Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 27, 2009 Share #101 Posted October 27, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) For me there are two reasons to buy a new camera (well, alrighty, three if you count as one "the old one is broken/stolen" ). One reason is, if it gives me a competitive edge. Unlike pixel-peeping hobbyists, my clients/editors are concerned primarily with the content of photographs, and aren't interested in the sort of minutae that lends itself to camera-related bragging rights. So buying an M9 for my professional work would be strictly ego massage on my part. So then, on to reason two. If the new camera makes me more productive. I have lenses as wide as 12mm, which is effectively 18mm on the M8, so from an FOV standpoint the full-frame is not an advantage. Not every shot benefits from the shallow DOF of an f/1.4-f/2 lens, not to mention that the new 21 and 24 Summiluxes are horrendously expensive, so that rationale goes out the window as well. With an M9 I need to use IR filters some of the time. Deciding when, and installing the filters, is a time-killer. Of course I could simply leave them in place always. But in either case, I'm forced to an added step in post, that being Cornerfixing the cyan drift. Then too, I do a fair bit of theatre photography and the lack of any way to check the battery condition and remaining shots without lighting up the monitor screen is quite inconvenient. Likewise I've grown very spoilt by the enlarged framelines (M8.2) and rue the regression to tighter ones on the M9. Thus for me, the M9 would actually make me less productive. That's why I'm keeping the M8 until there's an M9.2 or M10, which I suspect may come much sooner than the M9 came after the M8. If I was a medical man or a pensioner wanting to impress my camera-toting pals by stringing the latest camera about my neck, I'd surely have an M9. It's a fine camera, but the only quantum leap it makes over the M8 is in the price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Hi Guest EarlBurrellPhoto, Take a look here Some M8 advantages. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
coup de foudre Posted October 27, 2009 Share #102 Posted October 27, 2009 * 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. oh my god! that is just classic!!! LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted October 27, 2009 Share #103 Posted October 27, 2009 Snipped: I do a fair bit of theatre photography and the lack of any way to check the battery condition and remaining shots without lighting up the monitor screen is quite inconvenient. Earl, I too do a fair bit of theatre work and my take on the 'battery/shots' condition is that the new way is infinitely better because it is illuminated, so that now I can actually see the condition. Before I was literally working (blind) in the dark. We may, of course, have different working techniques. Thus for me, the M9 would actually make me less productive. That's why I'm keeping the M8 until there's an M9.2 or M10, which I suspect may come much sooner than the M9 came after the M8. If I was a medical man or a pensioner wanting to impress my camera-toting pals by stringing the latest camera about my neck, I'd surely have an M9. It's a fine camera, but the only quantum leap it makes over the M8 is in the price. Earl I think that is a bit of a cheap shot at the medico's and pensioners, but maybe I am not reading it the way you intended. You may not consider the M9 a 'quantum leap' over the M8, but I think you will ultimately find the M10 the same with respect to the M9. The point, it seems to me, is that corporations like to dribble out improvements in small bits to stimulate a new round of sales. As an example, software companies are famous for it. The bottom line of all this is that you have assessed your position and made a choice based on what's important to you. Nobody can improve on that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMyers Posted October 28, 2009 Share #104 Posted October 28, 2009 After reading all the above, I guess a good way to explain things is just like some people like Ford cars, and others like Chevys (or Nikon vs. Canon) some people will prefer the M8 and others the M9. There is a difference between M8 and M9, but it's nothing like when Nikon upgraded from the D1 camera to the D2 series, nor is it like when Nikon upgraded yet again to the D3 series. Both the M8 *and* the M9 are wonderful cameras, and it's great that people now have a choice, isn't it? In my limited opinion, all this bickering and comparing is silly; we should all be more like Ken Rockwell, trying to get the rest of the world out of their DSLR mindset, and interested in Rangefinder cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted October 28, 2009 Share #105 Posted October 28, 2009 If I was a medical man or a pensioner wanting to impress my camera-toting pals by stringing the latest camera about my neck, I'd surely have an M9. Actually Earl, as another pro I actually find an opposite effect. Some of my clients query my M because they don't recognise it as being a typical 'pro' camera. I take it that you were being facetious(?) because, unless you live in an area of camera 'twitchers', I doubt that any but a vanishingly small percentage of the population would recognise an M digital, let alone whether one was an M8 or M9. Several times I have had to show people the lcd screen on the back of my M8 to illustrate that it is in fact a digital camera. I suspect that I would find an M9 beneficial for some of the work I undertake, but in all honesty the M8 is a very good camera and I'm not certain of the M9's advantages to me at this moment in time to make me rush out and buy one (although I am considering it and will eventually probably do so). