M9 or wait for M typ 240?

[Double Negative]

The M9 (nay, M-E) is a proven rock star. Well, to ME it is anyway... The M? Not yet. Lots of unknowns and you won't see one short of March at the earliest.

Get a used M9 or a new M-E and start shooting today. Let others be the guinea pigs first.

 

[jonoslack]

As for the filters
. . . I've only once scratched the front element of a lens - and it was only a cheap lens anyway. If I costed buying a quality filter for each of my lenses, then, over the years, it would buy a new 50 'lux.
So - for me, I keep my cameras and lenses reasonably carefully, but I don't put filters on the front of them!

. . . with respect to magnifiers, Like Douglas - I've tried them (and dioptres) the reduction in viewfinder brightness always seems to have more of a negative effect than the intended positive.

 

[jonoslack]

The M9 (nay, M-E) is a proven rock star. Well, to ME it is anyway... The M? Not yet. Lots of unknowns and you won't see one short of March at the earliest.

Get a used M9 or a new M-E and start shooting today. Let others be the guinea pigs first.

Quite right . . . . although I'd be tempted to get hold of a 'cheap' M9p - there are some around, and I reckon they'll hold their value quite a lot better than the M-E (apart from looking nicer, and having a frameline lever!).

all the best

 

[Godfrey]

As for the filters
. . . I've only once scratched the front element of a lens - and it was only a cheap lens anyway. If I costed buying a quality filter for each of my lenses, then, over the years, it would buy a new 50 'lux.
So - for me, I keep my cameras and lenses reasonably carefully, but I don't put filters on the front of them!

. . . with respect to magnifiers, Like Douglas - I've tried them (and dioptres) the reduction in viewfinder brightness always seems to have more of a negative effect than the intended positive.

+1

I fit filters when I need to, whether for specific protection or filtering light. Specific protection could be, like, "I keep losing the damn lens cap on my Rollei 35S and they cost $25 apiece ... I'll stick a filter on it and leave it there!" ;-)

I've had magnifiers many times. I find I only ever use them when I have to, because they always make it harder to align my glasses and the viewfinder so I can see well enough to focus and frame properly. The 1.4x might be useful with my 90 and 135mm lenses on the M9 due to its .68x magnification ... as long as I can see well enough through the silly thing.

I can't tell without trying one... and I'd have to buy one to do that, another $300 expense. I have the 90mm on the M9 at present, so I'll see how well I hit the right focus wide open without it first. The size of the framelines doesn't seem to be a problem for me.

 

[Double Negative]

I tried magnifiers, but the problem is - with astigmatism, all you're doing is magnifying the blur as well. It helps, but it's not a total solution. For me it came down to wearing glasses (or contacts) when shooting - or the Walter RX Eyepiece. I prefer the latter, since I wear my glasses as little as possible and only for reading. No "tunnel vision" or loss of brightness either, which is key.

Quite right . . . . although I'd be tempted to get hold of a 'cheap' M9p - there are some around, and I reckon they'll hold their value quite a lot better than the M-E (apart from looking nicer, and having a frameline lever!).

Indeed. I think the M9 and M9-P will hold their own! The M-E just doesn't do it for me on a couple of levels...

 

[douglasf13]

As for the filters
. . . I've only once scratched the front element of a lens - and it was only a cheap lens anyway. If I costed buying a quality filter for each of my lenses, then, over the years, it would buy a new 50 'lux.
So - for me, I keep my cameras and lenses reasonably carefully, but I don't put filters on the front of them!

. . . with respect to magnifiers, Like Douglas - I've tried them (and dioptres) the reduction in viewfinder brightness always seems to have more of a negative effect than the intended positive.

I've generally avoided filters, too, but I've been enjoying using the filters themselves as screw on lens caps.

The magnifier view itself seems good to me, at least with the 1.25x. I've read that the 1.4x is worse in regards to brightness and what not. The 1.25x just doesn't feel as good on my eye socket, so I may stop using it. I had Lasik a couple of years ago, so my focusing is fine. I just like the larger 50mm frameline magnification.

