Jump to content
Fauxtog

Torn between M9 or M10

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So should I dump my venerable M9?

 

To try and help decide, I tried a quick, rough and dirty (i.e. non-scientific) shootout in a camera store. Using my own lens on each body, and then taking a quick snap as I would normally shoot and in difficult store shop lighting (against the light, mixed light - interior and exterior).

 

The short answer is I'll be standing by the M9.

 

But if you're interested in why, well the details and comparison images, unscientific and personally biased as they are, you can find on my FB page which you can visit by clicking HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can also play with the extremely malleable M10 files, adding grain, contrast etc for a grittier look. Whatever works for you is what counts.

 

You might consider picking up a MM (M9 based) for even better b/w results, especially now that good copies with new sensors and service from Germany are available at reasonable prices. I did that to use alongside my M10, which still offers superb files for b/w conversion when I also need color capability.

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you willing to spend or borrow 4K for more pixels, longer battery life and higher ISO? 

Is it going to make you better photographer?  

Generate more awards or assignments? 

 

For me it cuts on very first question.

If I'll really need more pixels, great battery and high ISO it means I need SLR available at 1K new.

 

But I understand why some professorial are doing this update. It is better tool overall.

Or amateurs who knew how to make money elsewhere. New is more prestige.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the M9 as first full-frame digital M, but as a photographic tool the M10 is streets ahead. If you ever need continuous shooting mode the M10 and its buffer is in a different league. Also the rangefinder improvements etc., but perhaps the greatest difference is high ISO performance. I think you need to use M10 for a few days to realy appreciate how special it is. That said, if you are happy with M9 and can live with its constraints, that's absolutely fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take is: the M9s I own are adequate and not spending another bundle of money buys me a lot of time on the road, some freedom and I seriously doubt that anyone is going to dismiss a good photo because it hasn't enough pixels.

Edited by pico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been very happy with my M9, and had no need of higher pixel resolution either. But my old eyes do appreciate the M10 finder, and even though the difference doesn't seem dramatic, I find it easier to get focus dead-on. Since I shoot mainly indoors, I also like the higher usable ISO, as I prefer smaller lenses. The EVF also is preferable to an optical version for a 21mm

In general I get equal images with both, but a bit easier with the M10.

Both are a joy to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So should I dump my venerable M9?

 

To try and help decide, I tried a quick, rough and dirty (i.e. non-scientific) shootout in a camera store. Using my own lens on each body, and then taking a quick snap as I would normally shoot and in difficult store shop lighting (against the light, mixed light - interior and exterior).

 

The short answer is I'll be standing by the M9.

 

But if you're interested in why, well the details and comparison images, unscientific and personally biased as they are, you can find on my FB page which you can visit by clicking HERE

 

I'm a NOOB here so don't hang on my every word, however, I have just got into Leica because I wanted to get back to basics in my photography. The M9 does just that for me in spadefulls. I also have a Fuji GFX 50S so if we are in the pixel game...... however the Med Format approach of the Fuji is right back to basics. For my 2 penneth M9 all the way..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At base-ISO in daylight and low contrast light it is not worth it. It is also not worth it for the Live View, that was very disappointing with its low resolution.

 

 

But I liked the thinner body and the ability to recover the shadows better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have really enjoyed my M9. Still have it, but my M10 wins on enough points to justify having it, for me. It's nothing to do with $ values. If dollars concern you, try another brand. No, I'm not a $ snob either, I seriously sacrifice to buy my chosen Leicas.

 

For me, the M10 wins on these points, over the M9:

Quieter

Thinner

Much better high iso

iso dial is useful

LV is good for my longer lenses (135mm)

Files more malleable

 

I don't care about how many pixels they each have, not even sure on the count for either. They just work!

Don't care about snob value of 'new' gear. In fact I quite like old gear. (I even look in the mirror occasionally

  )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for your answers. Interesting that no one has mentioned the character that the M9 gives to monochrome images. Due to the noisy sensor at higher iso. Gives a sort of Try-X film look. And I like that as i shoot mostly mono. And at the end of the day, there's little to choose as you can see from this comparison shot. For those that don't want to follow the link on my first post, here are the comparison images for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will replace my M9s when they are worn out, until then they deliver the results I want. They do produce nice B&W conversions too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take a look at my M9 post today on how I how to use silica gel desicent to control humidity when my M9 is not in use.  Today is 2/23/18 or Feb 23, 2018 

Edited by tobey bilek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to make some comparison between jpeg B&W from M8 and M9, but that did not go too well. I got this jpeg picture from M9 tough, and I liked it:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BW from one M9 photog.

 

http://rangefinder.ru/glr/data/502/L9998265_1000.jpg

 

http://rangefinder.ru/glr/data/503/L9999121-2_2_1000.jpg

 

http://rangefinder.ru/glr/data/502/L9998683-22_1000.jpg

 

 

One of the rare times then I look at image and have no ring in my head - "digital". It is so organic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you willing to spend or borrow 4K for more pixels, longer battery life and higher ISO? 

Yes, perhaps.

Is it going to make you better photographer?  

Maybe

Generate more awards or assignments? 

You never know

 

For me it cuts on very first question.

If I'll really need more pixels, great battery and high ISO it means I need SLR available at 1K new.

If ISO 640 is all you'll ever need Ko.Fe.Fe, then stick with an M8 or M9. If the haptics of a small Leica RF is the same to you as a DSLR in hand, then go for a $1k NIKON Dxxxxxxxx with kung-fu grip. Personally, got tired of dragging 3 kg of camera + two lenses around. YMMV of course. Can be a good biceps workout.

 

But I understand why some professorial are doing this update. It is better tool overall.

Or amateurs who knew how to make money elsewhere. New is more prestige.   

For some, yes, it is prestige, That's why in 3 years time you'll find barely-used M10s with 200 clicks. Or 10 year old Porsches with 5000 kms. That's just the way some people operate. 

Some of my acquaintances with M9s immediately swapped for an M240 because it was demonstrably superior. Others weren't swayed and preferred the CCD 'look'. Or the camera's size and/or didn't have the cash. Some of the latter are now ready to move on after the sensor fiasco. Or they want a thinner camera. Or they're tired of the slow operational speed. Or done shooting a Summarit in good light only. Whatever. All valid. As is sticking with the M9 until its last breath. 

 

Edited by james.liam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But I understand why some professorial are doing this update. It is better tool overall.

Or amateurs who knew how to make money elsewhere. New is more prestige.   

 

I don't know whether the word 'prestige' was lost in translation.  

 

As an amateur is my only reason for upgrading for 'prestige"? That is a bit insulting to us 'non-professorials'.  Some may buy Leica just for the name but I would think that many of us amateurs who are fortunate enough to afford the new camera because we 'make money elsewhere', can also make an informed decision that the new camera may be a significant upgrade for use.  As you state in the previous sentence 'it is a better tool overall'.  

 

If I upgrade my camera I go without elsewhere, or work extra to pay for it.  My camera is not bought as branded prestige jewellery.  Most people I know have never heard of Leica so where is the 'prestige'?

Edited by MarkP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy