My feelings about the M9

[euston]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Louis, an interesting post and discussion which followed. I'd go further than some and say that after two months with the M9, I realise I needn't have bought it.

 

The mistake I made was thinking that moving to the M9 would mirror my Nikon D2x to D3 experience where the new camera provided not only the move to FF but significant all-round improvements - speed, handling, menus, display. Then, as a crowning achievement, there was the stunning (and even now still impressive) high ISO performance. There was a real feeling that the new camera moved the game forwards.

 

I just do not get the same feeling with the M9. My M8's came back from upgrade in Solms in fine form, fully sorted, and all the way through the summer provided great IQ. The M9 arrives and, yes, we have FF and, yes, we no longer need IR filters but we've lost some things, some others are new and badly thought out, the evident cost cutting still rankles and the camera's a bit of a slug. Then there's the IQ problems with the 18mm SE and the fact that one third of Leica's lens range is now outside the scope of the viewfinder. Overall, I needn't have bothered.

 

It may be the M9's arrival has more to do with throwing a financial lifeline to Leica than in moving their DRF game forwards. To me, the camera feels incomplete, a work in progress.

 

There you have it: the difference between the M8 owner’s attitude to the M9 and that of the person coming to a digital M for the first time. I’m in the latter camp. Having used the M9 for a couple of weeks, I can’t imagine being satisfied with anything less than a full frame, filterless M.

 

I’ve never thought of Leica as being on the same upgrade treadmill as the other camera companies. I really don’t think they are. It’s a surprise to me that some of their customers appear to believe that they should be.

 

As far as I am concerned, Leica’s strength is in optics. As long as the cameras permit the lenses to perform at their best, job done.

[ho_co]

Louis, you mention that (like many of us) you would like spot metering.

 

You are aware, are you not, that the M9's metering pattern is more like that of the M5, M6, M7 and MP than like that of the M8?

 

That is, the M9's meter is designed to mimic the strongly center-weighted meter of the pre-M8 Leicas.

[rdubois]

Very interesting unemotional thread.

 

It may be the M9's arrival has more to do with throwing a financial lifeline to Leica than in moving their DRF game forwards. To me, the camera feels incomplete, a work in progress.

 

In Leica's shoes I would have done the same. They have seized the opportunity of solid sales on a FF seduction and they will no doubt score again with their next offering which will hopefully bring a more finished product.

 

I think they were clever to offer the M9 at a very realistic price but I think they were only able to do that by offering what is clearly a a budget FF M8. I can only speculate that a well finished version would come at some premium.

 

In the absence of competition they can do pretty well what they like.

 

Dubois

[viramati]

Got mine by chance on Friday and am so far impressed. only practical gripe so far is lack of sapphire glass. Will add more when I've had more time with it

[danyves]

I'm curious what makes you think that. After working with the M9 (in the real world, not a quick test) I've come to the conclusion that I can use it just as I used my film rangefinders. The only difference is that I can print larger with the M9:D

 

The problem is that some people think they can use it like an 8fps DSLR, which is another matter entirely...

 

Noah,

 

Great work done for Sempre Jardim with the M9 !

 

Daniel

[Don Morley]

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 my views on the M9. You can, of course stop reading now as probably like me you are completely fed-up with the endless introspection about the M9.

If you are still reading then for whatever my reputation is worth after all my posts, pictures and comments this is what I think about the M9.

My chief feeling when I think of the M9 is one of torpor. I just am not inspired by the product. Yes, it has a full frame sensor and it appears to have some marginal improvement in noise reduction at higher iso-levels but fundamentally it is the same simple digital rangefinder which I already own and love in the shape of an M8.

Unlike a small number of M8 owners (and a large number of M8 detractors) my glass is half-full (surprisingly because my wife complains I am a half-glass empty kind of person). I mean, that I have always enjoyed using the camera and even taken the rough with the smooth. I could produce a long list of things that irritate me about my M8 but bottom line I can point you at one successful publication and two more in-the-works books of photography where the image quality is faultless. And so it should be: the important part of the process, the collection and transmission of light is done with lenses of simply outstanding quality.

Although there is a chicken and egg argument over the ascendancy of lens and sensor, I believe the lens is the key element. I know this for a fact because I have a ton of very fine images created using my Leica 35 Summulux ASPH on my now dear, departed R-D1. The M8 gave/gives me greater convenience over the R-D1 but in truth not the quantum leap in IQ you might have expected (and above iso640 possibly a step backwards).