 

[edwardkaraa]

Regarding UV/Protection filters, I am a filter person. I prefer to clean the disposable filter than the lens front element. Of course, if I was shooting Medium Format and very exacting work for clients, I would not want to risk anything that degrades the quality. But for the snapshots I'm shooting, I wouldn't care about the 0.09% loss of contrast caused by the filter. There is no point in being too anal about it, especially shooting with a Leica M with its inaccurate framing and spontaneous character.

 

[FrozenInTime]

I'm reconning on 6 months before the M-240 is in people's hands.
I just picked up a 'demo' ( really new ) M9 as a second body.

I think I will let my M-240 order pass or delay it until the very end of 2013 when they will be producing the 2nd turn of hardware that mops up any modifications discovered in the first production run.

The M9 may be old, but it performance, bugs and limitations are well understood.

 

[algrove]

If one wants to wait a long tome for the M-240 you might as well wait for the M-280 which is already on the drawing boards assuming a three year lag from conception to introduction.

 

[Godfrey]

If one wants to wait a long tome for the M-240 you might as well wait for the M-280 which is already on the drawing boards assuming a three year lag from conception to introduction.

LOL!

Waiting four to five months for an announced product is much different from waiting an unknown amount of time for an expected but only rumored product.

I could wait for any number of rumored, unannounced products nearly forever. Or I can buy what's available, or order what's soon-to-be available, and get on with doing whatever it is I wanted to do.

 

[edwardkaraa]

Thanks to the Typ 240, I got a very good discount on a brand new M9 from the dealer, not demo. I think I will do the same 3 years from now I'm in no hurry.

 

[Godfrey]

Revisiting...

Was out shooting with the M9 over the weekend. Every time I take it out, I'm reminded again why I paid so much for this camera, and why it was worth it. I'd like it to be my only system camera for the 99% of what I shoot. But it can't be.

The new M adds the critical capability of being usable with long teles and macro lenses which are the reasons why I still keep the GXR now (aside from the fact that it's a terrific camera in its own right). I don't use these capabilities often enough or in situations where a current DSLR is so much a better choice as to be worth the expense, but I do need them occasionally.

I will order a new M eventually, likely next year sometime. It will enable me to simplify my gear another step.

 

[SYGTAFOTO]

I don't think I'm the target market for the new M's.. I'm perfectly happy where I am with my M9.

 

[jonoslack]

If one wants to wait a long tome for the M-240 you might as well wait for the M-280 which is already on the drawing boards assuming a three year lag from conception to introduction.

This is, as far as I know, the only real cure for GAS - waiting for the better camera.

Not my forte I'm afraid (although I still don't seem to have an A99 or a K5 IIs!

all the best

 

[jonoslack]

Revisiting...

Was out shooting with the M9 over the weekend. Every time I take it out, I'm reminded again why I paid so much for this camera, and why it was worth it. I'd like it to be my only system camera for the 99% of what I shoot. But it can't be.

The new M adds the critical capability of being usable with long teles and macro lenses which are the reasons why I still keep the GXR now (aside from the fact that it's a terrific camera in its own right). I don't use these capabilities often enough or in situations where a current DSLR is so much a better choice as to be worth the expense, but I do need them occasionally.

I will order a new M eventually, likely next year sometime. It will enable me to simplify my gear another step.

Hi Godfrey
I really do agree - the 240 may not be a perfect substitute for a dSLR - but for my purposes it will probably mean that I no longer need a dSLR. As you say - simplifying things still further.
all the best

 

[douglasf13]

You know, I may need to eat some crow. Since our discussion earlier, I've been taking my 1.25x mag off and on, and I'm not sure that the magnification is worth bothering with, because the viewfinder is more comfortable to my eye without the magnifier attached. So it's a bit of a pick your poison kinda thing, at least for me. I like the extra magnification, but my eye just doesn't rest as nicely on the camera.

If you try it, I'd buy used, so that you can sell the magnifier for the same amount if you don't like the it.

I apologize that this is off topic, but, just to follow up on my earlier post, I've got to admit something embarrassing about my 1.25x. Apparently, the rubber eye surround had come off the magnifier during shipping, and it was sitting in the bottom of the case. No wonder the magnifier wasn't more comfortable on my eye! Duh! :banghead::banghead: It is certainly better now, since my eyebrow isn't resting against metal, although still not as nice as without the magnifier, so I'm reconsidering it. It's been on my camera a few days now, and I'm getting used to it.

