My feelings about the M9

[Printmaker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

]My prediction is that unless Leica introduces a M-bayonet DRF in the £2-3K range then a significant number of existing M8 owners are going to migrate to Nikon and Canon because the chasm between the value of their M8 and a new M9, M10, M11 etc is going to be way too big..

 

LouisB

 

This is the problem I'm wrestling with. While I mainly use large format cameras to make a living, there are a lot of jobs I need to do with a smaller camera. I've tried to incorporate my M8 into the workflow but end up reaching for a Nikon most of the time because it is weatherproof. So my M8 became my weekend fine art camera. Sure, print sales have paid for this camera, but, with my name on the list for a M9, I'm having second thoughts.

 

The M9 solves many of the M8's problems. Its quieter, full frame and does not need filters. But with my M8 only being worth $1,800 and a recession still raging, I'm just not 100% convinced of the value of this purchase. After all, the M9 uses the same sensor and lenses.

 

My head tells me to replace my D2x with a D3. The price difference will be $3,500 and I'll use the Nikon several times a week on various work related projects. However, my heart says get the M9. I'd shoot better art. Then again, my M8 makes a great fine art camera. Decisions, decisions.

 

If both cameras were priced in the $3,500 to $4,000 range, I'd buy one of each. Now it is up to my head... or my heart.

 

Of course its not Leica's fault, most of their customers don't use cameras to make a living. The M9 is priced correctly for their marketplace. 99% of those made will be used to shoot vacation photos as well as kids, cats and dogs. The probable cost per photo will come to around $2 after 5 years of use. That's doable for most doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc.

 

While the D3 is not an inexpensive camera, it too is priced for its marketplace. And with Nikon, I've got options. The D700 and D300 are both reasonably weatherproof, which is my major concern in a work related camera. At $3,000 and $1,800, they would do the job.

 

So there you have it: the decisions of a working photographer in the current financial times.

 

Tom

[Advertisement]

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

[mhoersch]

Louis, excellent well balanced post. I couldn't agree more.

[mhoersch]

M8 was 4200 € (No sapphire glass)

M9 is 5490 € (No sapphire glass)

 

So... M9 is 1290 € more expensive than M8

 

Comparing apples with apples, you are absolutely right!

[Doc Henry]

Hi Louis,

I read with great interest your arguments and thank you for this point of view frank and sincere. I am quite of your opinion ....

Knowing Leica since 1969, I started to buy one camera without lens a wellknown reflex camera Leicaflex SL, at that time it costs 1000 Euros (an average monthly salary is around 200 E). It was then that I entered the world of Leica and i was still a student .I remember paying my camera on credit by working all night to pay my monthly installments.

 

To return to the price Leica is still very expensive but we pay for the quality of body and lens .I do not know any other brands , that why I told Wilfredo on his thread, i am an "Orthodox" of Leica. I have a Summicron which dates from 1969 and is still functional and many others R or M lens too

Who can say that with other brands such as N. .. or as C. .. it can make such beautiful pictures and keep it so long. And what fabulous image we have !

 

To return to the Leica M8 ,as i said in another thread, it’s still a very good camera and Leica has set the bar very high.... but it's expensive it's true !

I bought my M8 and 5 new M lens, because i don’t have R10 !

The M9 comes out and everyone wants to buy it and forget that we can still make beautiful pictures with M8 !

So they sell at a crazy and cheap price !

I do not deny that the M9 is also a good camera.Remember that’s a Leica , so quality housing and quality optics will be the appointment.

I made tests with the M9 and M8 and the M9 in some areas is identical to the M8

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests.html

Concerning M9 as M8 it's digital and I found something missing, perhaps this manual side or pleasure of taking his time to photograph as per example with my M7,R8 ,SL or R4S I feel much pleasure, may be more than M8 or M9

The film is the film and there is always this warm side or this "material" side not found even in the M8 or even in the M9.