Maybe I did not handle a test M9 long enough, certainly I did not have the opportunity to process any captures but I have had the opportunity to see a lot of results in the forum and to date nothing has made me sit up and pay attention with such an impact that I want to immediately reach for my credit card and incur yet more debt to support my photographic addiction.

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.

Where is the innovation? Yes, I understand there is the technical innovation of the full-frame sensor and the incredible technical achievement of the micro lenses which now do not require IR sensitivity correction (incidentally, my R-D1 had minor magenta issues but never anything like the M8). But I want real innovative convenience. For example, a dioptre adjustment in the viewfinder. Live view (I kid you not) and an articulating LCD screen. For that matter, a really big LCD screen which works in bright sunlight (rather than one which cannot be scratched, a problem I have never had with any mobile device in the past 20 years of owning them). Audible single point focus confirmation. Spot metering (please!). Now, for me, that would be a stand-up and pay attention, now reach for your credit card set of improvements. A quantum leap worth investing in.

The M9 does not solve any problem that I currently have with the M8. In fact, the only problem I have, which is a constraint on low light performance is unlikely to be really solved by anything less than a D700 or a 5DmkII – and I think if we are all honest about this, no one would disagree with me about this statement. The M9 does not resolve images any better – in fact, the increase in file size means more pressure on disk space and noticeably slower writing to SD-card (incidentally, an attraction to me about the D700 is the fact that it is only a 12MP sensor rather than the 20+MP sensor in the 5D and A900). Again, if we are all honest, the 10MP file size of the M8 is more than adequate and the larger 18MP file size of the M8 will only help the small minority of camera users who print really, really big pictures.

And there we have it. The M9 for a professional photographer with specific needs is of course a very useful addition to his/her kit. If I had the disposable income I might be tempted to a M9 and perhaps at some point in the next year or so I will suddenly discover a problem in my work where an M9 presents itself as a solution for me.

On a final point, like all consumers I am driven by price. I might feel completely differently if the M9 was introduced at a reasonable price point. Perhaps Leica is sensitive to the fact that Canon and Nikon have cameras which are in the £5K league and therefore feels that to be taken seriously they too must charge a similar price. If this is the case then they are seriously misleading themselves.

If the M9 had been introduced at the same price point as a M8.2 then I may feel differently. But it does rankle with me that Leica have adopted a pricing policy which means each evolution of the product line will actually be more expensive, even though the technology and sunk cost in reusable components must be getting cheaper. If you think about it, this pricing policy is quite worrying. It means that a M10 will be introduced at £6K, a M11 at £7K and before long (sooner, actually I think rather than later) Leica will want £10K for a DRF camera.

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?

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.

Here endeth the lesson and I’ll be flattered if anyone give two hoots for my opinion – off to take some photos and later on to eye up the adverts at Ffordes for MPs.

 

LouisB

How I agree, I love my M8 and M8.2 but am not blind to there shortcommings and faults, rather I love working with small rangefinder cameras BUT if the chips were down and someone above said right Don you can only have one camera and its time to choose - Then my full frame Canon 5D would win it hands down, and I do mean the 5D as opposed to a 5DMk2 as it has quite enough megga pixels for me thank you. Don (Retired Pro).

[Leicaiste]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It may be the M9's arrival has more to do with throwing a financial lifeline to Leica than in moving their DRF game forwards. To me, the camera feels incomplete, a work in progress.

 

Mark,

 

That's funny because IMO, it was the M8 that was the work in progress. It took Leica months to make it work almost like it should. Some M8's users are still asking for upgrades.

 

Out of the box, the M9 was immediately useable, thanks to the M8 experience. It is the camera I was waiting for since the M8 has replaced in the bag my trusted M6J and MP.

 

The mistake I made was thinking that moving to the M9 would mirror my Nikon D2x to D3 experience where the new camera provided not only the move to FF but significant all-round improvements - speed, handling, menus, display. Then, as a crowning achievement, there was the stunning (and even now still impressive) high ISO performance. There was a real feeling that the new camera moved the game forwards.

 

I just do not get the same feeling with the M9.

 

That is where we differ regarding the M9.

