Is the M9 still worth it in 2020?

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

  M240 is the ten years old camera. (introduced in 2012).

We should all wait for M11 and get bank loand for eleven thousands dollars, at least, to be able to get it.

[rivi1969]

9 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

  M240 is the ten years old camera. (introduced in 2012).

We should all wait for M11 and get bank loand for eleven thousands dollars, at least, to be able to get it.

Ko.Fe. I will wait until the M10 is 10-years old to afford one 😂 in the meantime M8 and M9 will do!

[Ko.Fe.]

7 minutes ago, rivi1969 said:

Ko.Fe. I will wait until the M10 is 10-years old to afford one 😂 in the meantime M8 and M9 will do!

Same here. But with way it is going, I'm positive we will get them in five.

[ianman]

On 1/12/2020 at 12:29 AM, Ko.Fe. said:

I don't understand where on images it is showing as "a very good B&W camera".

I'm not arguing about tastes, I just can't find the difference from M9 in BW. 

Although I've never used an M8, it seems obvious that due to the IR sensitivity, the B&W images would be deeper than the M9. Strangely, I wrote about this fact shortly before Otto but my post seems to have been deleted.

I've seen some excellent M8 B&W images here, IR too. I suppose some people are using deep red or even full IR filters.

[ianman]

4 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

  M240 is the ten years old camera. (introduced in 2012).

Have you been time travelling? 😉

[EdricBF]

As an amateur, I have purchased an M9 as a "bucket list piece of gear", specifically because I wanted to have the last Leica with CCD sensor technology. Its color images are truly unique (I don't do B&W), IMHO, and I am satisfied with the purchase. But it is something of a "Shelf Queen", because I normally use other cameras in mundane outings... 

Edited January 15, 2020 by EdricBF

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you took your M9 the outings may not be so mundane  🙂 

[pippy]

26 minutes ago, ianman said:

If you took your M9 the outings may not be so mundane  🙂 

Funny yet absolutely true at the same time!

Philip.

 

Edited January 15, 2020 by pippy

[EdricBF]

16 hours ago, pippy said:

Funny yet absolutely true at the same time!

Philip.

 

I know what you mean and I have to agree: carrying a Leica in a place like Rio turns any "mundane" outing into a truly (pick any) emotional, stressful, risky, dangerous, crazy one.... No dull outings with expensive equipment in such latitudes... But I do like the thing, and it stays for special (safer) occasions... 😕

[Archiver]

On 1/10/2020 at 8:50 PM, silverchrome said:

For those people, the M240 is a better proposition than a ten-year-old digital camera known for its unreliability and handling quirks.  You can wax lyrical as much as you want about the qualities of the M9, but that doesn’t detract from the fact(s) that it can lock up without warning, has issues with certain SD cards, has poor battery life and the rangefinder is more susceptible to drift than later Ms.  All of which can have an impact on the user experience.

Funny you should mention the lockups. My M9 is almost ten years old, and began to lock up about two years ago. Never had a problem before that, it might have something to do with the latest firmware upgrade when it went for sensor replacement in late 2017. It only happens once every few months, but it's enough to be noticeable. I just pop the battery and it's fine again.

Having said that, I'd still recommend the M9 in 2020, with a few conditions. Buyers need to understand the issues of the sensor and spare parts, and that that the sensor attracts dust like a fluffy coat. I've never shot with a M240 or M10 for any length of time, so I can't compare the user experience. But I do love the way the M9 handles, and the images are wonderful. Prices on new-sensor M9s are fairly stable and relatively low, too.

[AceVentura1986]

On 1/13/2020 at 4:45 PM, ianman said:

Although I've never used an M8, it seems obvious that due to the IR sensitivity, the B&W images would be deeper than the M9. Strangely, I wrote about this fact shortly before Otto but my post seems to have been deleted.

I've seen some excellent M8 B&W images here, IR too. I suppose some people are using deep red or even full IR filters.

I started w a used M8, progressed to an ME and then an M9M. I still have all three, but the M8’s shutter failed a year ago so it sits on a shelf. The IR fault plays havoc with color images but results in beautiful BW. Of the three, it renders skin tones most beautifully in BW, better even than the M9M. For me to get good skin tones out of the M9M, I have to use an orange or red filter. The red, however, is really more suitable for daylight use as it lowers the exposure by 1.5 stops and can throw off focusing owing to the longer wavelengths. 

When I used it regularly I liked to call it my poor man’s Monochrom. 

[ianman]

36 minutes ago, AceVentura1986 said:

The red, however, is really more suitable for daylight use as it lowers the exposure by 1.5 stops and can throw off focusing owing to the longer wavelengths.

Is that true for all red filters? I thought focus only needed correcting when deep IR filters were used.

[AceVentura1986]

23 hours ago, ianman said:

Is that true for all red filters? I thought focus only needed correcting when deep IR filters were used.

I’m not an expert on filters by any means but this is what I’ve read elsewhere in this forum and it is something that comports with my limited understanding physics. Film generally has some physical depth to it so that differences in wavelength don’t have much of an effect on focusing, if any. Digital sensors, however, have effectively no depth. As a consequence, a longer wavelength will tend to manifest itself as a slightly out of focus image, or at least that’s what I’ve read here on this forum. 

[otto.f]

23 hours ago, ianman said:

Is that true for all red filters? I thought focus only needed correcting when deep IR filters were used.

