Some M8 advantages

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guys, guys, guys. Please calm down a little before somebody says something they will later regret. It's clear that you are not going to agree on this subject, so accept this, and move on. The M8 and the M9 are two different cameras. Each has it's strengths and it's weaknesses, but both are great cameras, and both can use the best lenses available.

 

To me, the great advantage of the M8 is that I have one. An M9 would also be welcome, but until that day comes, I'm quite happy with my M8.

 

wisdom and serenity,thank Nicoleica:)

[Doc Henry]

wisdom and serenity,thank Nicoleica:)

Angelos,

I agree with you and Nicoleica

In question to know if I tested or not M9: yes I tested it

see this thread:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests.html

For me M8 is a good camera and stays a good camera which allows to take very nice photos

Regards

Henry

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Leicaiste]

This is one of the most ridiculous petty and embarrassing things I've read on this forum for a long time. Congratulations that your camera with inferior color rendering and less sharp sensor has "real" framelines.

 

This I should take back, because it is me behaving nearly as oafishly as you.

//Now please go away.

 

Dear Plasticman,

 

Having read your unbiased prose before I am not surprised by your sensible reaction:

 

 

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.

 

oh - and I forgot to mention - I've yet to see an M9 sky that I really 'believe'.

 

Best,

 

Lucien

[plasticman]

Dear Plasticman,

 

Having read your unbiased prose before I am not surprised by your sensible reaction:

 

 

Best,

 

Lucien

 

Oh yes the smiley face makes your puerile and embarrassing behavior totally okay. (see that - offensive remarks + smileyface)

 

Now then, just over a month or two ago most people on this forum were stating that the M8 was the ultimate camera ever made - better than all those plasticky DSLRs out there and the equivalent of Medium Format in IQ etc etc (which I always thought and said was complete BS incidentally). I'm guessing if I checked through your posting history I might find comments from you stating the M8 as the ne plus ultra camera back then, too?

 

Today I come back here and an M9 owner is coming over to the M8 forum to say: "YOUR camera doesn't have REAL 28 framelines nah-nah-nah-naaaaah MINE does! "

 

Excuse me for thinking that I'm back in first grade junior school.

 

PS: By the way, what was your quote supposed to prove? I'm not unbiased, I tested the M9 alongside my M8 and, much to my disappointment (we all love buying new gear - even me), I found it to be inferior in almost every way except the fact it was full-frame. And what's more (this I reported only to another forum member in a PM at the time - which I can prove - because I didn't want to publicly say anything too negative about the camera at its launch) the M9 I tested froze on me during the 45 minutes I was using it. How unbiased do you want me to be?

Edited October 26, 2009 by plasticman

[lct]

Mani, i've tested M9 files as well. One just needs a good raw converter. Even with my old C1 v4 i've got very good results in default mode when reducing (a lot) red and magenta saturation.

[MikeMyers]

My head is spinning after reading this discussion. I do understand things better though. Apparently we can't compare the colors between M8/M9 because that has a lot to do with the processing software. I don't think it's reasonable to compare the cameras based on what someone's favorite lens is, as chances are, everyone has a different set of lenses/viewfinders than the other people responding here.

 

I figure that it would cost somewhere between $3K and $5K to upgrade from an M8.2 to a M9, and a bit more if you're starting with an M8.

 

Advantages of the M9 to me are that I get a full frame sensor (which doesn't do much for me as I can already get the angle of coverage I want from the lenses I've bought). Others might find this more important.

 

Next advantage is that it has more megapixels, but again, for me, the M8.2 has more than enough for what I do. I don't really want to take all my images in that high a resolution anyway, nor is there any need to.

 

A non-rational advantage is that the lenses do what my brain feels they "should" do; for example, my brain (after all these years of 35mm) thinks of a 35mm lens as "wide" and a 50m lens as "normal". Four years of using Nikon D cameras corrected all that, and for a while I started thinking in terms of a smaller sensor, but the D3 has put me back to where i used to be. None of this is an advantage or disadvantage to me, as all I have to do is correctly associate the field of view of each lens to the camera I'm using.

 

There's also the advantage that I don't need the anti-IR filters, but that's accompanied by a big disadvantage, that I can no longer take IR photos which I enjoy doing.

