No, I haven't actually seen one yet.  But the Leica M9 was announced a few days ago, and it's said to be shipping beginning in "mid-September."  It's billed as the worlds smallest and lightest full-frame (18mp) digital camera, and indeed the body is almost unchanged from that of the M8.  At $6995 US, it's pricey... but in the same range as top-end pro full frame DSLRs.

Back in August Leica invited a handful of photographers to Solms and gave them an advance look at the M9, a few days to use the camera with a variety of lenses as well as tour the factory.  A few of those advance look reviews have been posted online in the past few days, and I especially recommend the ones by Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/m9-first.shtml or Erwin Puts at http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page155/page155.html and there's also one at dpreview.com .  

It's interesting that Ken Rockwell has also posted one of his typically heavily opinionated "reviews" on the M9... but if you read carefully, he hasn't actually had his hands on one yet, he's just ordered his from the store the same way you or I would need to.  That's right, you're reading correctly... he's making numerous strong statements on what he likes about a camera he hasn't even seen yet.  While there's often some good information buried in his writing, it's most evident to those who already know as much about the gear in question as he does, and  there's also often serious factual error and an over-aggressive and over-simplified black-and-white worldview that grates on my nerves.  This latest stunt has cost him severely in credibility, in my eyes.  Perhaps even more damaging is the fact that Leica apparently did not include him on the invitation list for the August event... an action which speaks volumes.

I found something far more useful in the process of looking at the Erwin Puts review.  In an earlier post http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153.html he does a head-to-head comparison of  actual prints from film run through an M7, and digital capture from an M8... with the same lens on each camera.  This is what Puts excels at, the detail-freaky test chart resolution comparisons.  And he's made a very important point:  Most film-digital comparisons are actually comparing digital scans of film to digital capture in camera, which really is a comparison of scanners vs. cameras and not film vs digital.   Thus, most film-digital comparisons are fatally flawed.

Here, Puts makes a fairly good case that looking at actual prints, the M7 still outperforms the newer digital M8 or M8.2.... although not by all that much.  And he presumably did his test shots on tripods in the studio, which is not usually the way one uses a Leica M.  I'm also not so sure this would hold up with most other camera brands, because Leica glass is so good that it exceeds the resolution capability of the camera in many cases.  With most cameras, a slight resolution advantage of one media over another will be limited by the lens, by the mirror-slap vibration of an SLR, or by shortfalls in technique.

I find this of interest because it parallels my own experience.  The M8 is good, and the M9 is expected to be slightly better.  But the M8 isn't quite as sharp... actually, it's more about acutance than sharpness... as some of the things I've done on film with a 10-year old M6.  I'd compare the look of the M8 to film processed in a finer grain developer like XTOL, which gives a creamy smooth look; but a lot of my M6 work is processed in Rodinal or HC-110, which give a grainier and higher acutance "edge" to a properly executed image.

But that raises another question, one not addressed by Puts... and this again is typical of his detail oriented worldview, he's better at the mechanistic things than he is at the big picture.  But considering what a Leica is used for... fast spontaneous capture of Cartier-Bressons's "decisive moment" ... If it's ultimate technical image quality I'm after, rather than worry about an incremental difference visible only to the trained viewer, I'm more likely to skip the rangefinder (or the DSLR) and use medium format instead.  Indeed, this is what I've been doing when I'm shooting under controlled conditions, on a tripod with studio flash.  The big negative is in a league of it's own.

Thus, for on location shooting where big cameras and tripods are not the best choice, the digital Leica M offers a lot of advantages.  The M8 is practically all I've used for location work this summer, and the M9 addresses most of the relatively minor annoyances I've encountered with the M8.

If I were willing to spring big bucks for an M9 (which I'm currently not), the things I'd be excited about would include the allegedly improved high ISO performance, the absence of a crop factor,  and the relationship of the lenses to the brightline frames in the rangefinder window.  With the older M bodies, with the standard 0.72x rangefinder magnification, the frames for 35mm and 50mm were well suited to in camera editing.  That is, they're big enough to be able to see the image effectively, yet there's enough space around the frame to see what's being edited out, and to make conscious decisions about composition.  This is one of the advantages of the rangefinder, one of the reasons "seeing" is different than through the dark tunnel of the SLR.