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 28, 2009 Share #106 Posted October 28, 2009 #3 (permalink) RichC Erfahrener Benutzer Join Date: 12.11.2006 Location: Brighton Posts: 195 Re: 1.3x isn't dead Like many new photographers (I started in 2003), I've never used film, so crop-factor cameras are what I'm used to. To me, "full frame" seems an arbitrary and alien format, and in which I haven't the slightest interest. Consequently, the M9 has very few advantages, and several disadvantages, over my M8 - hence I'm utterly disinterested in trading up. The M8-2 on the other hand is interesting, and as the M9 was such a damp squib (for me), I'm saving up to get my M8 camera upgraded. I can see why if you're used to 35mm film or have certain unusual requirements (e.g. you need to use fast, wide lenses) full frame may be appealing, or if you crop your photos a lot, but the difference between 1.3 and full frame isn't huge (the extra 8 MP of the M9 make more of a difference) - so I've never understood the fuss some people make about full frame. I often borrow my friend's Canon 5D, and I barely notice the difference in format... Shame Leica didn't keep the 1.3 crop and concentrate on improving image quality such as dynamic range and noise, and add a few more pixels whilst they were at it (say 14 MP) - would have been, I suspect, cheaper and less technologically demanding. Perhaps one day all the old fogies will be gone, and us youngsters who grew up with digital will be given a modern Leica M! (And by that I don't mean looking like a mini dSLR with countless and pointless buttons and geegaws - embracing the 21st-century can still mean a basic, manual camera, and I wouldn't want it any other way! For example, being told the shutter speed in manual mode would be nice, as would reinstating the round LCD (properly this time - not half-arsed like on my M8!) so you know at a glance the status of your camera.) __________________ -=Rich=- richcutler.co.uk Last edited by RichC; 20.10.2009 at 15:20. one very nicely put reason,don't get me wrong nothing against 24x36 format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted October 28, 2009 Share #107 Posted October 28, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) one very nicely put reason,don't get me wrong nothing against 24x36 format. Yes I was wondering since a few days if one of the reasons why some M8 users were not understanding why some others were so pleased whit the M9 and vice versa, wasn't there. If you have never used an M2, M3, M4, M5, M6 or M7, what's the fuss ? On the other hand, if you were in the M system since 5, 10, 20 or more years, the M8 was maybe not your real cup of tea. Lucien Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted October 28, 2009 Share #108 Posted October 28, 2009 Also, the M9 still has no flash sync socket, and also retains that stupid base plate - which further adds to my disinclination to upgrade. I use my Leica M8 for studio work with flash, and I often need to change batteries - which means gingerly removing the camera so as not to disturb the tripod it's mounted on. Both f these faults could be addressed very easily without compromising the Leica M form factor whatsoever. Style over function ... sheesh! You can keep the baseplate on the tripod and release the camera from the baseplate. This is quite convenient as far as I am concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 28, 2009 Share #109 Posted October 28, 2009 Earl, I too do a fair bit of theatre work and my take on the 'battery/shots' condition is that the new way is infinitely better because it is illuminated, so that now I can actually see the condition. Before I was literally working (blind) in the dark. Lighting up the rear screen in a dark theatre garners quite unwanted and typically negative attention. Adding an on-demand backlight for the tiny top display, just bright enough to be read in near darkness, would've been a logical improvement...BTW a feature found on all mid and high-end dslrs. You may not consider the M9 a 'quantum leap' over the M8, but I think you will ultimately find the M10 the same with respect to the M9. The point, it seems to me, is that corporations like to dribble out improvements in small bits to stimulate a new round of sales.I'm only hoping to find the M10 a significant leap over the M8. I agree with your point, which is why I'm neither afflicted by a knee-jerk