Would you buy a used M9 today?

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why?

Because the ISO possibilities are limited nearly to the extent of the tolerance of negative film

[jmahto]

Why?

I gave my impression in #37 but let me elaborate more. The experience of shooting M9 and its limitations (sometimes less is more),  reminds me of shooting with M2 (or other film M but I have shot only with M2). I have to use M mount lenses (no EVF possibility), they have similar ISO limitation. Recently I shot Tri-X pushed to 800 and it was like I was shooting BW with M9. The general feeling (which is subjective I agree) was similar. Even for output, an Ektar 100 (or Tmax100) loaded in M2 gives me very comparable output to that from M9 if I am after details. Those are the only slow speed films I have tried on M2 so far.

 

Compared to M9, M240 feels like a modern camera with new possibilities and extra resolution that I don't care too much (in hindsight).

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jmahto]

Because the ISO possibilities are limited nearly to the extent of the tolerance of negative film

You beat me to my response which is on similar lines.

[Peter_S]

Absolutely. Fantastic cameras.
Just buy with a warranty on it. Mine had dead pixels and vertical line, and was handled EXCELLENT by Leica (not sure how that would be in Japan, I imagine not any worse). I got it back, and yes, I still like it. Had the SL in the meanwhile. What a piece of technology, but the simplicity of the M9....I am glad I have it back. And in the end, the options for cameras that handle M-lenses well (FF) at this price point are limited. 


 

Edited August 31, 2018 by Peter_S

[ianman]

I gave my impression in #37 but let me elaborate more. The experience of shooting M9 and its limitations (sometimes less is more),  reminds me of shooting with M2 (or other film M but I have shot only with M2). I have to use M mount lenses (no EVF possibility), they have similar ISO limitation. Recently I shot Tri-X pushed to 800 and it was like I was shooting BW with M9. The general feeling (which is subjective I agree) was similar. Even for output, an Ektar 100 (or Tmax100) loaded in M2 gives me very comparable output to that from M9 if I am after details. Those are the only slow speed films I have tried on M2 so far.

 

Compared to M9, M240 feels like a modern camera with new possibilities and extra resolution that I don't care too much (in hindsight).

 

Interesting. Don't get me wrong... I am a big fan of the M9, the only other digital M that would stand a chance of replacing mine would be an MM1 :-) I was just wondering about what you wrote: "M9 is closer to film experience than M240".

 

I agree about the EVF and the bloated features of the M240. But although the ISO capabilities of the M9 are limited compared to others, I really don't see how this can be compared to the single ISO of a loaded film. And I find 1600 in B&W very usable on the M9.

[JSU]

The only M9 you can buy today should be used, I wouldn't want to find one new-in-box on a dealer shelf with the original sensor.

 

I came to digital Leicas after a Cosina R-D1 and a pair of M-8.2 bodies. After shooting film seriously (as in when I began processing my own) since 1969, I was never comfortable with crop sensors. Once you begin learning the attributes and failings of your lenses when used FF, a crop sensor is like looking at the world though a toilet paper tube, what happened to all the periphery? Other failings of the M8.2 (besides the crop sensor) left me feeling there has to be more than this, c'mon Leica, after decades of film M cameras, you should do better.

 

For me and my photography, the M9-P ticks all the boxes. I don't want ISO 6400+ from a digital M, I don't want 5+ FPS with an unlimited buffer from a digital M, it would be nice to have a native ISO 64 but I am comfortable at ISO 160. I wish I could still shoot color with my 21/3.4 Super Angulon but I manage fine with my 21 Elmarit ASPH, the 21 S.A. is still my go to choice for dedicated B & W with the M9-P.

 

If I need a 6 digit ISO rating, I can reach for my Nikon Df and my kit of MF Nikkors. Not unlike when I worked daily with my trio of M6 (classics, pre-TTL) and needed something that was best done with a SLR. The RF experience is what it is, I've never tried to make my Leicas do what is better done with a SLR, and just as importantly, vice versa.

