Hi Bjorn, I've arrived here from your great Cameralabs article. Your photographs are really nice and I'm looking forward to following you. I have an Leica X1 and am also dreaming about a Leica M. I'm curious: now that you've had your M9-P for nearly two years - and seen the launch of the M typ 240 - what do you think about the camera now? There are plenty of opinions online about its poor light metering, poor display, slow processor - do you notice this, and are you dreaming of the new M?
Hi Brett,
Sorry if it took my a while to answer your message, I don't use Tumblr as much as I used to. Google+ is where I spend most of my time, I'm still hoping it will be successful outside the photographic community some day.
Thanks for reading my article. I have been meaning to finally write the last part, the actual review, but I have been busy writing my thesis instead. Who knows, maybe I will get around to it in December.
I still love my M9-P. It has it's quirks, but nothing about it bothers me in particular, except the low ISO limit of 2500 and the noise performance at that value. The camera is sometimes a little slow in terms of processing, but I'm quite slow myself, and a Leica rangefinder encourages you to be a little more thoughtful in photography. You can still take a picture very quickly, the slow processor does not affect that, you just won't be able to take many pictures very quickly after one another. If that's something you like to do, an M might not be right for you, IMO. As I explain in my article on Camera Labs, the rangefinder experience is something more pure. Continuous shooting does not fit in with that.
The screen is quite poor indeed, but that's an advantage. If stops you from chimping all the time, and instead you'll be paying attention to everything that's happening around you. If I didn't need it for the menu, I could do without the screen entirely. It's true that the metering is a little off in low-light situations, in which case you could check your histogram on the screen, but I expose manually in those instances anyway, so the metering does not bother me.
That being said: I strongly dislike the M (Typ 240, the latest model). Why? Long story, but to make it brief: it does things Leicas are not supposed to do, don't need to do, and that distract from the pure experience of using a Leica. One thing that attracted me most in the M9-P, and which you've read about in my article, is that the camera does aperture, shutter speeds, ISO, and basically nothing else. The extra bells and whistles like Live View, video recording, etc. on the M will only distract from what matters in photography. I believe I have learned so much from having a basic camera, one that's not too different (except for being digital, which admittedly is a big difference) from those Cartier-Bresson, Doisneau, Erwitt, and so many other legendary photographers used. If I were to give you a piece of advice, it would be to consider the M-E. It's a much simpler camera, with fewer distractions. The waiting list is probably a lot shorter. It's a lot less expensive than the M, leaving you with more money to invest in a fast lens. And the features that the M has over the M-E, if you really think about it, are unnecessary for good photographers.
One last thing before I end this rather long reply: the only thing I still dream of sometimes is the Monochrom, the black and white only rangefinder that Leica makes. Amazing low light performance, pure, as close you can get to shooting film without shooting film. If I had the money, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
I hope my rambling helps you a little. Whichever way you go, a rangefinder is going to be a wonderful experience. If you choose the M, I think you will love it. If you choose the M-E (or even the Monochrom), I am sure it will change your photography, your approach to photography, your love for the art, all for the better. Might happen with the M too, but given it's extra features, I think it's less likely to.
Cheers, Bjorn