M9 wait

[Steve C]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Friday I received word that I could take delivery of an M9 from the dealer where I have been

on a wait list for a few months. Now my problem:

I must let them know by Monday noon.

Do I spend the 7K USD to take delivery. Is the camera really that good?

I am not a pro but do enjoy photography. I have enjoyed using Leica for the past 40 years and currently own a M7 and a M8 along with a nice complement of Leica lenses.

What makes the M9 worth the price? What is it most outstanding feature?

Buying the camera will not effect my life style but will it change my enjoyment?

A few words from this board would be greatly appreciated.

I tried to post a few hours ago but have not seen it posted.

Thanks

 

Steve

[msk2193]

Steve,

 

I never owned an M-8 so I cannot compare the M9 to its predecessor, but if you like the rangefinder format, and want top-notch RAW files that really allow you to take full advantage of your Leica glass (the magic in the recipe after all) the M9 will not disappoint.

 

I have not touched my Nikon D3 or D700 in the few months I have bee using my M9 and for my "taste" I do not see a need to ever carry that much weight around again.

 

I am not a pro, and had not touched a Leica since the mid 80's so there was a slight learning curve, but it feels great to be back!

[doug_m]

I think the M8 is a fine camera but the files one gets from the M9 are really that much better. If you can afford to part with $7000 I'd make the purchase.

[leicashot]

I think the M8 is a fine camera but the files one gets from the M9 are really that much better. If you can afford to part with $7000 I'd make the purchase.

 

I have to disagree, with the first sentence, but agree with the second sentence if $7k comes easily to you, or you just have to have the best. The files are about 2/3 stop better at high ISO's which really aren't that high. Sure the files are larger but the M8 puts out amazing files....certainly not worth the price jump alone IMHO.

 

The difference for me was the full frame aspect as well as the lack of need to use UV-IR filters. I didn't mind using them except for one major annoyance. They cause internal reflections horribly when shooting into light sources. I would have to remove them whenever these situations arise and that alone drove me insane as I love to shoot into light. So are the M9 files $4-5k better than the M8? Absolutely not, but there are other more important factors to consider. As a professional the M8 files at ISO 640 and under were totally acceptable.

[faraz]

But it only if 7K doesn't mean much to you and you love the range finder format. The M9 is a fine camera but it has serious flaws so be forewarned and plunge only if you can write off the 7K if needed.

[bocaburger]

I have to disagree, with the first sentence, but agree with the second sentence if $7k comes easily to you, or you just have to have the best. The files are about 2/3 stop better at high ISO's which really aren't that high. Sure the files are larger but the M8 puts out amazing files....certainly not worth the price jump alone IMHO.

 

The difference for me was the full frame aspect as well as the lack of need to use UV-IR filters. I didn't mind using them except for one major annoyance. They cause internal reflections horribly when shooting into light sources. I would have to remove them whenever these situations arise and that alone drove me insane as I love to shoot into light. So are the M9 files $4-5k better than the M8? Absolutely not, but there are other more important factors to consider. As a professional the M8 files at ISO 640 and under were totally acceptable.

 

I agree with you on everything (having put an M9 through it's paces against an M8) but FYI as soon as I ditched my Leica-brand and B+W 486 IR filters and replaced them with Heliopans, the reflection problem vanished (at least I haven't gotten a reflection since, and it's been 2+ years and thousands of into-the-light shots. I even keep a B+W "MRC" UV filter stacked on my Heliopan IR filters (they're expensive!) and haven't gotten any reflections. I don't understand why B+W doesn't MRC the 486, or why Leica didn't specify their filters to be multicoated.

[michael_b_elmer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... Do I spend the 7K USD to take delivery. Is the camera really that good? ... I have enjoyed using Leica for the past 40 years and currently own a M7 and a M8 along with a nice complement of Leica lenses. ...

Steve

 

I was in a similar situation when I bought my M9, having enjoyed using Leica M cameras for 50 years. I am certain that you will find the M9 the ultimate photographic tool - a digital M7 without the irritating limitations of the M8. Switching from the M8 to the M9 you will find that your lenses finally have the original focal length they had with the M7, and you will probably no longer find it worthwhile to use the M8.

 

7000 USD is certainly a lot of money, but it should not be too difficult to finance your acquisition by selling your M7 and M8, and I recommend you to do so, since you no longer need them.