 

You were hoping for a big step forward and I was only waiting for a Digital M giving me back my M6/M7/MP feelings.

 

And it does for me. With the M9, the fun I had with my film M's is really back, and I haven't touched my 5DII since two months.

 

I hope that Photokina 2012 will bring us an M10 that will make all of us happy : A big step forward for a real M.

 

Quite a challenge for Leica as we can see from the various responses on both the M8 and M9 Forums.

 

Lucien

[Mokkacream]

The mistake I made was thinking that moving to the M9 would mirror my Nikon D2x to D3 experience where the new camera provided not only the move to FF but significant all-round improvements - speed, handling, menus, display. Then, as a crowning achievement, there was the stunning (and even now still impressive) high ISO performance. There was a real feeling that the new camera moved the game forwards.

 

I just do not get the same feeling with the M9. My M8's came back from upgrade in Solms in fine form, fully sorted, and all the way through the summer provided great IQ. The M9 arrives and, yes, we have FF and, yes, we no longer need IR filters but we've lost some things, some others are new and badly thought out, the evident cost cutting still rankles and the camera's a bit of a slug. Then there's the IQ problems with the 18mm SE and the fact that one third of Leica's lens range is now outside the scope of the viewfinder. Overall, I needn't have bothered.

 

 

When I read this, I get the feeling, that there is still one truth: there will always be people who just beef and baa about anything new, not being able to see the important core achievments.

But some months later, they will get remarkably silent after all.

[GMB]

Louis, an interesting post and discussion which followed. I'd go further than some and say that after two months with the M9, I realise I needn't have bought it.

 

 

Ooophs. The longer I wait for the M9, the more I wonder whether I should get it. I am not really a wide angel guy, and 24/2.8 on my M8 is normally sufficient (and I have the CV15 if I want to go wider). I am toying with the idea to offer myself a MFDB (or S2) next year for landscape and portraiture where I want to print really big.

 

I think for the M8/M8.2 owners there really is a question whether the M9 makes sense, given that it is an evolution rather than a revolution. For me it boils down to the question whether the bigger sensor real estate and the ability to shoot certain lenses at their designed focal length is so important that one wants to get the M9 now rather than the M10 in a couple of years.

 

For me personally, the jury is out. OTOH, I don't think I would go back to film.

[ChrisC]

When I read this, I get the feeling, that there is still one truth: there will always be people who just beef and baa about anything new, not being able to see the important core achievments.

But some months later, they will get remarkably silent after all.

 

Andreas - That's far too snotty a post to be signed 'with kind regards'. Sneaking the high ground whilst quoting Mark of all people as 'beef and blaa' does nothing to further a discussion where people [some with vast experience] have differing contributions to make. Mark has provided this forum with some unique analysis of [particularly] the M8 for which most of us here learned a great deal. He deserves greater politeness than you showed. If you doubt me; go and examine 'Anatomy of an M8', afterwards you can blush in private.

 

................ Chris

[Shootist]

Mark,

 

That's funny because IMO, it was the M8 that was the work in progress. It took Leica months to make it work almost like it should. Some M8's users are still asking for upgrades.

 

Out of the box, the M9 was immediately useable, thanks to the M8 experience. It is the camera I was waiting for since the M8 has replaced in the bag my trusted M6J and MP.

 

 

 

 

Lucien

 

What a load of BS. Out if the box the M8 was completely usable, at least my 2 were.

The M9 is still a work in progress. It has now been a full + 2 months since it release and many months since it was handed off to beta testers and still there are problems, in firmware and hardware, right out of the box (see the sensor line thread).

I would of expected Leica to release at least one new firmware update by now to correct some of the defects in the camera, Slow/Slow/Slow on a number of fronts, color shift on left side of images using wide angle lenses (and it's probably there with longer lenses but not noticeable to the human eye), lockups and so forth.

Now we have a long thread on miss focusing right out of the box. This is after they installed a new RF calibration system/setup and given the time it is taking for the M9 to show up on dealers shelves I would expect they have the time to get at least the focusing correct, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[delander †]

I think it would be true to say that we were all quite surprised when the M9 actually appeared, we felt that FF and the loss of the IR lens filters would be much more difficult and time consuming.

 

Also lets face it Leica M8/8.2 sales were going down, if not plummeting, so Leica, once they realised that the FF issue could be relatively well addressed, they quickly came out with the M9.

