# Leica M9-P



## Tijn (Mar 5, 2012)

I just came across some talk and reviews on the Leica M9-P. This is a brand and camera I didn't know anything about. Having read about it and seen it...  

What the f***? I mean, just WHAT? I really, really... I DON'T GET IT. Leica M9-P. WHAT??

If one would want to go back to basic, why pay $8000 instead of buying a 20$ 20-year-old camera or turning your DSLR mode dial to "manual"?

Is there anybody who understands this Leica stuff? Anything more to be said than "you just have to try it" + aesthetic mysticism-like artistic rant?

_How can such a thing exist?_


----------



## Leica M9P (Mar 6, 2012)

But when I went into the shop the salesman told me it was the best to buy, so I did - did I waste my money? I have not unboxed it yet.


----------



## Leica M9P (Mar 6, 2012)

Oh no, I just rang my dealer and not only are there no zoom lenses made for it but I cannot take photos using the screen on the back - I have to hold the camera near my face!!!!!


----------



## samueljay (Mar 6, 2012)




----------



## Rocky (Mar 8, 2012)

Just go to:
http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/


----------



## nightbreath (Mar 8, 2012)

Leica M9-P is a superior camera, but different from what you used to see. So, if you want an SLR, just buy it and forget about hesitation. M9-P is rangefinder with full-frame CCD sensor. It doesn't have AA filter and can make stunning images if used properly. Here's a sample shot made usin Leica M9-P and 50mm f/0.95 @ f/1.0:


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 8, 2012)

The Leica M9 is not a camera, it's a test.

If you look at the price tag, think "wtf?" and keep walking, then you should stick with your dslr/evil/p&s/phone and be thankful.
If you still want one despite the pricetag, then you're one of us special people, and no amount of psychiatric help or medication can cure it (I hear the symptoms are worse than those of L-Fever)


----------



## Old Shooter (Mar 8, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> The Leica M9 is not a camera, it's a test.
> 
> If you look at the price tag, think "wtf?" and keep walking, then you should stick with your dslr/evil/p&s/phone and be thankful.
> If you still want one despite the pricetag, then you're one of us special people, and no amount of psychiatric help or medication can cure it (I hear the symptoms are worse than those of L-Fever)



LOL!

I secretly long for an S2, but one body and three lenses is almost $50,000!  ??? :-\

But there is something about that little red ball...


----------



## Tijn (Mar 8, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> The Leica M9 is not a camera, it's a test.
> 
> If you look at the price tag, think "wtf?" and keep walking, then you should stick with your dslr/evil/p&s/phone and be thankful.
> If you still want one despite the pricetag, then you're one of us special people, and no amount of psychiatric help or medication can cure it (I hear the symptoms are worse than those of L-Fever)


And I wouldn't blame anyone for having it, but is there anything to _understand_? The thing is, I can perfectly imagine the "back to basic" feeling, and I get the stripping of automatic functionality to forcibly bring some more personal input into the photography process. I really understand that, and forcing one to do the whole thing yourself is more than just flipping a "manual" switch that you flip back when you're fed up with it. I also understand that the small size and looks may appeal to you, in particular for street photography. But even with all that, I just cannot comprehend the $8000 price tag.
For buyers, it's an achievement getting the money together and buying one; and I bet people are happy when they manage to do it _just because of the effort that went into it_. But have they really achieved much more than buying a massively overpriced but decent manual camera? Might they as well have bought, say, a completely functional but $2000-costing dustbin?


----------



## mjp (Mar 8, 2012)

It was always my understanding that most serious photographers wanted a Leica.
I think _dr croubie_ wrote it best. It is indeed a test. The camera is unforgiving, as it is truly a tool where you the photographer have to make all the big decisions. With a DSLR a decent photo can still be made, even if there was little thought into it. With a Leica, not likely. If the photo sucks, there is absolutely no way you can blame the camera!

I don't think Leica is overpriced and it is definitely far above being a _decent_ manual camera! Cheers.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 8, 2012)

nightbreath said:


> Leica M9-P is a superior camera, but different from what you used to see. So, if you want an SLR, just buy it and forget about hesitation. M9-P is rangefinder with full-frame CCD sensor. It doesn't have AA filter and can make stunning images if used properly. Here's a sample shot made usin Leica M9-P and 50mm f/0.95 @ f/1.0:


Great picture I wish I can afford the $20,000 set up. You have just summerize the strength of the M9.
I do not agree that M9 is over priced. In the hand of the right person. It can be faster than a DSLR. The lenses are unmatchable (expensive also). I feel that we got what we paid for. One poster says it force us to be back to basic. I would disagree to that. I would say" we want to be back to basic, that is why we buy it".


----------



## Neeneko (Mar 8, 2012)

Beyond what others have said, there is also simply an element of decreasing rate of return on higher priced cameras. As the price goes up (and market size go down) you get a smaller and smaller amount of improvement. The M9-P is a good camera, better then its cheaper counterparts, at least in the metrics it excels at. Not many people want a camera like that though so the higher build cost plus smaller market results in a higher cost.

It is for people who can afford to pay much more for a little better. The f/0.95 lens is another such example. Much more expensive then even an f1.0, which is 2-4 times the cost of a f1.2. Small improvements, significant increase in cost... but worth it to people who can afford them.


