Rolex or M9?

<p>Have been eyeing on the Submariner for awhile..(the M9 longer). Very close price wise. Wonder which will make me happier...<br>

what would you do?</p>

Buy the M9. Or another M3 and a whole lotta beer.

<p>Pretty watch. Personally, I'd choose the watch although I'm an Omega man. If it were me, I would opt for an Omega to accompany my M2 - stay analog, enjoy both, and shoot lots of film.</p>

I'm with Jean-Yves on the M3 + beer option.

 

But if you really have to choose, I'd pick the M9.

The Rolex will only tell you what time it is right now, the M9 tell you of all the good times and bad times you've had for years to come...

<p>I love the Submariner myself. You could get an M9 and Citizen or Swiss Army watch. either will keep better time than the Rolex. Then again you could get a Rolex and a Canon point & shoot; but the P&S won't take better pictures than the M9. It's about priorities and desires.</p>

<p>I suspect you already know the answer. I wish you lots of fun with your new camera ;-)</p>

<p>Actually, I think the Sub will bring me to another level. But the M9, probably not.<br>

See, Im wearing a Tag Heuer and using a Rd1s now.</p>

<p>Ton..;)</p>

<p>Actually, I think the Sub will bring me to another level. But the M9, probably not.<br>

See, Im wearing a Tag Heuer and using a Rd1s now.</p>

<p>Ton..;)</p>

<p>Purchased new Submariner in 1979 for $840USD. Still on my wrist every day with no problems and no service. I have a Daytona but don't wear it as I like the Sub much better. I had an Explorer II but didn't like that one either.<br>

Purchased an M3 and 50mm Summicron lens in Mint condition from estate of original owner with et al for $700 in 1985 or so. Don't use it as I upgraded to M6 and then a pair of M7's. M3 probably not worth much more than i paid for it.<br>

Have not purchased M9 yet because the life cycle of digital products is so short, witness the M8 and the bath original purchasers took. May purchase Leica's next M digital but probably only used.<br>

You be the judge as to what you want.-Dick</p>

<p>A watch...bringing you to "another level?" Hey, if you're on the fence about an M9 versus a Rolex...please do the world a favor and buy neither - and simply send your 7K to a worthwhile charity. Happy New Year.</p>

Reminds me of the Woody Allen routine: a divorce, or a holiday in Bermuda. They discussed it maturely and settled on

the divorce, arguing that a holiday in Bermuda is over in two weeks but a divorce is something you always have.

<p>My Rolex is in the shop, My M9 was stolen from the trunk of the Rolls. I think I'll take the Ferrari into the city, and buy the Empire State Building. Ho Hum, decisions, decisions.</p>

<p>Neither nor both will take you to a new level. One tells time, the other keeps it and folds it neatly into a photograph. Buy a used M6 and a 35mm Summicron, unless you have one already, and donate the rest to charity. <em>That </em>will take you to a new level. Besides, if you have to ask...</p>

<p>1/60th of a sec here, 1/100th of a sec there, all the pics you'll ever make with the M9 will only add up to a couple of minutes, but they'll weigh more than the hour on your arm. One is about the future, the other is about the past, none of that will make you happy but the present. Maybe you should buy both !</p>

<p>Why not have have both, get a Timex + M9</p>

<p>Certainly you must be considering the M9 Titanium. Anything else would be so...so...<em>pedestrian</em>.<br /> Happy New Year. :-)</p>

<p>Travis...my humble apologies (plus a humble admission....that I own a Porsche). <br>

But your photographs obviously come from your heart...and I, personally, would hate to see you forego the further potential offered by the M-9. <br>

Hmmm...maybe the Timex/M9 combo isn't such a bad idea!</p>

<p>What a tough choice to make...</p>

<p>I buy a $10 watch from Argos every 3 years. That's how long the battery lasts. That's about $30 per decade. I don't care what it looks like although it doesn't have the bling look so many find attractive. I'd rather have the M9. It has to be better than my M8!</p><div></div>

<p>I purchased my Rolex Sub in 1990 and have used it every day since. Will the M9 last as long, nice as it is?</p>

I say get the M9. It has a clock in it already! I dare say it is more handcrafted than the Rolex as well...

<p>"I say get the M9. It has a clock in it already! I dare say it is more handcrafted than the Rolex as well..."</p>

<p>Just keep the iphone since it has a clock and a camera...</p>

<p>If you've posted the same question on a similar Rolex forum, I'd say you haven't decided. If you have NOT, then you have decided and maybe just need us to provide the nudge for you to get the M9.</p>

<p>Nudge.</p>

<p>(But not "nudge, nudge" as that would be too Pythonesque and that's not what I'm going for here although the skit WAS about Photography!)</p>

<p>Say no more.</p>

<p>Enjoy the M9. Too bad it doesn't include a clock on it.</p>

<p>For watches look into timefactors.com out of Britian. They make the UDT commando watch. Excellent quality, probably within 5% of a Rolex or Stowa out of Germany for the Airman look. Both substantially under 1k. In both cases you are buying directly from a company and there is no markup. Save the difference and get the M9.</p>

<p>Honestly, I have a GMT 2 and an M9. I think if I could only have one, it would be the M9, though the GMT is great. To me there are certain things that you can own for free - meaning that regardless of what you pay for them, they tend to hold their value in a way that tracks inflation, and I would put the GMT in this category. And I would also put most Leica glass in this category. I could sell the GMT now for as much as I paid new. It's the only watch I've ever worn that I cannot destroy (physically) with my rather aggressive and rough abuse - I work trackside and am constantly banging it into concrete barriers. The crystal and ceramic bezel cannot be scratched. And the SS can always be polished. I have no doubt that I will always wear this watch as long as I can. And before I had it, I was generally destroying 1 or 2 citizen or seiko types each year, at the cost of a few hundred dollars each. Even destroyed an omega (speedmaster) and a breitling aerospace. So to me, not only can I sell the Rolex for what I paid, it's saving me a few hundred or thousand a year in destroyed watches....<br>

Regarding the longevity of the M9, I think it's a much better proposition than the M8 was. Having said that, I am one of those who bought and struggled with the M8. I owned 2 bodies, sold one quickly and with a small loss, and one recently at a large loss. But I didn't lose any more than I do when I sell my canon bodies. To me, cameras are tools to make money and pictures with, and losing money when replacing them is just a cost of business. Digital camera technology is maturing, and while I think there may be upgrades or a replacement to the M9, the camera pretty much does everything it sets out to do (which could not be said about the m8) and in a good way. There are probably gains to be had in high-iso performance, but otherwise I think the camera really succeeds. But it's still going to be a money loser when the next version hits.<br>

So if you are buying for investment purposes, get the Rolex. But if you need a tool to make photos, get the M9, and offset your losses by buying lots of glass to go with it..... </p>