 

The next disadvantage is that the M9 doesn't have the hard viewing screen - will need to wait for the M9.2 or M10 for that I guess.

 

I certainly like the menu system of the M9 more than that of the M8. The new menu is just as easy to use, and makes several things easier (especially bracketing). However, the bracketing is not as useful for HDR photos as say, the Nikon DSLR's bracketing. You have to individually take each shot, and count up to the number of shots you planned on getting. Maybe the next Leica will be better suited to HDR photography.

 

 

 

 

If I didn't already have an M digital, I'd probably spend the additional $1k to get the M9, but when my almost-new M8.2 is technically a "used camera", with value that much lower, I just can't see the benefit of spending all that money to trade "up".

 

If I had the money, and really did want the M9, I'd buy it in addition to the M8.2, not instead of. But if I do that now, what happens when the M9.2 comes out, or the M10? I don't want to play the silly Nikon/Canon game where you spend a few thousand dollars every year to keep up. I did that for a while, and I'm over it for good.

[innerimager]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To me, the great advantage of the M8 is that I have one. An M9 would also be welcome, but until that day comes, I'm quite happy with my M8.

 

Well said!.....Peter

[stevem7]

Bottom line...

 

The M8/M8.2 is a FABULOUS camera capable of super high quality results. I shot mine and loved every second of it. Now that I have had my M9 for over 2 weeks I am starting to really appreciate the M9 files more and more.

 

The facts are:

 

A: The M9 produces files that are just as sharp as the M8. Here is one i just snapped this morning with the 50 Lux PRE-ASPH from my back door. Focused on the pole but look at the upper right. The detail of the pine cones is pretty amazing. I do not think a Canon 5D could pull that off. An M8 could. Click the link to see the full 18MP image. Saved as a 12JPEG in CS3.

 

fullsizedetailm9back.jpg photo - stevehuff photos at pbase.com

 

 

B: The color is "richer" with the M9. Some like it, some do not. But it is different, and bolder.

 

 

C: High ISO has improved with the M9. It's not Nikon D3 territory but for me at least, it is good enough and all I will need for any situation. I no longer have my M8 but I never, ever used ISO 2500. Here is a straight from camera JPEG at ISO 2500 from the M9 with crop. Shot with cam set to B&W.

 

 

M9 OOC JPEG ISO 2500 Color:

 

 

D: In my experience I see no difference in the DR between the M8 and M9. First, I thought I saw an improvement in the M9 but it seems to be the same. I'm no scientific tester but I have had no issues with DR of the M8 or M9 and if there is a difference it's most likely not going to be noticed in real world images.

 

The M8 is a great camera, the M9 is an improvement. I have seen no flaws with the camera in the last 2 1/2 weeks of daily use.

[Doc Henry]

In my tests made in the thread mentioned above * ,for some photos I am unable to say if these photos (100% crops) as i show you below,(pictures both uncorrected) and taken at the same moment, comes from M8 or from M9 except the colour

But I prefer sometimes colour on M8 with less of green for example.

M8 (n°1) and M9 (n°2) both cameras with the same Summilux 35mm

converted : DNG-RAW-TIFF and posted in Jpeg

 

* http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests.html

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!

[MikeMyers]

Just curious - why is it that most "100% crop" examples I see on this site don't look as sharp or detailed as the 100% crop images Ken Rockwell posts?

 

I've been frustrated because very few of my own images look as sharp as Ken's. If I use a tripod and do everything as carefully as possible, sometimes I can approach the sharpness of Ken's demo images, but it's hard work.

 

We're talking here about the (dis)advantages of m8 vs. m9, but the 100% crop images up above just don't look "sharp" to me. Maybe I'm just expecting too much.

 

My Leica images (with old Leica lenses and new Voigtlander lenses) look sharper than my Nikon images, but rarely do they even approach what Ken posts.

 

 

For example, here's one of Ken's recent example images from a Leica - view it, then click to view it at 100%...

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-10/images/L1004432-cs4.jpg

Edited October 27, 2009 by MikeMyers

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

In my tests made in the thread mentioned above * ,for some photos I am unable to say if these photos (100% crops) as i show you below,(pictures both uncorrected) and taken at the same moment, comes from M8 or from M9 except the colour

But I prefer sometimes colour on M8 with less of green for example.

