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

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> 
> Hi Mark,
> the M8 raw files are better than the D3, the extent obviously also lens
> dependent. The D3x files are a better match, but still lens dependent, of
> course.
> I am on holiday just now and just bought the M8, the difference in 
> size/weight
> makes any tiny difference between M8 the D3x (yes I bought one...) with the
> best Nikkors not worth carrying the extra weight, or size of bag unless SLR
> specific stuff to be done. In very high iso the Nikon has an advantage, 
> but I
> very rarely use them.
> cheers,
> Frank
> 


A great plug for Leica, Frank, someone of your reputation saying they'd go
for an M8 file over a D3x filer let alone a D3 file.
I wish the art directors and editors knew this or thought this or could be
exposed to this. Right now I'm not sure what their view of the use of an M8
could be. What M8 stuff has there been in the papers or magazines lately?
I'm feeling and sensing less M8 exposure in the past year.
A drop off.
Stocks are up but. M8 bellies feel like they are the end of a the line.
Hence the great deals out there for them. A very nice line.
Its getting near time for Leica to turn the M page.

Salgato is using a Canon Full frame.
I bet he'd rather be using Leica glass.
I bet he DOES come back to using Leica glass when the full frame M9 comes
out.
Puts all those micro motored wonders on the shelf.
Trades in his Canon 60mm for a Leica 75mm.
I bet that happens.

>From my end I think a cropped Leica rangefinder might be a step up from the
cropped Nikon DLSR I'm using now. I'm not sure about full frame. Its really
one full format up from cropped.  I realize film size and sensor size can
not be directly equated as I recall you've said before.
But in some ways a larger sensor is not less a thing than more film real
estate. It could be more.
I want bigger pixel grabbers. With more space around each one.
And the option for pie in the sky ISO's when those occasions do arise as
they regularly have been doing for me.
Right now I'm using my pop up flash or a mini flash I keep in my bag.
And a big eyepiece to look though with a big fat groundglass when I look
into it.

An a f 1.4 50 or 28 like I'm using now really being f 1.4 50 or 28mm.
Not 1.5 times what they are.

And if I was using my 24mm Elmarit I'd want it be be doing its thing at
24mm.
Not 24mm X 1.33 = 31.92mm's away.

I'd love to be using my 105s again.
The 70's vintage 2.5's and the 90's vintage 2.8 macros.
When the full frame M9 does some out where will I be in the money department
and a few other departments?
I'll be shooting with a 14 to 24 zoom and no doubt not happy about its
footprint on my silhouette as I walk down the street.
Will I have to get another seat next to me in the airplane for it?
I think I'll be happy about the shots I get from the monster though.


Mark William Rabiner