But with the M8, I find that only the 35mm frame (46mm equivalent with the 1.3x crop factor) allows this optimal composition.  The 28mm frame (37mm equivalent) is out in the edges of the window, and not much is visible around it.  The 50mm frame (67mm equivalent) is so  small that it's hard to work with, and the 75mm and 90mm frames are essentially useless because they're so tiny.  And since fast 50mm lenses are among my favorites on the Leica M, I find this frustrating.

The 0.68x magnification of the M8 (and reportedly also of the M9) also complicates focus a little. I initially scoffed at early  reports of focus problems with the M8, since with the film Leica M bodies I find focus accuracy to be excellent, and one of the great advantages of those bodies especially in low light.  But indeed, I've learned that extra care with focus is needed with the digital M bodies, especially with 50mm and up lenses.  Erwin Puts attributes this partially to a narrower zone of high sharpness with digital sensors than with film (I'll take his word for it), but it's also because of the lower viewfinder magnification.

These issues can be addressed with addition of a screw-in 1.25x magnifier which threads into the eyehole on the back of the M8 or M9, and which brings the viewfinder magnification up to the same 0.85x that was offered on one version the M6TTL.  I may very possibly try this, especially since my M6 is an 0.85x model and I'm already accustomed to that.  Still, it's annoying to need to spend another $300 on top of an already expensive camera.

Finally, the lenses:  With the M8, Leica made a big deal out of six-bit coding.   With the M9 there is reportedly also the ability to set the lens ID manually via the menu, which makes it easier to use older (and much less expensive) lenses. 

There's some attraction to the latest aspherical Leica glass, which is amazingly sharp and with high microcontrast, but also very expensive.  However it's important to keep in mind that Cartier-Bresson, Riboud, Sieff, Gibson, and many other well known Leica M shooters have been creating exquisite work for many decades with lenses that, on a test bench, would not compare well with the latest versions.  That didn't prevent them from creating all those classic photos; and I do not recall most of those photos as less than sharp.

And for that matter, they created them with older Leica M film bodies that are available used for a fraction (10-20%) of the cost of an M9, and which typically are still in mechanically perfect condition even after all those years.  The classic versions of these cameras can last a lifetime.

As I said a few days ago, I did something slightly crazy.

I bought another Leica.  I bought an M8. It arrived today.

Those who have been reading my posts for a while know that I have a strange love-hate relationship with digital.  The problem isn't so much with digital... except for some concerns about data integrity and longevity, I can deal with it easily enough, and I probably wouldn't miss the smell of darkroom chemicals.  Rather, my issues have been with the absolutely stunning lack of imagination exhibited by most camera manufacturers.   To borrow the name of an old song by The Cure, they're always "jumping someone else's train" and building the same old thing, except with more features.

I'm really not interested in big, heavy, overcomplicated DSLRs.  My life is already complicated enough without another 421-page users manual to read.  And if I want to enrich my chiropractor I can just haul a bag of bricks around all day, instead of a heavy camera.  At least I'd never be tempted to buy newer better faster and more complicated bricks.  But currently, the choices are smaller lighter amateur level DSLRs made of plastic and with really crappy viewfinders, or big heavy pro DSLRs with slightly crappy viewfinders.

This has been exacerbated by my decade of constant Leica rangefinder use.   I've learned that I really don't need a whole bag full of fancy lenses, I can get by just fine with a couple of fast primes.  I've been reminded that photography is about creating images, not trying to remember which sub-menu that feature I need right now is located on.  

With a Leica, I'm thinking about that image, about the subject.  The camera becomes an extension of my hands, my eyes, my mind.  I really can't say that about my DSLR, which I'm all too aware of as a separate object, which demands a lot of attention throughout the process.

When the M8 was announced in 2006, I thought about it... for about five minutes.  As nice as it would have been to put my existing M lenses on a compact and minimalist and quality built digital body, it was a pretty expensive toy.  The earliest iterations also had a few bugs to be worked out (now mostly addressed through firmware updates).

But a confluence of events gradually made the decision more feasible.  The dollar has been stronger against the Euro this past year, giving Leica a little wiggle room on pricing.  When the M8.2 came out not too long ago, they took advantage of this by dropping the price of the M8 by some $800.  Still not cheap, but getting within range.

I started setting aside photography related income, at one level thinking that if I sold enough images, maybe this could happen.  My sales come in batches though, they're unpredictable because I really don't market my work.  So imagine my surprise when, a week after identifying my "Leica fund" I sold an image for a magazine cover, to a corporate publisher who came looking for me.  Then, a week later, someone asked to buy one of my old Nikons, one I hadn't used in five years.  In less than two weeks I was a quarter of the way to that M8.

