Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M9 / ME

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Looking to get an M9, think it would suit me?
Old 1 Week Ago   #1
andrew00
Registered User
 
andrew00 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 124
Looking to get an M9, think it would suit me?

Hey,

I'm looking to get an M9 and am looking for advice on whether it'd suit me.

My two fav photographers are probably William Eggleston and Daido Moriyama.

Both capture fragments of life, and both produce images that feel like memories. WE's images have a vibrancy to them, even when the subject is mundane, like memories that burn bright. DM's are the opposite, memories you can't really remember, already fading.

It's almost like WE is the day time and DM is the night time, two opposing sides of a whole.

I currently have a Ricoh Gr that I use for my 'DM' pics, and I'm happy with that.

I'm looking for a camera that I can use for the day, my Eggleston camera if you will. (Obviously I know I'm not him lol)

I generally don't like most digital cameras, the images might technically be good but lack the vibrancy I love about WE. I would shoot film but, honestly, I don't really enjoy doing so, it's the faff!

This brings me to the M9.

On paper, it seems like the best compromise I'm going to get to satisfy my needs.

It's not tiny and light, but it's not big and heavy, so I can carry it around all day.

It's CCD isn't perfect but it does produce a colour magic that seems to be lost with CMOS sensors.

Its image quality is enough that, if I print, I'd be happy with good size images.

It's just about affordable (M10, for example, is not)

I also want to feel connected to the pictures I take. I've tried the Fujis etc and they're great cameras but I didn't feel anything, they might as well have been my phone.

I was wondering what you guys thought. I know I'm not going to get exactly what I'd want. But I think the M9 can give me what I need. Looking for your input.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #2
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 6,104
I'm not finding M9 sensor to be significantly awsome in color rendering. It is different sometimes how it renders portraits, but on WE style photography I don't see it. It lacks dinamic range and sort of same limitation as slide film scans. M9 sensor gives some very fine depth of image details on low ISO. I think this is where it is special from film.
M240 would do the same for WE style. Sigma Meril would do WE style better, IMO. It is still photography camera, but colors and else are special.

Do you have lens to match M9? To reveal M9 potential you need good lens. Or you could get cheap LTM and rave about retro rendering (all kind off defects, which don't make image any better, but worse).
The only lenses I'm fully satisfied with on M9 sensor were and are Lieca made. Modern ones.
So, it is not only Leica camera, but lens. Not very economical way to feel like WE.
He does it on film and he prints it analog, if I'm not mistaken. Prints made this way are art.
With color film you could get away with more economical lens. I have film and digital M.
I can't see big difference between Color Skopar and Summarit-M 35 on color film scans.
Last time I watched documentary with WE, he was using LTM Viogtlander lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #3
JeffS7444
Registered User
 
JeffS7444 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 87
"Absolutely not"? The best reason to buy an M9 is simply because you want an M9.

William Eggleston got vibrant colors because he had a good sense of lighting. Leica M9 can deliver brilliant color, but it can also deliver crap color: This is really more dependent on your skill as a photographer.

Daido Moriyama has stated that the camera doesn't matter! The last I heard, he was using a Nikon Coolpix of some sort.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #4
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 60
Posts: 8,881
Andrew,

This is coming from a Monochrom owner who bought his new about 5-6 years ago. The MM and M9 are kinda primitive cameras even though they are digital. If you try to shoot fast you will be frustrated by the slow processor and the slow buffer. On one hand the M9 and MM are as close to being like a film camera, no frills, and slower than other digitals.

Because of the lack of features is why I love my MM.

I have a friend who states, "Sometimes it is the size of the pixels, verses how many." I think the 18MP is enough to print big and does offer an advantage and a certain look, but know that a M240 or M246 is a much more advanced camera and being CMOS has more dynamic range, more shadow detail, smoother roll-off in the highlights. better high ISO performance, has a more speedy processor, a better display, a faster buffer...

