Leica M9: experience so far

Really sorry to hear this Tobers - bad news when it's a camera you love that much. It'll come again mate. ;)
 
Sad news indeed :crying:. On the plus side though, once you are in a position to buy another one, you can go for the Leica M9-P instead :) ...

Link ...

In response to the demands of professional photographers, Leica have now removed the (legendary) 'Leica' button badge from the camera altogether :eek:, leaving the front of the camera devoid of branding and with no need for black insulation tape ;).

Of course, innovation of that magnitude never comes cheap :nono: and so naturally Leica have added another 500 quid to the price tag, but then 'that's progress for you" :LOL:. (OK, I admit, they did also add a tougher crystal screen to the rear LCD display ;)).

It's weird (and a little off-putting) that every single time I find one of these, "I have seen the light and switched to Leica :naughty:" threads (mainly on the 'Nikon Cafe' forum), the OPs have (so far) only lasted a year or so before switching back to whatever they were using before :shrug: (or maybe onto something else, as our own ped did when he moved to an Epson R-D1).

I'd really like a digital RF camera myself, but until somebody makes one with the right spec and at the right price, I will just have to be patient. So, yes, 'jealousy' is a large part of why I posted the last paragraph, I admit it :D.

Tobers, thanks for a great thread with some fantastic images (I really like the second puppy shot ;)). If nothing else, you've amply demostrated that (with the right lenses) Leica RF photographs can take on that special 'look', as well as being a real joy to use (y). Cheers and good luck with getting your kit back in the near future.
 
The M9-P has an inscribed top plate. You can get your M9 turned into the M9-P for about £1000, but for me the P stands for Pointless. The initial cost of the M9 is high, but no more than say a D3X. It's the lenses that really kill you. The quality of build and optics is amazing, but there is no getting around my 50mm Summilux ASPH is about 9 or 10 times more expensive than the Canon/Nikon 50mm f/1.4, plus you can have a 4-6 month wait for it due to demand, 12 months if you want the massively expensive 0.95 Noctilux which you can buy for about £10k from Hong Kong if you want to jump the queue. Never mind stocks and shares, I wish I'd bought up M lenses a few years back.

Most of the reasons from moving away from the M9 I've seen seem to be people who use it as a hobby/second camera and it is a lot of money to have tied up if you make your money from a DSLR. The cost of lenses or the wait for lenses can frustrate, or quite a few older people moving back to a high end full frame DSLR for autofocus as their eyes aren't capable of focusing the rangefinder patch, or plain old simply need the money in these tough financial times. That isn't an exhaustive list, but it is quite a few of the reasons I've seen.

It's a refreshing camera to use, simple menus and controls and being manual focus you slow down and think about it a lot more than just spraying and praying. It has downsides though, the screen on the back is rubbish, the battery life is so so and carrying a mugger's pension scheme round your neck can make you feel a bit vulnerable sometimes. It's not for everyone, but I enjoy it. You should try one out.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
The M9-P has an inscribed top plate. You can get your M9 turned into the M9-P for about £1000, but for me the P stands for Pointless. The initial cost of the M9 is high, but no more than say a D3X. It's the lenses that really kill you. The quality of build and optics is amazing, but there is no getting around my 50mm Summilux ASPH is about 9 or 10 times more expensive than the Canon/Nikon 50mm f/1.4, plus you can have a 4-6 month wait for it due to demand, 12 months if you want the massively expensive 0.95 Noctilux which you can buy for about £10k from Hong Kong if you want to jump the queue. Never mind stocks and shares, I wish I'd bought up M lenses a few years back.

Most of the reasons from moving away from the M9 I've seen seem to be people who use it as a hobby/second camera and it is a lot of money to have tied up if you make your money from a DSLR. The cost of lenses or the wait for lenses can frustrate, or quite a few older people moving back to a high end full frame DSLR for autofocus as their eyes aren't capable of focusing the rangefinder patch, or plain old simply need the money in these tough financial times. That isn't an exhaustive list, but it is quite a few of the reasons I've seen.

