Einst_Stein Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share #21 Posted January 28, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) What are you talking about? I don't care one iota if you switch or not, nor was I making any such case. By split the difference, I simply meant that IF you decided to switch, you could probably do it for about $3000, in between the $2k and $4k you mentioned. The humidity comment was strictly in jest. Get it, "Einstein"? Jeff people who cannot appreaciate M9 will not appeaciate M either. The difference is not compelling. Look back Leica history since last millionian, the only comelling reason people have to have a new Leica model is the switching of the digital. Even that is strongly debatable. That is what Leica is and has been. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Hi Einst_Stein, Take a look here Trade in M9 for M240. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted January 28, 2015 Share #22 Posted January 28, 2015 people who cannot appreaciate M9 will not appeaciate M either. The difference is not compelling. Look back Leica history since last millionian, the only comelling reason people have to have a new Leica model is the switching of the digital. Even that is strongly debatable. That is what Leica is and has been. For a guy named Einstein, you're slow on the uptake. I don't care if you see a difference or not, or anyone else for that matter. My posts were meant to help you make a change IF you wanted to, since that was the premise of your own thread. I'm the one who has posted here for years about not upgrading every time. I owned the M8.2 and skipped the M9…after my own tests, making my own prints didn't justify a change…in fact I wrote about my preference for the M8.2. I then tried the M…again making my own prints, and felt a change was worthwhile….for me. Others feel differently, for their own reasons. So what. Try to keep up, Einstein. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fore Posted January 28, 2015 Share #23 Posted January 28, 2015 You could look at it that way, although people who tend to shoot closer, with more accuracy, may prefer the older .7m frame lines. There's no right or wrong, only what gives your comfort. Some think this is much ado about nothing, even quite humorous. The 2m lines work best for me. YMMV. Jeff I see. Kinda strange though to use 2m lines when it seems alot of Leica users use wide angle lenses like the 28-35...and you need to get closer than 2m for most of these shots no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted January 28, 2015 Share #24 Posted January 28, 2015 With live-view, framing inaccuracy is eradicated, very useful with wide angle and long tele lenses. That is the outstanding feature for me. A greatly improved framing experience. Put your own value on that advantage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 28, 2015 Share #25 Posted January 28, 2015 I see. Kinda strange though to use 2m lines when it seems alot of Leica users use wide angle lenses like the 28-35...and you need to get closer than 2m for most of these shots no? Well, I use 28/35 and mostly shoot at 2m or beyond. There's no right or wrong….decide what works best for you. I doubt, though, that this will be a make or break decision point for anyone…just something else to consider when weighing lots of pluses and minuses. Experienced users learn to adapt. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted January 28, 2015 Share #26 Posted January 28, 2015 It will be interesting to see if Leica incorporates electronic framelines that automatically adjust field-of-view and parallax for distance with the next generation of M camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share #27 Posted January 29, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) For a guy named Einstein, you're slow on the uptake. I don't care if you see a difference or not, or anyone else for that matter. My posts were meant to help you make a change IF you wanted to, since that was the premise of your own thread. I'm the one who has posted here for years about not upgrading every time. I owned the M8.2 and skipped the M9…after my own tests, making my own prints didn't justify a change…in fact I wrote about my preference for the M8.2. I then tried the M…again making my own prints, and felt a change was worthwhile….for me. Others feel differently, for their own reasons. So what. Try to keep up, Einstein. Jeff You still dont get it, do you. Your suggestion does not match my need. Thanl you,but no neef to get exicted. Calm down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 29, 2015 Share #28 Posted January 29, 2015 I wish Leica to have a good trade in program, something costs not much more than $2K, but after I realized it may mean $4K extra, then not worth it. This was your last point to which I responded. I merely suggested that it was likely possible to trade for closer to $3k than $4k. Shoot me. A simple use of the 'thanks' button would have sufficed. No lecture needed on why you don't care and how much hard work it would be to trade. This was after all YOUR silly thread about the desire for a trade-in program. The forum never ceases to entertain me. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted January 29, 2015 Share #29 Posted January 29, 2015 Plus: Decent shutter, upgraded range/viewfinder, better framelines, improved image quality, generally more mature camera. I cannot live with the size and the resolution of the viewing screen on the back of the M9. It's way too outdated.That display does not present enough accurate info about the images. Hooking up the EVF clearly takes away all focusing issues when using your fast expensive lenses. This is not possible with the M9. I use the above features extensively and it makes the M that much more enjoyable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share #30 Posted January 30, 2015 This was your last point to which I responded. I merely suggested that it was likely possible to trade for closer to $3k than $4k. Shoot me. A simple use of the 'thanks' button would have sufficed. No lecture needed on why you don't care and how much hard work it would be to trade. This was after all YOUR silly thread about the desire for a trade-in program. The forum never ceases to entertain me. Jeff You are funny. What are you trying to prove? Move on, your suggestion does not match my need. Do you have any interests with that trading shop? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 30, 2015 Share #31 Posted January 30, 2015 Has ANY used camera become more valuable for a trade-in in your lifetime? They always devalue, and more since the digital age. If the M9 makes no outcome significantly superior, in your opinion, and money is not an issue then dump it. Trade in. Free your insecurity. Then in a few years ask once again if you should trade the M(240) for whatever is next. That's the sliding rule paradigm. Or stick tight with the M9 as it's nominal value slides to norm, and be happy for the money you saved by keeping it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 30, 2015 Share #32 Posted January 30, 2015 Move on, your suggestion does not match my need. I have another suggestion to meet your need, but it involves a different kind of outside help. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berth Posted January 30, 2015 Share #33 Posted January 30, 2015 Leica will replace corrosive CCD for free or offer good trade in program to replace the corrosive M9 with M240. My M9 is free of this problem, so this does not apply to me. Does Leica has any trade in program for a good M9 to M240? I wish. No, Leica does not. I traded in my M-E on a M240 anyway rather than waiting for my sensor to (maybe) fail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share #34 Posted January 30, 2015 I cannot live with the size and the resolution of the viewing screen on the back of the M9. It's way too outdated.That display does not present enough accurate info about the images. Hooking up the EVF clearly takes away all focusing issues when using your fast expensive lenses. This is not possible with the M9. I use the above features extensively and it makes the M that much more enjoyable. The view finder is one of the most important factor to me too. I do see the value of EVF sometimes, particularly when I need precise focusing with super tele lens. But this does not apply to Leica due to the way I use Leica M. I have much more problems with cameras without OVF. I've compared mirror-less/EVF vs. DSLR (Canon) and concluded DSLR is the choice for me. Of course anyone may reach any conclusion. I've also tried the old VISOIII with M9, not fit. The biggest problem is the lack of the compatibility to the Leica R lenses I want to use. Convenience is another problem. M240 can be a good alternative, if only it can justify the cost. After this thread, I've decided Canon 6D would be the closest alternatives for my need. It could be a good complement to my M9. It is somewhat clumsy, since M9 is my primary tool, but I can use Leica R lenses on it as well as use Canon AF tele to birding. This could be the area that even M240 is short of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share #35 Posted January 30, 2015 I have another suggestion to meet your need, but it involves a different kind of outside help. Jeff Thanks a lot. Keep your advice, I'm sure someone will like it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share #36 Posted January 30, 2015 No, Leica does not. I traded in my M-E on a M240 anyway rather than waiting for my sensor to (maybe) fail. Good for you. Who knows what may happen later. Any camera may reach a broken point sometime. Enjoy !!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted January 30, 2015 Share #37 Posted January 30, 2015 Can we cut down on the ad hominem remarks, please? I'm sure they are not useful to those who make them and outright boring to anyone else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 30, 2015 Share #38 Posted January 30, 2015 M240 can be a good alternative, if only it can justify the cost. And what would that cost be?….$4750 for this one, with a bit of resourcefulness. Buy low, sell high…two sides of the transaction to consider (in this case, resulting in total cost likely near $2k). Oops, there I go again offering crazy ideas. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted January 31, 2015 Author Share #39 Posted January 31, 2015 And what would that cost be?….$4750 for this one, with a bit of resourcefulness. Buy low, sell high…two sides of the transaction to consider (in this case, resulting in total cost likely near $2k). Oops, there I go again offering crazy ideas. Jeff How to justify is up to each individual. Thanks a lot, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 31, 2015 Share #40 Posted January 31, 2015 How to justify is up to each individual. Of course, and you stated (post 14) that you could justify if "not much more than $2k". The example I provided shows how you could meet that stated goal. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.