Leica M9: First digital full-frame gets new lease of life

 Leica M9, Plateia Syntagmatos, Athens, Summer 2012
Leica M9, Plateia Syntagmatos, Athens, Summer 2012

There is something odd going on in the world of Leica. The once troubled M9—remember that sensor corrosion issue?—has had a resurrection. This is largely down to the effective and rapid display of support from Leica Camera AG. After a slow start, the factory got behind the problem and guaranteed the future of the M9. The result was that confidence returned to the market. Yet I suspect there is more to it than that.

 The ten-year-old Leica M8 is still a capable and rewarding camera, 35mm Summicron.
The ten-year-old Leica M8 is still a capable and rewarding camera, 35mm Summicron.

Whether that renewed confidence is a major factor or not is debatable, but there has definitely been a strong resurgence of interest in Leica’s first full-frame digital camera.

Of course, there are some fans who will argue persuasively for the non-live-view CCD sensor as the basis of a superior art form over the newer and now almost universal CMOS. But I suspect the real reason lies deeper than that.

It is indeed only part of the story. Form factor plays a a big role here. The M9 isn’t much smaller overall than its successor, the M240, but, crucially, it feels as though it is. The step down in the top plate, the couple of millimetres shaved off here and there, the 100g weight saving, the feel in the hands, all serve to produce an illusion that the M9 is actually a significantly smaller beast. If you didn’t know, you would swear it was more M7 than M240.

 The M9 is now enjoying a big increase in popularity. This shot taken in summer 2012 in Oxfordshire
The M9 is now enjoying a big increase in popularity. This shot taken in summer 2012 in Oxfordshire

People like the M9 despite its age. I know several friends who have returned to the M9 because of its relative simplicity and purity of purpose. The rear screen is good for little more than displaying the menu, there is no live view and owners are left with a pretty pure-in-purpose digital rangefinder. Chimpers are not amused. But this single-mindedness is somehow addictive. Indeed, it can be argued that the M9 is not far removed from the simple approach promulgated by the decidedly unusual but likeable M-D. That is currently my favourite Leica M.

Hamish Gill over at the excellent 35mmc web site, has acquired an M9 as his principal digital shooter. He’s a film man at heart, as his regular readers will know, but he dallied with an M8 for some time. He found the 1.33 crop factor frustrating, lengthening as it does the focal length of popular glass, including his beloved 50mm f/1.5 Zeiss Sonnar (which transforms into a 66.5mm focal oddity on the M8). Hamish did an excellent review, covering all his pros and cons and you can find the link below.

 Leica Monochrom Mk.1 in Mykonos, 2012, 75mm Apo-Summicron
Leica Monochrom Mk.1 in Mykonos, 2012, 75mm Apo-Summicron

The M9 is now a seven-year-old design. The latest colour versions of its CCD sensor (the monochrome versions continued for a time after the arrival of the M240) are now four years old. It is relatively inexpensive but becoming less plentiful on the secondhand market. A year ago the dealers’ shelves were groaning under the weight of M9s but in recent months there has been a run on the M240’s predecessor. Many retailers, including Red Dot Cameras, now have very few examples to show you. This sudden resurgence has been fuelled partly by European bargain hunters taking advantage of the fall in the pound sterling, but the fundamental reason is that the M9 is simply becoming more popular.

 Scary Faces, Brick Lane 2012 with the Leica Monochrom Mk.I, 50mm Summicron.
Scary Faces, Brick Lane 2012 with the Leica Monochrom Mk.I, 50mm Summicron.

The M9 is now backed by Leica’s sensor warranty and there isn’t much to worry about when buying a used version. It does have poor ISO performance—think about about topping out at 1600—compared with the later M, but is is still capable of some stunning work.

As a digital alternative to a film camera it makes a lot of sense. And for the rangefinder photographer it is still a delight. I suspect there is a sort of contrarian delight in discovering that this older M can still produce outstanding results.

With even the M8 still doing its stuff after ten years, Leica’s digital are holding their own on the used market. There is a certain cloud hanging over the old M8, though. Rear screens are now difficult to find and some retailers are refusing to take in the cameras for resale because of the worries over warranty. But they are still plentiful on the private market and, if you are inclined to take a flier and can put up with the crop-factor, it’s still a great camera.

In terms of depreciation and current value relative to new price there isn’t actually much difference between the M9 and the M7 film camera. In fact, the M9 has lost slightly less value over its seven years. Even the M8 and, certainly the M9, can produce images you will be proud of. With later cameras you get more bells and whistles but many photographers, especially some traditional Leica fans, prefer a more simple life.