It's a refreshing camera to use, simple menus and controls and being manual focus you slow down and think about it a lot more than just spraying and praying. It has downsides though, the screen on the back is rubbish, the battery life is so so and carrying a mugger's pension scheme round your neck can make you feel a bit vulnerable sometimes. It's not for everyone, but I enjoy it. You should try one out.
Click to expand...

I don't think that I should try one out, actually :p. My local camera store has a few in stock, which is why I never go there and always shop online :LOL:. My fear is that I ever put one in my hand, I'd never want to shoot with anything else again. I'm a sucker for well-engineered gadgets, but then again ... I am a bloke :|.

Being serious for a moment though, I understand that the Leica system (whether using their own lenses or any of the quality alternatives), is a very expensive business and as you say, many amateurs get into it and tie up all of their loose capital. What doesn't make sense though (from a purely financial perspective) is that many of them sell off their Leica gear and then go out and plough all of the money into re-purchasing similar SLR kit to whatever they had before :shrug:.

Two of the 'new' Leica users whose posts I've followed and have subsequently given up on it and gone back to their previous set ups, have publicly admitted that it just wasn't for them and that manual fosusing was losing them a lot of shots, or that they couldn't afford to get all of the lenses that they wanted. I think that it might be the same for me, which is why I haven't taken the plunge.

Actually, I'm very optimistic that there is sufficient interest in digital RFs now that other manufacturers may get in on the act :naughty:. I was very excited when I heard a few months ago that Nikon were producing a mirrorless camera ... but it turned out to be a dud :thumbsdown: (from my POV). A rangefinder body with a large sensor and a Nikon F mount would be a dream come true for me, as I have five excellent MF Nikkors to use on one :naughty:.

Perhaps Voigtländer will bring out a digital version of their Bessa rangefinders soon :). They have some excellent lenses, at pretty fair prices. At least then I (and people like me) could own RF camera gear as well as keeping the DSLR kit ;).
 
Just to be clear I'd love to keep the M9 and am very sad to let it go. Just holding it in my hand is a real pleasure. My 1D4 is just not the same.

I may have overpriced it in the for sale section, so its on ebay as item 160675189358 if anyone fancies a bid.
 
Tobers said:
Just to be clear I'd love to keep the M9 and am very sad to let it go. Just holding it in my hand is a real pleasure. My 1D4 is just not the same.

I may have overpriced it in the for sale section, so its on ebay as item 160675189358 if anyone fancies a bid.
Click to expand...

Good (ebay) listing, Tobers (y) - the pics are great.

The tiny bit of 'brassing' on the corner, that you mentioned - was that as a result of a little accident :naughty:, or does the finish wear so easily :thinking:? Just curious :shrug:.

Anyway, I hope that someone comes along soon and pays you what you want for it, as it's obviously been very well looked after :).

All the best,

Andy
 
I dropped by the Leica store in London yesterday. Got to handle the M9 with a 35 1.4.

The technology seems so far behind yet I want one due to the other factors. Technology isn't everything I'm finding.

The X100 looks more sensible and fairly capable and I wouldn't be so scared of damaging it like I would the Leica. I still may go this route as it allows me to have something small and portable when I'm out and about and still have money in my pocket.

The focusing method was interesting to use but the pictures looked unique, something I think you can't see in this thread or on the web for that matter. The bokeh was pleasing and the overall look of the pictures was somehow brilliant. You know the glass is fantastic and combined with their sensor it renders a certain look.

The setup I wanted was about £5K for the body and £3K for the lens for a whopping total of £8000. I just can't justify a price like that yet......at least not as of this morning.

All that being said, I still want one. Must be camera lust and not this unique picture rendering I seem to believe it is. :LOL:

Oh, and they do offer short classes where you get to handle the cameras so you can make a more informed decision on whether the Leica is right for you or not. I'd recommend it for anyone dropping that kind of cash.
 
Naboo32 said:
Good (ebay) listing, Tobers (y) - the pics are great.

