Leica M9 why so much ?

<p>The M9 is a niche product made by a ( relatively) small manufacturer. This means that margins will have to be higher - because asset turn is lower. Otherwise all things being equal the company goes broke. The actual IQ of teh files from M9 is likely to be very similar to teh IQ of teh M8 sans resolution differences ( megapixels). the reason peopel will cue up to buy it - is that they ( liek me) can use their M lenses the way they were designed to be used as far as field of view goes ( ie full frame )<br>

The S2 is a totally different animal again - anyone who shoots Medium Format digital - and looks at the specs of the lenses and the back - certainly hav emuch to think about.<br>

The only segment that leica now does not compete in is the 35mm DSLR segment - the fact that a CaNikon etc can do a lot of things an M9 cant - is a reason for those who need these things to consider a CaNikon. I know I will be keeping my D33 for example for all the stuff my M8/M9 cant do.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A point not mentioned in this discussion is the noise made by DSLRs. Whenever Obama, et al., have a press conference there is this anoying background clatter of DSLRs going off. Not sure why they are all taking so many photos- we all know what he looks like. One of the significant advantages of the Leica M is the quiet shutter. This alone makes the M9 the camera of choice in many situations. <br>

Recall the old saying: "The quality remains long after the price is forgotten."</p>

<p>I have used Leica M film cameras for a long time. I have no M bodies now because I have sold my M6 and MP but I do still have a 50/2 Summicron (latest) and a 90/2.8 Elmarit M as well as 21/4, 24/4, and 28/2 M bayonet VM lenses and a 40/2 Rokkor M fit.<br>

Now my dilemma is do I buy an M9, and have immediate use of all my lenses as they were meant to be used or do I buy a mint used M8 at 1/3 the price and still have the use of all my lenses, albeit scaled up by 33%? If I follow the latter route my minimum wide angle is 28mm (21 times 1.3) so if I want to go wider I shall have to buy another lens. The obvious one is the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 which can be bought used for about the same price as a used M8 (without v/f) but a better bet would seem to be the Zeiss 18/4 at about half that price new, which I can use with my 21 v/f (near enough for my purposes).<br>

Now it seems to me that hugely tempting though the M9 is, the M8 is also pretty good and I can buy one, together with a Zeiss ZM 18/4, for just over half the price of the M9. I imagine there will be an upgrade to the M9 in about a year, by which time it may well have lost a third of its value so sticking to the M8 route seems sensible to me.<br>

I love range-finders (because they are compact and the Leica lenses are brilliant) and I want a digital one so Leica M is the only way to go. And since I don't care about soft touch, "noisy" shutters, M8 magenta cast (can be sorted in PS(E)), poor M8 jpg / WB (I only use RAW), on the fly ISO / EV adjustment (I can revert to manual for that) the only real benefit as far as I can see is FF vs 1.3x. And since I also own the (much larger) Sony a900 FF I think I can wait a bit for that.</p>

<p>I have used Leica M film cameras for a long time. I have no M bodies now because I have sold my M6 and MP but I do still have a 50/2 Summicron (latest) and a 90/2.8 Elmarit M as well as 21/4, 24/4, and 28/2 M bayonet VM lenses and a 40/2 Rokkor M fit.<br>

Now my dilemma is do I buy an M9, and have immediate use of all my lenses as they were meant to be used or do I buy a mint used M8 at 1/3 the price and still have the use of all my lenses, albeit scaled up by 33%? If I follow the latter route my minimum wide angle is 28mm (21 times 1.3) so if I want to go wider I shall have to buy another lens. The obvious one is the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21 which can be bought used for about the same price as a used M8 (without v/f) but a better bet would seem to be the Zeiss 18/4 at about half that price new, which I can use with my 21 v/f (near enough for my purposes).<br>

Now it seems to me that hugely tempting though the M9 is, the M8 is also pretty good and I can buy one, together with a Zeiss ZM 18/4, for just over half the price of the M9. I imagine there will be an upgrade to the M9 in about a year, by which time it may well have lost a third of its value so sticking to the M8 route seems sensible to me.<br>

I love range-finders (because they are compact and the Leica lenses are brilliant) and I want a digital one so Leica M is the only way to go. And since I don't care about soft touch, "noisy" shutters, M8 magenta cast (can be sorted in PS(E)), poor M8 jpg / WB (I only use RAW), on the fly ISO / EV adjustment (I can revert to manual for that) the only real benefit as far as I can see is FF vs 1.3x. And since I also own the (much larger) Sony a900 FF I think I can wait a bit for that.</p>

<p>I've seen color moire in a number of the M9 photos on the web. The problem with removing moire in software is that you are guessing - it might be an educated guess, but it's still a guess. To be 100% sure that you are preventing/removing moire, you need to do it before sampling, hence an AA filter over the sensor.</p>

<p>That being said, camera shake might be enough of an 'AA filter' to remove blur in situations like street photography.</p>

