BobYIL
Well-known
Naturally cost is a totally different concern while almost all costs in digital photography seeming "structured" parallel to the developments and innovations in the digital sector.
I am expecting to see some leaps in digital photography the next year as most of the companies holding R&D in the sector (Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc.) are trying to cope up with the damages occured in Japan, Thailand, etc. The "innovative" files could not be put into implementation fully. Wait for the D600 and you will get some hints about the "new" performance/cost balance to rule the oncoming years. (A 24MP D3200, HD-video and ISO 6400 with zoom lens for $699.. a sort of new standard for small DSLRs for example.. )
icebear
Mentor
Why would anyone need to feel that an upgrade is necessary when you have a M9? All the higher pixel count and higher than 10000 ISO is a nice to have at best.
It's marketing BS at it's best just to keep the turnover high and the market share growing. I could see a higher dynamic range bringing some more latitude and prevent overblown highlights but then: meter correctly at the first place.
Where do people stop in RAM and TB storage in their laptops and desktops? Is there a large enough flat screen TV (3D-LED of course) - as long as the wall structure is able to hold it, it will grow, even if people need to enlarge their living room...
Perhaps we have needs that are different than yours? High ISO is something I tend to use a lot these days.
semordnilap
Well-known
I noticed the same, seems to be a lot of M9s showing up. I've met a few ff dlsr shooters who bought M9's and left them in the closet. One said: RFs seem to be be more useful for 'happy accidents' or something like that, basically loosely framed work. Then I showed him some pictures I took and he said: oh, those don't look loosely framed at all.
I might buy one after the M10 comes out, if they do drop to $3500 or so. I could travel with 3 cameras (m8, m9, and nex), and just one set of lenses.
I'm still putting minimum 10k+ clicks on my M8 each year, a lot more when I travel.
I might buy one after the M10 comes out, if they do drop to $3500 or so. I could travel with 3 cameras (m8, m9, and nex), and just one set of lenses.
I'm still putting minimum 10k+ clicks on my M8 each year, a lot more when I travel.
jarski
Mentor
been noticing more M9 for sale recently, but pretty much same price than before. maybe worth wait a bit more.
Keith you should consider your own gear review site. RD1 has gain plenty of attention on RFF since you got yours!
That's true ... RD-1s were crawling out of the woodwork a week after I started a thread praising the camera!
And none at the price I paid for mine ... which did make me feel a little smug I have to admit!
Keith you should consider your own gear review site. RD1 has gain plenty of attention on RFF since you got yours!
Monochrom
Well-known
The m9 is pretty fine camera....i´m totally satisfied with it....also got myself another m3...both complement each other.
In regards of obsolecence of the m9 i´m quite confident with it...it´s already fullframe and leica i think is confident too...they never issued an m8-p or luxurious models as the titanium not to mention the monochrom....so i think leica believes it´s a fine camera that can stand the pass of time with success.
My only concern about the m10 is the fact leica may want to go back to the slimmer body of the traditional m´s....i believe that´s the only danger of obsolecence of the m9 and it´s partners...
So maybe people is selling it´s m9 because they never totally were able to keep it runnig and need AF or even they want to switch to the monochrom...
In regards of obsolecence of the m9 i´m quite confident with it...it´s already fullframe and leica i think is confident too...they never issued an m8-p or luxurious models as the titanium not to mention the monochrom....so i think leica believes it´s a fine camera that can stand the pass of time with success.
My only concern about the m10 is the fact leica may want to go back to the slimmer body of the traditional m´s....i believe that´s the only danger of obsolecence of the m9 and it´s partners...
So maybe people is selling it´s m9 because they never totally were able to keep it runnig and need AF or even they want to switch to the monochrom...
furcafe
Mentor
umcelinho
Marcelo
If it ever hits that range, you will be waiting for it to hit the $2500 range.
Nah, not willing to wait for that long
And I'm not sure they'll even drop to that price range. I bought my R-D1 in 2009 for $1300, it's what they are still being sold for after 3 years, maybe for a little lower than that. After the M10 hits the market I think it will drop somewhat quickly to the $4000 range, as nowadays it's already in the $4500-5500 range... but to go much below that should take quite some more time.But to be honest, I'm not even sure I'd end up getting one, I haven't been shooting as much as I'd like to and my R-D1 works well. Thing is, my fav focal length (35mm) on the R-D1 doesn't work out too well, because of the crop factor I gotta use a 21/2.8, which is not fast enough for low light shooting as a 35/1.2 would be.. but the X100 has been filling up this gap quite well.
