[Leica] M9 - not much more expensive than M8?

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> Oh, if you consider the cost of having to have two cameras, one with
> BW and another with colour, and the cost of film/processing/scanning,
> my M8 which I bought shortly after its release has paid for itself
> many times.  Also, consider the cost of not having to schlep rolls and
> film, and the worry about going through airport security???
> 
> Also, I am capturing more memorable moments.  That's priceless.
> 
> I know I will be buying the 18MP M9 as soon as I can.  Will I still
> have my M8?  Oh, quite definitely.
> 
> Having seen the RAW images of D3x, I am not sure if I'd get that much
> better images than my M8, let alone the M9 though.  The quality of
> glass matter just as much as pixel count.
> 
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Vick Ko<vick.ko at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Ah, to me, this was the "rational brain" thinking. ?For the price of my 
>> M8,
>> I could shoot 7 years worth of film and processing.
>> 
>> Then, the "irrational" side said - "Hey, a reputable dealer is selling
>> three, refurbs, for the equivalent of three months rent. ?Buy one, and put
>> yourself out of the misery of "not having one".
>> 
>> The irrational side won, and yes, I'm happey with the M8. ?Don't see 
>> myself
>> going to M9 though.
>> ....Vick



Some pointers to anyone else who has seen the raw files of the RAW images of
D3x and then complained about it? Or the D3 Plain? This is new to me all I
see is raves.
And its not picture count which is really the issue but the size of the
pixel grabbers themselves. Format.


Mark William Rabiner