comparing to M10. But I went with relic (for you) low ISO M8 instead. Why? Because, I'm Leica shooter and it is curse rather than blessing. Once true and only Leica shooting is in your head, heart, hands and right eye, the rest is utter to even look at.   

 

I think this photo is relevant here. ME @2500.  

 

 

[JohnnySeven]

I have a beautiful M3 DS from 1955. It's in great shape. I shoot it when I feel guilty for not shooting it. I love that camera but shooting film has become obsolete in the modern world. Its expensive and time consuming. The subject of a photo doesn't know if it is being documented on a film camera or on digital. If its a tree it probably has no opinion on the matter as far as I know.  We Leica geeks love our gear but great pictures can be made on any kind of camera. I hope this tree isn't upset that it was photographed on an M9...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Martin B]

You keep on talking how film shooter are you. Do you know what here is no color ISO 1600-2500 films? And do you really think what @1600-2500 you will get as clean print from bw film as from M9? 

I used to shoot bw film @1600 and print from it. In the darkroom. But I quit from pushing film after getting M-E in 2016. Now I do ISO 400 at the box speed and print few times per month. In the darkroom.  I quit from color film because it is bloody expensive and no fun to develop at home. Well, I even did ECN2 at home. Price/quality in color is not worth of the money on film anymore. And if you are scanning color film and ink printing, you are faking it, anyway

 

Yes, where are "up-to-date, not-compromising" <2500$ digital cameras. And, in fact, M10 is "outdated" if compared to these cameras. But, if you are Leica shooter... This January I was about to get Canon 6D which is twice less than <2500$, yet, has better high ISO comparing to M10. But I went with relic (for you) low ISO M8 instead. Why? Because, I'm Leica shooter and it is curse rather than blessing. Once true and only Leica shooting is in your head, heart, hands and right eye, the rest is utter to even look at.   

 

I think this photo is relevant here. ME @2500.

 

I shoot both digital and film - for B&W I use predominantly film, for color I use film sometimes but more often digital here. But even in digital, I have never been a high ISO shooter - I rather prefer to have as low ISO as possible. That's why I was never bothered that my 5D MkII didn't perform as well at high ISO (better than the M9 though....) and my A7R is also best below ISO 1600. I pushed Tri-X 400 film very well up to ISO 3200 avoiding severe grain accumulation - the Delta 3200 film was much worse here, yes, this film is showing a lot of grain. I agree that the Canon 6D is a very suitable tool for high ISO shooting - one reason I never felt interested in it because at lower ISO the difference to the 5D MKII sensor was marginal. So you pretty much wipe technical reasons away to shoot with Leica M digital - your personal choice, but it wouldn't be mine. I enjoy my film Leica cameras a lot, but I am not addicted to just one brand. I currently use cameras from Leica, Canon, and Sony. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ko.Fe.]

Martin B, on 09 Apr 2017 - 09:11, said:

I shoot both digital and film - for B&W I use predominantly film, for color I use film sometimes but more often digital here. But even in digital, I have never been a high ISO shooter - I rather prefer to have as low ISO as possible. That's why I was never bothered that my 5D MkII didn't perform as well at high ISO (better than the M9 though....) and my A7R is also best below ISO 1600. I pushed Tri-X 400 film very well up to ISO 3200 avoiding severe grain accumulation - the Delta 3200 film was much worse here, yes, this film is showing a lot of grain. I agree that the Canon 6D is a very suitable tool for high ISO shooting - one reason I never felt interested in it because at lower ISO the difference to the 5D MKII sensor was marginal. So you pretty much wipe technical reasons away to shoot with Leica M digital - your personal choice, but it wouldn't be mine. I enjoy my film Leica cameras a lot, but I am not addicted to just one brand. I currently use cameras from Leica, Canon, and Sony.

 

 

Do tell me which over FF digital rangefinder with true optical VF exist? Here is none, but Leica. And as with any monopoly, prices are going to be higher than the rest of the regular offerings. Plus, Leica is something which is always been prestige. This is why Sony prices on used FF camera are diving down, but Leica stays high. 

 

You are not ready to pay for it? What is new about it? I read same statements as yours at non Leica forums. In fact. I wrote something very similar as you are writing here at Rangefinder forum couple of years ago. But, I'm at Leica forum now and only after getting not just two rangefinder Leica film cameras, but digital, Which I have two as well. 

 

It is like me joying Landrover forum and telling what Landcruiser is less expensive and more sufficient. Yes and so?  So, we are Leica addicts, but  this is Leica forum. I have absolutely no interest of reading here what else and why someone else use. I also still have DSLR. 

Edited April 9, 2017 by Ko.Fe.