The tiny bit of 'brassing' on the corner, that you mentioned - was that as a result of a little accident :naughty:, or does the finish wear so easily :thinking:? Just curious :shrug:.
Click to expand...

Not sure how it happened tbh. That corner does stick out a bit.

That 35 1.4 is a stonking lens - one of the best and it does create super pictures.
 
Naboo32 said:
If it was a third of the price with three times as many MPs, I'd be a lot more interested :D.
Click to expand...

yeah ! as it's so rare the price is absolutely silly ! I'd rather spend 1,5k on M8 then 1k on epson.

if it was around 700 I would start saving now.
 
Starastin said:
yeah ! as it's so rare the price is absolutely silly ! I'd rather spend 1,5k on M8 then 1k on epson.

if it was around 700 I would start saving now.
Click to expand...

I think that the price of the M9 merely acts as a 'fair warning' as to what you would be expected to pay for a suitable set of lenses to go with it :cautious:.

The 50mm f/2 Summicron lens (a tiny, fairly straight forward, but beautifully executed optical design), costs £1,100 to begin with and that's just about the cheapest of Leica's better M lenses (are there any bad ones :shrug:!?). If you decide that you need a faster one, you can almost double that price for an f/1.4 version :(.

If you want something other than a 50mm prime, you really better have deep pockets, as the 21 and 24mm (f/1.4) primes are both around £3,500 each :eek:!

So, shooting with an M9 is likely to be a five figure investment for most people :|.
 
You can get the Summarit range which is the 'affordable' Leica lenses which are for example a 50mm f/2.5 for under £1,000. I've read they don't seem to sell that well though. It's worse news than that for the 21/24 Summilux, you are talking £4,400 for the lens and add on another £579 for the 21 or 24 viewfinder. Plus you need to add in a few months wait for the Summilux lens range.

It's a lot of money when you add up 3 or 4 lenses, but you can pick up some decent second hand deals as people do tend to look after their M lenses very well considering the cost. You can also get nice Zeiss glass for the M mount if you don't want to spend thousands on the Leica equivalent. The initial cost of the camera is a real barrier to entry though, but Leica know they can charge high prices as their entire planned production run for the M9's life cycle was sold in 9 months.
 
Most Leica shooters are content with one normal/normal-wide anyway, and perhaps an ultra wide (Voigtlander make great ones that won't make you feel like your wallet's being violated). Those that want to go for a longer lens should stick to an SLR really.
 
Naboo32 said:
I think that the price of the M9 merely acts as a 'fair warning' as to what you would be expected to pay for a suitable set of lenses to go with it :cautious:.

The 50mm f/2 Summicron lens (a tiny, fairly straight forward, but beautifully executed optical design), costs £1,100 to begin with and that's just about the cheapest of Leica's better M lenses (are there any bad ones :shrug:!?). If you decide that you need a faster one, you can almost double that price for an f/1.4 version :(.

If you want something other than a 50mm prime, you really better have deep pockets, as the 21 and 24mm (f/1.4) primes are both around £3,500 each :eek:!

So, shooting with an M9 is likely to be a five figure investment for most people :|.
Click to expand...


it is yes, but M9 is also fabulous piece of engineering etc. lenses - also, but sure they should be less :p (can't prove it with facts though)

If I ever did buy something like M8 I would definitely be looking towards voigtlander or some older ones :D . but all in all it's pretty low in my personal list :D
 
Laudrup said:
You can get the Summarit range which is the 'affordable' Leica lenses which are for example a 50mm f/2.5 for under £1,000. I've read they don't seem to sell that well though...
Click to expand...

Ah, now I see :naughty:. Every extra stop costs you 2,000GBP, which is why this second hand f/1.1 50mm Leica prime costs €5,000 :eek:!!! The best part is, it's not even Made in Germany :p!

(Link ...)

I'm not 'having a go' at Leica here, BTW (honestly :)). I rather like the idea that there are still 'aspirational' brands out there in the world of photography - it must make owning one feel like a real achievement, for those who actually get to that stage. Maybe one day I'll join them - who knows :shrug:!

