M9 versus M8

[JHAG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the M8 and don't intend to buy an M9 this year (just bought a second Makina 67, so it's enough for now ).

I suppose the proof of the main gap between the two cameras will be mostly in print and did not have the opportunity to compare prints from both cameras so far.

So far, I saw several beautiful pictures on this forum and LFI taken with the M9, but none gave me the impression, image quality wise, they coulnd't have been shot with an M8 (full frame apart, of course).

I am totally erring, here ?

Any shooter working with both units could light my lantern ?

[vdb]

I have both, and you are correct. I simply prefer full frame...my 50 lux is a 50 lux like it was on my M6.

I also like the ability to crop those huge files..

[Artichoke]

don't use the M8 at all now

the resolution increase is significant & for me the main reason to upgrade

the M9 seems to hold about a stop or stop and 1/2 more dynamic range than the M8, especially when using the M9's uncompressed DNG file capture

I love the way Auto ISO is implemented on the M9 which has many more choices than my M8 (unmodified, btw)

I have even found the M9's iso 80 a helpful option

high iso performance seems about 1.5 to 2 stops better on the M9 as well

I often use soft release and find discreet release useful at times as well

the M9 seems better for focus with teles

FF does play to the RF's advantages with wide angles, though you will need an external VF for anything wider than 28 mm

[jaapv]

Also I like the color rendering of the M9 which results from the change in Bayer filter, and I find the uncompressed DNG makes for more robust files. The higher pixel count results in smoother color and contrast transitions in my experience. Mind you, these are all small differences, certainly not spectacular.

[rob_w]

I have moved from an M8 to my new M9 -- used for the past four weeks. It would be fair to say I am just amazed at how much better -- again -- the photos are from the M9. Apart from the usual reasons (e.g. listed by Artichoke above) -- DR, high ISO, extra pixels, and so on -- the pictures just seem to have more presence and life than comparable M8 pictures, with which I was always happy in the past. Even on the screen.

 

So my advice would be: do not underestimate the improvement that is possible, and do not wait too long!

 

Cheers

 

Robert

---------------

[jplomley]

I shot with a pair of M8's, an M9, and an M7 in Santiago de Cuba for three weeks. I have made roughly 60 prints thus far and I have shown these A3 prints to several of my colleagues, and they cannot distinguish the M8 from the M9 images. Of course the film images are readily discernible, and in many instances those were the preferred media. But I digress. Before I went to Cuba I did some tests with the M9 + 35/2 Asph vs the M8 + 24/2.8 Asph and I up-sampled the M8 files in C1 Pro to match the pixel count of the M9. I then ripped a print of each and viewed them at the proper viewing distance (i.e. the diagonal of the print). My conclusion: I could not tell the difference in print quality and neither could half a dozen of my colleagues. In practical use, where the M9 has the advantage over the M8 is the ability to crop and still retain a decent pixel count. As well, the ISO noise performance has improved by roughly a stop. I also observed a greater preservation of highlights in the M9 files. The M9 files do require a bit of extra sharpening relative to the M8, but not so much that one starts to introduce artifacts. I also noted that I had a higher percentage of keepers from my 75/2 Cron Asph with the M9 and I suspect this is a result of the soft release modality. And of course there is less shutter bounce than the M8.

[Shade]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Image quality wIse, i cant see much difference between the two cameras. However I prefer full frame since i can have better dof control and keep my focal lengths stay true. However, i do hate the ir cut filters that is neccesary for the m8..

[scjohn]

I have moved from an M8 to my new M9 -- used for the past four weeks. It would be fair to say I am just amazed at how much better -- again -- the photos are from the M9. Apart from the usual reasons (e.g. listed by Artichoke above) -- DR, high ISO, extra pixels, and so on -- the pictures just seem to have more presence and life than comparable M8 pictures, with which I was always happy in the past. Even on the screen.

 

So my advice would be: do not underestimate the improvement that is possible, and do not wait too long!

 

Cheers

 

Robert

---------------

 

I agree. The M8 allowed me to use Leica lenses the M9 ti a great camera in its own right. I kept my m8 but now wonder why. If the M9 crashed I could use the m8 as a backup but only until another m9 was available.

[dseelig]

There are times where the uv ir filters, will cause ghost reflections in the frame. For that reason alone I will never use an m8 again.It is also the reason why I never got a second m8 but now found a way to get a second m9

[JHAG]

Really interesting replies from you all, thanks for that.