----------



## 7enderbender (Mar 8, 2012)

Tijn said:


> I just came across some talk and reviews on the Leica M9-P. This is a brand and camera I didn't know anything about. Having read about it and seen it...
> 
> What the f***? I mean, just WHAT? I really, really... I DON'T GET IT. Leica M9-P. WHAT??
> 
> ...




I can't afford the M9 with the appropriate lenses. I wish I could. I believe it would fit my style and interests very well. And in an ideal world I'd still have my EOS gear because it all depends on what you want to do.

For superb image quality, portraits, portability alone I have yet to see something that beats it. The biggest draw for me would be though that it is manual focus and for that uses technology that is time-proven and extremely reliable. If my 5DII was available for use with traditional manual focus lenses I'd probably feel less of a desire to own the M9. But even then I still might. A rangefinder is a different animal and I understand that in this day and age it's not something too many people would actually want to use.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 8, 2012)

Rocky said:


> One poster says it force us to be back to basic. I would disagree to that. I would say" we want to be back to basic, that is why we buy it".


Then we agree on that part. This camera *doesn't* do anything automatically (well, almost), so by buying it you force yourself to do all of the things yourself manually. And that's exactly why you buy it, you want it to do that. You want to have to do it yourself. You could use the "manual" switch on a DSLR, but you'd need willpower to not just switch it back out of frustration.

Many here say it's not overpriced. But just consider... This camera is _quite_ a bit more expensive than the 1D-X, which is really expensive already and sports all the newest digital camera technology. When good photographers are behind the respective cameras, and good lenses in front, I doubt you could tell from the images alone which was taken with which (in normal settings, say daylight street settings). I also doubt that the Leica would enable the possibility of pictures that a DSLR would simply not be able to take. An example of that would be nice.


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 8, 2012)

The thing with Leica is that they're not "back to basics", they were "always basic", in their M-mount rangefinder range at least. They've kept the same basic structure since they started, camera, lens, shutter, viewfinder.

Compared to a Leica, my 7D is gimmicky. Look at all the buttons down the left of the screen. The Q is useful, or was to begin with, but I rarely use it now. Picture styles? never touched it. Print? Printing direct from camera without a PC? That's a gimmick for the masses (yes, I can see very rare occasions when a pro might use it, but rarely). Play, trash, info, menu, of course I use them. Even the RAW/JPEG button I use to use when I shot jpg-only, now i don't touch it because I shoot raw-only.
All those "creative" functions of the lower-rebels are missing on the 7D, the cheaper you get the more gimmicky they are. But even the 5D3 has a "rate" button. That screams gimmicky to me (but it may be useful even to pros, i just don't use photoshop).

Leica's got none of that. just a shutter, and a lens. That's not even a mode-dial, that's shutter speed. Buttons are on the back, Play, delete, menu, set, and a dedicated button for ISO. All things you need to take a basic photo, the rest is up to you.
I read a review of the S2 that said "it's a camera, but it's also a work of art" (A work of art for people who can afford Picasso Originals, of course), "no fancy buttons that do 'creative' things", (no R&D money spent on different fancy functions to impress the masses, like creative picture styles and video), "just a camera with damn good IQ".

But there's something about the leica name, of course, kind of like a Rolls Royce or Aston Martin. The badge adds price. Quick ebay search gives me $2300 for an M3, $1500 for an M4, $6000 for an M4 with lens, €48,000 for an M4 with lens! (I presume that's some special collector's edition or so). I also just saw a lens hood, just the hood, go for €1676. If that's not worse than L-Fever, I don't know what is...


----------



## Leica M9P (Mar 8, 2012)

When you go for quality, prime lenses are usually preferable to zooms. Then you find that for lenses <101mm Zeiss primes usually are better than Canon primes. Finally Leica lenses are usually better than Zeiss.....

The M9(P) is carrier for some of the most amazing (and expensive) lenses ever made. Compare a 35mm f1.4 asph or 28mm f2.0 asph with an SLR lens (size, quality, cost), the 50mm f.4 asph is usually regarded as the best 50mm ever made for "35mm" cameras. 

Law of diminishing return (and income) as to whether it works for you...


----------



## Rocky (Mar 9, 2012)

Tijn said:


> [Then we agree on that part. This camera *doesn't* do anything automatically (well, almost), so by buying it you force yourself to do all of the things yourself manually. And that's exactly why you buy it, you want it to do that. You want to have to do it yourself. You could use the "manual" switch on a DSLR, but you'd need willpower to not just switch it back out of frustration.
> 
> Many here say it's not overpriced. But just consider... This camera is _quite_ a bit more expensive than the 1D-X, which is really expensive already and sports all the newest digital camera technology. When good photographers are behind the respective cameras, and good lenses in front, I doubt you could tell from the images alone which was taken with which (in normal settings, say daylight street settings). I also doubt that the Leica would enable the possibility of pictures that a DSLR would simply not be able to take. An example of that would be nice.


Getting the picture is one thing. HOW to get the picture is another thing. For low light shooting, M9 will be a joy to use, due to fast lens, accurate and fast range finder, less vibration and the balance in your hand. On the other hand, If you want to use long lens or close up, you are forced to use the Visoflex (add on mirror housing) and you will hate it. Since you are comparing it to D1 X. Just imargine the differenece of the size and weight between the two camera body plus 3 fast prime lenses. Which one would you like to carry for a whole day? M9 does not have AF. But the range finder is very accurate and the focusing action of the lens is silky smooth. Each lens also provide a very usable depth of field scale. It is a thinker's camera. You should try it yourself at the store.


----------