In the meantime, I'll just keep gawping in amazement at the prices :D.
 
I like things to be made in the UK but other than that I certainly wouldn't buy a product because it was made in Germany or pay more because it was made there and I don't see why I should. However, plenty of people seem to be happy buying and owning German cars, made in Austria, Poland, South Africa... :D
 
woof woof said:
I like things to be made in the UK but other than that I certainly wouldn't buy a product because it was made in Germany or pay more because it was made there and I don't see why I should. However, plenty of people seem to be happy buying and owning German cars, made in Austria, Poland, South Africa... :D
Click to expand...


nice ! another can of worms :D
 
Naboo32 said:
Ah, now I see :naughty:. Every extra stop costs you 2,000GBP, which is why this second hand f/1.1 50mm Leica prime costs €5,000 :eek:!!! The best part is, it's not even Made in Germany :p!

(Link ...)

I'm not 'having a go' at Leica here, BTW (honestly :)). I rather like the idea that there are still 'aspirational' brands out there in the world of photography - it must make owning one feel like a real achievement, for those who actually get to that stage. Maybe one day I'll join them - who knows :shrug:!

In the meantime, I'll just keep gawping in amazement at the prices :D.
Click to expand...

Dr. Walter Mandler worked at Ernst Leitz Canada (ELCAN) and produced such lenses as the first 35mm f/1.4, 75mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1 Noctilux and the ultra rare military spec 90mm f/1. Optical glass in Germany is still the same as in Canada after all. Made in Germany does seem to command more of a premium for collectors, but Dr Mandler lenses like the 50mm f/2 Summicron are still looked at as the landmark. I've got a Canadian Summicron myself and it is a beautiful lens and I've got a German made Summilux that's a beautiful lens.

Lenses like the Leica 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux aren't even that good compared to their more modern counterparts, but their rarity determines their value. Ebay has one for £16,000 currently. The M9 seems to be the flavour of the month right now, and a camera that people seem to want to aspire to, but it would be totally impractical for a lot of people if they actually switched to it.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
Dr. Walter Mandler worked at Ernst Leitz Canada (ELCAN) and produced such lenses as the first 35mm f/1.4, 75mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1 Noctilux and the ultra rare military spec 90mm f/1. Optical glass in Germany is still the same as in Canada after all. Made in Germany does seem to command more of a premium for collectors, but Dr Mandler lenses like the 50mm f/2 Summicron are still looked at as the landmark. I've got a Canadian Summicron myself and it is a beautiful lens and I've got a German made Summilux that's a beautiful lens.

Lenses like the Leica 50mm f/1.2 Noctilux aren't even that good compared to their more modern counterparts, but their rarity determines their value. Ebay has one for £16,000 currently. The M9 seems to be the flavour of the month right now, and a camera that people seem to want to aspire to, but it would be totally impractical for a lot of people if they actually switched to it.
Click to expand...

All noted and duly agreed with (y).

I must say, I do 'aspire to' owning a camera like the M9 - it just hasn't been made by anyone yet :shrug:! 18MP is a good start for a sensor, but how much further has sensor technology got to go before it can even hope to catch up with film, from a dynamic range POV at least :|? Before I'd think about actually dropping 4-5k on a camera body, it would have to be a lot more 'special' than anything produced so far (sorry M9 owners. No offence :shake:).

My feeling is that the lenses will outlast the (digital) bodies (in terms of used value) by a very long way. Only when Leica produce a digital RF body that can match/exceed both film qualities and at least match the IQ of the (future) best DSLRs will they have something worth 'investing in', IMHO. Even then, it's not likely to be a very long term investment, as subsequent models come along and out-do it. I think that the only way that I will ever get my 'dream' RF (with an M lens mount) is if someone other than Leica make it and at a price that I can justify to myself.

As you said, RFs are not for everyone and I for one would only want to own one as a supplement to my DSLR equipment. I doubt that I would ever consider using MF for wildlife and action photography and having AF on a Leica RF would no doubt mean a lot of design compromises and a lot of unhappy 'Leica Men' :D.