Maybe Leica won't be too pleased with my conclusions, but I could very well skip a beat until the M10.

@jeffrey : yes, film on print still retains an organic life of its own, which digital cannot match.

@dseelig : I never experienced that kind of flare, even in studio light, even with the Noctilux, the lens which is most prone to it.

[Rolo]

I've found an enormous difference between the M8 and the M9 and I'll not be going backwards. I don't even want an M8 as a back-up, or second camera.

 

There's no doubt that the M8 will produce a nice print, I've seen thousands, but the M9 allows much more flexibility: allows you stand closer and provides greater resolution by being closer; opens up your lens range again so that my most commonly used 35mm focal length is an f1.4 again; provides more pixels to crop into to compensate for a lack of zoom; inserts the 24mm as a wide-angle lens; makes it easier to work side by side with an M film camera. The M8 causes the shooter to be further away and makes focussing that bit more difficult.

 

I work with a 35/50/75 Luxes for my volume and 24/90 Elmarits for occasional use. The M8 caused me to use the 24mm Elmarit as a main lens and in low light that affected what I did and in fact stopped me on many occasions.

 

It's audible noise was dreadful for quiet environments, the digital noise was way below industry standards and the filters were an expensive joke.

 

Yep, the M8's got enough pixels to fill a sheet of paper, but not practical in use for my needs, either personal or client.

[JHAG]

Being a close shooter, that's an argument I didn't think of.

Thank you, rolo.

[Shootist]

don't use the M8 at all now

the resolution increase is significant & for me the main reason to upgrade

 

I'm sorry but there is no resolution increase. The M9 takes a bigger picture then the M8 from the same distance with the same lens attached but the pixels per inch/mm count is the same.

[Rolo]

I'm sorry but there is no resolution increase. The M9 takes a bigger picture then the M8 from the same distance with the same lens attached but the pixels per inch/mm count is the same.

 

 

Oops, I've just cut off the heads and feet !

 

Pixels/mm are the same, but the picture never can be. If you start be saying I want this scene with this lens, you have to back off with the M8 and everything gets harder. Resolution plummets by 30%, IME.

 

Now an equivalent 70% resolution from a Leica lens is still pretty darned good, but then start cropping that and it's a greasy pole.

[brill64]

making beautiful pictures can be done equally well with either camera, you know that!. i had an m8 and now i have an m9. to be honest, i am more passionate about the pictures taken with the m8 simply because it has it's own history and covered a longer period of my life. i try very hard not to be sentimental about cameras but whilst i continue to be amazed with the quality of images from the m9, i occasionally wonder, 'where is my m8 and what's it up to with it's new owner?'. it had nearly 100,000 shutter actuations but was working perfectly and was serviced by leica. their chief technician once commented, "this is a very happy camera". it was and i miss it.

[JHAG]

I so much agree.

 

I miss dearly my father's Rollei he bought for an eye in his twenties, during the 60s (he carried it all over the film sets he co-produced and the airbases he was appointed to).

And I still remember developing pics in my grandfather's basement in the seventies.

These are not rosy tales. Simply put, all cameras are deeply part of one's life.

 

P.S. Rolo's right : FF gives you more room closer.

[Revdockj]

I continue to use both the M8 and the M9, and I have to say (I know this is subjective and I can't explain it in any technically convincing way) my impression with the M9 is that it just seems to produce pictures that look more like those using film. And as for my 50mm noctilux--the magic is back!!

 

Ken

[Leicaiste]

I'm sorry but there is no resolution increase. The M9 takes a bigger picture then the M8 from the same distance with the same lens attached but the pixels per inch/mm count is the same.

 

But who will use the same lens at the same distance to achieve the same result ? Nobody.

 

I will use a different lens at the same distance to achieve the same result (more or less) and the resolution will be higher with the M9.

[JColen]

There is a significant difference in White Balance. The M9 seems to favor a "greenish" tint.

I find I'm raising the color temp by 200 kelvin and adjusting the tint.

A bit of a learning curve, but definitely much greater detail to work with.

Lightroom 3 (beta 2) is close, but not quite there in terms of M9 profiles.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wilfredo]

Really interesting replies from you all, thanks for that.

Maybe Leica won't be too pleased with my conclusions, but I could very well skip a beat until the M10.

.

 

That's my sentiment. I'm holding steady with the M8 and in a few years, when the M10 hits the markets I may be persuaded then for a FF M camera.