oronet commander Posted September 16, 2009 Share #161 Posted September 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) No M9: lots of money and only a year with my M8, a camera I'm still in love with... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 Hi oronet commander, Take a look here Who hasn't bought an M9 and why?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted September 16, 2009 Share #162 Posted September 16, 2009 Beacause mass production, the sizes of the companies and similar things have changed radically? the comparison is.. beyond naive. I don't think so. In the present day Zeiss, with the full backup of Sony, was not able to produce a DRF at a price that could compete with Leica. Why is it so hard to understand that a high-end digital rangefinder is such an expensive thing to build? And don't trot out the RD-1. For all its qualities - it was an APS sensor in a Bessa body. If any of us thought Voigtlander cameras are at the same level as M cameras, he wouldn't be here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted September 16, 2009 Share #163 Posted September 16, 2009 Philipp -- How well put!! Even though I could (I think!!) afford to walk into a store today and put down my payment in hard cash it would still remain an unjustifiable expense. I feel that my M6 and M7 will have to suffice. I am also nervous, I think, of the learning curve involved. Every time I become *almost* adjusted to the idea of adopting digital, I read the M8/M9 forum or check other websites and find myself thinking that digital (even an M9) involves knowing about a load of things that don't really interest me. I wish I felt differently...but I don't. Right now, I would rather not take photographs at all than take digital photographs. Maybe that will change -- but I can't spend 5K to find out. So do you develope your own negatives and wet (darkroom) print them. Or do you have a lab do all of that. If you develope and then scan negative into a digital format, edit and print them on a inkjet printer through a computer you are half way there to a digital camera, actually your scanner is the camera. The only difference is the initial capture method. Sorry to say this but yours is a very narrow point of view. Yes it is yours and you are entitled to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 16, 2009 Share #164 Posted September 16, 2009 Right now, I would rather not take photographs at all than take digital photographs. Maybe that will change -- but I can't spend 5K to find out. That's not one of my problems. Being a technophile and an IT pro, I have no problem understanding the theory of it all. I also have used an unholy number of digital cameras so far, but none at the price point of a digital M Leica. Applying the theory to the actual picture taking is quite another story, though. actually your scanner is the camera. The only difference is the initial capture method. Actually, no; not if you're after IQ (image quality). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted September 16, 2009 Share #165 Posted September 16, 2009 Sorry to say this but yours is a very narrow point of view. I think the desire to stick with a film M is reason enough to stay away from an M9. Moreover if digital is new the learning curve beyond browsing your SD card is very steep indeed. Funnily enough, it is the film workflow that seems daunting to me as a digital user. One reason I have never tried a film M. I wouldn't know what to do with a roll of film if the instructions were written on it in capitals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted September 16, 2009 Share #166 Posted September 16, 2009 I wouldn't know what to do with a roll of film if the instructions were written on it in capitals. Lesson 1: The instructions are NOT written on the film. Do NOT take the film out of the cartridge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted September 16, 2009 Share #167 Posted September 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sticking with film is a perfectly admirable quality. I wish I could have though business forced my hand in about 2006 to get a digital camera. With the advent of the M8 (and M9) as well as the Nikon D3 it's now hard to go back. I miss film at times and still shoot MF on occasion. My film scanner actually cost quite a bit more than an M9. And it's paid for itself many times over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted September 16, 2009 Share #168 Posted September 16, 2009 Film scanning & workflow: if you thought that removing a few dust bunnies from your M8 shots was tedious ... just try de-spotting a bunch of scanned negative scans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndjambrose Posted September 16, 2009 Share #169 Posted September 16, 2009 I think I'll wait a while. I decided that when I realised that for £4850 I could shoot 11, 640 frames of film (including the cost of film and outsourcing all development and scanning). That also comes with liberation from digital workflow plus the ability to replace the 'sensor' of my MP or M7 any time I like, with anything I like. I can shoot full frame and it won't break down. No need to recharge batteries, either. And if I fancy a sensor upgrade to 24 megapixels I can just rescan my choice of frames at maximum quality. (Perhaps slightly tongue in cheek, but you get my point. ) I'll check back on the M9 in six months and see if the teething problems have been resolved. Until then there's plenty of beautiful film to try, or my M8, or if I need full-frame digital then there's my D700 without ISO compromise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 16, 2009 Share #170 Posted September 16, 2009 Film scanning & workflow: if you thought that removing a few dust bunnies from your M8 shots was tedious ... just try de-spotting a bunch of scanned negative scans.Tramline scratches. Wonderfulll:mad: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted September 16, 2009 Share #171 Posted September 16, 2009 Film scanning & workflow: if you thought that removing a few dust bunnies from your M8 shots was tedious ... just try de-spotting a bunch of scanned negative scans. Funny. I scanned about 20 images yesterday, some more than 20 years old. Very little spotting. It all depends on the scanner and how well it's maintained and where and how your film was developed and then stored. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted September 17, 2009 Share #172 Posted September 17, 2009 Funny. I scanned about 20 images yesterday, some more than 20 years old. Very little spotting. It all depends on the scanner and how well it's maintained and where and how your film was developed and then stored. I wouldn't disagree with that. Definitely a case of keeping everything clean and having as dust free a workflow as possible. For absolute best results I used to wet mount 4x5's but that was no fun cleaning up. Ditto keeping film strips static free as well as clean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sungnee Posted September 18, 2009 Share #173 Posted September 18, 2009 Because there are already 30 people in front of me in the queue! Besides, I think I'll get the X1. The X1, plus D-lux 4, is sufficient Leica quality for me. I have an M7, and a whole host of lenses. So eventually, I might succumb. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 18, 2009 Share #174 Posted September 18, 2009 Beacause I'll wait till it is 3500 USD used Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted September 20, 2009 Share #175 Posted September 20, 2009 Because I don't need to impress anybody with what camera I'm carrying. My only mission is to impress people (clients and future clients) with my photography, and despite what the marketers would like us to believe, buying a new camera or lens isn't the answer. I've looked over the specs and there isn't anything new in the M9 that gives me something I feel is sorely missing on the M8. However at some point if one of my M8's brakes and they quote me more than it's worth to fix, I would probably get an M9 rather than another M8 or M8.2. Nothing wrong with the M9, it just doesn't set my heart on fire. Hopefully by then they'll have refurbished one's for a few thou less, and maybe even the new ones will drop in price once the gotta-have-it's all have theirs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted September 20, 2009 Share #176 Posted September 20, 2009 Frank, Leica's level of support for the M8 is exactly the same as prior to the announcement of the M9. I don't follow the argument that Leica has somehow done a dis-service to current camera owners by continuing to develop new models, but to address a couple of your specific points: .....................Many people will buy a Rolex, a rare classic car, high end HiFi and probably many other items with a belief thtat the company is going to provide the level of support (service, firmware upgrades, and brand continuation) that will protect the initial high cost purchase ...at least to some extent............. No reason to assume that service for the M8 is not now available Stefan Daniel has already said that firmware upgrades will continue. It would be unreasonable to expect an instant appearance of new M8 firmware upgrades at the same moment of the introduction of three new models, two of them obviously still in ongoing development of their systems. You cannot simply transplant the features from the M9 Brand continuation is obvious. Actually I would hope that Leica's continued development of new products puts them in a better position to thrive in the market place. .........Frankly I personally tend to buy very expensive items with well known names, but I expect my cost of ownership of these same items to have something more than zero after a few years of careful usage...... Pretty clearly the value of your M8 is still 'something more than zero' now. Further your Leica lenses now have another vehicle too. ....I also am not in the mode of buying a M8 at £3k and then see it as a £2K item a few months later. I would expect that from Japanese consumer products but not Leica. I would not justify such a loss by saying that the M8 can still take great photos............ Your M8 can still take great photos. Whatever price you paid you have incurred no loss unless you decided to sell your M8. It would be normal market forces at work to expect a dip in realised sale prices immediately following the introduction of a new model. That is no supportable argument against the introduction of a new model and of course used values for all digital cameras drop quickly. .....Anyhow that is my opinion . I think Leica have done a great job with M9 and they have probably protected their business for the medium term. I still value and enjoy my M8. I think we all still value and enjoy our M8's, and really that is the important fact. The rest, in my view is continuing to critique Leica's business strategy and decisions Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalina Posted September 20, 2009 Share #177 Posted September 20, 2009 I think by the time I can afford an M9 (in about a year when all my bills are paid off), there will be an M9.2 and I'll just get that. I'm intrigued by the new sensor and higher resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted September 20, 2009 Share #178 Posted September 20, 2009 I think by the time I can afford an M9 (in about a year when all my bills are paid off), there will be an M9.2 and I'll just get that. I'm intrigued by the new sensor and higher resolution. I wish people would stop saying higher resolution. The M9 has no higher resolution then the M8 for the same sq area of the sensor. The M8 has 21223.xxxxx pixels per sq mm and the M9 has 21732.xxxx pixels per sq mm. That is just over 500 pixels per sq mm the M9 has over the M8 and that is if all the numbers Leica has supplied are correct. Not much when you think about it. So the M9 does not a higher resolution sensor. It does have a bigger sensor and can capture a wider and taller image then the M8 for any given lens focal length. I'm not trying to down play the M9 or up play the M8. But these are just the facts. If I had $7000 of truly disposable cash I would be in line for a M9. But even then I'd keep my M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 20, 2009 Share #179 Posted September 20, 2009 I wish people would stop saying higher resolution. The M9 has no higher resolution then the M8 for the same sq area of the sensor.The M8 has 21223.xxxxx pixels per sq mm and the M9 has 21732.xxxx pixels per sq mm. That is just over 500 pixels per sq mm the M9 has over the M8 and that is if all the numbers Leica has supplied are correct. Not much when you think about it. So the M9 does not a higher resolution sensor. It does have a bigger sensor and can capture a wider and taller image then the M8 for any given lens focal length. I'm not trying to down play the M9 or up play the M8. But these are just the facts. If I had $7000 of truly disposable cash I would be in line for a M9. But even then I'd keep my M8. The end image has higher resolution. End of discussion. You keep trying to play a numbers game, that just is not true. if I photograph a face, from top of the head to the chin, with a m8, i will end up with less megapixels than if I did the exact same thing with a m9. That is the real life fact of the situation. The M9 has a higher resolving sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted September 20, 2009 Share #180 Posted September 20, 2009 The end image has higher resolution. End of discussion. You keep trying to play a numbers game, that just is not true. if I photograph a face, from top of the head to the chin, with a m8, i will end up with less megapixels than if I did the exact same thing with a m9. That is the real life fact of the situation. The M9 has a higher resolving sensor. Think what you like but you haven't seen the other knowledgeable people on this forum disagree with me. I know you have to justify your $7000. Ok fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.