M9 ! What do you think?

[patrick parker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me, the picture's the thing. For years, I used a Canon with a bunch of L lenses and there is a material difference in the quality of the pictures I get with my Leica M8. Do I think Leica somehow ripped everyone off by not delivering the M9 years ago? No more than I think IBM ripped everyone off by failing to deliver the powerbook in the 1960's. Technology advances and the fact that something is improved in one year doesn't mean that the older technology is some sort of rip off. Canon and Nikon and each delivered multitudes of cameras that have improved over earlier versions - have they somehow ripped users off?

 

Leica developed a camera 3 years ago that had some issues because the technology was not perfect then. They have delivered a better camera today that fixes most of those technological problems. Is it annoying to not be able to use one's I/R filters now? I don't think so, but it is a much more rational decision than CONTINUING the problems of the M8 just so one can continue to use existing I/R filters.

 

Like it or not, Leica is a business. Would it be nice if they had said 12 months ago that they were going to produce a full frame sensor. Sure, but that isn't how any business operates. A friend bought a Macbook 4 days before the new version was announced. I bought a Kindle a week before the DX was announced. That's the way business is - they are not going to kill business by making people delay purchases. With the pace of change in today's world, anytime you buy a piece of technology, you should know for a moral certainty something better will be produced shortly. It doesn't make the company evil for doing it.

 

Personally, I think Leica should be commended for the M9, not vilified for improving a very good M8.

 

My two cents.

 

Don't you think lens coding was a rip-off while they could have fixed it with a firmware ?

[sprice]

Don't you think lens coding was a rip-off while they could have fixed it with a firmware ?

 

 

I think it was a bad decision, but not one that was intended to line Leica's pockets. Wasn't most coding on old lenses done by company's other than Leica?

[egibaud]

hi9000

 

Well said. I agree.

[odyocu]

Exactly what was needed. A full frame camera that can use the Leica glass as intended.

I want to try a Summicron 35mm on it. It used to be my favorite lens in the past for film Leica's.

 

Using the uncoded lenses is a big plus. Eliminating the additional glass element in the form of a filter is another plus (as it should have been from the start).

 

We have to see the high ISO capability to comment.

 

And maybe, after waiting for a short while to see more samples, and to hear any user comments regarding unforseen problems, I'm willing to buy one.

 

Seyhun

[yanidel]

hi9000,

Sorry about your experience, but as a recent user of M system, I don't really care about what Leica did in the past, I have been satisfied up to now.

I got screwed up by Canon a few years ago that suddenly decided to upgrade its gallery service without moving the pictures in it (probably to clean up the idle galleries). I was adviced to download them one by one and re-upload them. I never forgot and never bought any Canon products again. All companies are here to be profitable businesses, that is a fact to live with.

[markgay]

Whether one gets on the upgrade treadmill is personal business. Leica or Nikon doesn't make you do it!

 

But I've spent considerably less on Leica camera bodies than, for example, my retired dad has on his Nikon habit. And he's never stretched as far as a D2x or D3.

 

... Simply because the latter has produced more frequent updates. No one makes you buy them, but I use an M8 and will buy an M9 and I've spent less on camera bodies than many digital photographers that I know!

 

Lenses? Now that's another matter.

 

Mark

[mooky]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think its been a long time coming, and since Andreas Kaufmann took over, Leica has taken huge steps to catch up with and pass up what may have been done by earlier owners.

I may buy one....but either way, the M9 looks to be an excellent camera which brings things 'up to speed' for them. I still have my R/SL system with it's great glass but I won't sell it because Leica has something else in mind instead of an R10.

 

If people posting here are not satisfied then don't use Leica - obviously it's your choice - but why sound or be so angry about it?

 

Just move on and enjoy what you like.

[henning]

There've been a lot of silly posts in this thread.

 

I've used Leicas since the early 60's and have never felt ripped off by them. My decision to purchase anything from them was based on what I could do with the equipment at the time.

 

The IIIg and Ig and it's lenses were a dead end. So what? They worked well as long as I kept them. The M4's, M5's, M4-2's etc have all been superseded and yet I still took useful pictures with them. That I was able to sell some items for more than I paid was a lucky bonus but certainly not the reason I bought them. And, they're all 'obsolete' now; more so than the M8's.

 

I've shot with M8's since they came out (actually, a few months before) and have taken thousands of photos with them. Yes, it was clear from the beginning that the IR transmittance was an issue. I got filters, I kept on taking pictures. And they still work and will keep on working. I'll get an M9 at some point, but not right now, as my M8 setup does very nicely.

 

I bought Leica items 10 years ago when it looked like Leica might fail at any moment. That was OK as I was quite sure the equipment would keep on working even if the company was gone.

 

Yes, the R system is gone, or at least in limbo. So's Canon's FD system, and even though you can physically attach a Nikon lens from the 60's to your D3, it's not like having up to date equipment, and most Nikon bodies are a lot more fussy about what lenses do what. And Contax users... or Rollei users... etc.

 

I think Leica has done things about as well as they could for the most part and considering the size of the company and their market. The only thing in the last while they could have done better is the IR thing. They should have mentioned the issues when the M8 was announce. In any case, they quickly found a reasonable solution. The 'upgrades' and M8.2 held no interest for me, because the 1/8000 is more significant than the shutter sound, the framelines are the way I like them on the M8 and I'm really not going to spend a bunch of money on sapphire glass.

 

The M9 is not ideal, but then nothing else is. The D3 is a nice camera, as is my 5DMkII. I don't want a D3 as I wouldn't use it, and the features and capabilities of the 5DII suit me better than anything Nikon offers at present. Neither is a substitute for an M, or vice versa. Giving up on M's and going to DSLR's is a paradigm shift not just a system shift.

 

The M9 is the best digital RF right now, and it's pretty good and has excellent glass. Yeah!

[danyves]

>Personally, I think Leica should be commended for the M9, not vilified for improving a very >>good M8.

 

>>My two cents.

 

Yes !