M8 (n°1) and M9 (n°2) both cameras with the same Summilux 35mm

converted : DNG-RAW-TIFF and posted in Jpeg

 

* http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests.html

 

it looks on the M8 crop a very slight more DR in the highlights but green leaves look a little more dull,i'm not against M9 ,i completely disagree with the marketing behavior towards M8 but this another story.It looks that are not any serious image quality differences between the two cameras except 24X36 sensor and i hope better S/N ratio ,not yet very clear -Leica claims 2/3 of a stop and i hope/wish they did it.

 

More bit deapth alone creates much more detailed image as does not affect resolution but captures more tones and that image looks much more detailed and full compared to pixels raising numbers.So we should ask for more bit deapth and dont care so much for pixels,better bigger pixels than more.Using Canons 20D/30/40D/7D i saw a big difference in image quality only between 20D and 7D-more bit depth much better internal process - which has excellent characteristics.

30D & 40D had not improved image compared to 20D and they were sold very fast.That proves me that is the internal process and bit depth is what creates better quality,not pixels count alone.

 

Regarding Ken Rockwell image is shot in bright and balance lighting at the optimum f stop -i can see a big DOF-and it looks sharpen judging from the edges even more sharpen in the periphery especialy the left upper corner where leaves look sharper than leaves in the center-Very Strange?????-.Also clean atmosphere and low humidity contributes a great deal in landscape image clarity.

Modern Leica lenses have a huge difference in sharpness,color balance, and field evenness compared to the previous generation. CV lenses were super on BW film but not close to latest Leica lenses in digital M camera.CV Helliar 15 is extremely sharp,75 is nice for portraits only,the rest are just a good less expensive alternative and as M8 with lens recognition applies certain correction in images there are not actual corrections for CV in M8.

Also viewfinder calibration is mandatory for increased sharpness and i use often magnifier in M8 as the factor is rather small for extremelly accurate focusing-i use wide angles with M8 for architecture work and i need all the sharpness and edge detail.

Lastly small dust particles in the lens mount can affect sharpness in very critical applications.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Angelos Viskadourakis

[lct]

...The detail of the pine cones is pretty amazing. I do not think a Canon 5D could pull that off...

Wanna bet? Canon 5D, Telyt-R 180/3.4. 5MB pic here.

 

[Doc Henry]

"it looks on the M8 crop a very slight more DR in the highlights but green leaves look a little more dull,i'm not against M9 ,i completely disagree with the marketing behavior towards M8 but this another story.It looks that are not any serious image quality differences between the two cameras except 24X36 sensor and i hope better S/N ratio ,not yet very clear -Leica claims 2/3 of a stop and i hope/wish they did it."

 

Angelos,

Concerning colour in general and in the 2 previous photos, the colour of the flower of M8 is more faithful.

Does the UV/IR filter changes anything? or better DR on M8 ?

The bottom of the flower (in picture n°1) is better seen and of other part,the flower in bud (above to the right of the picture) is also closer to what I see !

I will indeed have other photos to show you since I have just ordered M9 that I will have before Christmas !

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

thank you Doc Henry ,looking forward for your next post

and i agree the colour in M8 is faithful .

[stevem7]

Just curious - why is it that most "100% crop" examples I see on this site don't look as sharp or detailed as the 100% crop images Ken Rockwell posts?

 

I've been frustrated because very few of my own images look as sharp as Ken's. If I use a tripod and do everything as carefully as possible, sometimes I can approach the sharpness of Ken's demo images, but it's hard work.

 

We're talking here about the (dis)advantages of m8 vs. m9, but the 100% crop images up above just don't look "sharp" to me. Maybe I'm just expecting too much.

 

My Leica images (with old Leica lenses and new Voigtlander lenses) look sharper than my Nikon images, but rarely do they even approach what Ken posts.

 

 

For example, here's one of Ken's recent example images from a Leica - view it, then click to view it at 100%...

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-10/images/L1004432-cs4.jpg

 

Are you saying this is not sharp:

 

fullsizedetailm9back.jpg photo - stevehuff photos at pbase.com

 

Look at the pine cones in the upper right. This is as sharp as any digital file i have ever seen. As for the ISO 2500 crops I posted above, those will not be razor sharp as I was using the 50 Pre Asph Lux at 1.4, and at ISO 2500.