That other three quarters was the problem.  I honestly expected the idea to just fade away over time, and the money to be redirected to something else.

But what happened instead is that Leica, and their dealers, are apparently trying to clear out the remaining M8s in favor of the considerably more expensive M8.2.  Fine with me, because most of the new 8.2 features don't really matter for what I do, and if I ever change my mind they're mostly available as factory service upgrades.

The important thing is that there are suddenly a bunch of demo M8s on the market.  And last weekend when I saw the prices... it was time to move.  Quickly.  Before it got back out of reach.

Within 24 hours after making that decision, I had ordered one of the demos, with full one year factory warranty.  The price was low in part because someone had misplaced the original box, although the accessories were all there.  This one has actually been handled, it has a few minor scuffs on the baseplate; there were two others at the same dealer in near mint condition, glass case jobs.  But I use my cameras.  There's little point in spending $200 extra to buy a pristine body that I'll promptly put a few minor scuffs on.

So I just got a digital Leica for $1200 off current M8 retail price ($2000 less than the 2006 introductory price), and less than half what a new M8.2 currently goes for.

I got mine from Tamarkin, and at this writing they still have two or three more.  Other dealers (Classic Camera, Eli Kurland) are advertising demos for the same to slightly more.  So if you're dying to get one of these, and especially if you already have an M lens or two, now is the time.  Soon they'll be gone, and the choices will be used, or a new 8.2.  I paid almost exactly the price of a new Nikon D700, but for a Leica with full factory warranty.

Anyway, my new toy arrived sooner than expected.  The battery is charged, the lens is mounted.  My next scheduled real shoot is still eight days away, but I'll take it to the office tomorrow and take some shots around oldtown after work.  I'll post a mini review in a day or two. 

I'm already happy, because now I can travel with just the M8 and one film body as a backup.  My bag just got a lot lighter.  And I have a lot of travel coming up.

The next difficult decision... do I still need my D300, or should I sell it?  Or maybe even sell even all my Nikon gear?

I grew up accepting the Leica legend.  My dad had briefly owned one during his early 1950s stint as a military photographer in Europe, and he often spoke reverently of that old IIIf.  He had a friend who owned a camera shop, and had an impressive collection of old Leica's under glass. I was able to hold a few, play with the mostly older bodies.

When I began my photojournalism career, a Leica wasn't a practical choice, even if I could have afforded a new one.  I had to shoot lots of sports and other action at the time; not a genre where the rangefinder is of much use.  I did eventually acquire a near-pristine IIIf at a garage sale, more as a curiosity.  I used it as a backup for model comp shoots for a couple of years, and the luminosity of the old screw mount lens was immediately evident.  I sold that body when someone offered me triple what I'd paid for it.

It wasn't until 1999 that I became a Leica photographer.  Very interested in street photography at the time, I sold an old medium format body and added some cash to pick up a brand new M6TTL 0.85X.  I'd already acquired a lens, a used one I'd found at an exceptionally good price on a St. Louis business trip.

The fellow at the camera shop cautioned me that it might take a couple of weeks to adjust to the new way of seeing.  That was probably an understatement.  I was experienced enough to be able to get competent images right away, of course.  But that purchase began an evolution in my way of seeing which continues to this day.

I shot almost exclusively with a 50mm Summilux for the first several years, and that's still my primary lens.  Over time I've added a 35mm Summicron and  90mm Summicron, although I rarely use the latter.  A Leica is a great way to break the old habit of a bag full of big heavy zooms; with this camera, I could spend a lifetime learning the nuances of the 50mm and the 35mm.

What's so special about a Leica?

Hold one, and the first things that are evident are the compact size, the weight (for a small camera it has some heft, although it's light by SLR standards), and the quality build.  There's no plastic, except for a molded tip on the end of the film advance lever.  It's solid metal.  I can palm mine, wrap my fingers around all four sides from the back.  I could, and have, carried it in a jacket pocket.

Lift it to the eye, look through the viewfinder, and there's no loss of light.  Almost none.  There isn't an SLR made that can claim that.  But there are two things of perhaps greater importance.  The bright line in the finder defines the image area, and it's possible to see the area around the line.  Thus, one intuitively edits things both in and out of the image.  There are more compositional choices available.  And, it's easy to keep both eyes open while shooting, further increasing awareness.  This can be important on street shoots in rough urban neighborhoods.