I do think the MM and M9 has its unique rendering because of the CCD sensor. In B&W on my Monochrom the histogram has great strength in the mids, and to me a M246 has more shadow detail and retains the highlights better, but the mids are kinda scooped. If you print big in B&W the mids are the voice that makes my prints look like medium and even like large format.

In the M9 the colors are more saturated than in a CMOS camera.

Also I would also say to maximize a M9 that the glass is important. Don't forget that cost.

I would say that rendering wise a M9 would be highly suitable, but a M9 is not a full featured speedy camera. Realize it is almost as basic as a film camera.

Know that my other digital camera is a Leica SL. In many ways the M10 is a SL made into the smaller M-body as far as the technology. Both have the processor that was developed first in the Leica S. I have a friend who owns both the M10 and SL and pretty much he agrees they are very much the same camera in many ways. He perfers the SL BTW.

So when I shoot my MM it is a bit of a rude throwback as far as speed, and I immediately remember how slow, basic and primitive my MM is. You have to know that I still shoot film also so in my case I don't mind. The most important thing to me are the files and the images. Even though my SL is the more advanced camera, I think my best images and prints are made from my MM. It seems that less required post processing, and this is best seen/discovered in large prints. Understand that I only print B&W and I use Piezography.

I only shoot color for my gal's blog. She like a bit of underexposure and the Leica colors. Check out here a lot of fashion shots in NYC using a SL and 50 Lux-SL (not a small rig). Most of my stuff is right out of the camera with no post.

www.AccidentalIcon.com

She has over 540K followers, earlier this year won a "Shorty Award" in the fashion catagory, and pretty much is A-listed.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #5
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 977
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew00 View Post
Hey,

I generally don't like most digital cameras, the images might technically be good but lack the vibrancy I love about WE. I would shoot film but, honestly, I don't really enjoy doing so, it's the faff!

I also want to feel connected to the pictures I take. I've tried the Fuji's etc and they're great cameras but I didn't feel anything, they might as well have been my phone.

I was wondering what you guys thought. I know I'm not going to get exactly what I'd want. But I think the M9 can give me what I need. Looking for your input.
I understand your feelings and what I am about to say is NOT an attempt to dismiss you. Frankly, if you don't like digital photography (see underlined sections above), then you don't like digital photography - a big bulky Leica digital camera isn't going improve the situation. Buy a M2 and be done with digital.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #6
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 60
Posts: 8,881
I will agree with KoFe that Leica glass is a good idea.

Also his remark about careful exposure is spot on. The CCD sensor is not so forgiving, but in the right hands...

I seldom shoot above 800 ISO on my MM.

Now that I'm thinking about it the CCD sensor is less forgiving than a CMOS sensor.

The dynamic range of the CCD is less than than that of a CMOS sensor.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #7
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,491
I love my M9. Its entirely emotional.

I couldn't recommend or not recommend the M9 to anyone else. As mentioned a couple times above, the quality of the output from the M9 is entirely dependent on the photographer. I have some real nice images from my M9, and a couple orders of magnitude more duds from same camera.

A practical question: Do you have experience/history with Leica M type cameras? Film or digital? For most of us, this is one reason for using a digital M -- it feels like the film versions we're all familiar with. Do you have any M-mount lenses to use on the M9? I am of the opinion that there are non-Leica lenses that will provide excellent results, just like Leica lenses. Recently discussed here at RFF is the Zeiss Biogon 35/2 would be an example. Still, you will want/need a good lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #8
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,228
I also love the images from my M9. I have tried out an M240 for 6 months or so, but while it is functionally more complete than the M9, I had no conenction with irt as I seem to have with my M9. The M9 has "class and elegance" in my eyes.
__________________
- Raid

________________
Top 12 Images;

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...n.php?cid=7007

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #9
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,829
For me, there is something special going on with the M9. The combination of the CCD sensor and the way the camera handles really lets me concentrate on my subjects and not worry about much else.

