Jump to content

Some M8 advantages


innerimager

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 reasons I have given in threads asking about keeping the M8 are that I like having 24mm framelines and having a 1/8000 shutter speed. A recent trip in New England for foliage shooting saw both of these advantages. The first shot is with a favorite lens, the 24/2.8 asph. I just love the crispness and colors of this lens, and not having to use an external finder is more valuable to me than having a "true" 24mm FOV.

118324495.jpg

 

The second shot utilizes the 1/8000 shutter. It's with the 28 cron wide open. Now I was at iso 640, so with an M9 could have been at 160 and still used F2, but I like the look of the M8 at iso 640, and a little cloud cover would have made it impossible to get this shot on the M9. best....Peter

118324573.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

There is no reason at all not to be happy sticking with your M8 if it works for you, but I have trouble seeing how these pictures show any advantage over the M9.

 

The M8 doesn't have "24mm framelines" - it has 32mm framelines that frame for the cropped image one gets using a 24mm lens on the M8. Not to pop the balloon or anything, but I could replicate that first shot on the M9 easily with a 50-year-old 35mm Summaron f/2.8.

 

I'm just not sure I see how the M8's turning a $3800 lens into an effective $380 lens is an advantage.

 

M8 frameline range = 32mm to 120mm effective = 3.75 "zoom" ratio

M9 frameline range = 28mm to 135mm effective/real = 4.8 "zoom" ratio

 

The second shot is equally confusing. If you are trying to separate the flowers from the background, it isn't there yet. Needs a 35 f/2 or f/1.4 on an M9 (or a 40 f/2 or f/1.4, if you prefer) if you want that same FoV with really effective background blur and separation. (and Pull-80 ISO if needed to use f/1.4, although by your calculations,160 would serve).

 

I'm not saying there is not a case to be made for the M8. I just don't see these shots making it, however.

 

The NE foliage was good this year:

 

Norwich, VT - 75 'lux on the M9 (but yes, it could easily have been a 50 on the M8)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy- We don't expect a web reduced JPG to show the difference between a 24 2.8 asph and a 35/2.8 do we? If you have a 35 summaron with the brilliance of the 24 elmarit asph, please sell it to me for $380! The notion that a cropped sensor changes the characteristics of a lens just by changing it's FOV seems a very common misconception. The 24 elmarit asph has a wonderful look, I like getting that look without an external finder. If we saw the image at full resolution, or in a print, I don't think you'd make the same comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion that a cropped sensor changes the characteristics of a lens just by changing it's FOV seems a very common misconception.

 

I disagree with that. Apart from the obvious loss of the edges of the frame where some of the character is derived, there is something (I can't properly explain) about differences in the spatial relationship between elements of the composition when shooting the same lens on full frame and cropped frame cameras.

 

That said, I think Andy is being a little unfair. What he's probably really saying is that the uploaded JPEG isn't much cop - we really need to see the original file or a print to make a judgement about whether the 24/F2.8 on an M8 offers some kind of advantage over other combinations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Ian - It would have been better to say "the notion that a cropped sensor changes ALL the characteristics of a lens just by changing it's FOV seems a very common misconception" Certainly edge performance and other aspects are effected, but many, perhaps most, underlying optical qualities remain the same, that's all I meant to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adan is fundamentally right.

 

Using the 24 on an M9 while composing with the outside of 35mm frame lines will exactly duplicate the M8. That is as much framing precision as we have anyway.

 

Since I hardly ever sell anything, I have struggled mightily to come up with scenarios where the M8 has a real advantage over the M9, and failed. The 1/8000 shutter might be one, but I have never used it on my 2 M8's.

 

That aside, I can always replicate the 8 with the 9, but not vice versa.

 

I currently plan to use my M9 for anything 50mm or below, and the M8's for backup and longer lenses ( which are never long enough) and where I would usually crop anyway.

 

When I ultimately get a second Leica FF body (M9, M10, M9.n etc.) it is ebay for my M8's.

 

I now have the 75 apo cron semi-permanently mounted on an M8.

 

Regards ... Harold

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I've tried the 35 f/2.8 Summaron (on my M8 at the time) and it is clearly superior to any of Leica's other 35s at least up until the ASPHs as regards resolution and brilliance (but not speed, alas). As usual, digital capture reveals things about lenses that didn't always come through on silver-infused Jello.

 

But if you see the reference as demeaning to the 24, there are plenty of other options for use on the M9 to get the same brilliance and FoV: 28 ASPHs of various apertures, 35 ASPHs of various apertures.

