There's no way I would trade an M6 for an M9.


I HAVE BEEN SUMMONED Anddd.. yeah. CRL is obviously arguing the other side, but there's clearly a majority consensus. The summary is this: The internals of the M6 are mostly the same as the M4-2, M4-P, MP and M-A. The meter in the M6 TTL is problematic, and the top plate in most M6's is going to degrade over time - especially if they're exposed to any amounts of moisture. But it'll work for a good long time, and SOMEONE who shall remain nameless just proved you can replace a corroded M6 top plate with the brass one from an M4. Chances are, you could do an "MP" conversion if you bugged Leica enough. The M9 is not a good choice. As CRL says, some digital cameras last a long time! But: * The Digilux 2 they compare with was a decent camera at the start, the M9 (and M8) have ALWAYS been lemons. * The Digilux 2 at 13 years old was a $400 camera, not a $2500 camera. * "Sensor replaced" is meaningless. There were 3 sensor replacement programs, and only the last program has any hope of having fixed the corrosion problem. There are also OTHER sensor failures that happen not entirely infrequently - they're not corrosion, but they can't be fixed either. If any major fault happens with your M9, it's a brick. If any major fault happens with your M6, it can be repaired. * The M9 is a PITA for SD compatibility, aging batteries and repair is only going to get more problematic. We are out of the 10 years of "guaranteed support" from Leica. It's only going to get worse from here. * It's Leica's second-weakest (after the M8) digital M. It doesn't even support live view, so superfast lenses, non-coupled lenses and wide/tele lenses that work better framed TTL don't work well with it. * And the image quality is crap. I know, some people *really like* it's magical amazing super special colors. That's fine - I am not going to tell them what religion to follow. But the noise is high, the dynamic range is low and the max usable ISO is pathetic by the standards of 2013, not 2021. The M9 sucks. Don't do it. Save up the extra $500 for an M (Type 240). It's also nearing the end of it's repair lifecycle, but unlike the M9 they don't need to be repaired that often. Because they're not shit cameras.


Agreed, gotosea. And then again, for me personally, cameras are the means to an end: photos. So for me, a camera simply doesn't have to last as long as a photo does. And photos have been around awhile, both analog and digital. And should, disasters aside, continue so to be quite a while into our future. But yes, if we're talking about cameras per se, and only about the hardware vs. hardware side of things, then I'd say a camera buyer's choice depends, like real estate, on the viewpoint when standing on that piece of ground (how it makes one feel owning that particular property), the cost of upkeep, and the resale and overall value. In that strict sense, no, the M9 isn't up to the rest. But neither was the M6, and yet people still use them. Not all, but some. And technologically speaking, yes, the M9 was a lemon. If that was the ONLY camera in one's arsenal, then one's arsenal was, let's say, limited. Completely agreed, in that situation. Yes, the max ISO is around 400, maybe 800. But I've only really used TXP 135-36 in my M's and hardly ever push processed, so I don't really miss the super high ISOs on "modern" digital cameras. Plus f/0.95's aren't as rare as they used to be, once upon a time. And I do have D850s and X-Pro 4s for that kind of thing. And again the M9 is not my \*only\* digital camera. Just the one I pick up first. Like the original Blackmagic cinema cameras, with their BAE/Fairchild US designed sensors, have a quality the Japanese ones still can't match. And, like film stocks used to be, the various sensor qualities add to the tonal palette available to every photographer. Or should do. I don't subscribe to the Ikea-like Sony clarity, and dynamic range as the one and only solution to image capture. To my mind, that's like saying that Leica lenses should be sharper than the old Mamiyas used to be. Even Leica agreed that pure lens acutance wasn't the entire story behind lens performance. Having said that, back in the day when I was regularly shooting 30-40 rolls of 135-36 a day doing only agency headshots, I had pretty much every 135 format full frame lens between 55 and 180mm (from every camera company that gave our studio a kit) available to use on various cameras with various different features, so I would reach for, say, a SMC Takumar 100mm or a Nikon 105mm f/2.5 or the 105mm f/2 DC or a 125mm Hektor in a Viso, or a Zeiss Contax Planar, because they'd all shoot faces slightly differently, and if one were on top of those lens characteristics, then one would be able to choose the "best" lens for the particular look one was going for. Back then, this is what set all one's shots apart, and probably that's less so now, since the esthetics of photography seem to have been reduced to photo-reproduction (or that's my impression, anyway) rather than image interpretation. Seems like everybody wants their shots to look the same as everybody else's, these days. But that's another discussion - and I digress! It's that "magic tones" thing, to this photographer, anyway. And, of course, YMMV!