 

It is not perfect and they left the cosmetic stuff from the M8.2 off it to keep the price down.

I'm sure they will come out with some FW upgrades to address most of the outstanding issues.

 

Of course the M8 was revolutionary for M camera fans, the M9 is just a step up.

 

Jeff

[marknorton]

I was simply expressing a personal opinion. The M9 is doubtless a great choice for those coming to Leica DRF for the first time; for those with M8s, especially later or upgraded models, you may find the M9 a rather small step forwards taking everything into account. My two M8u's are working really well. My M9 locks up and gives poor colour with the 18mm SE, amongst other things.

 

I have the feeling that the M9 as we now know it will be even shorter lived than the M8.

[noah_addis]

In a nutshell, because it appears it won't operate under the same circumstances: Very high ISO (can you push it to 6400?)...

 

Tthis is a valid point. Though at 2500 the PRINTS are similar in noise to, say, a B&W 3200 speed film. Don't go judging 100% crops, it's not the same as a print. But if a majority of my shooting was at ISO 1600-6400 I would probably not choose the M9 and definitely not the M8.

 

...extreme temperatures, places where I don't have access to batteries/electricity...

 

In that case few digital cameras will work for you I would guess. While I think the battery capacity (as well as the small physical size of the batteries) on the M8/9 is great, charging may be an issue if you're far off the beaten path. It should be easy enough for Leica or someone else to create a pack for the camera that would use AA batteries...that would be a good idea. Back in my film days I always picked cameras that either didn't need batteries or used (relatively) easy to find AA batteries. In some situations generators and/or solar chargers are an option.

 

I really don't understand all the talk about it being a small step up from the M8. In terms of image quality and suitability for certain kinds of work that require high pixel count, it's a huge step up from the M8. Having 18MP, a leica sensor and no AA filter, the files are approaching the quality of medium format digital in a package the size of a point & shoot.

 

Not looking to start yet another tedious film/digital debate, but for me the decision these days is between the M9 or film M camera. The M9 for me is the best digital camera currently available, it produces very good prints up to ISO 1600 (as long as you expose correctly), is small, quiet and the quality at ISO 160-640, where I shoot most of the time, is incredible. I have no need for AF, fast motor drives or ISO 3200 and higher. (Though I know some photographers need these things and I'm not dismissing them.)

 

Having said all that I prefer the workflow of film, as well as the archival stability and simplicity of not having to fiddle with raw conversions, software updates, etc. The only reason I'd put down the M9 is to pick up an MP:D

[Leicaiste]

What a load of BS. Out if the box the M8 was completely usable, at least my 2 were.

 

Dear Shootist,

 

I have received my M8 in January 2007, 3 months after release and I had several pictures like below, the WB was at the least erratic and I had to wait months before receiving the UV/IR from Leica.

 

After some firmware updates it was finally okay. I never had to send it back to Leica. I was lucky that I didn't received it from the first batch.

 

The M9 is still a work in progress. It has now been a full + 2 months since it release and many months since it was handed off to beta testers and still there are problems, in firmware and hardware, right out of the box (see the sensor line thread).I would of expected Leica to release at least one new firmware update by now to correct some of the defects in the camera, Slow/Slow/Slow on a number of fronts, color shift on left side of images using wide angle lenses (and it's probably there with longer lenses but not noticeable to the human eye), lockups and so forth.

Now we have a long thread on miss focusing right out of the box. This is after they installed a new RF calibration system/setup and given the time it is taking for the M9 to show up on dealers shelves I would expect they have the time to get at least the focusing correct, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

I have received my M9 a week after 09/09/09 and nothing had prevented me to take any type of picture. The focusing is spot on and easier to achieve than on the M8. There is no line on the sensor and with the lenses I am using (28-90) I don't see any color shift.

 

Bottom line is the M9 is much less in need of a firmware upgrade than the M8 was. And it will not need expensive UV/IR filters and an upgrade program for a more silent shutter.

 

Do you have a M9 btw ?

 

Lucien

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!

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

I was simply expressing a personal opinion. The M9 is doubtless a great choice for those coming to Leica DRF for the first time; for those with M8s, especially later or upgraded models, you may find the M9 a rather small step forwards taking everything into account. My two M8u's are working really well. My M9 locks up and gives poor colour with the 18mm SE, amongst other things.

