LEICA M9 VS. THE NEW M -- My Paris Experience

I looked forward to the release of the new M.
After shooting with it in Paris I have come to the conclusion that it is most certainly a 'better camera' (doctor evil quoting finger gesture) than the M9, Duh.

But... how much better?

The number one selling point for me werent either of the gimmicks of video or R lenses but it was the discrete noise of the shutter. the new M's quietness made my M9 sound like an angry rhinoceros invited to a lavish 19th century dinner party.

I tend to keep my shooting very low-key and unnoticeable, so the upgrade in the quietness of the movement of the shutter was definitely huge. I was in fact, amazed.
though, not enough for me to covet the new M.

Now let me express to you that even though the new M is a 'better Camera' My heart still remains fidèle to the M9. I dont yet need the new M. Im fine with the M9 til Leica actually releases a ground breaking new new M.

After using the two side by side I feel the M9 has reached a point in 35mm photography that is difficult to surpass. It has a full frame 18mp sensor.. if i wanna blow my photos up larger than that i should probably just shoot medium format digital anyways. 35mm was made to be smaller, quicker and more flexible than 120 when it was released. now looking at what its become today, full frame and 30+mp are huge files that are going to eat up my processor and buffering. so again, why not just shoot with medium format at that point?
its sad that we shoot with such incredible cameras just to see the photos get processed back down to 400kb to be uploaded to the internet.. i mean Instagram.. from our phones.. p.s follow me @shkylar

This goes to show that its not so much the size in mb ( I am however a huge fan of 30+mp images )  thats important but the USABILITY of a camera that enables the capturing of the decisive moment in front of us (Henri Cartier-Bresson reference which im sure you caught, btw what did he shoot with again?? and so why do we need the cameras we have nowadays? #tangent).
if frame rate comes to mind from that statement then you missed the point. Sure... if you're shooting for transworld skateboarding I do see the role of 8-12fps. but the facts are for the rest of us, its over kill.
Last year during fashion week I shot Nikon and had about 500 images per show. I would widdle it down to 30-50 images to turn in to my editor. 10-20 would then be used. --- what a waste of  time. Between shows I would bust my butt running around the city carrying a d700(1200usd), d300s(900usd), 14-24mm(1500usd), 24-70mm(1000usd) and a hasselblad carl zeiss 80mm Planar T* (300usd) medium format which happened to be the smallest lens and the lens that i shot with predominately. All that equipment was heavy, and around town, (gare du nord, st denis, république, nation, place d'italie, etc) i stuck out like a sore thumb waiting to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and see it all beaten off me.. ((luckily that didnt happen, I only got jumped once but nothing stolen, the hand of the 18yr old kid aggressing me slipped off my phone that he was trying to make his but then his hand found its way into a fist and my glasses thereafter were broken in two, #hewonthebattle #butIwonthewar))
that was last season, and its very much out of style for me. The high frame rate, excessive amount of photos to edit and the encumbering effect left a bad taste in my mouth so I switched.

for 2013 I made some adjustments to my collection. The Nikon system was booted and I opted for the M9 (4000usd) with a 35mm f1.4 Pre-aspherical Summilux lens by Leitz(1800usd). it has a burst of about 3fps and after about 12 frames its full and i have to wait for it to process the 12 18mb DNG files that it just took.. this might be annoying to photogs who dont use their brains (its really important to think while shooting) but what it really means is "I need to capture the right moment with the few frames i have" thus this keeps me on my toes and i end up with far better images with  much smaller sets to edit through (100-200 per show x 4-7 shows per day) when its 11pm and all the shows are done. it just makes sense.

When I used the M, I was impressed with its big lovely LCD screen.
But Ill still take my piece of crap M9 screen any day.. why?
The m9 screen consumes less of my battery -- that translates to more photos taken..
I look at my photos less -- saves battery and keeps me focused of taking photos
Heres an interesting point though, the M9 screen pisses me the hell off because I see my pictures and to myself I say, "damn, I suck, my photos suck, life sucks" --- BUT IM ALWAYS WRONG! I get to the computer, load up the images and they always look creamy, sharp and beautiful. it never ceases to amaze me. Heres what happens, because the image on the screen is so ugly it forces me to search for any way possible to make the photo better, ill shoot other angles, refocus, use different F-stops, etc, this in turn gives me a multitude of different perspectives on the same subject and makes the processing far more enjoyable
thats why i love the M9 crappy little screen.

This is why i still love my M9 and do not need the the new m.

IF i were to make a new leica i would build instagram into the camera and free wifi.
now we are talking...