How soon will you buy a M9 ?

[jarski]

They are obviously not as good as Leica lenses but comparable to my Voigtländer lenses on the m8.

strange.. 3 hours already and no Canon fans have objected this by now

 

[ramosa]

i'm happy with my M8. i can't imagine needing more ...

 

[user237428934]

strange.. 3 hours already and no Canon fans have objected this by now

I didn't talk about L-Lenses, because I only have that "normal" stuff e.g. 1.4/50, 1.8/85
But I believe the difference between a 1.4/35L Canon and a 1.4/35 Leica is rather small.

 

[rxmd]

Hi Thomas,

I didn't talk about L-Lenses, because I only have that "normal" stuff e.g. 1.4/50, 1.8/85
But I believe the difference between a 1.4/35L Canon and a 1.4/35 Leica is rather small.

Depends on the metric I guess. Size? Price? Price/performance ratio? Enjoyment you get out of it? In what ways is your 85/f1.8 better or worse than a Summicron 90? This kind of comparison is usually skewed, useless, or both.

 

[washy21]

I won't get one

I won't get one

I'm sticking with the M8 and have no interest in the M9 unless it is shipped with the mind and brain of a great photographer. Seriously, whilst this forum is a gear orientated space, how many of you have reached the point where enough is enough with all the cameras that are being pumped out.

And furthermore; seeing as the emphasis has shifted away from mega pixels towards IQ and improved noise control how many photographers actually print large images in comparison to the amount that end up being exhibited online at small heavily compressed file sizes.

That, as Lev Manovich suggests is one of "The Paradoxes of Digital Photography"

http://www.manovich.net/TEXT/digital_photo.html

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm sticking with the M8 and have no interest in the M9 unless it is shipped with the mind and brain of a great photographer. Seriously, whilst this forum is a gear orientated space, how many of you have reached the point where enough is enough with all the cameras that are being pumped out.

And furthermore; seeing as the emphasis has shifted away from mega pixels towards IQ and improved noise control how many photographers actually print large images in comparison to the amount that end up being exhibited online at small heavily compressed file sizes.

That, as Lev Manovich suggests is one of "The Paradoxes of Digital Photography"

http://www.manovich.net/TEXT/digital_photo.html

If the M9 is FF then focal lengths will equate to all I have learned over the last 40+ years, and I can shoot digi colour alongside B+W film with the same lenses (mostly 35+75).

That is worth a LOT to me. Even if the M9 were only 10-12 megapixels, the focal length equivalence is fundamental.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mark-b]

The purchase of the M8 was a huge enough purchase for me that I would be unable to trade up to an M9.

 

[jrichie]

As with a few others here, I see no need to upgrade my M8.

It takes amazing photographs and has never let me down.....yet.

I have no need at all for more pixels etc.

It will be a few years yet before I upgrade!

 

[Nikon Bob]

If the M9 is FF then focal lengths will equate to all I have learned over the last 40+ years, and I can shoot digi colour alongside B+W film with the same lenses (mostly 35+75).

That is worth a LOT to me. Even if the M9 were only 10-12 megapixels, the focal length equivalence is fundamental.

Cheers,

R.

That would be my reason to buy an M9 too and I already know 10-12 megapixels will work for me. It does with my D700 anyway. Being retired will make an M9 purchase virtually impossible for all practical purposes at the projected price.

Bob

 

[StaaleS]

strange.. 3 hours already and no Canon fans have objected this by now

Could be because the Voigt lenses really are quite stunningly well-behaved of course I've got the VC 75 2.5 and 90 3.5 for use on film and they have nothing to be ashamed of compared to my Canon 85L, 100 macro and 135L on FF digital, except for max aperture.

 

[Ben Z]

As with a few others here, I see no need to upgrade my M8.

It takes amazing photographs and has never let me down.....yet.

I have no need at all for more pixels etc.

It will be a few years yet before I upgrade!

I "suffered" with my Canon 20D for the entire product life of the 5D until I got a refurb (swear it was never used) for $2000 less than the original price. So I won't have a problem doing likewise in the case of the M9. Long ago I gave up making excuses for why I just "had to have" the latest model of things, or caring that someone might think I'm not as affluent as they are. Marketing ploys just roll off my back like water off a duck.

 

[kshapero]

I think this is great news. Folks should be applauding Leica's upcoming intro. It pushes the envelope, it shows they are listening. All I ask is that Ilford keep making film.

 

[Ken Ford]

I probably could have saved and scrounged enough for an M8, but I couldn't afford the new glass to make it do what I wanted. The M9 is going to be hard to resist but would be a multi-year savings project.

 

[Keith]

I would have to suspect that a year from now an M8 or an Epson RD-1 will be a pretty cheap way to shoot digitally if you want to stay with a rangefinder. The freely available supply of used M8's will knock the Epson's price way down, probably under $1000.00 and the M8 itself may finish up where the Epson currently seems to sit ... $1200.00 to $1500.00!

The follow on from this may be glut of very cheaply priced film rangefinders flooding our classifieds.