Time will tell
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I sold all my Leica M gear in 2002 when it seemed that Leica was on the rocks and there would never be a digital rangefinder body that I could use my Elmarit-M 21mm, Summicron-M 35mm ASPH, Summicron-M 50mm, Summilux-M 75mm and Elmarit-M 90mm lenses with.
I was wrong and it was foolish to sell them. To replace those exact lenses now would cost me three times what I sold the whole kit for, including two M4-P and one M6TTL body, then. I have an M4-2 body again now, and an M9.
(Luckily, the Cosina/Voigtländer and Carl Zeiss lenses have filled in where I simply cannot afford to buy the Leica lenses, even the ones that are available. They are now at about the quality level of my older Leica lenses, which is just fine by me. And they provide more good choices and different takes on rendering, etc.)
Why all this craziness on having to upgrade all the time? The M9 is the closest to new of any M body I've ever purchased (Leica USA certified demo), and I have never seen that I always absolutely had to have the latest of the latest even in digital gear. Buying behind the leading edge of the curve nets much nicer gear at much lower costs. The M9 is a brilliant camera and will remain so even after an M10, an M11 or even an M24 comes out.
If you just don't really like Leica M gear, then sure: sell it off. But to sell it off because you "can't keep up with upgrading" seems a bit much. Just don't upgrade: make photographs instead.
hteasley
Pupil
To be honest, I haven't thought that these 64,000 ISO images of dark candlelit rooms (or whatever) from the latest DSLRs are all that awesome. I feel like I can get comparable quality at 1250 from my M9 and a fast lens. And some Lightroom massaging can get the M9 image to be as noise-free and as processed-looking as the high ISO images from big DSLRs.
I dunno. I realize I'm not an awesome authority on this stuff, but I haven't seen a lot of real-world use of the incredible darkness powers of DSLRs where I felt like the M9 wouldn't also perform pretty awesomely.
furcafe
Mentor
They may lack in awesomeness due to the aesthetic quality of the shots &/or the photographers taking them, not the cameras being used.
The bottom line for me is that it would be nice to have the same range of sensor quality available in digital RFs as in dSLRs & mirrorless cameras, just like we did back in the days of film. The fact that one person was satisfied w/shooting Kodachrome all the time didn't mean there wasn't someone else who needed Tri-X, right? Of course, one can always use a faster lens or a tripod, but that's not an apples-to-apples comparison & it totally ignores the additional options provided by the new sensors, like not having to shoot wide-open all the time or being able to use higher shutter speeds to stop motion in dark conditions. I, for 1, am not interested in using digital technology to simply take the exact same shots I would w/a film camera.
Based on my personal experience with all 3 cameras, my summary of high ISO performance is that ISO 1250 on the M9 = ISO 3200 on the D700 & X-Pro1 (the X-Pro1 & M9 files being more similar in that both cameras lack anti-aliasing filters on their sensors). Sure, improvements in Adobe Camera Raw, etc., enable you to massage better results from M9 files, but those improvements apply equally to raw files from other cameras.
The bottom line for me is that it would be nice to have the same range of sensor quality available in digital RFs as in dSLRs & mirrorless cameras, just like we did back in the days of film. The fact that one person was satisfied w/shooting Kodachrome all the time didn't mean there wasn't someone else who needed Tri-X, right? Of course, one can always use a faster lens or a tripod, but that's not an apples-to-apples comparison & it totally ignores the additional options provided by the new sensors, like not having to shoot wide-open all the time or being able to use higher shutter speeds to stop motion in dark conditions. I, for 1, am not interested in using digital technology to simply take the exact same shots I would w/a film camera.
Based on my personal experience with all 3 cameras, my summary of high ISO performance is that ISO 1250 on the M9 = ISO 3200 on the D700 & X-Pro1 (the X-Pro1 & M9 files being more similar in that both cameras lack anti-aliasing filters on their sensors). Sure, improvements in Adobe Camera Raw, etc., enable you to massage better results from M9 files, but those improvements apply equally to raw files from other cameras.
