Why I Should Buy a Leica M9

Since the Leica still lingers in my head, these videos aren't really helping. Thankfully, my bank account isn't cooperating at this moment.

Or so is this blogpost (by the same author).

So, what are my reasons for wanting a Leica M9? Well, they are:

• No overhead
  Something that's explained in the video. Most camera's have a gazillion options. Tons of them I don't use. I guess I only use 5-10% of the capabilities of the D300. Thankfully, the ones I use are not available on the lower-end bodies in the Nikon DSLR range. At least not when I bought my D300
• Small / low weight
  My default lens (Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8) weighs more than your average Leica configuration (body + lens). So it's easy on the neck and shoulders when you carry it around all day.
• Purpose
  I use my Nikon configuration mainly for nature and some street photography (should do more with the latter though). No fast movement type of photography (like sports), so no real need for the fast and accurate continuous AF system. Just check my Flickr stream for reference.
• Full frame sensor
  Not really a reason for switching to a Leica M9, but the full-frame sensor is something I want in my next camera body. Which is gonna be the Nikon D700 or its successor (or an M9).

Anyway, more than enough reasons for wanting to switch. Problem remains the (high) price of a decent Leica M9 setup. E.g. a body with a 30mm f/2 and a 50mm f/2 Summicron lens costs around €9300. Selling (all) my Nikon gear should cover about half of that....

To finish this off, a few links you shouldn't read:

• Leica M9 @ Luminous-Lanscape.com
• The M9 in Paris

It also needs to be said that anyone that expects to pick up an M9 (or any M Leica for the matter) and simply point and shoot, will be in for a rude shock. To shoot with an M one needs to be an actual photographer rather than a button pusher (no insult to anyone intended). It means that one decides on what aperture one wishes to shoot at, and then set the lens accordingly (there is no auto-aperture capability). It means framing the subject with a mostly inaccurate framing window in an optical viewfinder. No depth of field preview. It means focusing using a range-finder (albeit a highly accurate one). It means being limited to lenses no longer than 135mm. On the short end 28mm is as wide as the optical viewfinder goes, and if you want to shoot with wider lenses then an accessory viewfinder in the accessory shoe is required, which means changing eye pieces for framing and viewing.

Using a digital M Leica also means not being able to shoot more than 2 FPS, having limited high ISO capability, needing to remove the camera's bottom plate to get at the battery and even the SD card, not having dust shake removal or image stabilization....

In other words, a digital M Leica is in many ways a limited camera from the perspective of the all-singing, all-dancing polycarbonate wonders that are available for a tenth the price from any of the major Japanese camera makers.

• Leica M9 Daily Diary

Update on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 21:01 by Willem

Oké, I finally found the exact reason why the (Leica) rangefinder cameras are so appealing to me. It turns out that when I started being interessted in photography in the early eighties, I used my mothers Ricoh 500G camera [1]. A camera which is a rangefinder camera. And I even think that my dad still has that camera around somewhere in his collection of old camera stuff.

So another mystery solved.

Comments

[Dion Forster]

Indeed, this camera is something special. There is a sense in which it forces one to be creative, rather than just slacking off and relying on the clever tricks built into most new DSLR's.

That being said, you pay a hefty price for that focused simplicity!

I have a Leica D-Lux 5 (small, lightweight, easy to travel with, great optics and plenty of manual controls). It was a great compromise. I'd love an M9 though!