M9 with original sensor - still worth a shot?

[Casey Jefferson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the heads up!

^ you're right...Even a new M262 new old stock is cheaper, not sure if I want to spend that much. No hurry to hunt for one as I'm pretty happy with the M240 anyway. 

[Casey Jefferson]

Here's an update - I actually bought the M9 mentioned in original post. I've study enough M9 photos to come to a conclusion that the new spec sensor seem to render differently - more modern, up to date, contrasty. So I thought to myself, I can probably just lose out some cash if I can't deal with the corrosions. Turned out that I just can't put down shooting the M9, much more so than the M240 when i first got it!

It has all the quirks - dimmer VF, slower shot to shot time, frustrations shooting in dim indoors (choose between motion blur or noise). The shutter didn't bother me, it sounds very old school and I love the discreet mode where it simulate film shutter in two steps - shutter fired, recock shutter. Like people mentioned, the shutter sometimes take few seconds more to recock. The sensor sometimes just give up sucking lights at certain low light condition - it was pretty dark to the eyes anyway but M240 can brighten up the scene just fine.

The image quality? Just so good. Shooting with M240 brought the journalist side of me, wanting to document the reality, in relatively fast pace. With the M9 however, it brought out the artistic side of me. I shot the below scene which I normally won't with my M240 - flat afternoon tropical sunlight. The M9 rendered with admirable saturated colors which the M240 will have more "grey" mixed into the colors, resulting in "dirtier" look.

I tried to create a preset or profile for the colors, but in the end I realized there's something special about M9 in terms of the tonality, or the contrast curve of it. It's at the same time flat, and pops. More film like, if you will. The M240 often render more gritty, dirtier look, or more accutance, shaper, whatever.

Best of all, I found a few China based sources that will replace the M9 cover glass for cheaper fee - with the caveats of not telling you which glass they used. I guess when the M9 finally get worse enough, I have nothing to lose. As far as it goes, I wish my M9 lives long enough until the next big thing from Leica.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 11, 2021 by Casey Jefferson

[Advertisement]

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

[tobey bilek]

If you wish to take a chance on wasting your cash, go ahead.  Is it repairable?  Sensor cover maybe.  Will Leica service if modified?  BIG question.

Mine failed 6 weeks ago.  I stored in A/C home and packed in a bag with desiccant and live in midwest.   Took. 3 photos in 10 minutes and went home.  On computer screen I could see a blurry black spot on the last one that I could not remove.  Careful other inspection found 3 more and a line thru the middle.  

Camera was The last M9 P available in USA,  only 500+ exposures and I treated it better than anyone else could and perfect except for sensor cover.

Still waiting for replacement for $6000.   Going on 5 weeks just for them to pack a camera and send it.  Typical rotten Leica service.  Ask DAG and he will tell you they are poor business people.  And the do not answer e-mail. Lucky I have other cameras to use.

[Casey Jefferson]

54 minutes ago, tobey bilek said:

If you wish to take a chance on wasting your cash, go ahead.  Is it repairable?  Sensor cover maybe.  Will Leica service if modified?  BIG question.

Mine failed 6 weeks ago.  I stored in A/C home and packed in a bag with desiccant and live in midwest.   Took. 3 photos in 10 minutes and went home.  On computer screen I could see a blurry black spot on the last one that I could not remove.  Careful other inspection found 3 more and a line thru the middle.  

Camera was The last M9 P available in USA,  only 500+ exposures and I treated it better than anyone else could and perfect except for sensor cover.

Still waiting for replacement for $6000.   Going on 5 weeks just for them to pack a camera and send it.  Typical rotten Leica service.  Ask DAG and he will tell you they are poor business people.  And the do not answer e-mail. Lucky I have other cameras to use.

I feel your pain, not sure what I can offer you about your situations. They (Leica AG) do read emails, I was requesting some spare screws and it took them like a week to reply, but in the end they send the screws for free(!), can't say much bad things about them entertaining my rather silly requests.

That said, I did my researches as best as I can and with that money spent, I just enjoy while it lasted.

Best wishes.

[sfmorris]

hi everyone
Just curious reading through this thread...original vs new/replacement sensor for the M9? Are they not the same?  is there some difference between the 'original' CCD sensors in the m9, and the 'newer' CCD sensors (now unavailable) that they were using for the replacement program? the initial post made it sound like there was something special about the 'original' CCD vs the ones used to replace m9s with sensor damage...

 

thanks

Samuel

[jaapv]

Yes - there is a significant difference: The original sensors tends to corrode and the later replacement sensors don't.
Neither type is available any more.
The images produced by both sensor types is as near to identical as to make no difference.

[pfoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

imho its like buying a ford escort from the 1980s with a new engine. at a price that can get you a new benz

[sfmorris]

@jaapv thanks so much! that's exactly what I was looking for - image wise, both essentially the same CCD-based output~

not withstanding some of the 'waste of money' sentiment here, I recently bought a used m9 and am enjoying it.

I have never owned a Leica but was intrigued by what I had read about the CCD image quality.

looking at this thread...

...it looks like mine has the newer sensor (and only 8500 accusations), so thats a good sign Ill get some good use out of the camera~

 

thanks for the quick confirmation!

[RoySmith]

16 hours ago, sfmorris said:

@jaapv thanks so much! that's exactly what I was looking for - image wise, both essentially the same CCD-based output~

not withstanding some of the 'waste of money' sentiment here, I recently bought a used m9 and am enjoying it.

I have never owned a Leica but was intrigued by what I had read about the CCD image quality.

looking at this thread...

...it looks like mine has the newer sensor (and only 8500 accusations), so thats a good sign Ill get some good use out of the camera~

 

thanks for the quick confirmation!

Welcome to the forum.
Enjoy your M9 - it’s an amazing camera.

[Ko.Fe.]

23 hours ago, sfmorris said:

hi everyone
Just curious reading through this thread...original vs new/replacement sensor for the M9? Are they not the same?  is there some difference between the 'original' CCD sensors in the m9, and the 'newer' CCD sensors (now unavailable) that they were using for the replacement program? the initial post made it sound like there was something special about the 'original' CCD vs the ones used to replace m9s with sensor damage...

 

thanks

Samuel

Some are saying it is same. Some are saying it is not. In terms of rendering. It was expressed more times than just this thread.

[ianman]

On 4/28/2021 at 4:08 PM, sfmorris said:

hi everyone
Just curious reading through this thread...original vs new/replacement sensor for the M9? Are they not the same?  is there some difference between the 'original' CCD sensors in the m9, and the 'newer' CCD sensors (now unavailable) that they were using for the replacement program? the initial post made it sound like there was something special about the 'original' CCD vs the ones used to replace m9s with sensor damage...

It may just be my imagination but as soon as I took some test photos when my M9 came back with the new sensor I thought there was a difference. Subtle, but noticable. I posted here about it. And as much as I really liked the rendering of the original sensor, I find the output of the newer one even better.

[ianman]

On 3/30/2021 at 4:13 AM, Casey Jefferson said:

No doubt I would love to have an M9 just for the heck of the character. But paying for one that priced similarly to M240 just doesn't make sense to me

Comparing the two just doesn't make any sense to me, they are completely different cameras. Apples and oranges. If you want an apple, buy an apple. Don't get an orange just because it's cheaper.

[jdlaing]

24 minutes ago, ianman said:

Comparing the two just doesn't make any sense to me, they are completely different cameras. Apples and oranges. If you want an apple, buy an apple. Don't get an orange just because it's cheaper.

I would say two different varieties of apple. 

[Adam Bonn]

On 4/30/2021 at 2:41 PM, jdlaing said:

I would say two different varieties of apple. 

as someone who owns both an M9 and M240. This---^

But that said, the M9 does enjoy a tangible look that's not quite the same as other cameras. But a different M (to the M9) is probably as close as you can get (eg the M240/262/10 looks more like the M9 than the Fuji or the Sony etc)

The 240 is a far better VFM proposition on the secondhand market. 

