Leica M9 Review @ KenRockwell

Yes, it was an excellent review. I will take issue, however, with Mr. Rockwell’s attitude when comparing the M9 to Nikon and Canon DSLRs. I have no doubt the Leica is better than either of the Japanese brands. He wanted to be certain we also knew that Leica makes no ‘dog’ lenses; that no matter which lens you use with the M9, it will be superior to anything from the two leading DSLR brands.

Okay, Leica’s are better. I agree. Leica lenses are superior. Also, no reason to argue. However, Mr. Rockwell forgets one tiny little issue. That is, to purchase an M9 with a 50mm prime lens will cost about as much as buying a Nikon D3x (a severely overpriced camera) AND a Nikkor AFS 14-24mm f/2.8 AND a Nikkor AFS 70-200mm VR.

When comparing the M9 to more affordable Canons and Nikons, the price disparity becomes enormous. In fact, I recently purchased a Nikon D700. While not as good a camera as the Leica, it cost one-third as much, and it was still almost too much for me to buy. I have several excellent older Nikkor lenses, but can’t yet afford to buy a new, high quality, wide-angle zoom, which costs about one-third as much as a Leica 50mm.

It’s not that I’m disagreeing with Mr. Rockwell’s assessment of the Leica. But, it is a bit disingenuous to rave about the great superiority of the Leica and not mention that to buy it and a lens will cost a large multiple of the cost of a Canon or Nikon DSLR with a few lenses.

It’s like denigrating the performance of a Mazda Miata when comparing it to a Corvette or Porche. It’s not in the same class, and that’s how the cameras should be evaluated.

Leica’s M9 isn’t as good as any Nikon or Canon full frame camera. Period. Just try to open a raw file made by Leica and Nikon and compare them. Nikon D700 is 1000+ times sharper and without noise than Leica. Nikon D3X is state of the art.

Leica’s golden age has gone with film photography. When you speak digital you’ve to point at Japanese brand or Hasselblad.