[leicashot]

I agree with you on everything (having put an M9 through it's paces against an M8) but FYI as soon as I ditched my Leica-brand and B+W 486 IR filters and replaced them with Heliopans, the reflection problem vanished (at least I haven't gotten a reflection since, and it's been 2+ years and thousands of into-the-light shots. I even keep a B+W "MRC" UV filter stacked on my Heliopan IR filters (they're expensive!) and haven't gotten any reflections. I don't understand why B+W doesn't MRC the 486, or why Leica didn't specify their filters to be multicoated.

 

Wow thats interesting. I'm almost tempted to switch back, seriously. If only I knew about that, I could have saved a ton of dosh. Thanks for posting, thats very interesting indeed.

 

If thats the case, I'd recommend the M8 for now as I feel that the M9 was kind of a stop gap to keep people with Leica, and it worked. The M8 is more popular now cause of the M9 than it was prior. The M9 is not class leading in image quality, in fact it's quite behind. The lenses kind of make it worth it, but no more so than the M8, unless you really need full frame, which no one really 'needs' it. I suspect the M10 will have to match the current Nikon/Canon offerings at the time, if not in resolution size, but in noise suppression. This is important as Leica has always had the upper hand in low light photography due to the rangefinder system being superior. That advantage is no longer stable or being held by Leica due to digital sensor technologies, which is open to the highest bidder.

 

Lets just hope Leica M9 sales propel the company into a financially viable business where it can be competitive with Canon/Nikon's offerings in the low light sensor area, specifically.

[Rick]

Wow thats interesting. I'm almost tempted to switch back, seriously. If only I knew about that, I could have saved a ton of dosh. Thanks for posting, thats very interesting indeed.

 

If thats the case, I'd recommend the M8 for now as I feel that the M9 was kind of a stop gap to keep people with Leica, and it worked. The M8 is more popular now cause of the M9 than it was prior. The M9 is not class leading in image quality, in fact it's quite behind. The lenses kind of make it worth it, but no more so than the M8, unless you really need full frame, which no one really 'needs' it. I suspect the M10 will have to match the current Nikon/Canon offerings at the time, if not in resolution size, but in noise suppression. This is important as Leica has always had the upper hand in low light photography due to the rangefinder system being superior. That advantage is no longer stable or being held by Leica due to digital sensor technologies, which is open to the highest bidder.

 

Lets just hope Leica M9 sales propel the company into a financially viable business where it can be competitive with Canon/Nikon's offerings in the low light sensor area, specifically.

 

Where do you keep getting this stuff?

[vanhulsenbeek]

I was in a similar situation when I bought my M9, having enjoyed using Leica M cameras for 50 years. I am certain that you will find the M9 the ultimate photographic tool - a digital M7 without the irritating limitations of the M8. Switching from the M8 to the M9 you will find that your lenses finally have the original focal length they had with the M7, and you will probably no longer find it worthwhile to use the M8.

..................................................................................

+1: my thoughts exactly!

[leicashot]

Where do you keep getting this stuff?

 

Rick you must think this is a different thread. I think the thread you're meaning to contribute to is here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/131188-we-leica-owners-viewed-snobs.html

 

To answer your question. Quiet frankly, I keep getting this 'stuff' from my experience as a working photographer after years of shooting with Leica, Hasselblad, Canon and Nikon. Do I need to show you a bio, or financial history too?

 

If you are questioning my credibility thats entirely fine, but you'll need to come up with something more than a link to travel pictures to belittle me. If I am incorrect in anything I said, please show me proof, as I didn't realize it was wrong share an opinion here, especially if it is my own.I am speaking from experience, and currently own and shoot with a Leica M9 and Nikon D3s on a regular basis....and it is from my 'experience' that the D3s is way ahead of the M9 in this department, and that the M9 is not much ahead of the M8.

 

If my life was on the line and I needed an image to capture extreme low light work, I would grab the D3s. I would prefer to grab the M9, but it doesn't reach the low light qualities of the D3s at ISO's above ISO800. ISO1600 on the M9 is equivalent to ISO8000 on the D3s, allowing either greater depth of field or faster shutter speeds in low light where it's most important. If you could provide evidence to the contrary I will submit my defeat and admit my loss...although i wasn't aware this was a contest, only a simple forum for people to express their opinions without such judgement.

