Leica M9--Last Leica camera I will ever buy.

[chrism]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have no kind of "creds" as a photographer - a mere amateur who does it for his own satisfaction only. But I will say the satisfaction I get from the M9 makes every penny I spend on it worthwhile, and whatever criteria you use to judge it, Earl, may not apply to me and my use of the camera. As to why you should persist in reading and posting in a forum devoted to a camera you don't like, I can only imagine. It does seem a bit of a waste of your valuable time, doesn't it?

 

Chris

[stevem7]

I agree 100%! Wonderful camera, and I would never need anything better.

[pnoble]

Count me as one more completely satisfied M9 owner. I never bought an M8 for all the sited reasons, which doesn't mean the M8 hasn't been a wonderful camera in the hands of fine photographers on this forum and elsewhere.

 

But to suggest that the M9 is somehow inferior to the M8 or not worth the fairly nominal additional cost, gimme a break!

[JMacD]

Count me happy.

The my interior low light people shots at 1.4 and ISO 1600 are very pleasing. I want very little depth of field then, so ISO 6400 is not necessary. Different story if I were shooting a telephoto at f5.6. But then I would not be using a RF. Wish the buffer cleared faster, but that is not an issue when I am outside shooting landscape art. Wish it were cheaper, but I recall paying $7,500 for a Canon D1s years ago, and the glass wasn't that sharp.

 

Last Leica camera? Well it is the last one I need, but I am sure I can rationalize an M11, or a S2 from some business standpoint.

[jrc]

There has been no flaws with the camera. I repeat none. No aberations, no blobs, no dead lines, no IR purple, no lockups. Leica has made a customer for life. I cannot see any situation in the future that would require me to upgrade. It could be bad for Leica's long term financial situation since there will be so many customers who will never need a "better" camera.

 

 

This kind of endorsement, from a guy with no creds, pisses me off.

 

(Probably means I'm going to have to buy one. I'd hoped to save the money. )

 

JC

[pnoble]

There would seem two viable paths to improvement for Leica that would guarantee an M10 at least: higher performance processing - they have implied that not integrating the MAESTRO was mostly a matter of timing - and a higher resolution and or higher sensitivity sensor.

 

Certainly at some point sensor resolution will exceed optical resolution and sensitivity/latitude improvements will have diminishing value to current M (lens) owners as would performance improvements in processing.

 

I would predict that at that point Leica will slow down at least if not fully stop further M development since they will begin to see diminishing returns from such an investment. They are already masters at milking additional returns from existing products through special editions and I could seem them keeping that last product on the M line going for quite a while for the collector/fashionista market.

 

Assuming the S2 is a success enough to give them the necessary capital and confidence for further product development, I could see Leica developing a successor to the M series: an S series for the M market. I'd actually be surprised if this wasn't already on their product roadmap after, my guess, a MAESTRO driven, higher performance sensor M10.

 

Just my two cents worth of predictions from a marketing POV.

[vikasmg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There has been no flaws with the camera. ... I cannot see any situation in the future that would require me to upgrade.

I can only agree. Until I see what the L10 has to offer in future, but at this point in time I have all I need or want :-)

[vikasmg]

why do you bother looking in the m9 forum if you don't like it? ....

To be fair, he's objecting not to the M9 but the M8 - though I have to say that crop factor and purple haze notwithstanding, I still like the M8 as well :-)

[vikasmg]

There would seem two viable paths to improvement for Leica that would guarantee an M10 at least: higher performance processing - they have implied that not integrating the MAESTRO was mostly a matter of timing - and a higher resolution and or higher sensitivity sensor.

 

Better high ISO performance would be a decided advantage. I guess that's what you mean by "higher sensitivity"?

 

- Vikas

[jaapv]

This kind of endorsement, from a guy with no creds, pisses me off.

 

(Probably means I'm going to have to buy one. I'd hoped to save the money. )

 

JC

I hope you don't mean this to reflect on all positive posters in this thread:eek:. Just allow the guy to be happy....

[aesop]

Received my Grey M9 with 50mm 1.4 summilux and 28mm 2.0 summicron. This will likely be my last Leica camera that I ever buy.

 

Bascially, the camera is a joy to use. The build quality is perfect. The images re-kindle the same excitement that I used to experience with my M7 film. I almost always shoot at fastest aperture and the Bokeh/Contrast is amazing. Now, I have 18Mp of FF camera which can print up to any size I will ever desire. For some reason, this camera system does improve my photography over my sold Canon gear.

 

There has been no flaws with the camera. I repeat none. No aberations, no blobs, no dead lines, no IR purple, no lockups. Leica has made a customer for life. I cannot see any situation in the future that would require me to upgrade. It could be bad for Leica's long term financial situation since there will be so many customers who will never need a "better" camera.

 

Well I guess they can always get my money on lenses.

