Any Regrets with M9?

[EdwardKaraa]

+2

I also was considering the M as well, and if it was available today, my choice would have been tougher, but it won't be available until April next year, and there will be a long waiting list.

I really regret not having bought the M9 earlier, thinking about all the wasted money I spent trying other options, from 3 film RF bodies, to GXR, and accessories.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by FrozenInTime

Wish I had bought one a year sooner rather than trying to save money with EVIL alternatives. But that journey convinced me that there is no substitute for the real thing.

There is no substitute for the real thing, but I never went to "EVIL" to save money. My Panny G1 made many many great photos for me, and the GXR still does.

The GXR is a shockingly versatile camera producing great quality for a reasonable price, and it lets me use with it all my M-bayonet and Nikkor lenses. The M9 and new M are a different format and working methodology. Both have their place.

[shadowgun]

Originally Posted by Fraser

Why so?

1. It costed a mint
2. Value retention is cr@p
3. Sensor performance is on par with any sub $2000 digital cameras
4. I enjoy the film Leicas much more
5. Long term support for such a piece of gear is questionable

In summary, no difference to any other digital camera - except for the cost, hype, and followership justifying either its existence or their purchase.

[Monochrom]

Hi, it´s ok aorund here...hte m9 a superb camera in deed...try to get one...hopigh e it had a better high ISO, but with a fast lesn you won´t need it that much...

Bye!

[FrozenInTime]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

The GXR is a shockingly versatile camera producing great quality for a reasonable price, and it lets me use with it all my M-bayonet and Nikkor lenses. The M9 and new M are a different format and working methodology. Both have their place.

Totally agree - it took me time and money to get to that conclusion.
In hindsight I should not have bought the GXR, but as I have it I continue to use it - just not in the role I envisaged.

[Phil_F_NM]

I owned an M8 for about 20 months. I owned an M9 for 19 months. There was about a 10 month overlap where I owned both cameras but seldom were they in my hands at the same time due to being out at Leica NJ for maintenance.

My M8 had to go out 3 times for service. Twice for warranty service and once for an out of warranty rangefinder adjustment that they billed me over $600 for. I sold that camera just to pay for the repair.

My M9 spent about half the time I owned it at Leica for warranty service. Hot pixels, shutter and sensor faults were repaired under warranty. In the end I came to a point where it was financially much better for me to sell the M9 and all my Leica gear along with it simply because the digital cameras had proven themselves too unreliable for day to day use and out of warranty repair of the M9 was out of the question since I had experienced how much it was with the M8.

Add the lack of reliability to the less then stellar service that I had received from Leica and you have the reasons why I wouldn't recommend a digital Leica body. I'm shooting a Nikon D2x now and have no doubts as to its reliability from prior combat photo experience I had with a D2h. Leica won't be receiving any more of my money or positive endorsement in spite of the M8 and M9 being stellar image makers. If you keep them as shelf queens or own some Leica stock, have spent a LOT of money on Leica gear and make yourself known at shareholder meetings, you'll have a better experience than I.
As your garden variety broke working photographer, I have to have gear that works, period.

Phil Forrest

[goodtimes]

I'm taking the opportunity of this thread to ask a straight question:

I have an M8-2 and the shutter is really quiet and smouth compared to the M8. Is the M9 shutter of the same quality as the M8-2 shutter ?

[tstermitz]

Honestly, I couldn't justify building an M9 kit at retail price. The Nikon D600 and some Zeiss lenses would give you 90% of the Leica quality at a third the price. (In a slightly heavier package.)

That said, I really enjoy my M9, but only because I picked up my system up at a deep discount, basically getting a bunch of lenses for free, or conversely getting an M9 thrown in for free with a bunch of lenses.

Digital rot affects ALL cameras, especially Leica because the bodies start at such a high price. You need to be able to financially tolerate the depreciation in the camera body. If so, the benefit of Leica is in the superlative lenses which create really great images in a super-light package, and aren't subject to depreciation.

In other words, the value is in the lenses; be realistic about the body depreciation.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by goodtimes

I'm taking the opportunity of this thread to ask a straight question:

I have an M8-2 and the shutter is really quiet and smouth compared to the M8. Is the M9 shutter of the same quality as the M8-2 shutter ?

The difference is that the M8.2 shutter runs slower and gentler than the original M8 one, resulting in a 1/4000 top shutter speed instead of 1/8000, and a slower flash synch speed. There is just less-vigorous movement going on inside, which should be easier on the mechanisms too. The M9 shutter is different but similar in effect to the one in the M8.2.

FWIW, I have an original M8, and an M8 with M8.2 shutter and viewfinder frames, and an M9...

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Hosermage

+1

I could have gotten the M9 much sooner if I didn't spend time and money trying to avoid it by investing in other cameras/lenses. Glad I finally did get my M9.

That was before though... while M9 is still a good camera and I wouldn't upgrade to the new M, if I was going buy into the M-system today, I'd think long and hard about the new M.