 Waterfront at Hammersmith at the time of the Queen
Waterfront at Hammersmith at the time of the Queen’s Jubilee in 2012 (Leica M9, 50mm Summicron)

I confess I am tempted to buy another M9 if one comes my way; and the M9-based original Monochrom is also a camera that, in general, I preferred to the later CMOS version largely because of its lighter weight. One of these at the right price could be tempting. Contrary, admittedly, but there is decidedly an attraction about the M9 and M9 Monochrom that tickles the photographer’s fancy.

All photographs by Mike Evans.

_____________

12 COMMENTS

  1. I bought an M9 when it first came on the market, I have had no desire to buy any later models, I had no problem focusing because in my film days I had an M3 for along time, selling that is my biggest photography regret, I’m not short on digital cameras but if I was only allowed to have one it would be my M9, I had a corrupted sensor and it was replaced for nothing, they suggested I have a new cover on it so I said OK, I was very lucky it took about a month, I have heard stories of people having to wait a lot longer than that, when I got it back they had checked the camera and re-calibrated the rangefinder, all I had to pay for was the new cover.

    It is still a fine camera in spite of its not so good high ISO performance and the image quality to my eyes outstanding, when I look at the images in my M9 folder I am always extremely happy with the look of them.

  2. Hey Mike: An interesting article. I took lots of photos with the M9 as well as the M-P (240) and I certainly love both cameras. The M9s CCD sensor and image processing produces a slightly different look to the photographs, but to me it does not feel more like a film camera at all compared to an M3, M4, etc. To me both the M9 and the M 240 feel "corpulent" compared to the old film Leicas.
    A mere 5mms increase in thickness? Insignificant to me. 95 grams heavier? Same thing. When adding lenses like a 75mm or 90mm Summicron or one of the Summiluxes or a Noctilux to both cameras the difference in Weight becomes insignificant. Yes, I admit that I definitely prefer the M 240. It is more advanced, offers more possibilities to the photographer, has better high ISO capabilities and so on. Sorry, but thats no "fripperies" to me. I agree with Nico that the M-P 240 ist the best M-Leica to date.

  3. I agree about the size and weight. Plus I like the M9 is traditional with the frame lines which so they work without the camera being on and it makes it look very much like an M3/M2/M4/M6. Those reasons kept me from trading in towards an M240.

    • Hey, Dan, good to hear from you. That’s a good point about the framelines and one I had completely overlooked. There is no doubt the M9 feels more like a film camera, both in size and weight. The M240 was a step too far, thanks to video and other fripperies. Stephen Daniel once told me that the ultimate aim was to make an M digital the size of a classic film camera, so let’s hope the forthcoming new M’s designers have learned to cut back on the non-essentials and concentrate on what rangefinder photographers really want.

  4. The various accoutrements of modern digital cameras not being important to me, I stumbled on a great alternative to the 240: purchase of both an M9 and MM(CCD.) Combined, they diminished the family treasury less than a 240 would have; I get the great simplicity and size of the M9 in both cameras; and the high ISO performance of the M9 is covered by surprisingly good high ISO performance of the MM……….Color being rarely something that I am worried about in very low light. Add to this the fact that both cameras are the same in size, feel, and operation, and it works out well.

    • That’s a very cogent point, Wayne, and I agree. I believe that the Leica rangefinder is a camera that attracts a certain type of photographer–in particular one that is not particularly interested in ultimate ISO levels and certainly not in video. To a large extent these are film photographers turned digital. It can be argued effectively that Leica over-egged the pudding with M240. Who needs video, for instance? There are far better tools for video without burdening the M with the additional buttons, knobs and weight.

  5. Great article indeed, Mike!

    After using an M240 and M8 side by side for 6 months I came to a couple of conclusions: the M240 is the best camera I have ever used. The M8 is the camera I prefer. The M240 feels too clean, too clinical, too good. Taking pictures is too easy. The M8 on the other hand is much less refined, and much harder to work with. And that is how I like it! I am now considering trading my M240 for an M9…

    • From what I hear you aren’t alone. I’m told that prices on the M9 are hardening and there is a lot of demand. It looks like I might have missed the board to find an M9-P at under £2,000! And the MkI Monochrome is fetching £3,999, not a lot less than the MkII. Happy days.

      • Wow, under 2,000… that’s ‘cheap’!
        A couple of months ago dealers in the Netherlands had plenty of M9s for sale, but not anymore. More and more secondhand M240s are beginning to appear… Damn! 😉

    • Well, now you come to mention it, I had rather overlooked the M-E, but you make the point for me. It comes in a little cheaper and if you like the battleship grey finish it’s a good option. See my reply to Nico: Prices are going up and demand is rising.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here