bpalme Posted August 16, 2011 Share #1 Posted August 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I wouldn't mind upgrading to the M9 at some point but I love the Silver/Grey bodies. I've never held an M9 but to me from what I see on the net it looks like I may be disappointed in the finish.. Doesn't the Grey rub off over time? Grey paint rubbing off on a 7K camera seems really cheap. My M8 seems like a more quality product as far as that stuff goes. Anyone else irked by this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Hi bpalme, Take a look here Grey M9 seem cheap compared to Silver M8?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
leicashot Posted August 16, 2011 Share #2 Posted August 16, 2011 ....well the grey was probably a test market trial, like the M9 Ti. It's nice to have alternatives and many like the Leica to wear which is why there are options. Now you have an M9-P option. You're not forced into upgrading to the grey M9, so not sure why it really matters, especially considering you've never held an M9. Go see for yourself. It's a very handsome camera in grey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 16, 2011 Share #3 Posted August 16, 2011 A bit late to the party, no? We mostly had the "Is the steel-gray paint cheap?" discussions two years ago when it was announced. What "irks" you? That Leica puts a cheaper finish on the less expensive (M9) camera and a more expensive (chrome) finish on the more expensive M9-P? Welcome to Economics 101. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jase Posted August 16, 2011 Share #4 Posted August 16, 2011 Actually Andy, that's nonsense. What irks is that Leica put a sapphire screen and a hard chrome finish on the Leica M8.2 and then put cheap stuff on the more expensive M9 so they would be able to fleece customers for the upgrade and have something 'new' to put on the M9.2 or M9P as it has been called. The finish and screen should have been on the M9 from the start. Please leave personal insults out of it. Jaapv Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted August 16, 2011 Share #5 Posted August 16, 2011 hmm. so it begins. fighting over opinions of a color choice and marketing. at the end of the day if you don't like something and don't see the value, don't buy it Jase, I'm not trying to fight with you, but we all saw this with the M8.2, so we all knew this was coming. why complain now? this is all marketing, something Leica needs to do well in order to stay afloat and continue making the cameras we love. There's no reason to complain and take a shot at Andy. this forum can be really rude, even by my own direct standards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 16, 2011 Share #6 Posted August 16, 2011 Regarding cheap, I doubt that the process of coating costs much more or less than chroming. Certainly not enough to impact the retail price of the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
euston Posted August 16, 2011 Share #7 Posted August 16, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I wouldn't mind upgrading to the M9 at some point but I love the Silver/Grey bodies.I've never held an M9 but to me from what I see on the net it looks like I may be disappointed in the finish.. Doesn't the Grey rub off over time? Grey paint rubbing off on a 7K camera seems really cheap. My M8 seems like a more quality product as far as that stuff goes. Anyone else irked by this? The steel grey finish hasn’t rubbed off my November 2009 vintage M9 or shown any other signs of wear. On the other hand, the chrome finish on my, obviously, very much older M4 shows numerous scuff marks in a way that I doubt the steel grey finish ever will. What makes you think that the steel grey finish is a cheap alternative to chrome? Calling it paint makes it sound cheap but it really isn’t paint in the everyday sense. It seems to me to be a very robust and durable finish. Personally, I also like the look of it and I hope that it will continue to be available on future models. A conservative customer base can make it difficult for a company to innovate. Unlike the cynics who see marketing ploys everywhere, I admire Leica for being prepared to try new things in the teeth sometimes of its customers’ prejudices. It means treading a fine line between customer expectations and technical possibilities but I think it’s an entirely correct approach for a technology-based firm. As for upgrading, I don’t think I would swap an M8 for an M9 or an M9-P at this moment. If I were in your position I would hang on to my perfectly adequate M8 and wait and see what the M10 had to offer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 16, 2011 Share #8 Posted August 16, 2011 It is a kataforetic coating, which is a process for maximising durability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeicaPassion Posted August 16, 2011 Share #9 Posted August 16, 2011 To me, the gray finish looks great, not cheap. The M9 black finish shows finger prints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share #10 Posted August 16, 2011 A bit late to the party, no? I guess.. not every one has been around Leica that long. We mostly had the "Is the steel-gray paint cheap? discussions two years ago when it was announced."And so then I'm not allowed to have a discussion about it at this point? Because you've already discussed it? What "irks" you? That Leica puts a cheaper finish on the less expensive (M9) camera and a more expensive (chrome) finish on the more expensive M9-P? Welcome to Economics 101. Really?I think your comments are rather rude and condescending. The M9-P just came out and yes it does irk me that a 7K camera cheaped out on some little things. Let's bow down to the Leica executives and just let them give us the morsels that they wish. They can do no wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share #11 Posted August 16, 2011 hmm. so it begins. fighting over opinions of a color choice and marketing. at the end of the day if you don't like something and don't see the value, don't buy it Jase, I'm not trying to fight with you, but we all saw this with the M8.2, so we all knew this was coming. why complain now? this is all marketing, something Leica needs to do well in order to stay afloat and continue making the cameras we love. There's no reason to complain and take a shot at Andy. this forum can be really rude, even by my own direct standards It's not marketing.. It's hard tangible paint and brass. Jase is 100% correct and just because I haven't been around Leica as long as you guys does not mean that I can't have an opinion or discuss something that you guys may have beat to death back in another century. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share #12 Posted August 16, 2011 The steel grey finish hasn’t rubbed off my November 2009 vintage M9 or shown any other signs of wear. On the other hand, the chrome finish on my, obviously, very much older M4 shows numerous scuff marks in a way that I doubt the steel grey finish ever will. What makes you think that the steel grey finish is a cheap alternative to chrome? Because on my M8 it's quality... since I've never used or seen an M9 when I heard "grey paint" it sounds cheap... does that sound unreasonable that a person would think that? Calling it paint makes it sound cheap but it really isn’t paint in the everyday sense. It seems to me to be a very robust and durable finish. Well there ya go.. that's the reason I'm asking the question in my first post... Personally, I also like the look of it and I hope that it will continue to be available on future models. A conservative customer base can make it difficult for a company to innovate. Unlike the cynics who see marketing ploys everywhere, I admire Leica for being prepared to try new things in the teeth sometimes of its customers’ prejudices. It means treading a fine line between customer expectations and technical possibilities but I think it’s an entirely correct approach for a technology-based firm. As for upgrading, I don’t think I would swap an M8 for an M9 or an M9-P at this moment. If I were in your position I would hang on to my perfectly adequate M8 and wait and see what the M10 had to offer. Probably good advice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted August 16, 2011 Share #13 Posted August 16, 2011 I wouldn't mind upgrading to the M9 at some point but I love the Silver/Grey bodies.I've never held an M9 but to me from what I see on the net it looks like I may be disappointed in the finish.. Doesn't the Grey rub off over time? Grey paint rubbing off on a 7K camera seems really cheap. My M8 seems like a more quality product as far as that stuff goes. Anyone else irked by this? I bought the M9 in steel grey, but would have preferred a silver chrome. The camera is about 10 months old now, I guess. It has scuff marks on it; I have no idea from what. The camera goes everywhere with me (with a silver chrome 50 Summilux Asph). If you prefer silver chrome, either get a secondhand grey body and upgrade it, or buy the M9P in silver. If you don't, you will always look at your camera with a tinge of regret. I have a silver MP, and I will be upgrading as I would like the cameras to match. What irks is that Leica put a sapphire screen and a hard chrome finish on the Leica M8.2 and then put cheap stuff on the more expensive M9 so they would be able to fleece customers for the upgrade and have something 'new' to put on the M9.2 or M9P as it has been called. The finish and screen should have been on the M9 from the start. If you really believe this, it must really bother you. If it were me, I don't think I'd support the company at all. I'm not talking blind acceptance of everything the company does, just perspective. The cost of the silver as opposed to the grey paint would be minimal - on a USD 7,000 camera, my guess is it would be insignificant. Similarly the screen. If cost was the only driving factor, ditching the red dot and the M9 designation would have gone and so would the brass. Just because the company tries something different, doesn't mean they're scrimping and looking to rip people off with upgrades. Isn't it possible that the upgrade is aimed at answering some of the earlier criticism? You may be right, you may be wrong, but frankly my guess is that most of us don't give a flying fig. Most Leica owners can cope with the cost of their gear. Yes, it's outrageously expensive. Could it be cheaper? Probably. Would it be as good? Probably not. The company has focussed on artisan production of high end cameras and hasn't made money for years. Sometimes the explanation is so much more banal, and it is really not compulsory to attribute cynical motivations to every decision. But don't let that spoil your nice conspiracy. If I was "irked" by any of this, I'd give my money to Canon or Nikon, and by a Fuji X100. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 16, 2011 Share #14 Posted August 16, 2011 It is a kataforetic coating, which is a process for maximising durability. Yes, but there are so many kinds of cataforetic coatings that it means nothing without details, but I trust Leica is using the best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted August 17, 2011 Share #15 Posted August 17, 2011 I wouldn't mind upgrading to the M9 at some point but I love the Silver/Grey bodies.I've never held an M9 but to me from what I see on the net it looks like I may be disappointed in the finish.. Doesn't the Grey rub off over time? ..... Anyone else irked by this? I can understand pride of ownership but if it becomes a major issue I feel practical photography suffers. Surely the prime purpose is to use an instrument for its intended purpose, taking pictures. I doubt that Leica would launch a product which would deteriorate significantly in short time. Much depends on usage; some don't care, others take reasonable care of their kit and it lasts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted August 17, 2011 Share #16 Posted August 17, 2011 It's not marketing.. It's hard tangible paint and brass. Jase is 100% correct and just because I haven't been around Leica as long as you guys does not mean that I can't have an opinion or discuss something that you guys may have beat to death back in another century. It's ALWAYS marketing. Profit FIRST....as nostalgic as we like to be around the Leica brand, they are a company driven by profit, not a little workshop. They need to be to survive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted August 17, 2011 Share #17 Posted August 17, 2011 It's ALWAYS marketing. Profit FIRST. If it's profit first, it's not marketing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted August 17, 2011 Share #18 Posted August 17, 2011 My hope is that Leica have learned from the experience. The M9 was the victim of cost cutting - no silver chrome, no sapphire glass, no top display - because, presumably, they were worried whether users in the US would wear the cost. In the end, Leica had more orders than they could handle. A more sensible approach would have been to offer the camera with classic finishes and sapphire glass - and then offered a lower cost version with painted finish and polycarbonate screen cover to tempt fence-sitters. I'd still like a top panel display showing me battery and card status at a glance but surely the lesson Leica must take forward for the M10 is that they should offer chrome finish and sapphire glass from the outset. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted August 17, 2011 Share #19 Posted August 17, 2011 What I can't quite marry is why some want their black paint camera to brass as quickly as possible, i.e Leica should keep using substandard paint, and others insist that their future happiness is only possible if they have a scratch resistant sapphire screen. My M8 "plastic" screen is still unscratched, and that is not because I didn't use (& mistreat) the thing, as my dear wife will confirm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted August 17, 2011 Author Share #20 Posted August 17, 2011 An iPhone cost a few hundred bux with a glass screen.. so no reason they can't put a glass screen on a camera. Phones are dropped all the time.. some times the glass breaks but it's remarkable how much abuse they take and not break. It doesn't have to be saphire but glass would be quite a step up from plastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.