Of course, for the average person the Leica doesn't match their preconceived notion of a fancy camera.  it looks like a point and shoot, from a distance.  Again, a useful trait in those urban neighborhoods.  The connoissuer of photography, of course, will recognize it from across a large room.  And can probably name the type. 

Once on a shoot in Berkeley, I was walking down Telegraph Avenue with Vinyl Queen, stopping periodically to take a few shots of her.  As I lowered my M6 from one image, I caught movement in my peripheral vision.  A tall, elegant gentleman with a vaguely European look stepped from the shadow of a doorway, lowering his own M6.  He'd just caught us in action.  We nodded at each other in unspoken understanding, and went our separate ways.

As mentioned above, the Leica wouldn't be a good choice for sports or anything requiring sustained rapid shooting.  But it can be strikingly fast for one shot.  With practice, a rangefinder can be focused very quickly, and in low light or other challenging conditions it's arguably faster than autofocus. Certainly, it's more accurate (at least with normal and wide lenses, not so good with telephotos). The rangefinder is precise even for those with less than perfect vision.  And that brightline viewfinder allows near-instantaneous composition.  The exquisite balance of the little camera also contributes to its fast reaction time.  

Then there's that matter of only eight moving controls:  focus ring, aperture ring, shutter speed dial, film advance lever, shutter release button, rewind knob, ISO dial, and frame preview lever (this last used only rarely, to see frames of other focal length lenses).  There's very little between the photographer and the subject, not much to distract the creative eye.

Then there are the lenses, legendary in their own right.  While it's true that most are among the best for resolution, and probably exceed the ability of 35mm film to hold that resolution, there's more to it than that.   Because Leicas are rarely shot from tripods or for that matter under anything like optimal conditions.

Many Leica lenses are very unusual in their quality at fast apertures.  Most lenses perform poorly wide open, but Leica glass excels in low light. Wide open is also where the legendary Leica bokeh (the rendering of out of focus highlights in a pleasing way) is most evident.  Then there's just that intangible, magical Leica glow.  Even when shooting in impossibly low light, even when camera movement results in a less than sharp image... somehow, the Leica superimposes sharpness on top of blur.  I can't explain this.  It just is.  Since I often shoot at night, this matters to me.

There are other things, most of them impossible to define or describe in words.  The images speak for themselves.  As does the long list of photographers who have created famous images with a Leica:  Henri Cartier-Bresson, Marc Riboud, Jeanloup Sieff, Ralph Gibson, and many more.

There is of course the cost.  Like most fine hand-assembled machines, Leicas are not cheap.  Yet, it's possible to experience a Leica without going deep into debt.  A few years ago I acquired a backup body, an M4, for $1100... considerably less than I paid for my most recent DSLR, which will be obsolete in a year.  Used lenses cost a little more than their SLR counterparts... a used 50mm might go for $500-800, depending on model and age and condition... but it will also hold it's value over time, and probably increase.  My 35mm Summicron is now worth almost double what I paid for it.  There's also a nice line of Zeiss M-mount glass available now, with wide angles in the $1,000 range.  The look is slightly different than the Leica counterparts, which only means there are now more choices in quality glass.

My mid-1970s vintage M4 is in very nice shape, and in some ways I prefer it over my M6.  It has no built in meter of course, that came later, but it's simple enough to jam a hand held meter in a pocket.  Once I shot with the M4 in a torrential downpour, for hours.  There wasn't a millimeter of me, or the camera, that was dry.  That day would have ruined any DSLR in short order.  For the M4, it was just another day taking pictures.  

I've pretty much given up on shooting 35mm film with any other camera.  Medium format film or any of the better quality DSLRs can do a better job.  Yet Leica remains my primary camera, and I use them whenever I don't need macro capability or extremely rapid image turnaround.  The Leica gives me a combination of build quality and spontaneous "seeing" that I've been unable to match with any other type of camera.  

Then there's the size factor.  I travel a great deal.  I can pack two bodies, each with a lens, a handheld meter, and enough film to shoot for a week in less space (and with less weight) than a basic DSLR body with one lens.  Oh, and no battery chargers... I already need to carry those for my phone and my laptop, that's more than enough.  Traveling light is important to me.

 The image below is a good illustration.  The black body is the M6TTL, with the 50mm Summilux (f/1.4).  The chrome body is the M4 with a 35mm Summicron (f/2.0) and a lens hood.  My phone is in the foreground for scale.

 
It's quite possible that my two Leicas will outlast me.  In the meantime, they bring a pleasure to the act of taking pictures that few other cameras can match.