Ok guys, I apparently didn't put as much thought into my post as you guys are and I apologize for that. As a user of the Fuji X cameras, the M9 wasn't my main camera anymore because I preferred the AF, EVF/OVF, high ISO, and the close-up abilities of the Fujis. Also, because I was used to shooting with the Fujis, which offer very good high ISO, I was spoiled when I went to use the M9 (which felt crippled in comparison). I used to think this was a plus, but not anymore. Additionally, this made ME feel anxiety about wanting a Leica M with easy to use high ISO. That means an upgrade was in the future. However, I'm not willing to upgrade or buy another $8000 Leica. Plus, Leica's lens prices are out of control IMO. Once I had another camera that I could trust and use in a better manner (for me remember) than my M9, then the M9 had to go. I could not allow it to be a backup and depreciate in value.
I make photos a lot (anyone who knows me personally can confirm). I don't get this opinion on this forum that if you talk about gear or sell some gear, you aren't making photos enough. It's BS. Nobody photographs 24/7... and upgrading is very simple. The cash lost is similar to what I would use on film and processing with a film camera.
Another obsession on this forum is to tell others what they need and should be using when we all know that it's a personal decision. The M9 is a great camera. However, it was no longer my go-to camera. I chose to cash out now and have decided that M digital gear is just too much money for what it offers me. What's wrong with that? Why does that offend people?
brandonskinner
Member
For me, I guess it's a buy low, sell high idea. I know most of us regard our M's as our children, but gosh, if I can sell my M9 for $5500 and rebuy it in 12 months for $3500, then I could either have my camera back and an extra $2000 in my pocket or have an X-Pro1 and my camera back at no loss to me.
Nigel Meaby
Well-known
What I'm interested to know is whether any of the M9's currently in the classifieds have sold yet or not? Are the prices tempting members to buy? Have you bought one of these for sale or are the sellers struggling to shift them?
^ I sold mine to pork taco. ^
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Unless you want to count things like the M8.2 and the special edition all-white M8.
I would not equate Leica's willingness to make variations of a camera to its confidence in that camera. But rather to its confidence that it has a willing market for such variations.
Joe AC
Well-known
A lot of people think that buying a camera with high ISO performance will save them from having to spend the money on fast lenses. But, keep in mind that if you're not spending that extra money on the fast lenses, you're spending it on that latest night vision machine. I'd personally prefer the fast glass.
Joe
Joe
Those of us that bought the Fuji X-Pro1 get a 35mm (53mm equiv) f/1.4 lens and high ISO. I'll take the night vision machine and proudly use it. Not sure why people think that's a bad thing unless you just don't like digital.
BobYIL
Well-known
Not really.. For instance Fujifilm's excellent 35/1.4 Asph. costs $599.. another excellent one 35/1.2 Nokton Asph. costs $1.399 new version. One does not need to pay over $4.000 to enjoy first class optical performance and fast apertures.
The greatest benefit of latest sensors, be APS-C or FF size, is their capability of very high ISO combined with acceptable DR. With these sensors even f2.8 lenses perform faster than most f1.4 or even f1.2 lenses with sensors of 2009.. And upgrade to such sensors usually cost less than the cost of a Leica hood.
Digital technology is indeed a short cut to many dreams we used to think as being impossible.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I'm not offended, nor did I intend to offend. I was puzzled by what you said, that's all. Far from me to presume what will work best for you. I have enough trouble figuring that out for myself. ;-)
I've bought and sold more gear than I care to remember over the past 40 plus years, nearly all of it great stuff. I see nothing wrong with that. I didn't do it out of some compulsion to keep "upgrading", which is what your original statement said. I never needed to "upgrade", I always sought to find what worked better for me, in ways that aren't always immediately obvious from looking at photos.
If you find something else does a better job for you, by all means: go for it.
To make a big deal about it is what I find off-putting. I have six or seven cameras that I use a lot, currently, and when I buy another or sell one of them, well, I do and I have my reasons. That's all I give a damn about. To say that I would sell out of anything because I 'didn't want to keep up with the cost of upgrading' is, to me, fairly ridiculous. Any camera I've owned since the first I had at age 10 can make superb photos, and that was more than double my age at the time.
..."Equipment often gets in the way of Photography."..