An M - or keep the M9 and buy a Nikon Df?

[quadraticadder]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, it feels like time to turn to the M-community for some advice, once again. My minds are now about selling my M9 for an upgrade to an M. OR would it be a better choice to keep the M9 and use the money to buy an Nikon Df?

 

 

My arguments for the latter is that I am an old Nikon fan - still use my film F2 from the seventies, and have a set of classic lenses. And that the M9 feels iconic and will continue to deliver those fantastic photos, whatever technology steps will be taken years ahead. The Df in turn, gives another and completing photo experience, I think. BUT the M-track is also very tempting!

 

 

So please, your arguments for each choice will be very appreciated! /Ö

 

If you sold your m-9 on a good day, you would get ~ 5000 (Canadian dollars). This is probably a *little* high, considering today's market for a used M9, unless its in mint condition. It would cost you about 2500 on top of what you get for the M9 to get the M 240. A DF with 50 mm lens will cost about 2900-3000. So for about the same amount of money (certainly the difference won't matter after a month or two), you could keep your M9, buy the DF, and thereby own both a Leica rangefinder and a DF. The sensor on the DF is that from the D4, so its very good in low light. So the question for you to answer for yourself is whether the upgrade to the M240 is better than keeping the M9 and getting a DF. For what its worth, I own a D800e and apart from the left AF phase sensor accuracy issue (which was repaired) its been absolutely rock solid without any other glitches for almost two years.

 

Best,

Steve

[satijntje]

Sell the stuff, and get a monochrome and a Sony rx1 both second hand, and you will be the happiest guy in town;)

 

John

[jaapv]

The "joke M8" was and still is a fantastic camera. The IR issue was a big deal, but Leica handled that one well selling me a Noctilux for $2,700. It seems though that the M240 has more IR pollution issues than the M9 again from some examples out there. I look at the M9 as a second generation product. I wish they had refined it more with the M9P (better frame lines, quieter shutter, better LCD.) This would definitely be doable.

 

The M240 is a first generation product as far as the CMOS sensor goes. I really think that the old upgrade program was a great idea, and I wish Leica had kept it. Any generational upgrade would still cost as much as a new Sony camera, but I'm fine with that.

In my experience the M and M9 are about equal in IR sensitivity. Both filter about 80%, which, albeit not wholly on par with the top DSLRs, is pretty good for a short-register camera, actually any digital camera. It means one only needs to use a filter in really critical situations.

[marknorton]

For the life of me, I cannot see the point of the Nikon Df.

 

It's some sort of nostalgia trip for ageing amateurs; pros won't give it the time of day and if a major motivator is to use pre-AI lenses it's worth remembering that, by modern standards, not every MF lens was a gem and some were dogs. 43-86 zoom anyone? I only use a couple, the Noct Nikkor and 85mm f2.8 T/S and I only have one pre-AI lens, an ageing 50mm f1.4.

 

The camera looks ridiculous, almost cartoon-like as if some Christmas party joke. If this is all they can come up with, they need to think again.

 

I'm waiting to replace my D3x, so where is the D800 sensor in a bigger body with all those traditional benefits?

[Photojazz]

I had to get out of the Nikon upgrade game. It will wear you down if you try to play that game. I have a friend that keeps buying new stuff, Nikon, Zeiss, it's like many when is enough enough? I have intentionally sold some stuff that will keep my Nikon kit lean. I'm not playing body upgrades further for now either. Well, I have 3 Nikon bodies though, so I am pretty set anyway with 12/24/36 mpx bodies. Lenses, I will mostly retain a basic kit and a few classics.

 

My M kit is up in the air, but whatever I do, it remains key to my photography fun. I have considered a new M, or an MM. I am hopefully saving some money toward one or the other. We'll see how this goes. I sold a couple of lenses already, and need to move some more stuff.

 

goodluck with decision. The new Nikon looks interesting. But nostalgia camera just for the sake of Nostalgia seems a little unecessary. But now the fact you can get a D4 engine for less than 3K in it, that is rather significant.

[BerndReini]

Sell the stuff, and get a monochrome and a Sony rx1 both second hand, and you will be the happiest guy in town

 

Where do you find a second hand Monochrom?

[Ecar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Where do you find a second hand Monochrom?

 

There are a few listed on the B&S section here...

[diogenis]

<Expletive> What an ugly camera!

Those dials omg! They must think in Nikon that somehow humans have become gorillas lol.

So, this is an attempt Nikon does to compete Leica's simplicity, but fails miserably.

They suddenly forget their past and future about hi-tech, menus, LCDs, etc etc and come up with this? A failed deja-vu, a more compact body with behemoth button lol... Reminds me of Fischer price toys Figure why their stock falls

[doolittle]

Well, it feels like time to turn to the M-community for some advice, once again. My minds are now about selling my M9 for an upgrade to an M. OR would it be a better choice to keep the M9 and use the money to buy an Nikon Df?

 

 

My arguments for the latter is that I am an old Nikon fan - still use my film F2 from the seventies, and have a set of classic lenses. And that the M9 feels iconic and will continue to deliver those fantastic photos, whatever technology steps will be taken years ahead. The Df in turn, gives another and completing photo experience, I think. BUT the M-track is also very tempting!

 

 

So please, your arguments for each choice will be very appreciated! /Ö

 

Upgrade to the F3? Better still, the F4. In my opinion the ultimate Nikon for utilising classic Nikon lenses.

[Paul J]

I would totally buy the M over a Nikon DF. I wouldn't even consider that an option, personally.

