Why are you still using a m9?

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My first m was the m8, which I sold when I bought a mm. The mm was great, but its buffer was too slow for me (sometimes, when photographing parts of the human body, I make a sequence with in/out of focus and the mm couldn’t catch up). Nowadays I have a m10m.

Next to the m, I have a SL system, which is more my “working” system, where the m is for daily life. One easily takes a m every where.

Sometimes, I would like some colour though. Tried the 240, but didn’t like its files. Loved the colours from the m8 though as well as from the sl2s.

So, I am considering a colour m. As I want ff, I could set for a m9 or m10(r), the latter being 2/3 times more expensive.

Why are you still using the m9?

[Ray Vonn]

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/328895-leica-m9-—-your-next-camera/#comment-4364766

I drafted a response but couldn't put it any beter than this.

Edited August 17, 2024 by Ray Vonn

[Topsy]

Because I love them.

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!

[Topsy]

And I like the colours they produce, this one was shot (on a M9P not in the above photo) with 35mm Summicron ISO 160 AWB Thorsten Overguard's M9 profile added as a Lightroom preset that I have slightly modfied.

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 August 17, 2024 by Topsy
typo

[Olaf_ZG]

I just went through the m9 image thread. Images which stood out, to me, were from a former member, now guest, with rather raw close ups in israel and hk. All b/w. 

So, I guess I should stay with b/w, with the monochrom I have already…

[costa43]

In my opinion, the m8/m9 are the bodies that fit the Leica ethos the best. Albeit mainly by a lack of tech at the time. If you are familiar with the m8 then you know what to expect with the m9. In good light, nothing beats the ccd files for me till this day. You just have to work within their rather limited capabilities. Saying that, if you want a far more rounded tool then the m10 gen is the one for me. 
 

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sometimes you have simply got to ignore the technology and enjoy the camera. I still use my M9s; an M9 is my everyday camera. The question I ask is: "Would I enjoy using a newer camera any more than I enjoy using my M9?". And the answer is "No.". So I use my M9 because I like doing so. It delevers what I want. Is there any better reason?

[And before anyone asks, yes, there are more modern cameras with more MPixels and capable of yielding technically 'better' image files. I have a few. But they are tools to supply results when my M9 is unsuitable, and they get used but my M9 remains my daily carry.]

[jaapv]

Because - it is a d*mn good camera and I like it...

[Topsy]

2 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Leica *almost* got it right with M9.... but history books will teach us they finally got it right with M10. Just like Ripley clones in Alien: Resurrection.

For me they will never get it 100% right they have moved too far away from what I like about Ms. I think 100% right (for me) would be M10P but with the dayilght lit framelines (& window obviously) with a wind on lever that actually cocked the shutter (like the Epson RD). Live view isn't necessary for me but it could be handy, weather sealing (and for lenses) would also be nice plus knowing that it would be repairable/replaceable many years into the future. Like I said never going to happen so I am happy to stick with my M9s. When the day inevitably comes that my M9s die and are not repairable/replaceable then M10P is the only way forward for me with Leica.

[jaapv]

I find the wind-on lever utter kitsch…As is the ISO knob. 

[pgk]

       

11 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Happiness = reality - expectations.

But what exactly are 'expectations'? In reality many digital cameras of ~12MPixels and above probably meet 99% of requirements for most (but obviously not all) photographers. My least used digital camera has the highest MPixels. My personal expectations effectively cease in the mid 20MPixel range and I can't honestly remember needing more. As for the M9, its a great camera and whilst it works I see no real need to change it. I agree with Topsy in that much of the 'advances' since the M9 are irrelevant if not counter productive as far as I am concerned, and the latest innteration, the M11, is actually heavily overspecified and its ethos no longer matches that of an M rangefinder. Leica really need to get back to basics rather than market an overspecified camera.

[mokona]

I used to own a M9, then upgraded it to a MP-240 after the sensor got corroded. I still had the nostalgia of the M9 rendering so a couple of years ago I found a good offer on a ME-220.

Files and colours are lovely but I didn't use it that much. Somehow I got a SL2-s which won me over and I sold the ME.

For a bit of CCD magic, I take out my old Hasselblad H3D-22.

[Viv]

My first Leica camera was an M9, bought new.

In my opinion, it was inferior to the Zeiss Ikon film rangefinder, notably with regard to exposure consistency and the quality of the viewfinder.

[jaapv]

Yet Zeiss IKON died through lack of sales and Zeiss never managed to produce a competitive digital version. Not that Zeiss ever matched the popularity of Leica. Lore has it that Zeiss conceded defeat when the M3 was introduced. 

[jaapv]

17 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Leica *almost* got it right with M9.... but history books will teach us they finally got it right with M10. Just like Ripley clones in Alien: Resurrection.

I prefer the larger camera. For the rest the M10 is  a fine camera as well but not enough to justify the cost of replacing the M9 should the need arrive. I’d buy another M9. 

[pgk]

54 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Very much disagree. CMOS for one is a global camera sensor standard, much much much more productive than CCD to name but one advance.

CMOS might well be the current system but at low ISO the M9 files are pretty resilient. Actually I find them more viable than files from CMOS cameras and noise  has a more analogue feel to it  when editing. Standards may well reflect other factors than output (cost for example).

[jaapv]

Certainly and the possibility of video and EVF. Natively a CCD has less noise than a CMOS but the per-pixel circuitry on the sensor itself allows better equalizing of the output resulting in a less noisy end result of the CMOS sensor. 

[TL3]

I just bought an M9 so that's my reason for using it.  It's my first digital M, pretty excited to learn to use it, plan to use it mainly as a daily.  The rangefinder had some vertical drift, so I didn't have to pay too much of a markup compared to the prices of used M240.

[Tessar.]

I don't use my ME 220 as often as I use my MP 240 but when I do the light weight is like a breath of fresh air and the results are always great.  It's my backup camera and I have been thinking of selling it to fund a 24mm Elmar, but whenever I do use it (like today) I always change my mind.

I do love the grey paint over brass look too..

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mujk]

The M10 is my primary rangefinder camera, but I still occasionally go back to shoot with the the M9, which I otherwise use as a backup. The M10 has much better high ISO performance and is also otherwise a technically better camera, so why do I go back to the M9? One reason is probably that, after 14 years and 20k+ images, it can still sometimes amaze me with an image of extraordinary quality. I can't really pinpoint what is is, but it doesn't really happen with the M10, which is more like a stable and predictable performer.