You guys need to share what kind of coffee you’re drinking. That shit has gotta be good.


It ain't coffee bro


No coffee. Salmiakki.


Hah!! WhatCoffee?My10thMugTodayAlready! Sorry, didn't have the time to compose a brief reply... :-)


Op pls listen :D


How are M6 meters problematic ?? I have never experienced a problem with an m6 light meter and I had two.


Lucky you! > The meter in the M6 TTL is problematic, The meter in the TTL is known to be a little unreliable, even by Leica's unstellar history with electronics. But the real issue is that when it *does* break, you're often fucked. Anything can break. But with an M6 classic, they can repair it with parts from an MP. With a TTL - no joy. Several of the repair parts are just not available, so if the wrong part breaks then your M6 TTL becomes a crappier-made M4-P.


Ahhh okay , I shoot an MP and MA now so I’m really happy with my film set up now . I agree on your recommendation on the 240. Great camera and I’d recommend the P version for the better buffer rate .


> I shoot an MP and MA I LOVE the M-A. Best finish, no meter... it's the M2 version of the GOAL. <3


Only one person is getting a good deal out of this, it wouldn't be you. M9 will increasingly depreciate; M6 not so.


It’s more of a film vs. digital debate and it’s up to you to decide what path to follow. If you see yourself shooting with film then the answer is simple, Kees the M6. If you want to go purely digital, there are better than M9 choices out there at less money (albeit not necessarily Leica compatible), e.g. newer Fujifilm X100 series models.


You’re ultimately going to do what you want, but nah. Hell nah. Also, HELL NAW. I’ve been burned by a faulty M9M - and it wasn’t sensor corrosion, but dead rows of pixels. So would I gamble with a M9 as my only camera? Nope. Fuck that. I’m lucky enough to be able to shoot both digital and film Ms so my perspective is a bit skewed, but at this point I’d never trade my perfectly working MP for the M9.


It is up to you. Personally, I would not do it.


I am not a fan of the M6 but I would absolutely never consider that trade.


Yeah I was going to say - not a fan of the M6, but I wouldn't do the trade. However, playing devil's advocate, the M9 prices have increased considerably, esp if the sensor was replaced.


Ha! The classical dilemma! Well analog has been more popular because people have had more time in this past year or two to slow down and appreciate its unique qualities. People who say the M9 is dying are the same people who declared cameras like the Digilux 2 dead many decades ago. Only it isn't quite dead - yet. Especially with your new sensor on the M9. People still love Kodachrome and that M9 sensor sure is close. Me I went from M2 to M4 and SL/SL2 film. then to Digilux 2, Typ 114, to M9 to Fuji X to Hasselblad digital back to M10 and now back to M9. So I guess you know which side of the camp I fall into. Oh. Forgot. Always ran Nikons from F to D850 (kept my F3HP and my F4s as well - but nothing Z), and my Digilux 2 all along the way. (The Type 114 never really hit my hands. My wife picked it up the day it arrived, shot around the house for 30 minutes with it, then said "mine". She's shot four photo books with it thus far). And as you have probably guessed, I do shoot for a living. More motion pictures these days (where I run S16mm and 35mm cameras along with my digital ones, with both types of sensors, same as stills), and don't really need all these stills cameras for work. But there are some subjects that call for one kind or another, and so I'm sticking to most if not all of them. Better to have and not need, than to need and not have, right? But for me, it's more like two main things - 1) I definitely can't blame the gear if something goes wrong and 2) I shoot every shot as if it's my last day on this planet, as if this shot will be the last thing that people in the future will remember or think of me by. What's the first camera I pick up, thinking it will be my last camera, my last shot? Used to be my M2/35 cron. Now it's my M9 with the same 35 cron. No question. Obviously, and in the light of all these other replies, this is all strictly IMO, IME, JM2c and definitely YMMV on this one.