[darylgo]

Upgrade to the F3? Better still, the F4. In my opinion the ultimate Nikon for utilising classic Nikon lenses.

 

F2, F3, F4 all beautiful cameras, real cameras before the invasion of buttons and more buttons, followed by menus and more menus, and somewhere the electronics went crazy overboard.

[THEME]

SLR Lounge's initial Df review says this:

 

"Well, the Df appears to be a camera with a soul. Somewhere along the lines of a Leica or a Rolex or an Apple product maybe? It is a celebration of Nikon’s long legacy made exclusively for those who appreciate such things."

 

There is something to the camera.

 

Some even say the Df gives you an M feel minus rangefinder.

 

Very tempting camera indeed.

[mirekti]

It means one only needs to use a filter in really critical situations.

 

Well, for me almost every situation is a critical one. The M is a great camera, but it took me a while to get it work well. I don't plan on selling it whatsoever, but it gave me some time.

 

Lightroom's dng profiles were useless for me, so I made custom profiles with a Color checker. Still not 100% sure I nailed it, but much better than those LRs.

IR filters are must for me so I bought them for each of my lenses, but canceled my 21mm SEM as IR filters cannot be used on it. I never had Leica before I bought the M so I cannot compare it's IR contamination with previous models.

In this example I desaturated the jersey to make the IR problem easier to see.

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!

[Albert Andersen]

Hi.

I have had the same problem - should I sell my Leica and buy the Nikon Df.

After making up my mind during a good nights sleep, I must admit if I sell my Leica, I will miss it after a week, and end up with buying a new one (and loose money).

Instead I sold my Nikon D800E and bought the Df. It works very fine, and in my opinion a good supplement for light travel together with my Leica.

I have also the Nikon D4 for sports, which is my main job. It is to heavy to bring around, and it scares people because of the size. So keep the Leica - you will regret if you sell it - it has "a kind of spirit "

Good luck

[flyalf]

First, I mean absolutely no disrespect. But I must say that I'm amazed of these kind of threads; the M versus other systems and what to choose. EVIL/RF verus DSLR are really so different that for me its very easy to choose. To be frank I believe that anyone having doubts about what system to choose are not in a position to buy a new camera and should spend more time on photography .

 

Sorry about being grumpy, wish you all the best regardless of choice

 

To add some not-OT; Imo Nikon DSRLs are better all-round tools, but even the new Df would not give me anything near the enjoyment of a M.

[Tonki-M]

i heard M lens doesnt like flipping mirror

[tobey bilek]

If you like the F2 focusing screen or any optional screen made for, you will not like the Df screen. The DF , like all current Nikons, is optimized for brightness, not contrast which is required for focus .

the camera is made for auto focus.

 

That said, it is possible to manually focus and get close if your eyes are good. Then use the green dot to confirm. This is slow and painful, but it works. So ok for landscapes, not football.

 

Old lenses on digital are ok, not perfect and not as good as they were on film. Newer G lenses are far superior.

 

35 mm and longer work ok, all seem to have chromatic aberration which is software correctable, automatic in NX2.

 

28 2.8 with CRC and close focusing to .7 meter is superb. I have never used another 28. Word is this was by far the best.

 

24,20, 18 all have issues with corner sharpness because the light hits the sensor at an angle. Softness is the mayor problem plus some vignetting. It is not the lens, as mine all work on film perfectly. 24 2.8 stopped to F11 will get good corners. The 18 never achieves it.

 

AiS or Ai lenses work the same on any Nikon DSLR as the Df. If they are older, you need to convert or use the flip up lever.

[TigrisJK]

I'm with most everyone else. The Df is built solely for looks. It LOOKS like a manual rig. It is not designed to shoot manually intuitively. I'd rather spend the money on a current Nikon if you want a SLR.

 

An M is a different experience. If you're using your old Nikon glass you'll have to use an EVF. Personally I find the peaking in the M pretty finicky. For a compact option for old non RF glass, get a Sony.

 

For the full RF experience... With your M-mount lenses. Get the M. Because it is fantastics.

 

 

 

 

That said. I would use current AF glass on the Df no probs. I just wish it had a focusing screen. Heck my Sony a850 can change focusing screens to use my old Minolta gear with.

[woopie]

No M240 thanks, I'm keeping my M9-p and MM that are "another planet", in the common world (live view, heavy and ugly camera) Nikon does it better... Leica should come back and make really special camera, and well manufactured , with not so many issues as the M (eyelets, colour casting, short supply), not trying to compete woth Sony, Nikon, Canon, Olympus... using their component (olympus evf2) rebranded and ovepriced... If Leica will listen to his entusiast leica fan it will change, otherwise it will return at M5 times.....

The Human Being must learn from old mistakes but not always he did..

Marcello

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[enboe]

With the new M typ 240 you retain all of the capabilities of the M9 with a beautiful shutter. More importantly, you gain two new features, live view with focus peaking and video capability. The former is great for those wide aperture lenses, some real feedback in tough focusing situations. The latter, video, gives you a new domain for experimentation and fun.

 

I stopped by a camera store last week while on vacation and checked out the Df. It does not have the feel of a Leica, much less dense. The other thing that shocked me was how many buttons and dials it has. The M digital series all make due with less complexity. I have a D700 and dozen or so Nikon lenses, so an upgrade makes some sense, but I could not see $3K worth of fun from the Df. Purely subjective opinion, however.

 

When all else fails, try a rental and see what you like.

 

Eric