For now, Leica RFs are just something for to drool over, like the Bentlys (Bentlies :thinking:. No :LOL:) in the show rooms on Hyde Park corner. Sometimes, the dream is better than the reality ;). Certainly cheaper anyway.
 
Last edited:
Naboo32 said:
I must say, I do 'aspire to' owning a camera like the M9 - it just hasn't been made by anyone yet :shrug:! 18MP is a good start for a sensor, but how much further has sensor technology got to go before it can even hope to catch up with film, from a dynamic range POV at least :|? Before I'd think about actually dropping 4-5k on a camera body, it would have to be a lot more 'special' than anything produced so far (sorry M9 owners. No offence :shake:).
Click to expand...

Some people think that digital surpassed film quite some time ago and I agree with them. LL said this some time ago and referenced an even older camera...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/50d.shtml

"I would have to say that at 8 megapixels the Canon 20D was better than 35mm colour film in almost all respects and was invading, if not exactly threatening, the 645 format capabilities."

:D

I've owned a couple of film rangefinders but while they are lovely things I personally think that the negatives outweigh the positives and that there are better and more flexible options these days.
 
woof woof said:
Some people think that digital surpassed film quite some time ago and I agree with them. LL said this some time ago and referenced an even older camera...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/50d.shtml

"I would have to say that at 8 megapixels the Canon 20D was better than 35mm colour film in almost all respects and was invading, if not exactly threatening, the 645 format capabilities."

:D

I've owned a couple of film rangefinders but while they are lovely things I personally think that the negatives outweigh the positives and that there are better and more flexible options these days.
Click to expand...

In fairness though, his article is all about resolution, I was specifically talking about dynamic range, where I think that film still has the advantage ;) (outside of using HDR techniques, of course).

Anyway, I think that I've de-railed this thread quite far enough for one lifetime :LOL:.

Good luck with selling your camera, Tobers and thanks for an interesting insight into 'the Leica experience' (y).
 
Resolution is a part of what he's talking about but he does say 20D "was better than 35mm colour film in almost all respects"

I've had rangefinders and I personally think that they've had their day. The nice things like form factor, relatively quiet shutter (although some digitals and indeed some DSLR's are quieter than some RF's,) uninterrupted view, beyond frame view etc can or could be equalled by digital while digital can better RF's in areas like AF, off centre focusing and complex scene focus, longer focal lengths, magnified views etc.

What killed RF's for me was MFT and although at the mo I'm not completely happy I'm sure that I'll be happier at some point in the not too distant future.
 
You haven't had an M9 though. It's lighter than a DSLR setup, less obtrusive and offers full frame 18mp sensor with no anti-alias filter and lenses you can't get on a DSLR. It can't really be compared to MFT either as it is rather unfair on the MFT considering the price disparity and sensor size.

There is obvious demand there for RFs or RF lookalikes. The hype about the retro X100 and X10 plus people wanting interchangeable M mount lenses on an X200 and the waiting lists for a lot of M lenses as people want them for their M cameras and Ricohs, MFT, NEX etc. Leica can't keep up with demand and is moving to a bigger factory in Wetzlar in 2013, so the demand is there.
 
Oops. Something went wrong with my fingers and I seemed to have typed gibberish so I have deleted it.
 
Last edited:
They aren't digital rangefinders though. The M8/M8.2 would be my choice if I was concerned about wanting M lenses. Using them on a system for what they were designed for would be ideal.
 
Laudrup said:
You haven't had an M9 though. It's lighter than a DSLR setup, less obtrusive and offers full frame 18mp sensor with no anti-alias filter and lenses you can't get on a DSLR. It can't really be compared to MFT either as it is rather unfair on the MFT considering the price disparity and sensor size.

