M9, still the best digi cam I've ever used.

[Silver Fresco]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Recently picked up an M9 with new sensor and only 700 clicks on the counter. Why did the world get rid of CCD? (And spare me the cliche comments about CMOS is cheaper and predictable, and you could have video, etc... I'd buy a real video camera if I wanted that). 

Sold an an M/E about three years ago, but, after picking an SL in the hopes that it would replace my M/E, alas, the CCD still wins out. It still has a much more film like appearance.

[gunston]

because you haven't used M10 yet ?

M9 do have magic ( i am still shooting it as well), but M10 is electronically more reliable i guess.

[Ray Vonn]

Maybe not the best, but definitely the most unique, digitally speaking.  There's another thread on this site about "Leica Look".  For me, it's that full frame CCD sensor of the M9/M-E.  That's what it's all about (for me) and why I decided to fork out for one.  Plus that shutter sound which it seems most people don't like but which I love.  If my M-E broke, I'd just get another one or an M9.  The only time I've seen anything close to that with the newer cmos M cameras is when used with Zeiss lenses.

[Ko.Fe.]

Every year new cameras comes to replace my M-E. But every time I take M-E in my hands ... I realize here is no replacement. 

[low325]

M9 is magical.  I love mine...

if i decide on getting a new M, i will not surrender my M9.  I’m starting to venture out into higher ISO on the M9 (I’ve owned cameras with better ISO capabilities for many years) and what i notice is that the actual limitation on dynamic range of the M9 retains/benefits the images with the filmic look when processed.  

If for example, you take an image from a more capable sensor and lift the shadows/adjust exposure, you will get more details in those darker areas.  This IMO, gives the images a very “digital” look.  One can argue against it surely...  Too, you make dark scenery look like day time.  I had fun with this YEARS ago with DLSRs.  And I’m also not shooting in dark clubs or nighttime anymore.  Perhaps, I ‘graduated’ from these forms of processing trends so they no longer appeal to me as I have always preferred that contrasty-like, rough around-the-edges photos?  

On an M9 file, you cannot lift the shadows over maybe 2 stops?  But in the process of processing a file with less headroom, you certainly are refrained from getting that digital look IMO.  Throw in it being CCD also??  and the files are just sublime in a filmy sort of way.   To me, it affects the entire post processing process.  Yes i’ve tried the same post work on two different files, CCD and CMOS.  The CMOS image is a cleaner, more ‘properly-like’ file for sure...and I will admit, that look has it’s merit, i.e. newborn photos benefit here a lot.  But photography that’s just for me and the subjects that I want to shoot, the M9 fits the bill.  The benefit of it being CCD too is just icing on the cake  LOL!

Edited February 19, 2019 by low325

[Ko.Fe.]

4 hours ago, low325 said:

M9 is magical.  I love mine...

if i decide on getting a new M, i will not surrender my M9.  I’m starting to venture out into higher ISO on the M9 (I’ve owned cameras with better ISO capabilities for many years) and what i notice is that the actual limitation on dynamic range of the M9 retains/benefits the images with the filmic look when processed.  

If for example, you take an image from a more capable sensor and lift the shadows/adjust exposure, you will get more details in those darker areas.  This IMO, gives the images a very “digital” look.  One can argue against it surely...  Too, you make dark scenery look like day time.  I had fun with this YEARS ago with DLSRs.  And I’m also not shooting in dark clubs or nighttime anymore.  Perhaps, I ‘graduated’ from these forms of processing trends so they no longer appeal to me as I have always preferred that contrasty-like, rough around-the-edges photos?  

On an M9 file, you cannot lift the shadows over maybe 2 stops?  But in the process of processing a file with less headroom, you certainly are refrained from getting that digital look IMO.  Throw in it being CCD also??  and the files are just sublime in a filmy sort of way.   To me, it affects the entire post processing process.  Yes i’ve tried the same post work on two different files, CCD and CMOS.  The CMOS image is a cleaner, more ‘properly-like’ file for sure...and I will admit, that look has it’s merit, i.e. newborn photos benefit here a lot.  But photography that’s just for me and the subjects that I want to shoot, the M9 fits the bill.  The benefit of it being CCD too is just icing on the cake  LOL!

Interesting! I have same feeling since high ISO started to be used to convert low light to day light.

I'm not night clubs crawler, either, SF26 flash works fine on my M-E.

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 2/18/2019 at 7:43 AM, gunston said:

M10 is electronically more reliable i guess

No issues on my M9 after nearly 10 years. Is the M9 prone to electronics failures?

[WvE]

10 hours ago, ianman said:

No issues on my M9 after nearly 10 years. Is the M9 prone to electronics failures?

As time goes by issues will occur, but that's with every electronic device. 

[ianman]

1 hour ago, WvE said:

As time goes by issues will occur, but that's with every electronic device. 

Yes of course, but that is not the point here. I asked why the poster wrote that the M10 is more reliable than an M9.

[gunston]

still shooting with mine M9-P, 15k shutter +

[Topsy]

Love my M9s the files need hardly any PP.

[frogfish]

If I do not shoot analog, I take my M9 to shoot professionally.

the feel and the look of the files are unmatched by more modern Leicas.

 I try not to get set up by the poor buffer 🙂 

oh, I think I must have way over 100.000 klicks on my M9. 

 

heiko

[Gregm61]

Electronically I would imagine any M9 has as good a chance of still being usable as long as film cameras like the Nikon FE/FM, Canon AE, etc. The wild card/difference is, how long do the sensors, back LCD’s last. People are still working with digital cameras pre-dating the M9 by several years. So long as we can keep buying batteries and SD card slots are available to offload images, we should be good for quite a while.

Edited June 6, 2019 by Gregm61

[WvE]

The M9 may be a somewhat odd camera by today's standards, however, it still rocks in the IQ dept.

[rawlit]

I have no budget limitations and always choose my M9 over any other option, tried many in different formats

I have multiple Leica and CV lenses and always go back to my sonnar 50 1.5

[Prosophos]

703 signatures, as of last count.  Please consider signing if you haven’t:

Prosophos Open Letter to Leica

(for a CCD M camera)

—Peter.  

[Archiver]

Nine years on, and the M9 is still my favourite camera. It's not my most used camera, as I don't really use it for day to day snapshots. Not any more, anyway. But for the feel of the camera and the files it produces, I haven't found another like it. Some of my best and favourite work has been done with the M9. The colours are wonderful, the sharpness and resolution is great, and battery life is decent enough. Sure, I'd like to have Liveview, a video mode, and numerous other things that a lot of Leica M users eschew, but for a pure photographic experience, the M9 is what I reach for. My favourite lenses are the Zeiss 21, 28 and 50 Sonnar; the Leica 28 Elmarit and 50 Summicon,  and the Voigtlander 35 Nokton f1.4. I have others, but these get the most use.

[J12]

Best is always subjective. But my experience with the M9 during the 9 years I used it was very positive. It is a great camera when considering how long ago it was developed and the results it can deliver under the right conditions.

I purchased my M9 brand new back in 2010 and only sold it recently. As with many it received a sensor upgrade from old to new. Apart from some idiosyncrasies such as banding on some lowlight images if taken in quick succession it was a solid performer. Just CLA to keep it in good shape.

It had over 35,000 clicks on it when I sold it. Towards the end of my time with it I’d learned to think of shooting with it as similar to daylight film. When there’s plenty of light it’s great. In lowlight and at higher ISO I’d have to consider my shots. Often on the edge of aperture and shutter speed settings for handheld shots to keep the ISO down, underexspose and lift in post.

It was possible to get results in lowlight, but that area is really better suited to more modern digital cameras. Daylight shots are what I’ll miss about the M9. I know many people have tried to describe what they see in CCD images and it’s quite difficult to put into words. I think it’s the fidelity of the image. There appears to be less manipulation or processing going on. Color images appear as I’d like to remember seeing them. In the right conditions, images from the M9 can provide immense satisfaction.

I was in two minds about letting ago. But after it came back from sensor replacement with the new type of vulcanite it didn’t really feel like my camera as much as it used to. Perhaps the new stuff is more grippy in practical use, but I really like the old type.

As a new purchase the camera seemed very expensive to me at the time. In retrospect it was a fantastic deal. The camera travelled the world with me. Often to many places I wouldn’t have brought a DSLR. Left me with many satisfying images and delivered a decent return when selling it 9 years later.

I hope the new owner derives as much use and satisfaction from it as I did. I actually received a thank you note from them saying they were very happy with the condition of the camera as it was to be their first and last digital Leica. I imagine it might have been longtime film user or older person that purchased it.

From here on I’ll try sticking to film with M cameras. Should I ever consider another digital M it will be tough to decide between something modern like an M10 or going back to an M9. For whatever reason I don’t feel that compelled to purchase an M10. There’s no denying it’s good, but the images don’t grab me. That said, my initial reason for buying an M9 was simply because it was the only full frame digital rangefinder at the time. Discovering the pleasing characteristics of the IQ over time was a bonus.

The age of the M9 and looking at what’s happened regarding spares for the DMR would be the only real concern if acquiring another today.

If the crazy scenario of the company ever producing another CCD camera were to happen I’m in!

 

[elgenper]

12 hours ago, J12 said:

...As a new purchase the camera seemed very expensive to me at the time. In retrospect it was a fantastic deal....

Indeed.  My M9 was delivered in February 2010, and I still use it almost daily.  Shutter count now is around 28400; the sensor was replaced about 2 years ago.  I have had lots of digital cameras from other makers before that were much less expensive, but when I divide the cost by the number of catalogued files (far smaller number than 28400, of course), it turns out to be by far the cheapest camera I´ve owned, in cost per image.  And that´s even if its present value were zero (which it isn´t!), and making no correction for the quality of the images...

I intend to keep using it as long as it works.  I also own a Monochrom 1 (sensor replaced at the last minute for a free replacement...), which I actually use even more than the M9 nowadays.  No plans for replacing that one, either.

Edited August 21, 2019 by elgenper

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M