The .DNG files are absolute stunning "digital negatives" that behave like a perfect mix of 'chromes and C46 negatives.

I usually keep my M9-P to -3 on the exposure dial (or slightly underexpose on manual) and man, with the right lenses (the Zeiss C Biogon 35/2.8 is utterly amazing, for instance), just about anything is possible.

Oh, and always glad to encounter another Eggleston fan!


Tricycle, Trendwood Park, March 30, 2016 by Maggie Osterberg, on Flickr
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #10
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,511
I really like the M9, but admit that the "adapt anything" bug on the CMOS cameras has bitten me. I use lots of different lenses on it, but keep drifting back to the C/V 35/1.2 v/1. Just something about it . . .





These days it is often M9 plus Silver EFX Pro2.
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #11
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 6,104
It is nice to be in agreement with Cal. But I have to be slightly different on BW view.
If I would be after finest and tunable BW I would pay extra for MM. But I think, no, I see, what DM's BW is not about AA's sixteen shadows of grey zone play.

Russian photographer, who is known here as GR, is DM follower. Not only he made photography in this vision and look, but he went to Japan and he took simple film camera(s) with him.

Some of his previous work here:
https://youtu.be/JUtkYYqCGGY
And here is his Osaka photos (bad video quality):
https://youtu.be/56LgLBnETnQ

He owned M4, but decided to be not a slave to his camera.

If OP is into night MD, M9 is not going to make it without BG flash.
IMO, if to be seating on two chairs (ME and DM) then GRII is cost effective option.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #12
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 36
Posts: 4,287
I would argue that William Eggleston style photography is best done with a compact, rangefinder-style mirrorless camera. You want something that makes framing and exposure/seeing the lighting as easy as pie.

My recommendation is for a Fuji X-E3 with the 35/2.
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #13
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
I will agree with KoFe that Leica glass is a good idea.

Also his remark about careful exposure is spot on. The CCD sensor is not so forgiving, but in the right hands...

I seldom shoot above 800 ISO on my MM.

Now that I'm thinking about it the CCD sensor is less forgiving than a CMOS sensor.

The dynamic range of the CCD is less than than that of a CMOS sensor.

Cal
CCD sensor assembly photo-diode array is inferior to CMOS when it comes to S/N and dynamic range. Thus is a data-driven conclusion.

A CCD sensor assembly's IR filter properties, micro-lens and color-filter array characteristics and cover-glass thickness also affect perceived image quality. These things do matter and more expensive materials and manufacturing processes will make a difference.

Unfortunately, when a sensor is over exposed due to shutter time and, or aperture, CCD photo-diodes leak much higher levels of excess electrical charge to nearby photo-sites compared to CMOS. Fortunately this is never an issue when highlight region detail is lost because ISO was unintentionally set too high.

Perceived image quality, especially color aesthetics depends on many variables. With a properly exposed raw file it's hard for me to understand how data from a CMOS sensor is fundamentally inferior to a CCD sensor data.

However the M9's default parameters for in-camera JPEG rendering engine for could be superior to those for Leica's CMOS cameras. I would not bet on this. It's hard to believe Leica would not make sure rendering engine for CMOS bodies doesn't have the same engineering excellence as the CCD bodies.
__________________
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell

williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #14
Mcary
Registered User
 
Mcary is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia USA
Age: 57
Posts: 1,522
I have an M9 and have no plans of replacing it any time soon as its meets all my needs very nicely. That being said I think some people have a somewhat romanticized view about it and its CCD sensors. Some feel its files have a unique look to them others don't. Personally I think it comes down to each person's needs and expectations. For someone who mainly shoots at lower ISOs for color and whose monochrome needs are limited to ISO 1600 and lower the M9 is a good option. Now if one needs to use higher ISOs, then one of the newer CMOS bodies may be a better choice.
__________________
M. Cary
Trying to see something new whither I'm visiting someplace new or a place that I've been a dozen of times before.


