How much better is the M9 than the M8?

[Want-a-leica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An entirely hypothetical question in my case at the moment; I have an M8 (my first Leica) and I love it, and I don't have the funds to get an M9 any time soon. Nevertheless I'm just curious to hear from people who have used both. Assuming that most would say that the M9 is an improvement, how much of an improvement is it? Enough to justify the difference in price? Better by a bit, half, miles...? Obviously the M9 doesn't require the use of filters, and there was something about the coding too iirc.

 

From the outside the M8 and the M9 look all but the same, so I'm guessing that ease of use is similar. How about low light, image quality, effect of the full frame sensor on lenses, discreet shutter noise, etc?

 

If the time comes for me to start thinking about changing, it would be worth knowing the general mood, but this is (like I said) more of an idle curiosity at present.

[Griswold]

Along with so many others I passed on the M8 because it seemed to be a stepping stone to a full frame digital rangefinder. The IR issue really put me off too. If you look at what seems to be the explosive sales of this fantastic albeit pricey camera people have voted with their wallets. I had an M6 and have really appreciated the performance of the M9. With suitable lenses it is a real champ.

[underground]

Other than the full frame censer and IR issue, is the quality comparable?

Really!

 

If so I will consider. BTW I Like 8,000th of a second, does M9 have that?

[jaapv]

The shutter is same as the M8.2. The image quality is better - the larger sensor gives more leeway, the new color filters are more precise, the transitions are smoother. Nothing spectacular, as the M8 is pretty good in its own right. The M8 is the adolescent, the M9 the adult. There are fewer technical complaints in this forum about the M9 despite more being sold than the M8.

[Jager]

The M8 is the adolescent, the M9 the adult.

 

That's an excellent way of putting it.

 

I find the M9 to be a very significant improvement over the M8. The aggregation of all those things Jaap mentions - with the improvement being greater than the sum of those parts.

 

To me, the game-changer with the M9 is its full-frame sensor. I find myself reaching for my M6 and M7 as an adjunct to my M9. My M8, alas, has sat virtually unused.

 

None of which is to demean the M8, when considered alone on its own merits. I loved mine enormously until the M9 came along.

[nex100]

I am not a fussy man but when I handled the M9, there is 3 things I feel is a lot better than the M8.

 

First is the shutter release. The M9 discreet and soft release is a lot better than the M8 and I can handle lower shutter speeds without going to high ISO handheld.

 

Second is the ISO performance. While many said and may have proved on paper that since the M8 sensor and M9 sensor is identical except that the M9's is bigger and the ISO performance is the same in theory, I must tell you that IT IS NOT THE SAME. The M9 is a lot better than the M8 in terms of ISO performance.

 

Third is the full frame. I like wide angles and the 15mm Heliar on the M8 which gives me 20mm view does not perform well at night. In daytime it is fantastic but not at night. When using the M9, I use the 21mm f2.8 biogon which gives me better performance at night as well as in the department of distortion. I like this lens a lot and the only way to use it as a 21mm is on the M9 if you do not go down the film route.

 

That sums up my M9 decision. Hope it helps you. Ultimately ask yourself what you want from the M9. I can tell you I never look back.

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Enjoy your M8 and stop worrying about whether there may be something better.

 

That is a sickness for which there is no cure. It can sap the enjoyment of what you do have. There will always be something better, or so those that have that something better will try to convince you.

 

If a camera does what you want fairly well, is a tool that helps you express yourself, and is one you can afford, then IT is the best camera.

 

-Marc

[mustafasoleiman]

If you have all the lenses you need now or in the future, if you have done all your printing and framing, and still you have money left and cannot think of anything else to improve your photography then... Go for it!

[Want-a-leica]

Enjoy your M8 and stop worrying about whether there may be something better.

 

That is a sickness for which there is no cure. It can sap the enjoyment of what you do have. There will always be something better, or so those that have that something better will try to convince you.

 

If a camera does what you want fairly well, is a tool that helps you express yourself, and is one you can afford, then IT is the best camera.

 

-Marc

 

Oh, I do enjoy my M8, a great deal. That's partly why I asked about the 9; maybe the subtext is not "is the M9 better than the M8?", but "is it more fun to use"? I enjoy taking pictures with the M8 more than I have ever enjoyed doing so with other cameras, so my thinking was that the M9 would be more of the same and better.

 

But as I originally said, that's one for the future if at all.

[Want-a-leica]

 

Third is the full frame. I like wide angles and the 15mm Heliar on the M8 which gives me 20mm view does not perform well at night. In daytime it is fantastic but not at night.

 

Could you elaborate on that? What makes it bad at night? I've seen one of these lenses on an auction site for what looks like a very reasonable asking price, and it looks like a nice wide-angle.

[adan]

What makes it bad at night?