 

When it comes to my equipment I try to separate my emotions, as I'm a realist cause thats what I need to get my work done successfully. It always amazes me how people get so personal and defensive over opinions of a camera, as if they designed it themselves. It may kill people to hear the words that the M9 is not that far more advanced than the M8 in low light, but it is, from my experience and my opinion. Like it, hate it, but please respect it.

[bocaburger]

I feel that the M9 was kind of a stop gap to keep people with Leica, and it worked.

 

I read an interesting comment in an article in an LHSA Viewfinder some time ago written by a Leica dealer who got to test a preproduction M9. The question arose why it didn't have the Maestro chip from the S2 project, and the answer (quoted from a Leica product management official) was that Leica wanted to bring the M9 to market ASAP, and they decided best to stick with the same type of sensor and with Jenoptik's aide.

 

 

I suspect the M10 will have to match the current Nikon/Canon offerings at the time, if not in resolution size, but in noise suppression.

 

What makes you suspect that? The M8 and M9 were both well behind the Nikon/Canon curve in terms of both noise suppression and resolution size at the time of their arrivals, and it didn't seem to put much of a dent in sales.

[gpwhite]

I was in a similar spot, and I decided to buy my M9 and turn it around quickly if I was not impressed... after two weeks, I have not made a final decision, although I am leaning far toward keeping the M9 with my M8.

 

My opinion is that the M9 offers clearly superior image quality to the M8 (I never go higher than ISO 640 and try to shoot at 160~320, so have that in mind about my comments), and the user interface is improved. It is effectively 1 stop slower than the M8, however, because the DOF is shallower as you either a) use a longer lens, or get closer to your subject. I like the look of all of my lenses around 2.8 on the M8, but things are different on the M9 (which I have yet to entirely figure out).

 

In practice, the full frame thing is a tad exaggerated. When I went from M6's to the RD-1, I was upset about not having effective wide-angle lenses. The M8 and my 21 SX solved that problem, however, and the image is exceptional right to the pixels at the edges....also true for the 28 Sumicron. Using the M9, I find the 5% border, or so, around the full frame images to drop off just as much as the MTF charts tell you to expect. Unless you shoot at f/5.6, which I almost never do, a chunk of the full frame "advantage" is cropped off. The net image is still superior from the M9, but I am cropping much more now that I did with the M8. More experience and closing down one more f-stop might improve my utilization of the full M9 image, but I am not so sure.

 

One reason I purchased the M9 now is that I have a hunch that Leica will raise the price as soon as dealers let them (i.e., the back order lists thin out a bit). You can try the camera, and if you treat it thoughtfully, you will still be able to get your $7k out of it in a month or two.

[leicashot]

I read an interesting comment in an article in an LHSA Viewfinder some time ago written by a Leica dealer who got to test a preproduction M9. The question arose why it didn't have the Maestro chip from the S2 project, and the answer (quoted from a Leica product management official) was that Leica wanted to bring the M9 to market ASAP, and they decided best to stick with the same type of sensor and with Jenoptik's aide.

 

 

 

 

What makes you suspect that? The M8 and M9 were both well behind the Nikon/Canon curve in terms of both noise suppression and resolution size at the time of their arrivals, and it didn't seem to put much of a dent in sales.

 

At some point Leica are going to want to even the playing field. Before digital their lenses and rangefinder advantages are what gave them the resolution advantage cause cameras were just lightbox's with features. Today the game has changed and it's the sensors that are relied on so heavily to provide the quality. Leica new that a 'decent' sensor (which the M9 is) would be enough because M8 sales were good enough and the desire for full frame would be enough to stimulate demand....and the lack of supply only helps Leica's reputation going forward. I'm not convinced that Leica is 'suffering' from a lack of supply, but more so controlling the demand and creating a new market position for their products through clever strategy (anyone remember Willy Wonka?).

 

To me, the M8 was a great achievement, and the M9 was the final stop gap to convince the market they could do the 'impossible'. From here on Leica will need to match or better their competitors with current technology at the point of announcing new cameras, like the M10 for example. This is just my opinion, so please, no need to flame.

[jaapv]

 

What makes you suspect that? The M8 and M9 were both well behind the Nikon/Canon curve in terms of both noise suppression and resolution size at the time of their arrivals, and it didn't seem to put much of a dent in sales.

