M9 vs D700

kshapero · 11-08-2009

Two great cameras, but almost $4500 difference.

Can you justify the M9?

kipkeston · 11-08-2009

Nope but maybe later.

Roger Hicks · 11-08-2009

Can you justify buying a camera you don't really want anything like as much, just because it's cheaper?

A camera that's completely different in design philosophy, handling, weight and complexity?

Not a hard choice -- if you want the M9 badly enough.

Cheers,

R.

swoop · 11-08-2009

For the size, photographic style, lenses it uses and quality of images. I say yes.

I thought about switching. to either a Canon or Nikon system. While it would be more cash savvy. It really wouldn't be worth the hassle.

kshapero · 11-08-2009

I am about halfway there in saving up for the M9.

Roger Hicks · 11-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by kshapero

I am about halfway there in saving up for the M9.

And if you don't waste your money on a D700, you'll get there...

Cheers,

R.

dfoo · 11-08-2009

Apple vs. Oranges. Both are fruit. That's about the only similarity. Same with D700 & M9.

Pablito · 11-08-2009

No, the price is obscene, vulgar.

David_Manning · 11-08-2009

D700 is brilliant...but it's a different shooting style. My own opinion is that for digital cameras, it really can't be beat, especially factoring in the entry price. It's SO much faster to shoot well, and much more flexible, than an RF camera.

On the other hand, I love my M6 because it's so compact but has FF depth of field.

I'm not sure I could live with either one exclusively. For me, the D700 for speed and existing light, a film M for RF-style slow, methodical, surreptitious, thoughtful storytelling.

But at the M9's price point, I couldn't justify it...it would have to be much more camera.

My .02

Paddy C · 11-08-2009

I believe that no matter what might be said, most of us here would love an M9 but just can't justify the cost/afford it.

A camera that expensive, for what I do, is just irresponsible. But I'm not about to buy a D700 just because I can't swing the M9. Sort of like buying a car because you can't afford a boat.

dws21uk · 11-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_Manning

D700 is brilliant...but it's a different shooting style. My own opinion is that for digital cameras, it really can't be beat, especially factoring in the entry price. It's SO much faster to shoot well, and much more flexible, than an RF camera.

On the other hand, I love my M6 because it's so compact but has FF depth of field.

I'm not sure I could live with either one exclusively. For me, the D700 for speed and existing light, a film M for RF-style slow, methodical, surreptitious, thoughtful storytelling.

But at the M9's price point, I couldn't justify it...it would have to be much more camera.

My .02

My feelings too, I've done a lot of soul searching recently over upgrading the D300 to a D700 or getting a used M8. The D700 won. I have my R2A, and that will last me for quite a while, as I'm sure I'll need to wait a few years before a FF rangefinder becomes as affordable as a D700.

Keith · 11-08-2009

The end results can be much the same but they are very different cameras ... and I can't afford either! The M9 much less though!

surfer dude · 11-08-2009

I would - could - no more justify parting with the money for the D700 as I would for the M9. They are digital cameras. I have a very nice digital Olympus system that cost me less than the body alone price of even the Nikon.

What is it with people falling over themselves to pay outrageous prices for digital equipment, especially 35mm frame size? These bring new meaning to the term "built-in obsolescence". I am consequently lucky enough to possess some very nice film cameras because people sold them off cheaply to get into the latest digital.

To each his own I guess.

helenhill · 11-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_Manning

D700 is brilliant...but it's a different shooting style. My own opinion is that for digital cameras, it really can't be beat, especially factoring in the entry price. It's SO much faster to shoot well, and much more flexible, than an RF camera.

On the other hand, I love my M6 because it's so compact but has FF depth of field.

I'm not sure I could live with either one exclusively. For me, the D700 for speed and existing light, a film M for RF-style slow, methodical, surreptitious, thoughtful storytelling.

But at the M9's price point, I couldn't justify it...it would have to be much more camera.

My .02

makes PURRfect sense to me
Right now I ONLY shoot Film....
but I think the price of an M9 is absurd in Today's Digital World
which is ever changing
Cheers - helen

gb hill · 11-08-2009

Ditch the FF digital idea & shoot the m-7. You can shoot/dev a whole lot of film for what a FF camera will cost you. By the time you shoot enough film in the m-7 to justify the monies saved for the digital what shape, or how obsolete will the camera be. What will be the resale advantage of the m-7 over the m-9? (electronics only last so long) good reason to buy an MP instead. If you must shoot digital remember you have the Ricoh that takes great photos.