 

f/4.5

[viramati]

It is 8 megapixels, a least 1 stop in iso, full frame, less DOF (50mm lens is 50 mm lens not 65) better

[exile]

The 9 is measurably better, but I cannot say whether the improvement is worth the price difference "for you" between a used M8 and a new M9.

 

I only bought a 9 because my 8 + lens bag were taken from me at knife point in South America and my insurance company paid out. The 8 is a very capable camera. I loved my second hand M8. As my first M it will always have a special place in my heart. I also still miss the ability to take infra-red photos during harsh midday light. But in all other respects the 9 is a better camera. No single feature gives a mind-blowing exponential increase in performance. Rather, there is a general refinement of the camera, an accumulation of a number of small advantages that together give a better user experience (shutter feel and delay, ISO selection, no need for pink nose IR cut filters,battery charge indicator) and better results (>1 stop better high ISO performance, auto ISO settings, manual lens selection for in-camera processing, ability to use fast wide lenses, ability to use a small fast 50 sonar as intended, etc). These are each small but quite significant advantages, and in my opinion, they do add up to a noticably better camera. I was not fully aware of how important these refinements would be to me until I had already bought a 9 and developed a way of working with it.

 

I was unlucky to loose my 8, but lucky to get my 9 because all of the money I put into the 8 was returned and I had another couple of year's worth of savings to add. So after the insurance payout, my decision starting from absolutely zero kit but having a chunk of insurance money I could spend in one go, was this: should I reinvest in a used M8 and absolute top quality Leica glass, or go for the M9 and buy CV+Zeiss glass that I knew from experience were good bargains if chosen carefully. Common wisdom is that glass is the more mature technology and therefore the better "investment" long term. However, in the end I decided that starting from scratch the best thing for a long term setup is to commit to a particular sensor format so that I would not loose money shuffling lenses to get the right fields of view when I did eventually change up to the bigger sensor. Hence the full frame sensor of the M9, coupled with the excellent price:performance ratio of the ZM and select CV lenses were persuasive for me.

 

Even after using a 9 for a year, I would still be very happy shooting with an 8 compared to any other camera on the market today if I could not get all the cash together in one go for a 9. I would buy a used m8 (or keep the hypothetical one I had), a CV15/4.5 heliar, a Canon tlm 135/3.5 and one top quality 28/35mm lens, then saving up for a top quality 35 or 50mm lens with a final full frame setup in mind. Only then would I start the long frugal wait whilst funds for a 9 slowly accumulated. The CV 15 gives wide angle coverage for limited expense, and the 28/35/50 lenses will be outstanding on M8 and M9. But even this strategy means that if you buy lenses with a full frame sensor in mind, you will be using slightly different fields of view for some time whilst you save for the M9.

[Skarpen]

If you have the opportunity to try an M9 out, the answer will probably come to you.

 

I upgraded because I felt right at home with the full frame bright lines. I had a hard time finding the right lens choices with the otherwise great M8. Crop factor is an issue when it comes to lens choices. Fast wide angles are very expensive.

 

I was selling my DSLR gear off. Either I would upgrade to M9 or get an outrageously expensive, fast wide angle for my M8 to get the focal length and speed I needed.

[Rick in CO]

I had an M8 for a year and recently upgraded to the M9. I have always liked 16x20 prints, usually from medium format film cameras. The M8 was stretched to give a really good 16x20, the M9 just delivers it. Dumping the uv filters and the ability to select the lens coding from the menu cinched it for me (can easily use any non-coded Leica, ZM or Voigtlander lenses). Despite its shortcomings, I loved the M8, but the more I used it really just pushed me into getting the M9. The best lens for the M8, IMHO, is the ZM Biogon 25mm f2.8 (33mm equiv) which I still use it on my M9.

[Guest fsellitto]

Enjoy your M8 and stop worrying about whether there may be something better.

 

That is a sickness for which there is no cure. It can sap the enjoyment of what you do have. There will always be something better, or so those that have that something better will try to convince you.

 

If a camera does what you want fairly well, is a tool that helps you express yourself, and is one you can afford, then IT is the best camera.

 

-Marc

 

I agree Marc.....well stated!

~f

 

 

http://www.franksellitto.com

[Rick]

This much better:

 

I---------------------------------------------------------I-------------I

........................................................M8..........M9

[markgay]

You can look around the top left corner of the M9 which has a sneaky cut out.

 

Otherwise you'll see much the same through the viewfinder which is one of the main reasons for using a rangefinder.

 

Mark

[denoir]

It's 1.33x better

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[markgay]

A serious answer. It may be worth thinking if you routinely crop pictures.

 

I don't. Nothing special, just a matter of discipline that I try not to crop, I try to get the picture I'm looking for.

 

Remember when Leica changed the frameline so-called "accuracy" between the M8, the M8.2 and then again with the M9. Does frameline "accuracy" matter if you crop?

 

A lot of people who say the M9 is great because you can crop and get the same resolution as a the whole M8 frame - also raved about frameline accuracy.

 

Go figure.