(...start saving cash?)
I want an M9, and I want a Summilux 35/1.4.
I donīt get paid to shoot, but I do sell a couple of larger frames every once in a while. Iīm 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, itīs not in the least discreet, and screams photographer wherever I go. I donīt have any gripes with the weight, but I canīt deny that this can get heavy over longer periods of time.
Iīve become enamoured with the size and inconspicuousness of the M9, and I hear that the 35 up there isnīt 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 arenīt rubber gasketed to the amount of Canonīs 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 doesnīt 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 Iīm putting out for this.
Iīve almost been sleepless thinking about the beauty and simplicity of this camera, but I need sane people to bring me down. Thank you all.