 

I know I paid Leica AG well for this camera, but I feel it is truly worth it. I think that the Leica team did a stellar job with this camera, and I salute them.

 

Btw, I am no Leica fanboy, my opinion of the M8 was dismal. I judge based on the product and the results, not the name.

 

There seems to be so much animosity towards this Leica M9 rollout. Do not believe it you might miss one of the greatest cameras you could ever have.

 

 

...happy for you, spersky, but never ever say never with Leica.

[Don Morley]

Great to hear of another satisfied Leica customer, but please don't needlessly knock the M8 or M8.2 or even the rival Canon products for each have been great in there time.

 

After all the various M8's were very wellcome stepping stones en route to the M9 in much the same way as the M6 was towards the laer M7, and come to think of it some might now consider the origial M6 to be a nicer camera to use for instance than the later M6 TTL, whereas others distrust the M7's increased use of electronics etc.

 

The name of the game is progress, but for the pro photographers amongst us its also about costs and horses for courses, so I for instance loved my M7's much more than my previous M6's and was more than happy to go totally digital via my Canon's and Leica M8 and M8.2, and nothing yet has changed for me.

 

Why? Well I am still VERY happy with the file sizes and pictorial quallity my M8's and 5D's deliver, and perhaps more importantly my cameras have to pay there way - And I say Camera(S) because I have always prefered to work with two matching cameras whichever system I am using, not least so as not to have to change lenses too often.

 

I could afford two M8's and despite undeserved critism from some quarters they have served me brilliantly, whereas if I were to trade those and purchase two vastly more expensive (And dreadfull painted instead of Chrome finish) M9's it would be a no brainer for me, especially given I would also lose out on my M8 trade in prices for what seems to me to be very little in terms of quantifiable picture quallity increases.

 

Which come to think of it also brings me back to horses for courses, as I rate my full frame 5D Canon's higher tham my Leica's for many subjects, and I could for instance go out and buy two new Canon full frame 5D Mk 11's for less than the purchase price of ne M8.2. And this is something Leica themselves desperatly need to bear in mind if they ever hope to tempt we Pro's back into the fold.

 

Just look at what took which winning picture in such as The World Wildlife, or Sports picures of the year awards if you doubt me. For though I have use Leicas for over 50 years as a pro, I regard it as daft to simply knock any previous model, and please don't knock Canon or Nikon etc either for it is they that truly have THE market and will win in the end! Don

[Marty]

It would have been the last camera if it had been chrome/silver. Looks like I may have to buy one more eventually

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

Earl - this is the second time in two days you've made a post referencing -- not an exact quote -- "amateurs who don't know anything" and photographers who have "no creds."

 

Pure fabrication and misquotation.

 

Show some respect.

Sorry laddie, but when someone says the M8 is "dismal" in comparison to the M9 I think they should offer some photographic proof, whether it's in the form of their own photos or links to someone else's.

 

 

We know you don't like the M9. We get it.

Obviously you don't get it. I never said I don't like the M9, I only said it doesn't suit my professional needs. In fact I mentioned at least once that if I felt it reasonable to spend CDN$10K on a toy for my personal photography, I'd surely buy an M9.

 

We know you think only certain photographers have license to talk about the M9.

More fabrications. What I said was, no one with creds as a photographer has made such a statement [that the M8 compares dismally to the M9]. The majority consensus is that the M9 does not offer a vast improvement in performance over the M8. I think anyone can talk about the M9, but their statements are fair game for questioning and challenging...which it seems is the crux of where we disagree

 

This was an amusing thread and made some people feel good before you arrived as a belligerent. Could you cut out the putdowns and snarling?

Let's see if I've got you right: A thread that calls the M8 "dismal" is, to you, "amusing". "Putdowns and snarling" are fine as long as they're directed at M8 owners. A thread that "made some people feel good" by attempting to make other people feel bad, amuses you. That about sum you up laddie?

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

Great to hear of another satisfied Leica customer, but please don't needlessly knock the M8 or M8.2 or even the rival Canon products ....

 

The name of the game is progress, but for the pro photographers amongst us its also about costs and horses for courses...more than happy to go totally digital via my Canon's and Leica M8 and M8.2, and nothing yet has changed for me.

 

Why? Well I am still VERY happy with the file sizes and pictorial quallity my M8's and 5D's deliver...

I could afford two M8's and despite undeserved critism from some quarters they have served me brilliantly, whereas if I were to trade... I would also lose out on my M8 trade in prices for what seems to me to be very little in terms of quantifiable picture quallity increases.

 

Which come to think of it also brings me back to horses for courses, as I rate my full frame 5D Canon's higher tham my Leica's for many subjects...And this is something Leica themselves desperatly need to bear in mind if they ever hope to tempt we Pro's back into the fold.