This is a song I've been singing for years. Don't buy "what you can afford", because that eats into the money you could have saved for what you really want, and for what does the job properly instead of in a half-arsed fashion.

Cheers,

R.

[Geordiepete]

I bought an M8, then an M9 because I was really into the film Ms I was using. The advantage you'd have with the M9 over the M7 is that you'd get instant feedback, but seeing as you never really took to the M7, there is a high chance you won't get into the M9. I really recommend you hire an M9 and lens for a day.

[Richard G]

This is Mike Johston on his site The Online Photographer, accepting the rebuke from someone rejecting Mike's advice to buy a full frame camera and two fast primes at the outset. It is hilarious, deeply insightful and very apposite to the M9 experience expressed by a number of members here. If I hadn't bought the M9 it would have been an X-Pro 1 and three lenses and the the lenses to come etc. The M9 will stop me buying more cameras, and more lenses. Well, not so many more lenses. Just one this year, not counting the one I just ordered, both second hand.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...to-george.html

[seakayaker1]

No regrets buying the M9, actually bought it used approximately 18 months ago. No plans to sell it in the near future either because of the resale or trade in value being through the floor at the present time. Not that excited about the new Leica M (10) or ME announced but that may change once they are on the market.

If I could get another Leica M digital right now it would be the Monochrome. The price is prohibitive for the moment unless I would want to sell off a lot of gear and I am not ready to do that.

. . . . . I would not mind another M9 or M9P for a backup and that may become possible with the price reductions that have been occuring lately.

Time and patience, time and patience, ya, that's it, time and patience . . . . .

[Fraser]

Originally Posted by shadowgun

1. It costed a mint
2. Value retention is cr@p
3. Sensor performance is on par with any sub $2000 digital cameras
4. I enjoy the film Leicas much more
5. Long term support for such a piece of gear is questionable

1. Its a leica what did you expect the cost is not exactly hidden from the customer.
2. I think my M9 has kept its value quite well, it cost me £4700 new secondhand they are still selling £3500-£3900, an M8 in nice condition from a dealer will still cost £1600-£1800. When I bought my first Canon 1d it was £4000 sold it five years later for £250!
3. Not in my opinion a lot of cmos sensors are better at high ISO but no where near as sharp.
4. fair enough but thats what you like I prefer shooting digital Leicas.
5. I found every time I email Leica they are very fast to answer, they replaced my M8 sensor for free even though I was the second owner do you think Canon or Nikon would do that?

[CaptZoom]

Before purchasing the M9 three years ago, I went through a Leica Digilux-3 (at the time there wasn't much quality glass available), to a Canon 40D (the viewfinder is crap), to a Canon 5Dmk2. Stuck with the 5D for a while but it never clicked with me. Than the M9 came out with full frame sensor and simple straight forward controls. I purchased it and the moment I handled it I knew I was going to liquidate my Canon gear. All of it!
I have no regrets what so ever about the M9. The things fits as if it belongs in my hands and the style of shooting comes naturally to me. I should also mention, I suck at autofocus! At least half of my shots with autofocus cameras were not in focus, where as with the M9 they almost always are in focus. I'm just not equipped to handle modern cameras! All of this being said, as soon as the Leica M Monochrom is widely available, I will sell the M9 and purchase the Monochrom. Almost all my photography is in bw, so it's a naturalize for me and will save me time in post processing.
My point is that from the moment I handled the M9, I knew it was the camera for me. The ergonomics are just about perfect (the ISO could be placed in a more accessible position but that's nitpicking). You on twitcher hand have tried an M and it didn't work for you. Please be honest with yourself, and make sure your only dislike was e lack of immediate feedback. I highly recommend you rent an M9 and a lens before you make your purchase. LensRental does rent Leica gear.

[gilpen123]

Have you considered an RD1?

[Richard G]

Maybe full frame is becoming irrelevant in some perceptions of photogrpahy, but where it is deemed necessary, what are the options as you get older and have neck ache and shoulder problems? I have seen online and have met in person a number of pros who have switched from DSLRs and heavy zooms and other lenses to the M9 because of the size and compactness of lenses and the overall kit. This is a serious practical consideration. And that's initially non-rangefinder photographers. The M9 is not just some expedient for cranky die-hards to use their mouldy lenses: it was a game changer. Why wouldn't I be happy with it? A month before it was announced it was an online dream, an idea that defied physics. The M9 will endure. The new camera will be something a little different.

[Benjamin Marks]

I love mine. I use it, an XP-1 and a D3 for most of my stuff these days, although I also have a NEX-5 and a Oly EP-2. I agree that its price poses an interesting problem with such short product cycles and (unfortunately) demolishes one of Leica's main selling points in the film days. This argument went, "we are twice as expensive as the other guys, but our cameras last ten times as long, we support our cameras for decades, and our warranties are the best in the business so it is a good deal." Well, Leica's suppliers are now part of a digital supply chain, Leica is subject to the vagaries of that supply chain and you can't use that argument any more. Examples: lack of M8 replacement viewing screens and the evaporation of Kodak, their M8/M9 chip manufacturer.