Hmmm. The resolution advantage (not that much, if you do the maths btw) seems to be offset by the AA filter policy, and the noise surpression, well, do you want to have the camera do it for you or make your own choices?

The main choice imagewise a user must make is between CCD or Cmos image character, the real choice is between a rangefinder system and an SLR sytem.it has been that way since the 1960-ies...

[leicashot]

Hmmm. The resolution advantage (not that much, if you do the maths btw) seems to be offset by the AA filter policy, and the noise surpression, well, do you want to have the camera do it for you or make your own choices?

The main choice imagewise a user must make is between CCD or Cmos image character, the real choice is between a rangefinder system and an SLR sytem.it has been that way since the 1960-ies...

 

Except now it's not so simple between the two. The sensor makes ALL the difference for me when choosing the right camera for the job. There is no comparison between the D3s and M9 above ISO800, AA or not, camera noise reduction or not. While you could argue that the M9 has some nice sharp fast lenses, it is not always preferable to shoot sat such shallow depths of field in low light. While it's a novelty for many, it can also be a hinderance to the image too, and a higher sensitivity will allow the photographer greater choices and much more flexibility.

[jaapv]

Oh yes - but my point is that is is a choice - not a clear advantage for one of the other. I agree - not a simple choice either.

[BKK dan]

Except now it's not so simple between the two. The sensor makes ALL the difference for me when choosing the right camera for the job. There is no comparison between the D3s and M9 above ISO800, AA or not, camera noise reduction or not. While you could argue that the M9 has some nice sharp fast lenses, it is not always preferable to shoot sat such shallow depths of field in low light. While it's a novelty for many, it can also be a hinderance to the image too, and a higher sensitivity will allow the photographer greater choices and much more flexibility.

 

Interesting, thanks for this honest input.

 

So in which environment you feel very secure with the M9?

 

Isn't a N or C all about needing less time to get the shot you want?

 

You say in low light you're struggling with the M9?

 

So no "Leica magic" for you realist.

[leicashot]

Interesting, thanks for this honest input.

 

So in which environment you feel very secure with the M9?

 

Isn't a N or C all about needing less time to get the shot you want?

 

You say in low light you're struggling with the M9?

 

So no "Leica magic" for you realist.

 

I use the M9 for street shooting, documentary or low light situations where I don't require fast shutter speeds such as concerts and major events. While I prefer shooting the Leica wherever possible I've had to force myself to choose the best tool for the job cause my livelihood depends on it. I don't need a few good shots from an event or concert. I need a large variety to be sharp and printable with minimal post processing.

 

I didn't say I was struggling in low light with the M9, nor did I imply it's not good for low light. It is good in low light, but where I need fast shutter speeds and a decent amount of depth of field like 2.8-4 the Leica struggles cause I'm reluctant to go over ISO 1800-1600. If I wasn't a full time working professional I'd only use the M9, because I wouldn't care too much about the file quality, but more so the experience of shooting with the Leica. Unfortunately if I don't turn in quality files, I can't feed my family.

 

This motivation is what keeps me a realist. Also, I don't believe in Leica magic or glow. I believe in Leica sharpness wide open and te advantages of a rangefinder, but not any mystique often talked about in Leica circles. I've been shooting M's for the last 15 years and I could show you dozens of great images I've taken and you'd never know which is which, seriously. People always get it wrong. The magic is always in the image, and the effort displayed by the photographer- not the camera used to create it, or even because of it. If I am to be honest, the best results in 35mm photography right now can be achieved with a Nikon D3s/D3x and the Zeiss ZF lenses. For absolute pixel peeping purposes it trumps the M9, especially at high ISO's. The lenses are amazing and combined with either the D3x resolution or the D3s high ISO ability, they combine for just amazing resolution in any lighting conditions. If I let my heart decide which camera to pick up every time I go to work, it would be the Leica, but my head says otherwise for 80% of the work I do. The Leica M is my most favorite camera in the world and always will be regardless of the results, because it's fun to work with, and thats the Leica Magic for me.

 

Kristian Dowling Photography

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Steve C]

Thank all of you for the very informative posts. Based on them and several others in this forum, I have decided not to purchase a M9.I think my M8 will still do all that I need.

Again thanks to all.

 

Steve