 

[douglasf13]

Revisiting...

Was out shooting with the M9 over the weekend. Every time I take it out, I'm reminded again why I paid so much for this camera, and why it was worth it. I'd like it to be my only system camera for the 99% of what I shoot. But it can't be.

The new M adds the critical capability of being usable with long teles and macro lenses which are the reasons why I still keep the GXR now (aside from the fact that it's a terrific camera in its own right). I don't use these capabilities often enough or in situations where a current DSLR is so much a better choice as to be worth the expense, but I do need them occasionally.

I will order a new M eventually, likely next year sometime. It will enable me to simplify my gear another step.

Good points. I don't really shoot longer tele or macro, so much of the appeal of the 240 is lost on me. If I ever do upgrade, it would be for better high ISO and the ability to shoot quick family movies, but I don't think either are make it or break it for me, and I still have an old NEX-5 laying around that I can use for occasional things that the M9 can't handle.

It'll be interesting to see how the M9 and M 240 compare at low ISO. The M9 is still new to me, and I don't want to speak to soon, but it feels about "just right" for me, so I'm planning on getting off the upgrade wagon for a while.

 

[wentbackward]

...should I go for an M9 or wait for the M typ 240?...

Many of us here are privileged enough to consider such a choice and likewise many of us are frugal (despite spending a lot on cameras). I'd recommend to get a 2nd hand M9 now and wear a small loss if you sell sometime next year, you'll certainly need to bring up your skills on the RF and it might just avoid the risk of EVF becoming a distraction. If you haven't ordered an M yet, it might be 6 mo's to a year before you get one.

If money is no object, you won't mind the small loss, if money is a concern, then you'll have the opportunity to spend more on lenses by getting a cheap M9 today. It's the lenses where it all happens. You can invest in the M later if it all works out. Buying an M will likely loose you more money than buying a 2nd hand M9 today.

I can't personally see any justification for waiting. It's a great time to get into the M way of life.

- Paul

 

[Godfrey]

Good points. I don't really shoot longer tele or macro, so much of the appeal of the 240 is lost on me. ...

It'll be interesting to see how the M9 and M 240 compare at low ISO. The M9 is still new to me, and I don't want to speak to soon, but it feels about "just right" for me, so I'm planning on getting off the upgrade wagon for a while.

Actually, another feature of the new M is very important to me: responsiveness. According to every reviewer who has actually handled a live one, the speed with which it writes and displays data is yards better than the M9. The M9 is a lot more responsive than the GXR but has nowhere near the responsiveness of the Olympus E-5 that I sold. I've knocked into the "can't shoot because I'm writing data out" limit a couple of times now with the M9 and the somewhat lethargic way it pulls up images in review mode reminds me of the E-1. (The E-1 bangs into the 'locked buffer write' situation less often because it has a larger raw buffer ...) The new M will write fast enough, according to all reports, to be on par with the E-5—which I never did get to hit the buffer write limit in real use.

Of course, what the new M's sensor does compared to the M9 will be an interesting comparison. I suspect, however, that it will be a toss up there, and the improved dynamic range and sensitivity a plus.

 

[douglasf13]

Actually, another feature of the new M is very important to me: responsiveness. According to every reviewer who has actually handled a live one, the speed with which it writes and displays data is yards better than the M9. The M9 is a lot more responsive than the GXR but has nowhere near the responsiveness of the Olympus E-5 that I sold. I've knocked into the "can't shoot because I'm writing data out" limit a couple of times now with the M9 and the somewhat lethargic way it pulls up images in review mode reminds me of the E-1. (The E-1 bangs into the 'locked buffer write' situation less often because it has a larger raw buffer ...) The new M will write fast enough, according to all reports, to be on par with the E-5—which I never did get to hit the buffer write limit in real use.

Of course, what the new M's sensor does compared to the M9 will be an interesting comparison. I suspect, however, that it will be a toss up there, and the improved dynamic range and sensitivity a plus.

Yeah, I'd certainly welcome faster performance, but I generally try to avoid reviewing images, and I haven't had many buffer issues, yet, so I think I can hold off, for now.

The quieter shutter sounds appealing.