Interesting times alright!

 

[Pavel+]

crossing my fingers on a Digital Zeiss Ikon. If one doesn't materialize in the next two or so years then when they have refurbs or used for around the $2000 dollar mark. I'd pay more money but only for a mechanical film body, which is worth that kind of parting with money as it is justified in that it IS mechanical and thus complex to build and also because it will stand the test of time.

I wonder how much now for a used M8. No matter how greedy and enthusiastic we are now for the M9 now, it will sooner than we would like have the same desirability as the M8 does today - meaning ... not much, despite being as good a M8 as ever. Who would pay $4500 for an M8 now?

 

[user237428934]

crossing my fingers on a Digital Zeiss Ikon. If one doesn't materialize in the next two or so years then when they have refurbs or used for around the $2000 dollar mark. I'd pay more money but only for a mechanical film body, which is worth that kind of parting with money as it is justified in that it IS mechanical and thus complex to build and also because it will stand the test of time.

I wonder how much now for a used M8. No matter how greedy and enthusiastic we are now for the M9 now, it will sooner than we would like have the same desirability as the M8 does today - meaning ... not much, despite being as good a M8 as ever. Who would pay $4500 for an M8 now?

What would you get for 2000$? I think a Zeiss branded mFT Camera, not more.

 

[Mackinaw]

I wonder how much now for a used M8. No matter how greedy and enthusiastic we are now for the M9 now, it will sooner than we would like have the same desirability as the M8 does today - meaning ... not much, despite being as good a M8 as ever. Who would pay $4500 for an M8 now?

With a full-frame sensor, the M9 is a game changer. I suspect this camera will retain it's value much longer than the M8, which is a camera that we all knew, from Day 1, would be superseded by something better.

Jim B.

 

[Pavel+]

What would you get for 2000$? I think a Zeiss branded mFT Camera, not more.

I don't think that is necessarily correct. We have gotten used to outrageous prices for Leica because of the small economics of scale and needed high margins. There is nothing that Leica seems to sell in volume to pad the low volume products. Zeiss is a much larger company and could do with far more standard markups. You have $2000 full frame Sony 850's now. That may or may not be a profitable price, but it is possible even if it is making little or no profit because the stability of the company can handle it.

I think that Zeiss can make a product as good and probably better than Leica for two reasons at half the price. THey made The film Ikon and in my opinion it is a superior product. Better viewfinder etc.

But more importantly in the digital age the costly manufacturing of precision mechanical equipment is not such a factor in the price. Leica has a closed door policy it seems. they don't want to dilute their brand by working with some Japanese company except to provide them lenses and so they seem to be going it alone with the electronic components.

Zeiss doesn't seem to have any of those issues and for better or worse the japanese are light years ahead of the germans with electronics. So I think the possibility of a Zeiss Digital Ikon, same as the film body except that you take out the mechanical transports and put in a circuit board made by cosina and a sensor by sony is possible and prices less than half of the Leica likely.

The only question is if Zeiss feels that a pure rangefinder done in the old way is worth the bother. I'm not tied to the rangefinder mechanism myself, I simply want it to be the size of a Leica M9 or Ikon - not much smaller, not much bigger and to use manual focus lenses that are small.
That is all. Now I would not mind at all to have a rangefinder built in, in fact I'd prefer it - don't get me wrong - but I'm not wedded to it.

So I"m going to wait for sure. In film I prefer the Zeiss to the Leica M7 and so who knows, I may like a digital Ikon better - who knows.

And If not ... then the prices should get to levels that make it viable for me ... in about three years or so. If the prices are too high ... I can skip Leica and watch from the sidelines. When they get to where they make sense for me (about $3000 at max) then I will be very happy to buy one - and hope for better luck with mine than I had with the M8 - which I really like except my bad luck with it.

Sometimes I think though that since I like what my digital SLR does for me ... that I should simply buy a film Leica or a Zeiss. I can't really go wrong that way - playing to both sides current strengths.
The Ziess has a great viewfinder, the old leicas this amazing feel and a new MP is an expensive but sublime instrument. No electronics ... and while pricey will be almost like a heirloom - so I don't mind the price. I will live longer than I .... and so it is really the ultimate investment.

Time will tell ... but it's all good ... with choices for all.

 

[user237428934]

Zeiss doesn't seem to have any of those issues and for better or worse the japanese are light years ahead of the germans with electronics. So I think the possibility of a Zeiss Digital Ikon, same as the film body except that you take out the mechanical transports and put in a circuit board made by cosina and a sensor by sony is possible and prices less than half of the Leica likely.

If it was that simple than you were probably right regarding the price ticket. But I doubt that it's in fact that simple.

But I think we have to wait some time to see who is right.

 

[Pavel+]

Keep in mind ... I have no real expectations ... what you said Tom, about "if it was that simple ..." is spot on. So mine are just conjectures and light hearted plans (with money that I don't have ) that frankly, should they come out the way I'd like them to ... I'd be nicely shocked. Nice to wonder and daydream though.