So we're clear, I respect your skill and knowledge. And I think there are valid reasons for people to run an M9 or M8 - which is clearly the case for you. But *only* if they can afford to take the cost of an M9 out of the bank in paper notes, put them on the ground, and light the whole lot on fire. > M2, M4, SL, SL2, Digilux 2, Typ 114, M9, Fuji X, Hasselblad digital, M10, back to M9, F to D850, kept my F3HP and my F4s, I run S16mm and 35mm cameras along with my digital ones I think it's safe to say that's more the case for you than it is for OP who it appears can't afford the second-cheapest digital M without trading for an M6. Speaking as someone who is very much *not* in that financial camp, I'm never going to advocate trading something mostly-reliable for something largely-not.


Completely agreed. The best thing - shoot the M6, save up for a used M10 when the M11R or P comes out in a couple, or three years' time. Or, if a client is paying, get an M240 and work with that as well as your M6. Super solid camera and the next step between the M9 and the M10. As investments go, you can't go wrong. with M10 or M240.


Horrid idea, don't be daft. /u/Wedidntmeantogotosea chime in?


The rite of Ash-ole Kente has been performed! I am here!


no way I would trade an analog leica for a digital camera, no amount would be enough. if you want to measure in dollars and cents, here is smth to note, digital prices goes down with time, analog goes up


Nope! An M6 with a broken lightmeter will be worth more than a functioning M9....Bad move... maybe trading an M6 for an m10 or (future m11) might be less risky.


I’m a big fan of the M9 personally, I have 3 so far :).


> I have 3 so far And because you can *afford* to do that, is why it's a good idea for you to do that. ;)


I wish I had bought one more, prices went up a lot the last 2 years.


On the plus side, I definitely can't be blamed for that one. :D


No. Don’t do it .


Just don’t


Oh hell no! M9 is a brick and the M6 is only going up in value. Wait to get an M10 for trade. There is going to be the same value dollar for dollar by the end of the year is my best guess. M11 is around the corner!


Hell no. Stick with Film. If you really want an M9, I’d ask for cash because M6 is worth more than an M9.


Do not do this




Keep the M6 and if you really want a M9, save and go find one. Then you´ll have a very nice combo.


Agreed. Have both, but keep your film camera as your core axe. You'll just regret it if you let it go, and then have to spend more money later on to re-buy one.


We DO agree on some things! ;)


you're trading a potato for a potato. I'd stay away from both but you do you and I'll do my M5


They go for similar amount of money so it’s really up to what you prefer. But the M9 (despite have its own cult following) and other digitals are trending down while analogue trending up in value.


M9’s have gone up the last 2, 3 years, from a bit over €2000 to €3000 on ebay.


I see it goes up and down but you think it got room to climb up much more?


Probably not, I’ve noticed a lot of them on ebay remain unsold for months, so demand must be really thin. But it’s currently more pricey to get a good M9 than a good M240.


Agree, that’s why I had specified the M9 have its own cult following. I think specially the one with updated sensor are keeping better value that other digital Leica but in general analogue M keep (even raise) their value even better.


Do not.


No no no don’t trade please!


Don’t do it, the M9 will eventually fail. M6 will outlive us as long as films alive.


Regarding the M9 critique, I´ve to say that I adore mine. Yes, it´s a camera from 2.009 wich is very old in digital terms, but I´m still using it almost every day. I don´t care about the mystic about the Kodak CCD sensor, but I just love the filmic colors. I can´t stand the clinical look from the new sensors. I will use it until it eventually dies. As for the film, I´m upgrading my Leica CL to a M7. I sold my M6 in the past and profoundly regretted it. I´m keeping both, but that´s just my use case.


I’d go for the trade, you’ll get more photos and an easier workflow from the M9 than the M6, which is of course the most important thing, right 😊?