The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Should I(...)? (M9 related)

arild

New member
(...start saving cash?)

I want an M9, and I want a Summilux 35/1.4.

I don´t get paid to shoot, but I do sell a couple of larger frames every once in a while. I´m now on an old-coming 1D mkII, and use pretty much only one lens (24/1.4). However much this actually is a great setup for me, it´s not in the least discreet, and screams photographer wherever I go. I don´t have any gripes with the weight, but I can´t deny that this can get heavy over longer periods of time.

I´ve become enamoured with the size and inconspicuousness of the M9, and I hear that the 35 up there isn´t half bad either.

I shoot two things - street candids and landscapes. I sell the landscapes, the street stuff is for my personal enjoyment. Both of these can often be shot in really bad weather, hence why I keep dragging the 1D around. Is the Leica as tough weather related as the 1D? Obviously, the lenses aren´t rubber gasketed to the amount of Canon´s L line, but I would hazard a guess that a certainly professional camera like the M9 would not be built like a toy, either?

I would love running around in Paris with only a 600g black little camera that doesn´t look like much shooting like I did last fall, without the looks from certain folks eyeing the equipment from 10-20 metres afar.

So, the cost. I would be able to get a new 1Ds mkIII and a 35/1.4, and a 70-200/2.8 for the price of the M9+35/1.4. Has anyone done this using my rationale? It should be taken into consideration that my non-photography work would be eaten up by about 35% after taxes the year I´m putting out for this.

I´ve almost been sleepless thinking about the beauty and simplicity of this camera, but I need sane people to bring me down. Thank you all.
 
But, but, but!! I want a 135 frame! Haha.
You´ll find that 135 on the M9 (and other M bodies too) is quite difficult to use. First, it´s difficult to focus reliably; the tolerances are almost nonexistent, so a substantial percentage of the shots will be misfocussed, unless stopped down a lot (which calls for a sturdy tripod in most cases). Second, the 135 mm frame (except possibly on a M3) is so small that seeing and composing the image is a challenge.

That said, both the discontinued Tele-Elmar 4/135 and the current 3.4/135 Apo are optically extremely good. But with the rangefinder, no... (I use my Tele-Elmar only on a Visoflex III housing).
 

SYGTAFOTO

New member
1DS III + 35 1.4 + 70-200 2.8 IS II ~ 7000 + 1500 + 2380 = $10880

Leica M9 + 35 1.4 ASPH FLE ~ 7000 + 5000 = $12000

Above are new prices listed on bhphoto.

But, a new 35 lux FLE will be a hard find and will pay more for used unless you are willing to wait for the new one.

If buying used, I think the gap will increase even more. M9 hasn't dropped much in price relative to 1DS III, and the 35 lux FLE commands price even higher than new these days.
 

SYGTAFOTO

New member
I currently don't make a dime on my photography and have invested upwards of $25k, so maybe I'm not the right person to talk to either. ;) It is an expensive hobby for me to say the least.
 

dude163

Active member
Arild, i wasnt trying to be a jerk, I was out and about using my hipster iPhone

a m8.2 can be had for around 3500 , a vanilla m8 for close to 2250 , and if you grabbed a summicron 35 instead of a lux youd save a lot of cash and still get the leica experience!
The M9 is definitely the belle of the ball, but the M8 isnt a piece of junk, I'm quite taken with mine, and I use old lenses on it, my NEW lens is from 1973 ( elmarit 135) and my main lens is a summicron 50/2 from 1964 :)

EDIT: Thinking more about it a 24mm summilux 1.4 would be a 32mm on the m8s crop sensor so that might be an option too.
 

wattsy

Well-known member
1Ds mkIII and a 35/1.4, and a 70-200/2.8 for the price of the M9+35/1.4
I know which I'd rather have (and do:)) but that Canon setup is not something to be sneezed at. I think you should think long and hard about how important that telephoto capability is to what you currently use a camera for.
 

arild

New member
I´d not give up the telephoto or even think of using such a focal length on an RF. I´d keep the Canon for those blinks of the eye. And it´s not like I don´t like using an SLR, I really do, but the size is rather cumbersome, and the smaller SLRs don´t have what I demand from an SLR. Yes, I am talking about the 5D mkII. If you´re going to have AF, make it right.

Dude; I didn´t take you for being a jerk, don´t worry. I haven´t read much that says the M8 is an inferior camera to the M9, barring of course the frame size, and I have considered going that route quite often.

Per: I wasn´t referring to 135mm, I was referring to the 135 film format (perhaps more commonly known as 36x24mm).

Thank you all sincerely for your replies. It´s been a fun evening here in Norway. I think I´m just going to save up those $10k either way, and decide what to do then. Shouldn´t take me more than a year or two, and would be bomb proof from the future wife (getting hitched in nov). Have a good day, everyone!
 

Araakii

New member
I currently don't make a dime on my photography and have invested upwards of $25k, so maybe I'm not the right person to talk to either. ;) It is an expensive hobby for me to say the least.
I would argue that Photography is a very inexpensive hobby compared to many other things, and I am sure a lot of people here have made money on their Leica gears over the years so the net cost could well be zero or negative.
 

SYGTAFOTO

New member
I would argue that Photography is a very inexpensive hobby compared to many other things, and I am sure a lot of people here have made money on their Leica gears over the years so the net cost could well be zero or negative.
Your argument is valid and obvious at the same time. Indeed, there are more expensive hobbies as well as cheaper hobbies.
Perspective of photography being expensive/inexpensive is based on each individual's circumstances. This part is obvious too.
This is why I included "expensive for me" in my reply.

You are also correct that in many cases, people make money buying/selling gears. Funny thing is that you have to sell to realize the gain, and it's hard to sell Leica gear once they are in your hands! So until you actually sell the items, it's cost to you.
I now have 3x 35mm lenses which is nothing compared to some others here. :)
 

arild

New member
Thanks again for all your replies. I got married last friday in Paris, and my best man´s +1 knew I was very interested in trying his camera, an M9, with the CV 35/1.2. Sufficient to say, that was a lot of fun. Some shots got misfocused, but that´s due to my eyesight not having been corrected for quite some time. That was an amazing experience!

Officially saving up for a black M9 with a Cron/Lux 35. I don´t think I´d need much more. This´ll probably take me two years or so, but until then, I can abuse what´s left of the shutter on my Canon rigs.

On the Lux 35, I do wonder about something. Does it resolve at it´s absolute best at f/1.4, or does it, like most other lenses, improve on stopping down? Varying information on the interwebs.. :) The reason I ask, is that this setup would be used for everything I do. Street and landscape, like the thread starting post says.

I found a justifying factor in favour of the Leica.. I´d need a smaller tripod, which is cheaper than a big one. In most cases. ;)
 

weinschela

Subscriber Member
The 35 Summilux is like any other lens, better stopped down than wide open, but still excellent wide open. If you are taking 2 years to save up, you are also missing 2 years of fun, but by that time there will be a M10 and M9's may be less expensive -- and used ones more plentiful.
 

arild

New member
I still have a camera or three, so I´m not missing out on any photography, and besides, the things I shoot aren´t going anywhere. :)

Thank you for confirming that about the Lux. Didn´t make much sense to me if this lens really was at it´s sharpest at f/1.4, but some sources actually say so.
 
Top