  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #15
ramosa
Registered User
 
ramosa is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,019
Andrew: The M9 is a great camera. I had one and ended up selling it. I later had an M9 Monochrom (a great, great camera), which ended up stuck at Leica forever for sensor replacement, so I traded out of it. That'd be my major concern for buying any M9 or M9 Monochrom: Does it have the new replacement sensor? If "yes," go for it. If "no," I'd definitely pass. Good luck in your search ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #16
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,624
I still have my M9 and use it a lot and like it a lot, but would I buy one now I don't think so if I already had all the lenses maybe. Even a secondhand M9 is still a lot of money £2000ish for a the body and £800 to £1500 for a 35mm or 50mm summicron, I would have a look at Sony, d810 or maybe Canon 5d and you could still buy a couple of lenses and maybe a fuji x100 or similar.
Good luck.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #17
Peter_S
Registered User
 
Peter_S is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Narvik (Norway); Tbilisi (Georgia)
Posts: 698
I own an M9, and while it is great, the difference to other digital cameras I used (Leica SL, X1, X2, M8, T) is not that great. The M8 may have been my favorite, actually.

Switching to C1 from LR made a bigger difference (for me) than between the models. Or, differently put, C1 to LR made a bigger difference than CCD-CMOS.

The only cameras I saw an substantial differences of certain parameters were the Leica Monochrom (sharpeness, tonality, etc.) and the old Kodak 645 Pro Back (MF - now there are some colors, and those Mamiya lenses...).
Not to say the M9 cannot do good colors, it IS a great camera. Now the ONE advantage the M9 has going for is the lenses...no doubt.

PS - I just had a better look at some of Eggleston`s work. I would think that you will struggle with any digital camera to achieve that look (even with film - skills come over camera of choice, anyways)
After years of using M6 and M8 side-by side in the same situations...a look like Portra 400 or slide film only comes out of film cameras.
__________________
Black Contax T3
M9 + VM Ultron 21mm f/1.8 & Heliar 50mm f/3.5
Beater Leica X1



www.ps-photo.net
On instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #18
Fjäll
Registered User
 
Fjäll's Avatar
 
Fjäll is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Age: 28
Posts: 170
The M9 is still a very capable camera but comes with tons of limitations you have to take into consideration. Depending on you previous workflow it might be a steep learning curve. Especially if you're not used to a rangefinder and generally shooting at lower ISOs.

Once you've understood its limitations and commit to the mindset however its a brilliant tool. But if you're pushing it the M9 quickly bites back.

I was on a hunt looking for a digital camera that produced similar results to the smooth colour tonality film can give you. I tried the Canon 5D Classic, Fujifilm X100, Sigma Merril DP1, Fujifilm S5 Pro and the M8. Most of which lived up to expectations but fell on the finish line in the end.

Forfeit to its limitations and you will certainly be rewarded.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #19
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,668
How is your eye sight? I have found that my M8 which has the same viewfinder is inadequate in this department due to the exceedingly low magnification (introduced to cope with 28mm wide angle lenses) compared with my old M3 or even my old M4P. As a result while I love the idea of using my M8 I seldom do, at least for street photography, as I just cannot focus quickly enough and even if I take my time will too often miss focus when shooting wide open. Even though I have added an eyepiece magnifier and a diopter adjustment. It is fine for shooting static subjects though and never fails to attract comment from bystanders. Oddly it is usually young women who comment on the camera (I suspect because "old" cameras are very hipster cool today.)

As for its image quality it is usually pretty good out of the camera though there is one deficiency here too. The CCD gives poor dynamic range by comparison with later sensors. That can limit the utility of the camera for natural light shooting - which used to be regarded as the Leica M's forte. But if you are used to shooting slide film it may not worry you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #20
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,400
Having worked with M9, M-P 240, and M-D 262 cameras extensively, I would not choose an M9 for any reason today. The M9 always felt sluggish and laggardly to me, and I disliked the native color output it created in JPEG format to the extent that I always turned off JPEGs entirely. Never mind the potential for sensor problems with the M9 sensors, the camera just left me ambivalent.