 

When the M9 was announced, I was of a wait and see perspective after being let down by the M8-2. Eventually the M8.2 cameras reached a point that Leica gave me a fair trade-in towards the M9-P bodies I currently use. I seriously considered getting away from Leicas after the M9-P bodies each had sensor failures in a fairly short time. For the record, Nikon D700 bodies I bought new in 2008 are still fully functional and have never missed a shot or failed to deliver. When the Leica M9-P bodies were returned after the initial sensor replacement I set them on the back of my desk and couldn't bring myself to sell them but didn't have all that much faith in them either.

 

Last April after about 2.5 years, I charged the M9-P batteries and unboxed the cameras. My daughter asked me to make some stylized portraits of her to match a set I made of her years ago with the M9-P when they were my daily, go-to cameras. Shooting the Canon 50/1.5 and 100/2.0 and 90 Elmar wide open all seemed well and it was like putting on an old pair of very comfortable shoes, the images were exactly what she had hoped for. A week later I was out with the CV 15/4.5 III and the sensor corrosion on my dedicated wide body was very apparent. I then tested the dedicated tele body with the same lens and it was even worse. I questioned myself for not selling them in 2015 when they were freshly back with new sensors. I quickly realized the folly of crying over spilled milk. I also realized I could not sell them in good conscious without revealing the sensor issues and if such was revealed, the price wouldn't be worth the effort to sell them. So off they went again to NJ for replacement sensors and short story, for now they are everything I ever hoped they would be.

 

As of now, they again are my go-to cameras. Only time will tell but I have too much of my visual life established around the Leica RF approach to give it up now. Once I though the M4 was the best I could use, except for the M3 with fast or long lenses. Then the M6 showed itself as a significant improvement and I could get both a .72X VF and a .85X VF and cover the M4 & M3 needs. This is where I am, now, with the M9-P cameras, my digital RF needs are met.

 

If one or both of my M9-P cameras needed replacing, I would very likely replace with the same. And obviously the only prospects are used now which would demand a higher scrutiny in purchasing.

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do I understand it correctly that you had corrosion on your second sensor, the sensor that was replaced because of corrosion of the first?

Edited September 1, 2018 by otto.f

[JSU]

Do I understand it correctly that you had corrosion on your second sensor, the sensor that was replaced because of corrosion of the first?

 

 

Yes, part of my frustration was the early sensor replacements were done with one and the same sensor which seemed like a recipe for disaster. And it was.

[otto.f]

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/287886-my-leica-m9-seems-to-have-a-serious-problem/page-1?do=findComment&comment=3579668

 

This forum-member did not use his M9 for a long period either, so: “use it or loose it”?

Edited September 1, 2018 by otto.f

[JSU]

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/287886-my-leica-m9-seems-to-have-a-serious-problem/page-1?do=findComment&comment=3579668

 

This forum-member did not use his M9 for a long period either, so: “use it or loose it”?

 

 

I saw that and my impression was fungus as if grown in a petri dish which troubles me as I live in a humid climate. Regardless, that doesn't look anything like the various examples of corrosion I've seen.

[Reini]

I have not bought a M9, because I've grumbled with the sensor (exchanged, again corrosion) already. I'd better buy a couple of a few 100's a M240.

[pgk]

Why?

 

IMO the 'noise' from the M9 has quite a 'filmic' look to it. Rather subjective I appreciate, but when I compare files from the M9 with those from many other digital cameras there is a somewhat greater 'randomness' about the noise structure. I suspect that a mathematical analysis of this would suggest greater deviation from a mean and that less deviation is considered somehow better, but I rather like the noise from the M9. I find that the M9 files are surprisingly flexible too, and hold up well to much more recent cameras, within its confines of being 18MPixel (adequate for an awful lot). This seems to be especially so with older lenses which seem to provide imagery which, whilst not as supremely detailed as modern lenses, do have a very classic feel to them.

