Does M9 make sense for an M10 owner?

[LPettigrew]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Given its distinctive image look, I wonder if Leica M9 makes sense as a second camera for someone who already has M10?

Financial implications aside, does it feel like a very different camera or does the M10 cover almost everything the M9 could give you?

What you think?

[Advertisement]

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

[pedaes]

The difference isn't that big https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/03/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-3/

You will probably find M9 a bit slow compared to your M10. 

[ldhrads]

I kept my M9, but haven't used it in a bit. Truly love the M9, but the M10 is a bit faster?  I "feel like" I get more shake pressing the shutter on the M10, but it doesn't translate in my photos.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I don't think so. The M9 for sure looks different and has some distinctive color, but the M10 is the better camera...better shutter, better battery life, much better high ISO, better viewfinder, thinner and with higher resolution. The biggest difference is in the color response, which is still very good in the M10, just a bit different. I think for the most part it is more practical to just use the M10 and work a bit harder on the color. I say this as someone who had both, and loved the image quality of the M9. I still prefer the M9 images out of camera at base ISO, but the M10 is better in so many other ways. 

[TomB_tx]

I kept my M9 after sensor replacement and do use it as a 2nd body / backup. There are subtle differences in the images, and in some cases I prefer the M9 comparing side-by-side. But, as and old Kodachrome slide shooter, I don’t like to do much computer post processing.

[Ko.Fe.]

Second camera just for somewhat different look? I don’t know. I see how different M8 was; but M-.E I have since 2016... Honestly, i’m not always impressed by its new sensor under bright light. If I would have M10, I would try to get full insurance for it, instead of second camera.

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I still prefer the M9 images out of camera at base ISO, but the M10 is better in so many other ways.

So a quieter shutter (and/or other "improvements") is more important than the images? I just don't understand that. There can be hundreds of small tweaks here and there, IMO the output is still the most important feature of any camera.

I just don't get the whole comparing and "upgrade" thing between the M9 and M10. CCD and CMOS are inherently different. It's like saying HP5 is an upgrade from FP4.

[ramosa]

I have only one Leica M now, and it’s the MM1. However, I personally wouldn’t own a MM1 and, say, the upcoming M10 Monochom or, by corollary, an M9 and an M10. While I like CCD sensors a lot, it wouldn’t make sense for me to own a CCD M and CMOS M ... unless, perhaps, if I decided to keep my MM1 and use it for B&W—and add on an M10 for color. Despite the potential merits of that dual-M approach, I like a pretty minimalistic setup for photography, so I’m sure I would perpetually use one M and ignore the other.

Of course, with the MM1 or M9, you’d also want to make sure you have the new (anti-corrosion) sensor.

 

 

[evikne]

2 hours ago, ianman said:

So a quieter shutter (and/or other "improvements") is more important than the images? I just don't understand that. There can be hundreds of small tweaks here and there, IMO the output is still the most important feature of any camera.

Not to me. Of course the output is important, but I am sure there are lots of other cameras out there with at least as good image quality as my M10, for a much cheaper price. But none of them can match the user experience, which I consider to be the most important thing to me.

[Stuart Richardson]

7 hours ago, ianman said:

So a quieter shutter (and/or other "improvements") is more important than the images? I just don't understand that. There can be hundreds of small tweaks here and there, IMO the output is still the most important feature of any camera.

I just don't get the whole comparing and "upgrade" thing between the M9 and M10. CCD and CMOS are inherently different. It's like saying HP5 is an upgrade from FP4.

Perhaps it is not totally clear. I think overall the potential for image quality is higher from the M10. It has better resolution, better dynamic range, better high ISO performance, better handling, a better viewfinder, better white balance, better focus precision, better battery life and so on. The color often looks better straight out of the camera from the M9, so I often prefer the image from the M9 before any other work as done. That said, my main job is as a printer, and I work nearly every file I ever shoot before I do anything with it, so that is just one part of the whole imaging chain. The M9 when I had it, and the M10 today are not the cameras I use when I am looking for the best possible image quality. For that I stick with large format film and the Leica S. The M cameras are more for having a very high quality camera that I can use when I do not have the ability or inclination to carry a more substantial camera, or in a situation where I might want a more casual camera than something like the S. In that role the M10 is clearly superior to the M9 for me. 

[Guest]

One more lens or a holiday/week-end trip instead. 
(Different sets of batteries and chargers??)

[ianman]

I guess I'm a really bad Leica customer in that I don't get caught up in this better, better, better game. Reading some posts here one could believe that any viewfinder before the "better" M10 is unusable or that a couple of mm extra depth make a difference in handling. I use both the M9 and MP (film) and feel no difference whatsoever. As for "better" battery life, again, I must be very atypical as my battery lasts for days of shooting. I don't use it for machine-gun style photography though.

But even after all that, the sole purpose of a camera is to make photographs.

I wonder how many M10 users are already on the waiting list for the much better M11. 🙄

[Topsy]

Whilst I love my M9s I don't see it making sense as a second camera to an M10, the outputs are too different, poor high ISO, no live view, poor screen resolution etc would, IMO, frustrate the M10 user. I also shoot  film Ms - 2, 6 and P and the shooting experience of the M9 is more akin to film than the far higher spec/performance of the M10.  If you really need a second camera for an M10 then I think it has to be another M10 (variant), however, if you don't require/need the increased performance of the M10 then an M9 would make a perfect second camera .......  to another M9. You could sell youe M10 and buy 2 M9s that have replacement corrosion resistant sensors.

[muah]

have M10 and bought a M9.

reason, love the rewinding sound of the M9 vs the muted ‘click’ of M10.

also M9 is smaller and more handy in my hands.

though i agree, ISO is limited compare to M10.

answer to does it make sense?  yes for me. (my struggle is does it make sense between CL and SL2)  

[pedaes]

3 minutes ago, muah said:

also M9 is smaller and more handy in my hands.

?

[Ko.Fe.]

1 hour ago, pedaes said:

?

+1 ???

[muah]

i find it not as tall or heavy compared to M10. the thickness helps with my grip.

[01af]

Am 24.11.2019 um 17:55 schrieb LPettigrew:

Given its distinctive image look, I wonder if Leica M9 makes sense as a second camera for someone who already has M10?

No.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mujk]

As a backup camera - yes. To be used in parallel with an M10, i.e. to enable instant switching between two lenses - no. Too different.

I only carry both my M10 and M9 when I want to make sure I will not loose all pictures because of some technical failure, typically when I have been asked to shoot at some occasion.

[otto.f]

I owned both and sold the M10. I will never sell my M9 and haven’t missed the M10 ever since. Reason: color. Results are more important than smooth operating. Not interested in ISO -000