I share the views of Louis because I keep (and do not sell) , all my film cameras but also my 2 M8 …. and in the future my M9 (I'm waiting it for Christmas:) )

Best regards

Henry

[modamachina]

Hi Louis,

 

Enjoyed reading your post. And I also agree on most points. Although I do miss the extra MP on my M8 that the M9 gives. Maybe 10 MP is ok if your printing, but when your work gets published, which mine mostly does, the M8 won't cut it. A full page on 300 dpi (non-cropped) it will do, but a spread (average of 30 x 45 cm, 300 dpi) it won't... So for me an M9 would be a huge advantage. I only wish someone had thought of a fullframe when they started making the M digital in the first place...

 

Best regards,

 

Klaas Jan

[jaapv]

Each to his own - and let's not turn this into a film vs. digital debate. That orange has been well sucked. For me, an enthusiastic M8 user the M9 is the M8 come of age. I'll be the first to admit that all differences between the camera are evolutionary in themselves and none of them are huge leaps. However, in my experience Leica has succeeded in making the whole larger than the sum of the parts. The camera is closer to the original M experience and worth every cent, the price difference in Euros (it is built in the Eurozone, and Leica does not pay its employees in USD or GBP!) to the M8.2 is far less than expected.

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Each to his own - and let's not turn this into a film vs. digital debate. That orange has been well sucked. For me, an enthusiastic M8 user the M9 is the M8 come of age. I'll be the first to admit that all differences between the camera are evolutionary in themselves and none of them are huge leaps. However, in my experience Leica has succeeded in making the whole larger than the sum of the parts. The camera is closer to the original M experience and worth every cent, the price difference in Euros (it is built in the Eurozone, and Leica does not pay its employees in USD or GBP!) to the M8.2 is far less than expected.

Jaap,

It is not my intention to reopen the debate film and digital.

I think Louis is right to turn to an M7 because film and digital are complementary.

We must need both systems as i told you earlier.

Personally taking photos with only with Leica equipment for 40 years, this is my conclusion !

Regards

Henry

[jonoslack]

Of course its not Leica's fault, most of their customers don't use cameras to make a living. The M9 is priced correctly for their marketplace. 99% of those made will be used to shoot vacation photos as well as kids, cats and dogs. The probable cost per photo will come to around $2 after 5 years of use. That's doable for most doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc.

 

Hi Tom

You need to be careful with those patronising assumptions.

When I first got interested in Leica 4 years ago, I was astonished at the quality of their finish . . .. if you went to a second hand shop there were racks of mint condition M6s and M7s. Later I realised that this was because the cameras simply hadn't been used.

But looking at the M8's for sale , they ARE used - black chrome looking grey, silver chrome with shiny corners.

Whilst I'm sure that a large proportion of M9 users will be professionals (i.e. doctors, dentists, lawyers . . even software developers (god forbid)., the difference these days is that the cameras are likely to be used. I think it's been one of the shocks for leica; there's been a change from selling camera gear that disappears into the ether with no complaints or returns (because they're hardly used, and it's tough to decide that a rangefinder is incorrecly calibrated when a film comes back from the processor a week later).

 

. Suddenly cameras come back with dead pixels/badly calibrated rangefinders/lenses which don't focus to infinity . . whatever. There is lots of fantastic photography by amateurs (look at the galleries here).

 

The fact that you make a living from photography . . . . and the fact that you are a good photographer . . are not at all the same thing.

[KM-25]

There is lots of fantastic photography by amateurs (look at the galleries here).

 

While I whole heartedly agree, I also want to point out that in most cases, when people post photographs on the internet, rarely does any kind of critique ensue, but rather one giant "Great Capture" love-fest that can go on for pages.

 

This might be due to the notion that people say nice things to either engender it back or as to prevent retribution on their own images. My opinion of the work on here varies as with anyone else's. So to say there is "Lots" of fantastic photography on here could very well be on a sliding scale relative to the site and to individual opinion....and not necessarily true.

[j. borger]

What a wonderful post Louis.

Now i do not feel as guilty anymore for not getting warm over the M9 release.

Yes the M9 is a logical evolution of the M8 like Jaap states.

And yes .. i would buy the M9 if i did not have a digital M yet!

But with Euro 1500 maximum for my M8 an upgrade makes no sense at all

I will wait for the M10 and shoot film along the M8 in the meantime

[JQ Huang]

 

Quite the contrary, in fact a couple of weeks ago as some of my friends in this forum know, I purchased an M7. The fact that I am more excited by a 7 year old product than the latest model is at the heart of my indifference towards the M9.