 

Just look at what took which winning picture in such as The World Wildlife, or Sports picures of the year awards if you doubt me. For though I have use Leicas for over 50 years as a pro, I regard it as daft to simply knock any previous model, and please don't knock Canon or Nikon etc either for it is they that truly have THE market and will win in the end! Don

 

Spot-on in the real world, but this most definitely not a hospitable venue for such candor.

[jaapv]

 

More fabrications. What I said was, no one with creds as a photographer has made such a statement [that the M8 compares dismally to the M9]. The majority consensus is that the M9 does not offer a vast improvement in performance over the M8. I think anyone can talk about the M9, but their statements are fair game for questioning and challenging...which it seems is the crux of where we disagree

 

 

Let's try Guy Manusco to break the consensus:

The M9 is certainly a big improvement over the M8 and on paper it may not seem so but in practice it is functional better by at least 50 percent and that is a lot. The setup is much smoother to allow you to work not only faster but more reassuring. The M8 which I had several for quite awhile there was a nice camera the M9 is the polished version of it but overall has some real pluses as mentioned I can't put a real value on the Info, Set and ISo buttons. I was never in any doubt on what I was doing at any time. The M8 felt more like guessing at the functional side.

I might add that I have seen very few - if any "the best is the enemy of the good" type of posts. Despite being very happy with the M9 I have no intention of selling my M8 cameras - well, maybe one....

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

Let's try Guy Manusco to break the consensus:

 

Guy Mancuso...the temperamental serial poster from getdpi and a bunch of other forums? He's a bona-fide gear junkie who changes his cameras as often as most pros change their socks. Bangs on in superlatives about every new piece of gear he buys. In consideration of that, I would have to disagree that his assessment breaks the consensus. For him, it's remarkably bland.

 

Aside from the FF, which is either a minor or an earth-shattering development depending entirely on personal bias, the M9 does have about a stop better high-ISO performance (which is still well below current state-of-art standard), and much less IR sensitivity (but not "none" which is what I observe with the last two generations of Canon). It also gives up the top LCD rather than improve it with a light, as well the sapphire rear glass and 2m framelines. So in those respects the M9 is even devolved. In terms of IQ, which is to me of foremost import, the M9's improvement upon the M8 can be described as a hop, not a leap as some seem to be implying.

[Leicaiste]

After all the various M8's were very wellcome stepping stones en route to the M9 in much the same way as the M6 was towards the laer M7, and come to think of it some might now consider the origial M6 to be a nicer camera to use for instance than the later M6 TTL, whereas others distrust the M7's increased use of electronics etc

 

Don,

 

I don't think you can compare film and digital cameras.

 

An M3 and an M7 loaded with the same film and equipped with the same lens can deliver the same image quality.

 

This is not really true in the digital world.

 

I can crop up to 45% of an M9 picture and still have the same excellent image quality as with my M8. The reverse is not true.

 

And that can make a difference sometimes. But I am only an amateur photographer.

 

Lucien

[Mauribix]

Guy Mancuso...the temperamental serial poster from getdpi and a bunch of other forums? He's a bona-fide gear junkie who changes his cameras as often as most pros change their socks. Bangs on in superlatives about every new piece of gear he buys. In consideration of that, I would have to disagree that his assessment breaks the consensus. For him, it's remarkably bland.

 

Aside from the FF, which is either a minor or an earth-shattering development depending entirely on personal bias, the M9 does have about a stop better high-ISO performance (which is still well below current state-of-art standard), and much less IR sensitivity (but not "none" which is what I observe with the last two generations of Canon). It also gives up the top LCD rather than improve it with a light, as well the sapphire rear glass and 2m framelines. So in those respects the M9 is even devolved. In terms of IQ, which is to me of foremost import, the M9's improvement upon the M8 can be described as a hop, not a leap as some seem to be implying.

 

Earl, since I am a gentleman, I have enough experience anf credit to think and say that these are B.S.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Guy Mancuso...the temperamental serial poster from getdpi and a bunch of other forums? He's a bona-fide gear junkie who changes his cameras as often as most pros change their socks. Bangs on in superlatives about every new piece of gear he buys. In consideration of that, I would have to disagree that his assessment breaks the consensus. For him, it's remarkably bland.

 

Aside from the FF, which is either a minor or an earth-shattering development depending entirely on personal bias, the M9 does have about a stop better high-ISO performance (which is still well below current state-of-art standard), and much less IR sensitivity (but not "none" which is what I observe with the last two generations of Canon). It also gives up the top LCD rather than improve it with a light, as well the sapphire rear glass and 2m framelines. So in those respects the M9 is even devolved. In terms of IQ, which is to me of foremost import, the M9's improvement upon the M8 can be described as a hop, not a leap as some seem to be implying.

At least we get to see his (professional) work.... All this based on a weeks' worth of shooting (or is it less, it seems to be just one shoot?) disagreeing with everything respected photographers who have shot the M9 extensively say... Anonymous "pros" said to agree with you...Repeating endlessly on a forum for a camera you don't own or want to own... Credibility?