Total = Radcliffe +2.
Me, my first M will be an M9, no question.
Yada, yada, yada.
Fun scoring from the East German judge, who clearly stated a bias. But the bias caused the results to be tossed out and the judge scheduled for retraining. Sorry.
Just consider a few points.
-- I too was swept up in that first wave of M9 longing. But I did some fast thinking and before the wave got too far, I flipped my board back and paddled out again. The problem was that from the standpoint of lenses, I've come to prefer much of the performance characteristics of the 1.33 crop. Compared to my previous film RF shooting (C/Vs and Leica) I find that I much prefer a 50mm lens on the M8 -- based on how much I use it (barely at all with film). What I'd miss the most is the FOV with the 25mm Zeiss. FOV a teeny bit shorter than 35mm on FF, it is my usual M8 carry lens. The 25mm is wicked sharp and I like the contrast. I'm not sure I've seen anything that I'd want to replace it with -- even my 35mm Summicron ASPH. Out of the dozen M-mount lenses I own, for some reason the 3 lens (25/35/50) or 5 lens (15/25/35/50/75) sets I carry into the field just seem to work well on the M8. What should I listen to when considering a hardware purchase? Longing and M8 frustration? Or experience? (This may have confused you, but the lenses behave on a camera body the way they behave. They don't
know that they were designed to cover a different sensor or film format. They are just glass, metal, plastic, and grease.)
-- Even with my bunch of current lenses, I'm not sure what kind of shifts and purchases I'd need to make to support an M9. We don't have good comparative tests between the same lenses on the M8 and M9 (Sean Reid wants to do this, but he has at least two day jobs to juggle and it might take some time). To assume the same or better performance on the M9 would be a mistake. Therefore, no need to jump in or out of any ships.
-- The helicoid and canine reference has to do with a screw and a pooch...Which Leica did with the IR issue.
-- There is a difference between
serious performance differences, and
significant performance difference. There is the ISO/noise thing, and the megapixel thing. Those play differently for different users. The statement "The M9 is likely in fact the best digital camera EVER produced" is, of course, rubbish. It is good...Very good, in fact. But the M9 may
not be better that some other digital cameras already on the market (which have real world track records) in several significant performance areas.
-- Aftermarket?
If I get an M9, I won't be surprised if I have to pay more out of pocket than when I bought my M8 new, even with an M8u trade-in. But we'll see if some of the dealers know more than some of the folks here when it comes to stability of the secondary market. I can't see any digital Leica holding used value the same as film cameras. On the other hand, a lot of the Leicaphiles are constantly saying "It's the lenses."
Call it a rationalization if you want. My point is that I've explored several decision threads based on actual use of a DRF and have come to some personal conclusions. They are mine, and I don't assume that I can apply them to anyone else. I certainly hope I don't adopt a "we" authority when it comes to what is/was acceptable or not with the M8. You'd have to be pretty pompous to do that and then to cover your tracks with the infamous "agree to disagree" (passive-aggressive?).