Cameras doesn't just go wrong because sensor glass corrodes, and I dread too speculate just how many M9 faults can happen that Leica can't fix anymore... any type of sensor fault for sure

 

[jdlaing]

56 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

as someone who owns both an M9 and M240. This---^

But that said, the M9 does enjoy a tangible look that's not quite the same as other cameras. But a different M (to the M9) is probably as close as you can get (eg the M240/262/10 looks more like the M9 than the Fuji or the Sony etc)

The 240 is a far better VFM proposition on the secondhand market. 

Cameras doesn't just go wrong because sensor glass corrodes, and I dread too speculate just how many M9 faults can happen that Leica can't fix anymore... any type of sensor fault for sure

 

Agreed.

[Casey Jefferson]

1 hour ago, Adam Bonn said:

as someone who owns both an M9 and M240. This---^

But that said, the M9 does enjoy a tangible look that's not quite the same as other cameras. But a different M (to the M9) is probably as close as you can get (eg the M240/262/10 looks more like the M9 than the Fuji or the Sony etc)

The 240 is a far better VFM proposition on the secondhand market. 

Cameras doesn't just go wrong because sensor glass corrodes, and I dread too speculate just how many M9 faults can happen that Leica can't fix anymore... any type of sensor fault for sure

 

Finally some sensible words there. 😁

[ianman]

When I wrote apples and oranges, I did not mean what the thing looks like.🙄

I meant it's output, which I would think - wrongly it now seems - was more important to M users. All the rest, "better" this, "better" that, video, evf, "better" battery life & buffer, etc., etc., etc. is totally irrelevant in comparison to output quality (quality here having the meaning of hallmark characteristics). Do people really choose one camera over the other because it's got "better" battery life? In almost 12 years using it I've never had an issue with battery or buffer, but I still use a digital camera like a film camera and don't shoot as if it's a machine gun!

So again, IMO when choosing a camera, it's down to the taste of the user regarding the output image, not what the object looks like. CMOS and CCD are completely different sensors producing completely different images , you know, a bit like apples and oranges being two completely different fruits. Q.E.D.

[Adam Bonn]

2 hours ago, ianman said:

When I wrote apples and oranges, I did not mean what the thing looks like.🙄

Can't speak for the other posters, but when I answered I was talking about the output.

The output between the M9 and the M240 (and the M9 and the M262/10/10r) is different. No doubt.

Better or worse is subjective... 

I said that if the closest you can get to the M9 put is with a different M, ie the Mx is closer to the M9 than the Sony, Fuji etc.

I stand by that.

Below, M9 and M240. LR6. zero edits, everything default, except white balance that was taken from the white handle on the blue water drum. Also one camera had a 35 summarit, the other had a 35mm voigtlander 1.7. Taken moments apart. Same aperture and shutter speed. Base ISO.

Yes the files are different. Yes for sure M9 lovers will tell which is which 🙂 

If one perceives the look of the M9 image to be

1) unobtainable from any other platform, even with editing

2) valuable enough to exclude all other options

3) valuable enough to take a risk on a what's now an old and quite possibly unsupported camera

 

Then go for it. I doubt anyone will be disappointed (unless the sensor breaks).

 

notes on the pictures:

I don't edit photos by just clicking on a white looking point and calling it a day. I only do this to show a base comparison 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[jdlaing]

27 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

Can't speak for the other posters, but when I answered I was talking about the output.

 

 

Same here. The output is different but not drastic.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Casey Jefferson]

Both M240 and M9 render a lot closer than different and while they can be objectively different, they're subjectively very close, in outdoor or good light.

Things are more different under artificial lights, I find the M9 deal with skin tones much better, M240 often has pumped red/orange that are more magenta biased, which often difficult to correct. M9 also has this unique color shifts under certain lightings, which I won't abuse the term "filmic", but it gives more character to the images.

Fun fact - when we see photos taken by others we are not as sensitive as the person who shot the photo as he/she knew the scene so there was already an image to compare with before the photo make it to the final output. So being anal(ysis) about renderings is hugely a personal thing IMHO...

Edited May 2, 2021 by Casey Jefferson