That said, I enjoy using the M9 every time I haul it out and after the initial sticker shock, have never thought about its cost again.

BTW, I am currently using it on two projects: documentation/promotion of a local cheese-making operation and printing pix of a day sailing on a friends boat. The files are just awesome.

[Richard G]

The D4 is barely any cheaper than the new M will be.

[I Love Film]

I really like mine.

The M9 handles like a "real" Leica M, produces excellent image files, and my particular sample has never had any mechanical problems.

But the real reason I like the M9 is that it allows me to use my huge lens collection the way they were intended to be used, on a digital full frame with no cropping.

I don't claim any special superiority of certain lenses, but I enjoy using them. Right now I've been mostly shooting with the LTM version of the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 from the 1950's, which produces beautiful photographs on the M9.

I don't believe there is anything "magical" about the Leica system which will suddenly help me make wonderful photographs, and I think the rangefinder system is antiquated and somewhat difficult to use. (now somewhat remedied by the new digital "M").

But I like old lenses, and I like the M9. No other reason is needed.

[Araakii]

I didn't like the M9 but I also didn't regret getting it. You have to try something before you know you like it or not, and it doesn't make sense to regret about everything that you bought and didn't like.

[lencap]

While I appreciate the comments about the M9, my original post, I would prefer that comments relating to anything that creates disharmony among us be curtailed.

I'm relatively new to this forum, but one of the attractions is an environment conducive to open discussion, mutual learning and respect. I'd prefer to see it remain that way.

Returning to the topic of the M9 - I was able to "play" with one this weekend. I'm very impressed and the owner helped me better understand what I was doing wrong when framing with the M7. Turns out that my glasses contributed to part of the earlier problem, which is much less of a problem on the M9. I did find, however, that the frame lines on the M9 seem to be set for subjects closer to the camera than the frame lines on the M7. I'm sure I can adjust, but it did appear to be a noticeable difference to me.

Thanks again to all for the help - I'm now seriously interested in the M9, and without this forum I would not have been able to understand some aspects of both the M7 and M9, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of rangefinder cameras versus SLRs.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by FrozenInTime

Totally agree - it took me time and money to get to that conclusion.
In hindsight I should not have bought the GXR, but as I have it I continue to use it - just not in the role I envisaged.

Of late, the GXR has become my most used copy/macro camera as well as what I pick when I want a fast snapshot streetshooter ... fitted with 28mm lens and optical finder. It does really well at both of these things.

I'm using the M9 more for street work now, though, as I find I'm heading more into "most wide open" shooting again and it's very fast and easy to focus. It all goes in cycles. :-)

[crispy12]

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Of late, the GXR has become my most used copy/macro camera as well as what I pick when I want a fast snapshot streetshooter ... fitted with 28mm lens and optical finder. It does really well at both of these things.

I'm using the M9 more for street work now, though, as I find I'm heading more into "most wide open" shooting again and it's very fast and easy to focus. It all goes in cycles. :-)

Do you use the Ricoh 28mm or an M mount? I was looking at NEX over GXR solely because of the close focus helicoid adapters available to NEX cameras.

[Binggy]

Originally Posted by lencap

I am about to purchase a new M9 and new Summicron-M 50mm F/2.0 lens. This is a very considerable expense for me, and I'm not unaware of Fuji "alternatives" including the current X-Pro1 and the upcoming X-E1.


My desire to buy a Leica is based on many intangible things - pride of ownership, quality construction and materials, and all of the things that make Leica what it is. I also admit that I'm somewhat impacted by advertising and the "exclusivity" of Leica, although it is not driving my decision.

Here's my 2 cents worth.

I own the Nikon D3s, Fuji X100 (which I prefer over the X-Pro1) and Olympus OM-D. It took a while before finally deciding to get an M9.

If we'll go by the reasons you stated for buying an M9, you'll be very happy with the purchase! Pride of ownership -- most definitely so! Quality construction and materials -- again, most definitely so!

Now let's go to the pictures.

When I went out to buy the M9, I brought the OMD and attached my favorite lens on it which is the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95. I took pictures of the pretty saleslady using the OMD combo and the M9+50mm 1.4 Summilux M asph, aiming for identical settings and poses. I couldn't believe my eyes when we viewed the jpeg pictures on a mac. Some of the OMD pictures were even better. I mean, what the heck?

My heart pushed me to still make the purchase and took the M9 for a spin the rest of the day. When I got home, I loaded the RAW versions and I was blown away ... or at least very pleasantly surprised with the output from the M9. The M9 was meant to be used to shoot in RAW and when used right, pictures from it are the best that i've taken versus my other camera gear.

Now regarding your question as to buyer's remorse:

With the proper lenses, the M9 is fantastic for street and portrait photography and you won't regret it one bit. If you also want to shoot it for macro or tele (longer than 90mm) then you'll regret buying it