compulsion to upgrade to each increment, nor vulnerable to being peer-pressured by others into feeling inadequate, incompetent, or unsuccessful for not doing so Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted October 28, 2009 Share #110 Posted October 28, 2009 Full-frame is the biggest leap Leica could have taken. Some people appreciate this feature with all its implications (different focal lengths, higher ISO capability, bigger prints, less upresing for even medium size prints such as 13x19, shallow depth of field), other people don't. But let's just acknowledge that it is a HUUUUGE accomplishment to produce the smallest full-frame digital camera in the world. The M8 was the first digital Leica rangefinder, the M9 was the first digital full-frame rangefinder period. All I can say, it will be very hard for Leica to introduce something as revolutionary with their next M camera as what these two cameras have accomplished. I certainly would not want to witness the negativity on this forum had the M9 not integrated a full-frame sensor. As my colleagues like to say at work: "Today's miracle becomes tomorrow's expectation." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted October 28, 2009 Share #111 Posted October 28, 2009 But let's just acknowledge that it is a HUUUUGE accomplishment to produce the smallest full-frame digital camera in the world. Great! We really can agree on this Bernd. I was getting a bit sweaty there for a while. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 28, 2009 Share #112 Posted October 28, 2009 Yes I was wondering since a few days if one of the reasons why some M8 users were not understanding why some others were so pleased whit the M9 and vice versa, wasn't there. If you have never used an M2, M3, M4, M5, M6 or M7, what's the fuss ? On the other hand, if you were in the M system since 5, 10, 20 or more years, the M8 was maybe not your real cup of tea. Lucien Sorry Lucien but it will be very nice if only for once you were on subject,but alas,never. I use M system for 5-10-18 years -and all other Leica systems- and still not getting what are you saying,my point always was and is in respect of the clients as we were doing all this 20 years and the abnoxious act of the sales dept not to inform Leica M8 photographers loud and clear what are the plans,as you already should know the M8 photographers are those who with their contribution and effort make possible the M digital system to survive,and please try to contibute something useful in the discusion.:cool:There is no point against any Leica model-old,new,upcoming- ,the issues are completely in other direction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaiste Posted October 28, 2009 Share #113 Posted October 28, 2009 Sorry Lucien but it will be very nice if only for once you were on subject,but alas,never. Dear Angelos, You are right. This was my last post on this topic. Lucien Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 28, 2009 Share #114 Posted October 28, 2009 ...It looks that are not any serious image quality differences between the two cameras except 24X36 sensor... Sorry Lucien but it will be very nice if only for once you were on subject,but alas,never.... There is no point against any Leica model-old,new,upcoming- ,the issues are completely in other direction. Not sure to comprehend what you mean here. This thread relates to "Some M8 advantages" and Lucien is obviously contributing to the discussion. If you think there are no significant IQ differences between the M8 and M9, what is your point exactly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dante Posted October 29, 2009 Share #115 Posted October 29, 2009 Pity they pandered to the old men (or women)... In The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby, Tom Wolfe popularized the word sclerotic. Dante Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbgeach Posted October 29, 2009 Share #116 Posted October 29, 2009 I agree that too many people make a big deal about the megapixels. The number of pixels on the m8 is 3936 x 2630 while the m9 is 5212 x 3472. Even though there are many more pixels, you only get about a 20% increase in each dimension. Essentially it is like going from a4 to a3, not really that much bigger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMyers Posted October 29, 2009 Share #117 Posted October 29, 2009 I was thinking about this discussion earlier today. For me to get an M9 to replace my M8 would take a substantial amount of money, and get me very little in way of improvements, which is part of the reason I decided to stick with the M8.2. However, it's 2009. If Leica had been able to use the same sensor that Nikon provides in the D3 (or D3x) and make that into their new camera, there is no doubt in my mind that I'd already have one on order. The M8 and M9 are *both* good, and it's nice to be able to choose. However, it's 2009, and Nikon and others have raised the bar considerably when it comes to what a sensor should be capable of doing. Until I read it up above, while I *knew* what a full frame sensor could do for me, I wasn't