The typ 240 cameras proved to be much better performing on responsiveness and image quality and, once a firmware update or two had come out, their in-camera JPEG files proved to be quite good when you found the settings that worked for you, even though I continue to be primarily a raw file user. The typ 262 series cameras (I use the M-D now) really improved the viewfinder and the camera calibration profile for the raw files even beyond the typ 240 and are now "as good as I need/want" in all respects.

Some folks do see something they like in the M9 files despite that I don't... It's a matter of personal taste, I guess. The only CCD camera that to my eye produces a significantly desirable output that I choose over later CMOS cameras in the range is the Olympus E-1, and I think the difference there is that the E-1 with its 5Mpixel CCD sensor uses a very very different antialiasing filter compared to the later E-5 and Micro-FourThirds cameras with their higher pixel density and much lighter antialiasing filter. The fact of CCD vs CMOS seems to be insignificant with respect to rendering/performance qualities, at least within the range of ISO settings achievable by the older camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #21
Peter_S
Registered User
 
Peter_S is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Narvik (Norway); Tbilisi (Georgia)
Posts: 698
I have a feeling that some perceived differences come from the more accurate colors and white balance of modern CMOS cameras. The "special" rendering of the M9 often vanishes when a grey/white card is used. To be fair, films rarely were particularly accurate neither, in therein may have been lain part of their charm.

The CCD vs CMOS debate is a bit like the fat-pixel theory, and often a case of biases and seeing what we want to see. Speaking off "fat pixels":

If I were out to replicate a look as I have seen in the images by said photographer, I would probably pick an older CCD digital MF back. Not that ticks the other boxes (easily portable, though I have carried a Mamiya with a Pro Back around...the M9 is certainly friendlier in that respect), but the rendering of the lenses and larger sensor go quite a way. Have a look at P30 images. Now the thing to remember - these backs were usually in the hands of skilled people.

More than a certain camera, good photographic skills, the "eye" for composition/motives, use of light, and post-processing skills are required (duh, of course). The line between a "look" and "over-processed" is very fine.

Film was and is cool because weird colors, blown highlights (slides), etc were all OK and even looked good.
__________________
Black Contax T3
M9 + VM Ultron 21mm f/1.8 & Heliar 50mm f/3.5
Beater Leica X1



www.ps-photo.net
On instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 1 Week Ago   #22
mod2001
Old school modernist
 
mod2001 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Barcelona/Catalunya
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew00 View Post
I currently have a Ricoh Gr that I use for my 'DM' pics, and I'm happy with that.

I'm looking for a camera that I can use for the day, my Eggleston camera if you will. (Obviously I know I'm not him lol)
I would wait a few weeks if Ricoh comes with a New GRIII, most probably with a 24MP sensor which would give you around 15MP resolution in the 35mm (WE) crop mode.

Btw, for Eggelston style colours I shoot Kodak Ektar 100 pushed by 2 stops with my Contax T3. In the past I used my GRII with RawPhotoProcessor(RPP) for this look. But I must admit, I'm also a believer of CCD, it looks different and I don't mind the technical reasons behind. especially the M8, for me the digital cameras which comes closest to the look of film ever. Have to add, and I can't believe what I say , the Sony A7S first version is also worth a look.

However, imho both WE and MD's look are more based on their post processing/printing, be it the wonderful dyetransfer prints of WE or the marvelous analoge prints from MD, he, or whoever does the post for him, is obviously quit good with SFX too, even I have to admit I'm more a fan of his "older" work on film, although this relies more on the content than the used medium or camera I guess.