There is obvious demand there for RFs or RF lookalikes. The hype about the retro X100 and X10 plus people wanting interchangeable M mount lenses on an X200 and the waiting lists for a lot of M lenses as people want them for their M cameras and Ricohs, MFT, NEX etc. Leica can't keep up with demand and is moving to a bigger factory in Wetzlar in 2013, so the demand is there.
Click to expand...

And good luck to them but I personally have moved on from RF's and from film. I haven't had a M9 for two reasons, firstly because I've had film RF's and I've now moved on from them and from film but even if I hadn't I probably wouldn't buy an M9 as although I can afford any "thing" that I want there's a limit to what I'll allow myself to spend on a camera.

Being strictly an amateur and never having printed larger than A3 I can say with confidence that MFT gives both more options and superior results to anything I got from film although that is in part due to what digital shooting and processing allow as part of my reason for going digital was the nose dive in quality I noticed in film processing, maybe I was unlucky but that was part of the reason film has lost me for life.

Good luck to Leica but I'd rather have a small form body using something other than RF, the only thing lacking at the moment for me is lenses with ease of manual use. Lens markings and a more natural and more manually useable focus mechanism will make me very happy and I'm sure that I don't have to wish for better EVF technology, that'll come anyway.
 
Laudrup said:
They aren't digital rangefinders though. The M8/M8.2 would be my choice if I was concerned about wanting M lenses. Using them on a system for what they were designed for would be ideal.
Click to expand...

RF's are a minor issue for me, in fact in some ways they are a real hindrance. A fair number of my shots are close ups, try that with a RF.
 
Laudrup said:
They aren't digital rangefinders though. The M8/M8.2 would be my choice if I was concerned about wanting M lenses. Using them on a system for what they were designed for would be ideal.
Click to expand...

You should have a closer look at the Ricoh GXR mount which is designed specifically for M mount lenses. The sensor is adjusted for wide angles and no AA filter which will give truer character of the lenses. I brought one as soon as they were released.

I’ve was intrigued by rangefinders but having tried one I knew they were not for me. But I knew the lenses are very good which is why I went for the Ricoh M mount. True it's not a rangefinder but for me it is more than capable.
 
woof woof said:
RF's are a minor issue for me, in fact in some ways they are a real hindrance. A fair number of my shots are close ups, try that with a RF.
Click to expand...

There are many macro shots taken with Leicas. The Visoflex has been around for 50+ years, plus you have bellows and lenses like the 90mm f/4 Macro Elmar or the 135mm Telyt that can be used. There are some very nice macro shots on the Leica forum.
 
Willo said:
You should have a closer look at the Ricoh GXR mount which is designed specifically for M mount lenses. The sensor is adjusted for wide angles and no AA filter which will give truer character of the lenses. I brought one as soon as they were released.

I’ve was intrigued by rangefinders but having tried one I knew they were not for me. But I knew the lenses are very good which is why I went for the Ricoh M mount. True it's not a rangefinder but for me it is more than capable.
Click to expand...

I did see reviews on it, but it would be a back up to my M9, and going from parallax corrected frame lines and losing the rangefinder focusing system wouldn't be worth it to me. If you were using it as your main camera or a back up to a DSLR then it would suit more than a back up to a DRF.

I am looking at a NEX-7 as I bought a NEX-5 for the missus, but that will need to wait until they are in the country.
 
Dang, really missing my M9. However, I am contemplating a Canon 24 1.4 as it does have a the look I am after, with wide angle but still very shallow depth of field. And its still a massive amount cheaper than the Leica equivalent would be.
 
Laudrup said:
There are many macro shots taken with Leicas. The Visoflex has been around for 50+ years...
Click to expand...

I suppose it's a fix to overcome a basic problem of the RF for close ups but for me the RF is now just a memory.
 
Tobers your first post is exactly the way I would have writen it had I been smart enough to write it:)
I got poisioned into buying a D800e 2 1/2 months ago thinking it would be graet to go back to a DSLR.............I was wrong and it is now up for sale........I just want to shoot Leica and will keep my D3s and all the Nikon lenses incase I go and shoot some sports events or something like that.
Again great wright up Tobers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top