M9 and direct printing from the camera?

Why would you want to do this? Much easier and safer to use a card reader and copy images to computer and then make prints. Either way would have no effect on print quality.
If you are referring to a image taken in RAW as a "straight print," then there is no way you could print it from the camera since it needs to be "processed" before it can be printed. Similar to developing unexposed film but with the use of a computer with a program that will "process" it.
BTW, with a M9 you can take a photo in jepg or RAW however RAW gives you more control over the "processed" image.

Thanks, Harris. No, I was not referring to RAW. That requires separate post exposure treatment. The advantage of direct printing was described, if I remember well enough the thoughts of the reviewer, as being simpler in terms of a more congenial and direct contact between camera and printer, without the additional variables of monitor brightness and adjustment, method of post exposure interfacing between computer and printer, and perhaps other factors. Adjusting images for proper printing from computer software is not easy, if highest possible quality is the goal. I realize that a direct connection from the camera may not be possible or advisable, but in a different sense than what you mentioned; that is, a necessity for the information to be treated in a manner such that the printer understands the the colour gamut of the device (RGB or sRGB) and the device itself can inteface with the printer's own specificities in that regard. I am not a specialist in that area and of what isrequired in matching responses of the different devices, and I do acknowledge here that it may be less simple than I assume (or, rather, what the reviewer assumed in making the statement I initially refered to).

I also hadn't heard of direct printing, I would have thought some processing may be preferred. BTW 1 week till I get my M9p, it's only been a 5 month wait!

I think Kodak, and maybe others, have been ofering direct printing for several years.

Charles, thanks, I also had that in the back of my mind when I asked the question. Richard, enjoy your new camera!

However, I have to eat my hat. I misinterpreted the reviewers remarks, which I have just now relocated. What the reviewer said was "directly from camera image to inkjet printer" and not "directly from camera to inkjet":

"The Leica M9 is the only camera that allows you to print directly from camera image to inkjet printer without elaborate image manipulation. The raw image is already of excellent quality with high definition that directly reflects the quality of the lenses. In many cases the dcraw algorithms suffice to extract the best quality. If you want the shortest route from camera to printer, then the M9 will provide you with this."

The quote is by Mr. E. Puts and was made in his web article of March 7, 2020, the article being part of a series on the M9, its strengths and its weaknessess. Here is a link to the areticle:

http://www.imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page168/page168.html

Sorry if I caused any confusion that may have equaled my own. Perhaps someone with more printing experience than I have might want to further comment on the statement by the reviewer, what he means by elaborate image manipulation and why the M9 image would be so well suited to printing, compared to other cameras.

I think Mr. Puts shows what happens when you live inside one brand for a long time - you have no idea what is going on in the rest of the world. "Direct printing" has been possible for many years. Apparently, Mr. Puts thinks that the dcraw algorithms magically differ from other conversion methods from RAW to something printable. I have done direct printing from a Canon camera to an Epson printer for five years, but it was advertised well before that.

Jeff,

Are the "dcraw algorithms" different from the math used in Capture 1 or Adobe Lightroom for converting RAW images? In which program are they present (within the camera or without?) and whatever that program is, does it make printing more direct and easier, rather than going through post exposure treatment in something like Photoshop Elements? My experience is very basic and my digital output has mainly been restricted to fine jpeg (minimum compression) images from which I have had trouble getting good results from my printer (possibly due to my screen brilliance and color balance or gamut or my unfamiliarity with ICC profiles). Assuming your are happy with your camera exposure of an image, is your direct printing from the Canon to Epson as good (a result) as post exposure treatment and then printing?

Any light you can shed on this would be really appreciated.

It's a standard called DPOF and has been around since 1998. I am very certain that it was designed for "novice user convenience" rather than "maximizing quality by reducing number of intermediate processes". Sorry, if you had your hopes up high, there...

Thanks, Soren. I'm surprised that someone as critically technical (optics, cameras) as Erwin Puts would prone a novice user algorithm, but then not all Leica users need the highest quality that the system can provide, so perhaps he was referring to that segment of the market.

Which makes me wonder if the British queen uses her M4 for royal family snaps, or salon images.

Looks like my virtually as new M8 with its 6 month old Leica replacement rear screen (glass), clear sensor and 1.33x sensor cleaning swabs wil be looking for a new owner. I am going to bite the bullet and invest in an M9.