No it already starts at orange filters as explained and demonstrated in an article in LFI after the MM1 came out. In practice however, I often use the Leitz Orange filter -1.7 stops as a density filter to come back to ISO100 and have had hardly any serious blur thus far. It will be more noticeable with close-ups than in streetphotography or landscape. 

Edited February 2, 2020 by otto.f

[ianman]

31 minutes ago, AceVentura1986 said:

Film generally has some physical depth to it so that differences in wavelength don’t have much of an effect on focusing, if any.

I understand the physics but I didn't know that the effect was distinguishable for visible light.  Actually many lenses used to have IR focus offset marks for correcting focus when using IR filters. I used that a lot a few decades ago when I was mainly using the wonderful Kodak HIE.

[AceVentura1986]

22 hours ago, ianman said:

I understand the physics but I didn't know that the effect was distinguishable for visible light.  Actually many lenses used to have IR focus offset marks for correcting focus when using IR filters. I used that a lot a few decades ago when I was mainly using the wonderful Kodak HIE.

From what I’ve read, it’s not much, of at all, distinguishable for visible light in film owing to the medium’s slight 3D thickness. However thin film might be, it’s still thicker than the wavelength of red light. The issue pops up in sensors which are effectively 2D only, or so I’ve read. Again, this is second hand it seems to make sense. 

[proenca]

On 1/10/2020 at 9:50 AM, silverchrome said:

For those people, the M240 is a better proposition than a ten-year-old digital camera known for its unreliability and handling quirks.  You can wax lyrical as much as you want about the qualities of the M9, but that doesn’t detract from the fact(s) that it can lock up without warning, has issues with certain SD cards, has poor battery life and the rangefinder is more susceptible to drift than later Ms.  All of which can have an impact on the user experience. 

 

(...)

A bit harsh for everyone - including me - that loves the M9 and yes, we romanticize a bit about it - but 99% true.

I've been shooting with Leica from the M6TTL days.

Bought my M7 new and never was a huge fan of developing film so boy, was I excited when the M8 was announced.

Bought my M8 on launch day - on Singapore and ..... was I in for a ride with eternal continuous shooting lockups, crop factor woes, ir filter malarkey and so on.

I was so glad when the M9 arrived and sold my M8 - full frame, better iso , no more IR drama, better battery, quirks ironed out.

Bought a M240 - sold it quickly - couldn't get used to the increase size of the camera ( vs the M9 ) - traded it for a 246.

Some of you that are still reading my post might be wondering "wait a minute, the 246 is the same size as the M240".

Indeed it is - but a man justification to buy Leica gear shift reality and expectations as butter out of the fridge on a hot day - very malleable.

So, sold my 246 and got a M-D - because I wanted a purist camera - was fun for a while but it wore quickly and got a great trade in deal so I got the M10.

Life took a few turns and had to sell the M10 - which I enjoyed thoroughly and will back soon.

So, to all of you still awake and are paying attention to my ( quite uninspiring, I'm sorry .) )  story, one small detail is to be noticed - I never, ever sold my original M9.

Still have it today.

And today I have quite a lovely camera system - Sony A7RIII, 24mm GMaster and 135mm GMaster lenses and few others - but I reach the M9 more and more.

Pondering to sell all my Sony gear - which is VASTLY superior in every conceivable way - for a Noctilux and put some cash ( had a Nocti F1 ages ago and miss the thing to bits ) or a 21/24mm Summilux for my M9 and just be with the M system again.

Perhaps even getting a M10 in the future - but the M9 ? She stays.

Yes, a M240 its better in every conceivable way - better at high iso, doesn't lockup, illuminated framelines, better RF, better batteries, video and so on.

Indeed.

But the M9 is the closest thing to put a digital back on a film M and emulate the film like experience - yes the iso range is limited - and that is part of the equation. Yes the batteries suck but then again, when you are shooting film, every 36 exposures you have to rewind and put a new roll.

Yet, when everything aligns perfectly, its a bliss.

Its a true M camera - much more than the 240 - because simpler, its better.

And simple - it is all what M is about.

[Ko.Fe.]

My M-E is very close to my M4-2. With both I'm getting best results with S16 or with handheld meter

Also don't know what happened to it, but it is on third week at the same battery. Including -10 C day.

[ianman]

7 hours ago, proenca said:

Yes the batteries suck

I've seen many people write this. I don't understand how they are using their M9. My batteries last for ages. Easily days or weeks. Maybe it's because I don't use third party batteries. I have 3, one of which is still the original, so well over 10 years old now 😊

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

7 hours ago, proenca said:

A bit harsh for everyone - including me - that loves the M9 and yes, we romanticize a bit about it - but 99% true.
Pondering to sell all my Sony gear - which is VASTLY superior in every conceivable way .....

To be honest, I have 2 x M9s and have had none of the 'problems' which people go on about, and one is starting to look quite rough now with tens of thousands of exposures on it. Battery life has never been a problem and I still run several from my long gone M8s too. I shoot at low ISO by preference and noise is not a problem and what there is lacks that typical digital noise 'signature' which I don't care for

The Sony is far from better. Its fundamental flaw, which differentiates it from Leicas, is its appalling interface. I've lost more shots due to faffing around trying to remember which menu to enter and what to adjust than I care to remember. Its capable of very good results but its far from being a good camera - the two are quite separable.