 

I am sure that this can all be explained by technical discussions and that it also requires a liking for 'older' style imagery, but I am more than satisfied with the files produced from my M9s and have no desire to upgrade them. I would certainly buy another body (at the right price) today.

[otto.f]

IMO the 'noise' from the M9 has quite a 'filmic' look to it. Rather subjective I appreciate, but when I compare files from the M9 with those from many other digital cameras there is a somewhat greater 'randomness' about the noise structure. I suspect that a mathematical analysis of this would suggest greater deviation from a mean and that less deviation is considered somehow better, but I rather like the noise from the M9. I find that the M9 files are surprisingly flexible too, and hold up well to much more recent cameras, within its confines of being 18MPixel (adequate for an awful lot). This seems to be especially so with older lenses which seem to provide imagery which, whilst not as supremely detailed as modern lenses, do have a very classic feel to them.

 

I am sure that this can all be explained by technical discussions and that it also requires a liking for 'older' style imagery, but I am more than satisfied with the files produced from my M9s and have no desire to upgrade them. I would certainly buy another body (at the right price) today.

I have a different view on this aspect. The M10, and as far as I know not the M240, has to my taste a very nice noise in the higher ISO’s, which almost resembles grain in (slide-)films, starting from about 3200ISO.

[Roberto Watson]

Would you buy a used M9 today? Nop

 

Would I sell mine?  Neither 

 

Almost a year since I got back from Wetzlar, both CCD bodies (M-E and Monochrome). Both with a new sensor, both under warranty,  and they are magnific. Love image quality and shooting-buffer performance, not as fast as M-D but much better than both used to be. Battery life-usage is also improved.

Thank you Leica Wetzlar.

[ianman]

Did Leica improve buffer and battery life? I've not noticed anything different. But then I don't use mine like a machine gun either. 

[Roberto Watson]

No Rambo shooting here neather, but better performance positive noticed dear Ianman, happy shooting.

[NigelG]

In answer to the title question - I just have! and it arrives tomorrow morning.

Mint- chrome M9-P with c5000 count and a new sensor.

I had a chrome M9-P previously but traded it for an M240P (which is now accompanied by an M-D 262)

I’m looking forward to using them side by side and then deciding which 2 to keep (or whether to keep them all..........)

Now I’ve just got to find the box with my old M8+9 spare charger and batteries than fortunately no one would trade....

Edited September 11, 2018 by NigelG

[rfunnell]

A month ago I purchased a used M-E with new sensor and low exposure history and also I purchased a Monochrom CCD as well.

 

Having had both cameras when they were originally released and then  moving forward to M240 M240P then MD and then M10.

 

I enjoyed them all but moving back to the M-E is just fabulous the images to my eye are more film like and the Monochrom CCD rendering more to my liking.

 

The M9 M-E is good value currently and even better if you can find a M9P. 

The Monochrom CCD has maintained it's value and is harder to find if you can find one grab it.

[-Lss-]

Assuming that the sensor's been replaced (and this is stated on the shop displays), would you still get one today?

Yes, I see no reason not to. I would much prefer the M10, however the price difference is huge. The M240 I never considered significant enough improvement given the price difference. However, at the right price I would grab one of those. I just don’t operate with the same budget as the average Leica customer.

 

Aeons ago (or so it feels) I had an M8. Never had a more unreliable camera, but on the other hand never had more fun shooting with one (the only exception being my old R-D1). For all the shortcomings of RFs, the usability factor is very high.

Of course, my background is an M8 that has been 100% reliable. It has been used in dust, rain, and snow around the world for years with no issues. Edited September 15, 2018 by -Lss-

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[-Lss-]

Also not sure of prices in Japan, but here in the U.S the prices for used 240's are not much more than M9's, about $200 more.

That is a great deal for the M240. Locally I have often seen M240 for close to 1000€ more, although they are seldom for sale.