stunsworth Posted September 6, 2009 Share #321 Posted September 6, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) If I recall, when the M8 came out, Leica offered free coding on two lenses, and eventually two IR/UV filters. I think the free lens codings were for people who bought before a certain date - or maybe people who'd had problems, I'm sure there are many here who can remember the detail better than I can. The two free filters came about because Leica hadn't said that filters would be necessary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Hi stunsworth, Take a look here M9 full specs and pictures are out. Let's discuss.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
egibaud Posted September 6, 2009 Share #322 Posted September 6, 2009 I think the free lens codings were for people who bought before a certain date - or maybe people who'd had problems, I'm sure there are many here who can remember the detail better than I can. The two free filters came about because Leica hadn't said that filters would be necessary. Yes free coding and lense rebate were for people who bought before december 31st 2006... I think. 2 Free filters was for ever :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 6, 2009 Share #323 Posted September 6, 2009 Free coding for a couple of lenses makes sense - I'm also sure Leica will remove the IR filters from ALL your lenses for free if you buy an M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrice Posted September 6, 2009 Share #324 Posted September 6, 2009 Anyone want to buy a 5D Mark II and a stack of R glass? I think my M6 is going to have a younger brother very soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted September 6, 2009 Share #325 Posted September 6, 2009 It will be interesting to see if Leica will offer some incentives to purchase. If I recall, when the M8 came out, Leica offered free coding on two lenses, and eventually two IR/UV filters. As an owner of five uncoded lenses, an offer of free coding for at least two lenses would encourage me to buy an M9 sooner. Of course, when the M8 came out, no lens that was already in someone's gear bag was coded, so Leica really had to offer the free coding. Now, most M8 owners who are upgrading will have coded lenses, but there must be plenty of film shooters who will make the transition to the M9. plenty of film shooters still around? i'd be surprised. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted September 6, 2009 Share #326 Posted September 6, 2009 Carsten - a reminder. Prices in the US do not include a VAT. I repeat, because it is always forgotten: Prices in the US do not include a VAT. Right now, today: M8.2 at Meister Camera - Berlin - €4995 = (by your calculations, $7,148) M8.2 at B&H - NY = actual price $5,995 (plus sales tax calculated separately, and not charged on mail orders to most states outside NY) M9 costs €505 more than M8.2 (we suspect) €505 = $723 $5,995 + $723 = $6,718 True enough, but there are hidden costs of selling in the States, such as shipping, costs of putting the M9 through the various federal approvals, and last but not least: Leica New Jersey. The States is one of the few countries in the world where Leica has a separate presence. I still guess a $6999 price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted September 6, 2009 Share #327 Posted September 6, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes free coding and lense rebate were for people who bought before december 31st 2006... I think.2 Free filters was for ever :-) Wasn't free coding only for the States? I never got that, but did get the two free IR filters, and the lens rebate offer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 6, 2009 Share #328 Posted September 6, 2009 I think the free coding was if you paid a 100% deposit when you placed your order - and it was before the end of December. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted September 6, 2009 Share #329 Posted September 6, 2009 What is $6500? The only known price is €5500, which translates to about $7850. You will probably get a little lower than that, but not much. Ok, that's even worse. The figure of $6500 has been tossed around a few times, so that's what I was using as a starting point. We'll know more on the 9th... Not at all. I have looked at this camera again and again and each time I have concluded that the Nikon lens system does not offer what I want, by far. A few good zooms, a couple of good lenses, and a whole slew of mediocre stuff. Given this fact, the camera can be as good as it wants, it can never approach what I can do with an M8 or M9, in real-life terms. For someone else, this might be different. Yes, but you are describing 'preference'. I'm talking about cold hard facts, without taking in to account what we all on this list prefer (a Leica). Side by side the D3x is the more versatile camera. If you could only afford to put that kind of money out for one or the other and putting bread on the table depended on how many varied jobs you could handle, the Nikon would be the better choice (and cheaper). We all want the M9, but in the big picture it is a specialized tool. It's lousy at macro and tele work. You're not going to shoot a football game or NASCAR race with an M9, unless it's behind the scenes shots. See what I'm getting at? If you are a working photographer $6000-7500 dollars is a lot of money for something that isn't a swiss army knife and can do any job that will put a paycheck in your account. So, your heart says 'I want the M9' and your brain says 'yes I know, but we have to shoot the Tour de France next week so we can eat.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted September 6, 2009 Share #330 Posted September 6, 2009 I got my camera on Nov. 6th, and I didn't get the offer... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted September 6, 2009 Share #331 Posted September 6, 2009 Depends on your standards. Some of us used to own Canon, and abandoned it. Both of those lenses have *significant* amounts of CA, especially wide open. And of course, the Canon sensors have AA filters, so you need to mentally deduct some resolution to get things sharp again. We all have our opinions, I have mine plus experience and results. For some odd reason, what you are saying bares little resemblance to what I see in real life. And for what it is worth, I went back to Nikon after the D3 came out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 6, 2009 Share #332 Posted September 6, 2009 " The States is one of the few countries in the world where Leica has a separate presence."