Can a digital camera be a classic? Sure, the Canon 5D is one, The Nikon D300 is one. They only won’t be in use any more some years ahead, which is quite different from film classics.

What I really mean is this: For me, “classic” means foremost a design quality. A classic camera is a camera that in its time does almost everything right (like the D300), or in its time does one thing with absolute perfection (image quality on the 5D). It will be superseded, but in its time it rules supreme.

Given my definition, the M9 seems to be a classic, no question. It may even hold its monetary value longer than other digital cameras, but I suppose we will see a time when cameras at ISO 25600 or 50120 will show only moderate noise, and then we will expect that sensitivity. Why not? The 18mpx may last long, but from what I have seen of ISO 1600 shots with the M9, the noise will soon begin to make it look very, very old. At least for the price.

Maybe then there will be a slowdown – the cutting edge will still evolve but the upgrade treadmill might slow.

Mind you, my last digital camera I bought was about 5 years ago, so what do I know.

I have an M6 and M8. I don’t think I have ever seen the M8 infrared problem but the white balance has bitten me on the behind more than once, sometimes producing garish colors (ugh what an image). I personally think the user experience is great and love going through the act of manual control – focus, set the aperture, adjust the shutter based on the little red triangles. I can now sort of guess how to compensate the exposure by how much the red glows.

I have been going through a process of downsizing. I seldom use the big Canon stuff any more and stay with the M8 or the LX3 point-shoot. And I seldom print any more. Most of the images end up on the web or viewed in some way on the computer so having more megapixels is not an issue.

I think I will stay with the cameras I have. Still would love to play with the M9 though. I think the M9 probably has a higher probability of being a classic than the M8 but who really knows.

Neil M.

I never did get to test his Leica. He ended up selling it and I bought it.

The full answer is this: It is a 35mm equivalent. I love prime lenses. To get a 35mm equivalent on my 10D in a prime, I have to get a 35/1.6 = 22mm lens. Heck, to emulate a 28 I need a 17mm. Fast 21′s or 22′s are expensive and not very common. I own a 17-40 L zoom, which is a very lovely lens for landscape, but it’s f/4, and I prefer my street lenses to be f/2 or faster.

So, on my SLRs, I really want full frame to limit the DOF and get me a 35mm or 28 or 24mm. I love wide angles.

The X1 is kinda like a TLR; since I can’t change the lens, the FOV is what it is and I have to adjust. With the M9, my Biogon gives me the same FOV whether I shoot film or not.

That’s kind of a stream-of-consciousness answer, but there you have it.

@Eric: Yes. Investing in technology is a loosing game. As soon as you put your money on the counter, or virtual counter, the product that you just bought is outdated, or will soon be. I think that in order to be a true classic, the item has to stand the test of time and become timeless. Classic movies, classic radio, classic cars, etc. All had value then but because they became classics, they have more value now. Again, I think it is a romantic notion, but why not. Romance is good!

@Chris: Regarding crop factor, what makes you interested in the X1? It has a crop factor of 1.46, has a fixed lens, and no finder, unless you want to pony up another $350. I don’t see the attraction. Do tell, my friend. Do tell!