 

I happen to be a professional writer and editor, and pick my words with care, so there is no need to interpret what I'm "really saying". ;)

 

We could reboot the thread with some real, demonstrable advantages in favor of the M8 over the M9: Ability to do creative infrared work; ability to shoot with a 70mm f/1 or f/0.95 lens or a 100mm f/1.4; more compact telephotos (compare 50 f/1.4 to 75 f/1.4, etc); more DoF for a given FoV and aperture (great for landscapes and street photography); generally equivalent IQ at any rational print size without disk-hogging files sizes....

 

\/ Leica M8, 15 c/v, Leitz IR pass filter, ISO 640

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend not to comment much on the M9 forum these days, cuz I don't like raining on their parade, but as that doesn't stop M9 adherents coming here and doing the same, I'd say this:

in my opinion

 

The colors on the M9 are completely cr@p - the reds are way too vivid, people have magenta skins all over again, in general the M9 produces "web-influenced' punchy color compared to the film-like color of the M8.

 

In M8 files you can visibly discern more tonal distinctions in the mid-tones than in the M9, and also the M8 sensor is actually slightly sharper (despite some picture of raindrops I recently saw was supposed to prove the two sensors had the same sharpness).

 

The supposed Dynamic Range advantage of the M9 was probably also just marketing hype - definitely not "one-stop" better in any case.

 

The upper ISO files look processed to me - that Canon look creeping in.

 

All of which turns a 3000+ dollar lens into a 300 dollar lens in my opinion - full-frame or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not an "M9 adherent" who started the thread.

 

One of the current tragedies in current American culture (if not elsewhere ) is that people tend to congregate in little self-selected web communities and congratulate themselves on how smart they all are, instead of having to compete and converse in a real marketplace of ideas. I'd kind of like to see the M8/M9 forums merged back together once we have fewer "When will my M9 arrive" threads, so that we can converse as universal Leica users instead of hiding out in our own ghettoes. Not healthy, in the long run.

 

Plasticman, you may be surprised to find I agree with some of your points (with caveats) but I won't clutter up an M8 thread on the M8 forum (as it is, for the time being) with details.

 

Wattsy - why the name-calling? You can PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wattsy, here's a polite request. Please turn down your usual ascerbic manner one notch. Complaints about it clutter my email. Forum postings have a habit of being misread, usually for the worse. Please consider this when commenting. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy--

 

I agree. The division of the site into more sections not only makes the home page more of a chore to negotiate [i hate "drilling down" through layers in web sites almost as much as I hate multimodal controls on digital cameras.], but the camps into which people have divided seem to have already elicited some dramatic and occasionally shrill expressions of "loyalty" that begin to resemble that on some of the larger sites, like dpreview. Too many "mine is better" [or finer grained, faster, easier to hold, or bigger, etc.] threads.

 

Another vote for recombining the digital threads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have thought for some time now, that with digital cameras, it may be best to only upgrade every second model change (and I don't consider the M8.2 a model change).

 

I didn't expect this theory to stand up to the M8/M9 upgrade considering the fact that the increase in sensor size would be a must have, but some of the comments I have seen from posters make me wonder if waiting out a model change from Leica maybe an option as well.

 

I am still enjoying my M8, I feel like I have not really taken full advantage of it's impressive imaging capabilities, especially for B&W work. I guess the thought of selling such a enjoyable camera for an almost the same camera with some modest improvements seems extravagant at this point.

 

Love my M8........great travel camera ;)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with the notion that the M9 produces exaggerated colors. Since lightroom is the program that ships with the M9 (probably since Phase One sees the S2 as direct competition to their line of cameras,) most people post pictures processed with Lightroom. Now, most people know that Capture One produces files that are at the standard setting less saturated and natural than Lightroom's. Now I am certainly a fan of saturated colors and this is where the M9 absolutely shines: I tend to think that it is because of the 16bit recording, the colors with the M9 are incredibly clean. With the M9, I often saw certain color artifacts on skin (especially in extreme shadow and highlight areas) that I do not see as much with the M9. These "clear" colors are what made me use film again during the M8 days. The verdict is still out whether the M9 is good enough to replace negative film in daylight, but the colors are very clean and good even in their standard setting, which I agree is very saturated. Since there are noticeably less color artifacts in the M9 files than in those of the M8, you should be able to get any kind of skin tones you want out of this camera with correct exposure.

 

I'm trying not to knock the M8 here, but as far as color is concerned, the upgrade is significant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...