as excited about it as others. I can blame that on so many years of shooting Nikons with the smaller sensor, that I've "forgotten" what it was like to shoot 24x36. If I was still shooting film with a Leica, and wanted to go digital, I suspect I'd certainly go for the M9 despite its missing some features I really find useful on the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roydonian Posted October 29, 2009 Share #118 Posted October 29, 2009 Yes, the M9 is a tour de force, and Leica can feel justifiably proud of it. But as photographer who grew up with digital cameras not 35mm film, I really don't understand all this whooping and cheering about full frame. Just don't get it. For better or for worse, the Leica M9 seems aimed at older people who own a Leica M3, M6 or whatever rather than photographers like me who have never used film and grew up with the digital 1.5 or 1.3 crop sensor format. As far as I can fathom, the real reason for wanting a full-frame sensor seems to be familiarity: "I've been using a 35mm Leica with a Summicrummylux f1.5 since the Second World War, and I'm damned if I'm going to change my habits now!" Pity they pandered to the old men (or women)... I agree that for someone not used to full-frame via film, a cropped sensor poses no problem. When I needed a DSLR, I happily went for cropped sensor camera and a zoom that would give me the equivalent of 28-90 mm focal length I’d used on my Leicaflex. But I think you do older users a dis-service when you suggest that our reason for wanting a full-frame sensor is familiarity and a reluctance to change habits. For those who own a kit of lenses originally bought for full-frame, the problem is that we purchased specific lenses to do specific tasks. For example, as a journalist, I carried a 35 mm Summilux to achieve a combination of speed and aperture that would suit most tasks. With the M8, my 35 mm equivalent lens is two stops slower. I carried the Noctilux in order to have the extra available-light capability in extremis. I used to dream of having a 35 mm Noctilux, but I have no operational role for a 70 mm Noctilux. Similarly, I carried a 21 mm Super Angulon in order to have the extra angular coverage. Now the widest angular coverage I have is only that of a 28 mm. On the plus side, I’m finding a 70 mm equivalent a useful travel lens, while the ‘stretching’ caused by the crop factor has made my rarely-used 90 mm a very useful c.120 mm travel lens. Although still working as a 'gentleman of the press', I may not have a long-term future in that field (being past retirement age). So the M8 and the re-roled 50 mm and 90 mm lenses may remain my long-term kit. But if I were younger, full frame would have been the way to go in order to restore the working capabilities I’d had with 35 mm film. As for your regret that Leica is pandering to the old men, hang on in there – you’ll be one of them sooner than you think! If only I were still the age shown by my avatar; it doesn’t seem that long ago... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 29, 2009 Share #119 Posted October 29, 2009 Even chimping newbies can understand that FF is mandatory for fast wides, as far as Leica is concerned at least. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelos Viskadourakis Posted October 31, 2009 Share #120 Posted October 31, 2009 Even chimping newbies can understand that FF is mandatory for fast wides, as far as Leica is concerned at least. What is mandatory is a better functioning body with better sensor characteristics better overall image quality and relative speed,this can happen with many kinds of formats ,sensor size is not mandatory for actual photography ,is more propably mandatory with marketing talk and thats all about the subject,unless you believe that the latest Canons are not greatly impoved because they kept the 1,3 or 1,6 factor in comparison to 24x36 format. Make a seriously better performing camera and i'm not going to ask the size of the sensor first ,but SOME will use it in a pub talk like '' you know my sensor is equally performing to yours but HEY IS BIGGER". I like to evaluate a camera on its performance and its performance to price ratio,so far i'm not convinced YET for the newcomer,sorry.I prefer to test ,read and wait. Of course as an old and current M film photographer i 'm very familiar with 24x36 use of lenses but as i use various sensor formats i develop the same familiarity rather soon with all of them. I much prefer my 28 instead of the bigger 21 with VF for the same FOV but that cannot be my only criterion.31-32mm is a very magical lens FOV as i discover with the great R 21-35 Asph. and i like a lot the 24 FOV on the M8-so close to 28 wide without any trace of wide angle perspective.-for fast street photography. Priority now is to wait to see how the M8 photographers-and R photographers- will be treated by their choosen manufacturer and that will heavily influence many people decision to invest in a second M digital body for reasons greatly explained in this and many other threads in great depth. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.