 

I saw Kens image at 100% and I have sharper images than that from the M9 on my HD. All depends on the lens used, raw processor, etc.

[stevem7]

Wanna bet? Canon 5D, Telyt-R 180/3.4. 5MB pic here.

 

 

On my display this 5D shot is not as sharp or detailed as the M9 shot I posted, nor does it have the depth. Again, that is my opinion. Bottom line is the M8, M9, 5D, 5DII, D3, D3x gives you enough sharpness for any application or need. But this 5D file does not show the same kind of detail as the M9 file does, again, on my display. NIce shot though!

 

Steve

[lct]

My bad, i thought you compared M8 files to 5D's. Of course you get more resolution with the M9.

[BerndReini]

your camera with inferior color rendering

 

Here we go again. Sharpness, maybe, of course with a sensor that is much smaller at 100%, so even though it may be sharper, the M8 still shows less detail. The color is where you don't know what you're talking about. The color is much cleaner and more adjustable with the M9. The fact that there is no color profile for the M9 yet that has your approval for skin tones has nothing to do with the M9's ability to render color. Profiles will come, just as they did for the M8. The M9 hardware is rock solid as far as color is concerned. I don't want to argue about which is better anymore, but saying that the M9 color rendition is inferior is plain wrong. Let's make a pact, I will stop boasting about the M9, and you will stop making negative statements about it. This will be the end of our personal subjectivity. How does that sound?

 

Here's a word about dynamic range in reference to what has been said above (about the branches showing more highlights but look more dull with the M8): the current M9 Adobe profile renders a very contrasty image. The image however does stay nice and punchy with a little bit of highlight recovery (which made M8 files look dull) and reacts positively to some fill light. This leads me to believe that the current profile is not optimized to get the most out of the M9, but the lost range can very easily be recovered.

Edited October 27, 2009 by BerndReini

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

On my display this 5D shot is not as sharp or detailed as the M9 shot I posted, nor does it have the depth. Again, that is my opinion. Bottom line is the M8, M9, 5D, 5DII, D3, D3x gives you enough sharpness for any application or need. But this 5D file does not show the same kind of detail as the M9 file does, again, on my display. NIce shot though!

 

Steve

 

very nice images with both cameras,some M8 photos are masterpieces and very well thought (rural America is for M cameras and so full of everything),looks like there is more enthousiasm when you use the new M9,both galleries excellent,do you shoot DNG only with M9 ,do you process in Lightroom,ACR or C1????

Edited October 27, 2009 by Angelos Viskadourakis

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[plasticman]

Here we go again. Sharpness, maybe, of course with a sensor that is much smaller at 100%, so even though it may be sharper, the M8 still shows less detail. The color is where you don't know what you're talking about. The color is much cleaner and more adjustable with the M9. The fact that there is no color profile for the M9 yet that has your approval for skin tones has nothing to do with the M9's ability to render color. Profiles will come, just as they did for the M8. The M9 hardware is rock solid as far as color is concerned. I don't want to argue about which is better anymore, but saying that the M9 color rendition is inferior is plain wrong. Let's make a pact, I will stop boasting about the M9, and you will stop making negative statements about it. This will be the end of our personal subjectivity. How does that sound?

 

In the beginning I was really careful to accentuate that the color rendering of the M8 was my personal preference. In the end, I got tired of hearing that the M9 color was "better" (I can probably find a hundred references for you if you want me to bother), and so I started being equally subjective and obnoxious in reverse.

I note you say "cleaner" incidentally (isn't that a loaded term right there?) - I'd say the colors were simply less natural and attenuated - but I'm more than willing to accept that my judgement is indeed subjective.

 

Anyway, check back through every single post that you might think has been negative about the M9 from me, and I guarantee that you will find someone attacking or denigrating the M8 in a previous post, to which I'll be replying. I really don't understand why people feel they need to do this - and neither do I feel obligated to just lie down and take the rubbish that's thrown at a camera I own, if only out of the self-interest of seeing these internet myths impact on the camera's market value, if nothing else (though mostly out of an irritating and tiresome need to combat gear-head BS, of which I've never seen so much since the new camera arrived*)

 

* on one review site I read someone comment that the M9 sensor captured more "emotion" than the M8 sensor. Yeah I did - I really did.