...and generally Leica USA sets their own prices as they see the US market, which is often cheaper than Europe, even discounting the VAT difference. We are, after all, an uncouth and money-grubbing country who always has an eye out for the main chance Leica discounts a bit for us and makes it up off of the European and Asian markets. As you yourself noted, we got free lens coding over here for any camera registered for warranty before Dec. 31, 2006 $6,695 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted September 6, 2009 Share #333 Posted September 6, 2009 third, yes I understand what you mean, and fully agree, but my point was that there are very few world-beating Nikon lenses. The 14-24, 24-70, perhaps the new 70-200, the 200/2, and one or two others. The rest are also-rans, nothing to get anyone excited. The same with Canon, although there are a few more primes. If you really need a DSLR, then I guess you have to get one of those, but really, the M9 system is top-notch all the way through, even if it can't do certain things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted September 6, 2009 Share #334 Posted September 6, 2009 plenty of film shooters still around? i'd be surprised.peter Try getting away from the internet more often, it does wonders for one's take on reality... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted September 6, 2009 Share #335 Posted September 6, 2009 I'm sorry, but no SLR can substitute for a rangefinder, and no rangefinder can substitute for an SLR - except among the lowest common denominator of photographers who can't tell the difference. That's very cute ,Andy. I know the difference very, very well and I will gladly put my photographs up to prove that. ELAN FOTOS Now, tell me which of these lowest common denominator shots were taken with an M body and which were taken with an old Nikon F. As Charles Harbutt once said: "Rangefinder photographers see the world sharp; SLR photographers see the world at f/1.4". As Bill Pierce once said: "Looking into an SLR is like watching a slide show in a dark room; looking through a rangefinder is like looking through a window." As David Alan Harvey once said: "Shooting with a rangefinder is as different from an SLR as shooting with an SLR is different from a 4x5." As I once said: "SLR photography is about composing in space - rangefinder photography is about composing in time." Canon 5Dii - 810g without battery Nikon D700 - 995g without battery Sony A850 - 895g without battery Leica M9 - 585g WITH battery If Nikon, Canon or Sony produce a manual-focus digital rangefinder (and I am sure they are competent to do so - at a price), we'll have alternatives to compare to the Leica M. Until then, they are irrelevant. That's all very romantic and makes for a nice marketing slogan. All of the people you mentioned would produce the same high quality work, regardless if they were shooting an SLR or RF. All of the people you mentioned, except perhaps for your humble self, happen to shoot a mix of SLR and RF cameras. Harvey shoots RF and a Canon 5D. Do you see a difference in his work? Can you tell what shots he made with what type camera? I doubt it. Eugene Smith shot with anything that held film and could manage to make a picture. All of his work is consistent is it's style. If you got talent making good pictures has nothing to do with what type of camera you are using. Your work will come out looking the same, because that is how you see the world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted September 6, 2009 Share #336 Posted September 6, 2009 the M9 system is top-notch all the way through, even if it can't do certain things. Cool, I am stoked you know all of this. How is the high ISO looking? How is the artifact / blooming problem that the M8 had in high contrast situations looking? Start up time, etc. So cool we finally have someone who already knows how good the M9 is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted September 6, 2009 Share #337 Posted September 6, 2009 I meant the system, not the camera, take a cold shower. The M9 itself obviously has to prove itself, but if it is even as good as an M8, it is enough. The M8 still gives better images than almost all other cameras, within its limitations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted September 6, 2009 Share #338 Posted September 6, 2009 You can't think of this in broad terms and feel that it speaks for every demographic. Up until the great crash of 08, my income as a photographer was excellent to outstanding, growing an average of 20% per year. So had I not built an immense...and I do mean immense system of around 4 different formats of cameras and lenses for my future in photography, fine art film work, I would not be able to mix, match and move around my equipment like I can now and even consider the M9. I'm glad to hear business was very good for you, but it sounds like your performance was above the average for the business... Most shooters are not raking in huge amounts of cash, especially not those in the news business... By the way, good luck with the Kodachrome project. I got my 10 rolls in the fridge and plan on shooting some before it's too late... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted September 6, 2009 Share #339 Posted September 6, 2009 I meant the system, not the camera, take a cold shower. The M9 itself obviously has to prove itself, but if it is even as good as an M8, it is enough. The M8 still gives better images than almost all other cameras, within its limitations. Oh good god, I can't believe we are even bothering to discuss this stuff in a thread that is about the merits of the M9, which I am 90% positive I am getting. What you say is your opinion, it is not all fact, you have to get over it. There is NO way in my professional line of work that I would ever give up my SLR systems and that is no slam on Leica. I'm sorry, but you have to approach this with a more open / pragmatic sense of scope, there are a lot of photographers making great images in the world with all kinds of gear. Equipment selection matters to a point and then it still takes a far back seat to talent and vision. I think the M9 is going to be great but I don't think it will be better than what I can get done with my Nikon system in those specific applications. By the way, what genre of photography do you earn your living with? That might help clarify my confusion with your statements. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted September 6, 2009 Share #340 Posted September 6, 2009 third, yes I understand what you mean, and fully agree, but my point was that there are very few world-beating Nikon lenses. The 14-24, 24-70, perhaps the new 70-200, the 200/2, and one or two others. The rest are also-rans, nothing to get anyone excited. The same with Canon, although there are a few more primes. If you really need a DSLR, then I guess you have to get one of those, but really, the M9 system is top-notch all the way through, even if it can't do certain things. I agree, there is no doubt that across the board Leica glass smokes both Canon and Nikon. I used to shoot Canon and even had the 1.4/35L. It was a nice lens and miles better than the Nikon, but it wasn't quite as good as the 35 Lux ASPH. A few years ago I dumped the Canon system and went Nikon, because I prefer their ergonomics. I mainly shoot vintage Nikkors, because I like the look they deliver in black and white, but when I needed modern glass I skipped Nikon and went for the Zeiss ZF lenses. The Zeiss glass is a huge improvement on almost all Nikkors, but frankly it's also no match for R or M glass either... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.