<p>(the other Tim Gray)</p>

<p>I bet there's enough 'margin' in the M9's price for Leica to eventually offer a $1000+/- rebate if it's bought with something (equally overpriced) like a Noctilux, especially once the 'honeymoon period' is over ......... and sales of the M7 & MP effectively dry up.</p>

 

<p>"Leica has produced a true full frame M series rangefinder. What everyone had said was impossible, including Leica, – primarily because of the extremely short back focus distance of the M series design – is now a reality."<br>

Doing the impossible is always expensive!!</p>

<p>Seven Gs sounds like a lot. But look at the start-up costs of even the smallest business venture like a small restaurant and you're talking $50 to 100 thousand. In other words, if you're using your Leica as a business tool you're not really investing that much. But who's using Leicas for business aside from a few professional photojournalists?<br>

Most of us Leica lovers are conducting an expensive private pursuit of photographic excellence and panache. Let's not forget that many of the most memorable photos of the past hundred years or so were made with what would now be considered substandard equipment. Do you really think that Robert Frank's The Americans would have been that much better if he had used a Noctilux or an aspherical lens perched on an M9?</p>

<p>"The Leica M9, like all Leicas, is not intended to compete in the trenches with other cameras. It's in a class by itself, and it appeals to those who can afford it ("can afford it" being the operative term -- read the TOP article)."</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

<p>"Doing the impossible is always expensive!!"</p>

<p>Contrary to popular opinion, this was not an impossible mission as I wrote about several years ago. It was the will of Leica to survive that made this possible.</p>

<p>Leicas's seem more expensive to me because I was always able to buy used. But in the era of digitals (and quicker obsolescence) it's not really practical to buy a decades old Leica (digital). That said, we've been spoiled by Canon and Nikon producing superb cameras we can love as much as the leica for substantially less money (about $2500 for the 5d2). I could never buy the highest end professional Nikon or Canon either. But because leica's line is ONLY the most expensive camera, it's out of our reach in a way that Nikon and Canon are not. If there was a Leica M80 made of more conventional materials for $1000 to $2000 we probably wouldn't be complaining. I wish Cosina made one. I'd like to use those lenses gathering dust in their case.<br>

I used to like using my M2 but digital is too seductive and I've had to give up on the idea of ever shooting digital rangefinders, and I suspect most others have as well. In my 50s it's not the only favorite of mine to bite the dust on a permanent basis.</p>

<p>I doubt the end product of Leica photography, image quality, will be any better than, say, Canon's.</p>

<p><em>Why so much</em>?</p>

<p>Maybe it has to do with supply and demand curves, equilibrium points, and number being produced. That would be my guess.</p>

<p>Hmm - I've just spent the weekend shooting with my M9 and despite an ever-present air of uselessness about the camera (battery life, sluggishness), the quality is higher than my 5DII *under certain circumstances*.<br>

Those circumstances are:<br>

1. Subject in focus<br>

2. Plenty of light<br>

But that's about it. The auto white balance is laughable, but the detail available in and around every pixel is quite incredible. Nothing can touch the Canon at high ISOs - hey, I just sold an A1 print of a *cropped* picture taken at ISO 800 - you couldn't see noise - but the sharpness out of the Leica/Zeiss combination is staggering.<br>

And swiftly back to the OP - why is it so much? I guess it's because they don't make many, can't make many and it keeps them scarce and exclusive, driving the price up...</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>And swiftly back to the OP - why is it so much? I guess it's because they don't make many, can't make many and it keeps them scarce and exclusive, driving the price up...</p>

</blockquote>

 

Yeah, there is a high demand for them ... for years people have been clamoring for a FF DRF. And they don't churn them out like Canon 50Ds - low supply.

 

 

Basically well heeled people want them, - the price really does not matter to them so much. So the equilibrium point (the point at which a certain number people are willing to buy and the point at which Leica is willing to give up their precious hand made, jewel like, picture taking machine is $7000.

 

 

They probably could have sold them for much more 1.5 years ago. Why, people felt richer then.

 

 

 

<p>Also, German workers are some of the highest paid in the world, if not the highest.</p>

<p>Part of the reason is the mechanical complexity of the RF-VF system. My M4-P, if produced today, would likely cost as much as a new M7, or about half the cost of the M9. The RF-VF system alone has 104 parts.</p>

<p>Small scale production is another reason. Those wishing the frame speed and automatic features of a top level Canon or Nikon pay about the same amount as an M9, sometimes more.</p>

<p>Those who have little need for automatism and SLR operation, and who wish instead for a very much smaller and discrete FF camera, will pay for that advantage. It is an added advantage if you have existing Leica lenses, though, and not have to face the very high prices of the more recent ones.</p>

 

<p>My only problem is, how can I get a $9k expense past my wife?</p>

<p>Whoops! Ok, ok. I meant $7k. But after taxes and other attendant expenses...</p>

<p>Because the M9 is competitive in terms of price to Nikon's and Canon's top end.</p>

<p>It would be an expensive system to buy into, but for those with a few M lenses it is tempting.</p>