Comments on: Leica M9 Hands-On Review

By: Jan Brouckaert

Jan Brouckaert — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:29:38 +0000

Hi all,
This atricle is about the M9 and not about what HCB bought as a first camera and why. (there are better sources about HVB then this article)

That the M9 has arrived so close after the S2 is a miracle. I agree with the fact that the future of Leica is in it. If this doesnt sell … what will happen ? Leica went through a tremendous process of cahnging their business to get there (even the CEO was kicked out)

Now what do we have got ? A real M camera.
Off course, those who complain on the price complained already on the price of the M6 en the M7. That is not new. The M is not aimed at the consumer market.

The M is a camera for photographers, for those who understand something about photography and dont rely on the -point and shoot and photoshop will do the rest- principe. More specific the M is aimed at the photojournalism and fine art market rather then sports other occasions because of the lack of autofocus and the limited range of the objectives upto 135m max.

The difference between the M and the other dslr is that you control the image, you make the decision, not the camera. How many times i found myself cursing when the DSLR beeped error because my target moved to fast for the autofocus and no image was made. Now I set the distance and i decide when. No beep.

The bouquets of the lenses adds to the simplicity of use of the camera to be a tool easy to work with, no video, lifeview and other gadgets, just a bright viewfinder so you can focus on what you should be doing : Making pictures and that is what a camera should be good in no ?

Point taken the M8 was half way the road and the M9 is getting there, this is a steep learning curve for leica and you can argue that other DSLRs have more functions and more possibilities. But that goes for cars too, its nice but you dont need them.

What you need is a camera you can rely on, a quality of image that is above average, and of course someone who can work with it ;)

Best Regards,
JJMB

By: Peter Halter

Peter Halter — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:03:19 +0000

P.S. I checked on some of the dates and prices: Cartier-Bresson bought his first Leica in Marseille in 1932, exact date or month apparently unknown; the first Contax (Contax I) came out in the same year. So it may or may not have been available when Cartier-Bresson bought his Leica.
And re prices: The Contax was indeed more expensive than the Leica. For a Leica II, you had to pay about 210 Reichsmark, the Contax I cost 245 Reichsmark. But its reputation of being a tool (or toy) for the rich had to do with the very fast lenses that were offered for it right from the start. The fastest lens was a Sonnar 1.5 / 50mm, and was offered with the Camera for the astronomical price of 470 Reichsmark.
Soon the lenses for the Contax had the reputation of being the best on the market, and they were certainly the fastest. But the Leica was apparently much sturdier; the Contax had a different type of shutter that jammed quite often, and was plagued by other problems. Leica in turn had already at that time the reputation of building their cameras to the highest standards. And with its retractable standard lens the Leica was flatter and more pocketable.

By: Peter Halter

Peter Halter — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:25:35 +0000

I don’t know who started this story about Cartier-Bresson and the expensive Contax that he couldn’t afford. Cartier-Bresson bought one of the early Leicas in the early thirties because it best suited his needs, and it was an expensive camera for all that, as was the Contax. Both were excellent cameras, but Leica’s Oskar Barnak had invented the 35 mm camera in the 1910s and Leica was first firm to market a 35 mm rangefinder camera in the 1920s. By the time the first 35 mm Contax was on the market (1932) Leica was already producing their second model with great success.
Cartier-Bresson came from an extremely wealthy family, and while it was his ambition not to depend on family money but to live and pay for his own life as a photographer he would certainly have seen to it that he got the camera he wanted for his work and would never have bought a camera just or mainly because it was affordable.

The second myth frequently voiced in this context was that Cartier-Bresson (again mainly for financial reasons) always only used one lens (Ken Rockwell is also fond of telling this story). But there are plenty of photographs around that show that Cartier-Bresson throughout his career used at least two lenses, a 50mm (his favorite lens) and a 35 mm. Very occasionally he also used a small tele (90 mm). What he frequently said was that he never used extreme wide-angle or tele lenses because they didn’t correspond to human vision; he felt that photographs made with such lenses were for the most part “artsy” or mannered.

By: ted

ted — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:39:24 +0000

Photographers like Cartier Bresson used Leicas because there was(pretty much) nothing else around that would do the job as well.=>>well,cartier bought a leica because he couldn’t afford a contax..leica weren’t the best lens maker on the planet that they are now,contax/zeiss we’re

By: Ashley Groome

Ashley Groome — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 05:39:27 +0000

There was once a time in the history of Leica photography where one model of camera was a small but very significant incremental development of the previous model. The film went in the back, the lens went on the front and you had a smooth, small rangefinder camera, with lenses producing (usually) exquisite results.

Photographers like Cartier Bresson used Leicas because there was(pretty much) nothing else around that would do the job as well.

Enter the era of digital photography. Suddenly, the small, highly desirable Leica began assuming the proportions of technological dinosaur – In desperation, the M8 was released with quite a few bugs and a considerable amount of user dissatisfaction – the development continued and after a while, the M9 hit the streets with much hoopdey-doo and an eye wateringly high price tag.

The second hand price of the now ‘old’ M8 tanked.

You can persuade me to spend a small fortune on a lens (especially a Leica lens) and I would do so, willingly and with a great big smile on my face – Like a thing of beauty, a sharp lens will is a joy forever and will remain sharp for the rest of a photographer’s working life.

Despite the fact that I have long admired Leica equipment. Watching charming video clips of ‘I can still remember mine father’s camera – Mine Got, it was so special and fantastic – because it was made by elves in the black forest’… Expecting me to pony up seven grand US to enjoy the warm fuzzy nostalgia of a camera system that should by all rights be in a museum, is pushing their luck. Sadly Leica have come up with an antique product (which they are trying to sell like their lives depend on it – and it does) and they seem to be pricing themselves out of the market.

Spending big on a fantastic lens is one thing, paying through the nose for an underperforming camera that will be obsolete in three years is a question of “Emperor’s new Clothes”.

Sorry, I’m not a cashed up pop star, I don’t give a hoot about going on an expensive nostalgia trip.

You can spin it any way you like – I’m not buying it.