HI There Claus
I’ve sold most of my old cameras, but I still have the M9 and M9M . . . Partly perhaps for nostalgic reasons (and partly because I got leica to put my name on them!). I don’t use it too often, but when I do it reminds me how lovely the colour was (even if it was a bit wonky), how relatively poor was the dynamic range, but most of all how low light response has changed so radically since then. . . . I reckon the M11 has something like a 5 stop advantage, and that really is a game changer!
All the very best
Jono

Hi there Jono,

Thank you so much for your kind words. In a way, you yourself are part of the story in this article and an important reference person for me regarding Leica.
So, keep up the good work!

Best Regards, Claus

PS I bitterly regret selling the M9. For a digital camera it has great sentimental value, glad you still have yours!

Anyway – great stuff, lovely pictures and a great story . . . . I think I’ll go and dig my M9 out of the cupboard!

All the best
Jono

“..These pictures are all well over ten years old, but they still delight..”

..Yes, as I said, I find ‘During a hike’, ‘Strong light on the island of Sylt’, ‘Camping in the Provence’ and ‘The artist at Les Baux’ all great.

I was asking a question about the ‘post-processing’ of the pictures.

“Until I read your comment, none of this had occurred to me” ..and isn’t it, perhaps, eye-opening to have new ideas occur?

Claus says that he “fell under Leica’s spell” ..I was hoping to add a little objectivity about this, er, ‘spellbinding’ camera; that besides being able to take great pictures (I took some great ones with mine, too) it was also slow, clunky, noisy, had limited ISO sensitivity, and, in many cases, the sensor failed. I just thought we should be even-handed about this.

Surely, this is a matter of personal taste which, in any case, tends to change over the years? These pictures are all well over ten years old, but they still delight. Until I read your comment, none of this had occurred to me. I just like the pictures. But, then, I probably don’t have your eye or your experience. Andy

I’m still hesitant about going back to RF today. A used m10 p with a 28mm f. 2.8 or 5.6 relying only on zone focusing has been at the back of my mind for some time now and would prefer it to the Q or the CL with the 18mm elmarit lens. With the 28mm at f.11 and1/60 s. Set at 3 metres almost everything must be in focus from 1 or 1.5m to infinity, faster than the fastest AF. My Ricoh GXR 28 eq. lens is slower but fortunately the snap mode is there and makes it as fast as a Leica.

.
These DNGs – the photos above – have you wound up the intensity of the colours ..either in the camera, or when ‘processing’ them on a computer? Because, for me, the colours of most of them are so intense that they detract from the content of the photos ..I mean whatever’s in the actual pictures themselves.

The only exception, really, is ‘During a hike’ ..which seems to have pastel colours instead of the vivid intensity of most of the others. In other words, I’m looking at – and empathising with – the girl in the photo, rather being sidetracked by the gobsmacking brilliance of the colours.

‘Strong light on the island of Sylt’ is another lovely pic in which my eyes look at the people and their surroundings, rather than being caught by the vividness of the photo. ‘In South Tyrol’ smacks me in the eyes with such vivid blasts of colour that the people don’t seem to be the subject of the photo, so much as the super-vivid shrubbery.

The picture in which the vividness does work – for me – is ‘Camping in the Provence’ ..perhaps because of the darkened corners, so I really look at the central caravan .. and if I turn up the brightness on my screen I really enjoy the all-embracing glowing forest surrounding the caravan and the people.

The picture which I enjoy most is ‘The artist at Les Baux”, because of its timelessness and its serenity, and just the teeny hint of sharp, vivid colour on his canvas.

But do tell me: are these photos ‘straight out of camera’, or has the colour intensity been boosted in Lightroom, or whichever software they’ve been through?

(As for the M9 itself, it had – or has – (like the M8) that unforgivably noisy shutter – despite one of the Leicas’ main selling points being that they were supposedly so very quiet and discreet! And there’s what seems like that interminably long wait (but maybe it’s really only about three to five seconds, depending on the complexity of the image) for the picture to appear. Like sending off Kodachrome, and waiting a week for the pictures to come back!)

The M9 had its good points, but people do tend to gloss over its weak points: I really use mine now only for black-&-white photos, as it’s so ‘clunky’. Its maximum ISO sensitivity was lower, at its launch, than that of the then-current Fuji 3200 and 6400 films. And – really unforgivably! – its sensor covering became un-glued and ‘corroded’, to use Leica’s own word. I had mine changed for free, but Leica had originally insisted that customers had to actually pay for a replacement! (“Oh, no, it’s not our fault, guv”.)

It’s pleasant to look back and say “Ah, that was such a great camera” ..but those ‘M’s didn’t become really quiet again till several years later, that’s until the M10-P. Now that’s really a nice ‘M’..

Hi Röd,
really a wonderful coincidence to meet Joanna Simpson at the Memorial! I would have loved to have been there.
And as I said to the others, many of us have made a similar journey to rangefinder photography and have not regretted it.
Thank you for your nice comment!

Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your appreciation of the pictures!
The years with the M9 are actually some of the most productive I’ve ever had and the M9 has given me a corresponding number of “keepers”.
But with your M6TTL you have a device that is also capable of achieving amazing results, I have one myself and still use it today as an alternative to the M11. Analog is still something special and a good negative scan (e.g.Silbersalz) can compete with the dynamics of the most modern sensors.