 

 

 

 

Although one could argue that the X1 is the product for those who cannot step up to the investment, in fact it is the M7 or MP plus a scanner which is the real alternative, if as commentators believe the M8 and M8.2 DRF is now out of production. Perhaps that is Leica’s game-plan - to ensure the longevity of film cameras? Use the pricing of the M9 and future models expensive enough to make the film cameras desirable again?

 

 

LouisB

 

Thanks Louis, for such a wonderful read! I've always been fascinated by the world of Leica lens and cameras. The moment M9 was launched, I just can't help it and bought an M7 (easier on my wallet). I've not been so excited for a long time...

 

Rolo posted a complementary thread as well, regarding the desire for getting the latest digital gear. It was an interview to Stephen Schaub. May I urge all to listen to it, when you have the time...

[tdtaylor]

I have been a lurker, on this specific forum, for a while. Threads like this will get me involved and pulled away from other forums (forums sure take a lot of time). Hats off to the thoughtful statements and insight to those who contributed above.

 

Terry

[mwilliamsphotography]

Okay, 10,000 words to say you didn't warm up to the M9. Were you looking for company? This is Leica, so there's lots of that ... LOL!

 

Evolutionary? Well, at some point in evolution something becomes something else ... and IMO it happened here.

 

For some people, the M8 was "almost" in a lot of very important ways. For me personally the M9 stepped over that "almost something" evolutionary line and became "something more useful" where the M8 wasn't.

 

To me that was a BIG deal.

 

I like it. Most exciting thing since my first M.

 

 

-Marc

[spersky]

Each to his own - and let's not turn this into a film vs. digital debate. That orange has been well sucked. For me, an enthusiastic M8 user the M9 is the M8 come of age. I'll be the first to admit that all differences between the camera are evolutionary in themselves and none of them are huge leaps. However, in my experience Leica has succeeded in making the whole larger than the sum of the parts. The camera is closer to the original M experience and worth every cent, the price difference in Euros (it is built in the Eurozone, and Leica does not pay its employees in USD or GBP!) to the M8.2 is far less than expected.

 

Hey its not Leica's fault that the US goverment in ruining the U.S. Dollar. In terms of real money (not the toilet paper called the U.S. Dollar) the new M9 is not much more expensive then the original M8.

[thompsonkirk]

Thank you, Big, for a thoughtful post.

 

I'm not completely convinced about M9 & was quite pleased with upgraded M8s. But I'm expecting to see an improvement in image quality from the M9, if/when one shows up. No, we can't see much – or any – in web posts; but we should see some in larger prints. I usually print 14x21", & I expect an M9 to allow a bit of cropping; to offer a bit more resolution; and to offer smoother tonal transitions in prints of this size. That's what I noticed when switching from 1.5-crop-factor Canon to a 5D, & I hope to see it in going from 10 to 18MP - the important point being that they're pixels of the same size as M8 pixels, but substantially more 'acreage' on the sensor.

 

So far I've taken one (1) M9 test shot on 9/9/09, & it did lead me to think my expectations - or hopes? - were justified. If that doesn't prove to be so, I'll feel upset - not just about the wasted $, but the problem I've had, getting along with 1 camera body after selling my better-looking M8.

 

Besides the things you mention, I'm concerned about slow production & what that means, if anything, for the future. I can't help thinking it means something has gone rather wrong. Is Kodak really going to be able to supply sensors on a regular schedule, or will the delays cause Leica financial difficulty? Deep as his pockets may be, Dr. Kaufmann does after all have to meet a payroll & keep the store open, even with little to sell. Will Leica soon have to turn to another sensor supplier for an M10?

 

These thoughts make me question the wisdom of having sold that 2d M8. But I'm still counting with fingers crossed about an improvement in image quality.

 

Kirk

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

Having submitted close to 5,000 posts in the forum over the last three and a half years I feel the need to expunge myself of Ffordes for MPs.

 

LouisB

 

excellent post,very strong arguments, truth told . regarding croping in M8 i submit a crop example to evaluate resolution and cropping in M8 ,strongly degrated for web sizing.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Louis,

 

Its not like you permanently post nonsense on this forum, so no need to point out that you have experience. you are one of the people I always look for to see what you have to say.