Livesteamer · 11-08-2009

I can justify spending lots of money on M6's because they will last my lifetime. I wonder what the life of an M9 will be. Even a D700 is a lot of money to spend for a camera that may only last a few years. This is especially true for an amateur like me. Joe

Livesteamer · 11-08-2009

I should have added that my M6's, while expensive, can be used and retain their value. What will be the depreciation for digital cameras, both M9 and D700. Joe

Vince Lupo · 11-08-2009

I have a D700 and love using it for most of my commercial work. As well, I've saved up my money for the m9, so now all I'm waiting for is for the darned cameras to show up.

As far as saving for a camera goes, I had to save up for the D700, so it's really no different (granted, I had to save up a lot more for the M9!). Same goes for my flash equipment, new computer, or really any of my equipment upgrades. I use the D700 every day for my business as a commercial photographer, and the M9 will be the perfect complement to the D700's capabilities. And I'll be able to use all the vintage Leica lenses that I have for both commercial and personal purposes, and have also cleaned out some of my vintage cameras that have been sitting in boxes more than they have been used (plus that's what is primarily paying for the camera).

So it really depends, I suppose, on where something like the M9 (or D700 any camera for that matter) would fit into your photographic life. From a commercial standpoint, it works for me and the present system that I have.....but that's just me.

From what I've read, Leica has committed to supporting the M9 for 20 years, and will offer potential sensor upgrades as they come along.

lightshot · 11-08-2009

In my life the D700 is the better choice based on usage not on price. We need the D700 for photography work, but have little use for an M9. Maybe some day I will try an M9 and save up to buy one, but in the meantime it was an easy choice for me.

Nikon Bob · 11-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by kshapero

Two great cameras, but almost $4500 difference.

Can you justify the M9?

No, I personally couldn't justify the difference and settled for the D700. I just could not see spending the additional money just to be able to use a FF DRF that may or may not be as good as the D700 is. When I want the RF experience I'll just use the film RFs that I have. If you want it bad enough go for it but I'll live with the Nikon.

Bob

gb hill · 11-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince Lupo

From what I've read, Leica has committed to supporting the M9 for 20 years, and will offer potential sensor upgrades as they come along.

LOL!! and at what cost? Intergrated circuits have come a long way but 20 years of carrying around. What about the shutter. Wonder what the cost of a new shutter will cost? This is Leica we are talking about! I doubt the rear display screen will last that long. I'm just looking at possible long term expenses the camera will cost you. New electronics are made to be replaced in a few short years. Thats how companies stay afloat!

daveywaugh · 11-08-2009

I imagine even 'Leica pros' have a difficult time making the justification. I imagine a LOT of people have gone the D700 route, and spent the extra money on an M6 and loads of film (with money still in the bank). That's probably the best of both worlds. But of course the 'one system' concept is valid, and if digital is required then the M9 is the only real choice. Where's that R5 :-)

Gabriel M.A. · 11-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by kshapero

Two great cameras, but almost $4500 difference.

Can you justify the M9?

Toyota Corolla and the BMW R1200

Two great motorized vehicles, but almost $4,000 difference.

Why pay $4,000 for half the amount of wheels, no roof, no trunk, no power wheels, and no power seats.

Why won't anybody show BMW to stop selling expensive transportation when you can also get a perfectly good used Ford Taurus for a fourth of that!

How silly

ZeissFan · 11-08-2009

The D700 is a large camera. It's nearly 1 kilogram (995 grams)/2.19 pounds, and that's without a lens.

Add a couple of Nikon's large zooms and an extra battery, and you're probably looking at 6 to 8 pounds easily. Try dragging that around for an afternoon.

Great image quality, but it's about as subtle as a Hummer.

The Leica -- smaller camera (585 grams/19.8 ounces). Add a couple of lenses, and you still have a very portable kit. Downside: No zooms (not an issue for rangefinder users). Plus, it's gonna cost you plenty.

Note that the D700 body isn't exactly an impulse buy at $2,700, while Nikon's top of the line, the D3X, will cost you $7,995 (body only).

The D3x weighs in at 1,220 grams or 43 ounces (2.7 pounds).

Pablito · 11-08-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by phil.wright

What is it with people falling over themselves to pay outrageous prices for digital equipment, especially 35mm frame size? These bring new meaning to the term "built-in obsolescence". I am consequently lucky enough to possess some very nice film cameras because people sold them off cheaply to get into the latest digital.

To each his own I guess.

"35mm frame size" digital cameras can actually produce images as sharp and nuanced as medium format film. 16x24" or larger prints with the most extraordinary detail. And I'm talking about APS, which is SMALLER than 35mm frame size. Of course it does not look just like film, it's different. For normal light levels, the D300 is good enough for me until it breaks, whenever that may be. So I don't see any built-in obsolescence really. Like my Leica film bodies. I just need the d700 for low light color.