 

I have the feeling that the M9 as we now know it will be even shorter lived than the M8.

 

I couldn't agree more. Especially the last sentence. Mark my words, Photokina 2010 will reveal the M9's successor, either an upgraded M9.2 which offers back some or all of the features of the M8.2 that were withdrawn (top screen, sapphire rear screen, 2m framelines, UV/IR "ON" menu setting for times when IR front filters are still required) or perhaps an altogether new M10 with a much-improved sensor (contemporary-standard of high-ISO performance, complete lack of IR shifting a la last 2 generations of Canon).

[Leicaiste]

Mark my words, Photokina 2010 will reveal the M9's successor, either an upgraded M9.2 which offers back some or all of the features of the M8.2 that were withdrawn (top screen, sapphire rear screen, 2m framelines, UV/IR "ON" menu setting for times when IR front filters are still required) or perhaps an altogether new M10 with a much-improved sensor (contemporary-standard of high-ISO performance, complete lack of IR shifting a la last 2 generations of Canon).

 

 

My bet is on Photokina 2012 for the M10.

 

Lucien

[spersky]

I couldn't agree more. Especially the last sentence. Mark my words, Photokina 2010 will reveal the M9's successor, either an upgraded M9.2 which offers back some or all of the features of the M8.2 that were withdrawn (top screen, sapphire rear screen, 2m framelines, UV/IR "ON" menu setting for times when IR front filters are still required) or perhaps an altogether new M10 with a much-improved sensor (contemporary-standard of high-ISO performance, complete lack of IR shifting a la last 2 generations of Canon).

 

In my opinion the M8 was a disaster of a release. Basically, a beta tester camera with more problems than can be listed. Thank goodness some brave souls beta tested that camera for Leica. I imagine it was like hitting the lottery getting an M8 that worked well out of the box. I thought I was gone from Leica forever, after that horrible release. The M9 is the camera I have been wanting ever since I discovered Leica Rangefinder cameras. I know people have proven that the M8 was very usefull to them. Personally, I passed on that experiment called the M8, but there is no way that I will pass on the M9.

 

Regards,

Steve

[sealsong]

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 my views on the M9. You can, of course stop reading now as probably like me you are completely fed-up with the endless introspection about the M9.

If you are still reading then for whatever my reputation is worth after all my posts, pictures and comments this is what I think about the M9.

My chief feeling when I think of the M9 is one of torpor. I just am not inspired by the product. Yes, it has a full frame sensor and it appears to have some marginal improvement in noise reduction at higher iso-levels but fundamentally it is the same simple digital rangefinder which I already own and love in the shape of an M8.

 

 

Look my friend, it's very simple. You have had no experience with the M9 other than handling in some shop so you really don't know what you're talking about.

The fact that the M9 is FF gives a completely different result and user experience to the camera, in fact it brings it back to the original user experience we had and still have with the film M's. When Leica brought out the M8, nobody asked for a smaller sensor, we just dealt with it. Now our lenses are back to performing at their original, intended focal length and THAT ALONE is worth the price of admission. I'm not going to even go into the increased DR, the better high ISO noise performance (I never had a problem with it before and I don't really care about noise when it's good noise) or even the overall better handling of the camera due to the external changes, still prefer using IR cut filters anyone?

 

Dude, just stop bitching just because you can't justify an M9. The M8 is a great camera, I still have a custom one made for me and it is great for what it is but don't kid yourself brother, the M9 is in a different league so don't knock it just because you can't have one or won't pull the trigger on one....just stop because it sounds childish.

 

~allaboutglass

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[biglouis]

Louis, you mention that (like many of us) you would like spot metering.

 

You are aware, are you not, that the M9's metering pattern is more like that of the M5, M6, M7 and MP than like that of the M8?

 

That is, the M9's meter is designed to mimic the strongly center-weighted meter of the pre-M8 Leicas.

 

Howard, no I wasn't. I probably did not read the specs carefully enough. That is interesting. I am very much enjoying the spot metering of the M7 and playing with the part of the frame I want to expose or underexpose. Another point in the M9's favour, which I had not considered.

 

Dude, just stop bitching just because you can't justify an M9.

 

Not 'bitching' just musing. Not sure if you entirely understand the difference...

 

LouisB