Jürgen
__________________
Nikon F3 / Nikkor 50mm/f1.2 AIS / Nikkor 28mm/f2.0 AIS / Contax T3
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #23
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,419
Sorry it's not the camera that gives Eggelston his "look"!
WE worked mainly with Kodachrome film.
There is no equal or close "app" that can duplicate those colors.
David Alan Harvey, Alex Webb, McCurry, etc.
all built their reputations and portfolios with Kodachrome..
WE has a great sense of color, that being one of his foundations..
If one studies his images, it's not simply color but his actual statements.
I've seen videos of WE using other cameras besides Leica, a Pentax M series..
DAH uses many cameras and when we met using a Nikon DSLR.
If you really want a Leica digital, go for newer than M9.
They are expensive to the point I would never consider.
I've used M8, M9 and Mono (TY all my buddies) and saw nothing special..
Film has a certain look, Velvia (really improved Kodachrome) is available..
Processing expensive and not available on nearest corner.
Even so a LOT OF FILM till one comes up with Leica cost.
Leica seem to require adjustments on regular basis (I own 3).
I firmly believe that a RFDR is not accurate enough for a sensor..
Use of digital sure made me see that!
My Leica M3 is 51 yrs in pro service..
Film a whole other story with a Leica and older lenses !
Daido uses whatever! He sure prints a lot!
I use mostly "toy" digital for nearly all my color!
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #24
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,128
Egglestons prints were die transfer which like Kodachrome is one of the very few color archival processes. There is no color transparency equal to Kodachrome and PKM (Kodachrome 25 professional) was the standard all other transparency films were measured against because it was considered to be the most color neutral. One reason that many used Kodachrome like Nat Geo was it's archival properties. Nothing in E-6 is considered archival but it is all we have now when speaking of transparency film.

But what gets lost in the conversations like this is Eggelstons vision and his knowledge of his tools. How for him to first see and recognize what is one of his photographs and then having the right tool to capture that vision which at the time was Kodachrome and die transfer prints. Nothing E6 has or any print process today is close to Kodachrome and die transfer.

With the control of the process we now have with digital color I see no reason to shoot color film. Both Kodachrome and die transfer are no longer available. I do see an advantage to B&W film. Silver gelatin prints are that advantage.
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #25
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,128
To the OP have you considered an M-E?

Whether it is an M 9 or an M-E make sure it has a replaced sensor.
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #26
mod2001
Old school modernist
 
mod2001 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Barcelona/Catalunya
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
To the OP have you considered an M-E?

Whether it is an M 9 or an M-E make sure it has a replaced sensor.
Best replaced in 2016 or later. Leica developed new CCD sensors from around 09/2015 that did not corrode.

Jürgen
__________________
Nikon F3 / Nikkor 50mm/f1.2 AIS / Nikkor 28mm/f2.0 AIS / Contax T3
  Reply With Quote

Old 6 Days Ago   #27
Ko.Fe.
Me. Write ESL. Ko.
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 6,104
The only disadvantage of M-E is painted letters on the back.
If camera is in use regularly and on the neck strap they worn out quick.
Thick half-case should solve this problem.
  Reply With Quote

Old 3 Days Ago   #28
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,419
Kodachrome is certainly "archival" but,
BUT fades and can be compromised by slide projection.
Ektachrome and Velvia fared better!
Dye Transfer was stunning and so was the cost!
Eggleston certainly did not have "missed meals cramps".
The photographers I mentioned have certainly not in my eyes, done any work similar or better than that with Kodachrome !
In my usage stopped Kodachrome when Kodak closed development, requiring 1st to Switzerland, later Dwayne's.,
Digital is way better in color whether slide (positives) or negs from c-41.

The M-9 by Leica standards and the industry is old!
Go compare images on a few sites and compare if worth the cost,
of any Leica digital..
Pal's Mono went for sensor renewal/repair and it was away more than 9 months!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:12.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.