 

Im not going to argue your points, they are meaningful and reasonable. however I picked up my M9 today, Having shot my way around the house and friends.. the camera impresses in ways web reviews don't seem to capture very well.

 

Focus is _significantly_ easier, probably because magnification on the sensor is less.

 

Shooting the same scene I normally shoot with the 35mm on the M8, instead it shoots with the 50mm on the M9. not a big deal, but the result was rather shocking, more dots at 640iso simply made a very different print.

 

The camera is nothing shockingly different from the M8, the sensor probably resolves the same per 100x100pix, there are just about twice as many of them, little details holds up like crazy. because the sensor is larger rather than having higher resolution, the lens don't have to resolve more so to speak. It works, and it is a significant difference from the M8.

 

Honestly, I can not argue your points, you are right, this can all be done equally well with many other cameras and at a more reasonable price per new body. Though i suspect the M9 is going to stay current for a very long time. Like so many others I would have liked a saphire glass on the display.

 

Well just my 2 cents.

 

.

[Fotomiguel]

Louis,

I have no idea why I feel such a strong attachment to film, yet constantly pursue digital images. I know we're not on our own and I wish you well in every aspect of your photography.

 

This months LFI featured photographer, the great Stefan Rohner, has a discussion on his blog that show a similar tendency. Maybe, we're just lazy.

 

See Stefan Rohner - Blog

 

 

Stefan Says:

September 29th, 2009 at 16:13

Miku, no way that a M8 or 9 can produce a focus play like above.

also not the beloved D3 of Bevis

Dietmar, print looks more 3 dimensional and it is printed on plastic, on barita the difference would be even bigger.

b/w digital does not exist for me, colour, well, does not make me unhappy, it is just that colour is easy to work with digital lazy..

 

 

Bruno Braun Says:

September 29th, 2009 at 19:48

Hi! I think you should throw your M8 away and return to real photography. You have in your portfolio wonderful b/w photos from India or Marocco - this is the value. I know that the work with digital is easier and faster, but the results are nothing less than average. I think you know it too.

Regards.

 

 

Interestingly, Stefan refers to the inability of the digital sensor to capture the characteristics of the lens. And WOW .... "B&W digital does not exist for me".

 

Dig out the Tri-X boys !! :D

 

Even when I like very much some of the Stefan Rohner photography, I think that some of his Black and White pictures have a strong post processing that disturb me a little bit. The post processing may be done in a dark room or in a computer. I think that the computer one is a bit more accurate. So you control better the final result, not being so visible. Black and White digital photography is now possible. The important matter is the same: The instant or moment of the shot and the image you get. The rest is just a matter of how to post process your images.

The M9 is just 1/3 better than the M8. But 1/3 better is a lot.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mhoersch]

Hi Jono,

 

I find it difficult to believe that you can be serious about this one. Let me assure you that there have been film cameras that were used - even Leicas. And it took me exactly one roll of film in my M6 to find out that a used Noctilux I had bought a few years ago was front focussing badly and had to be adjusted in Solms. You know, badly focused images still look badly focused even a week later when the film has been processed.

 

Also, from my own experience I cannot confirm that digital cameras in general fail more often than film cameras. I've been taking photographs for more than forty years with quite a number of different cameras of different brands, on film most of the time and digital for the past ten years - and the only cameras that failed on me and had to be repaired or replaced were Leica's M8s.

[biglouis]

Thanks again for some very thoughtful points in response to my original post. In fact, after reading them through I think my initial thoughts are being changed. I had not factored in the ability to use Leica lenses as intended, or indeed the fact that new customers to Leica will only see an incremental cost over that of a M8.2.

 

For now, the M9 is not on my shopping list. Now that I have found a certain rythm with film which I did not the last time I used it, for the forseeable future I'd like to hone my skills in that respect. I do suspect, however, that after some time when I feel confident about working with full frame film it will become apparent that a digital workflow with a full frame camera makes sense.

 

We'll see.

 

Once again, thanks for the thoughtful responses - this is such a great forum.

 

LouisB