Should I buy an M8 and Leica Lenses over an M9 and cheaper Lensess?

[ChrisC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rich - A good perspective. This thread has shown too much of the usual mythologising about Leica supremacy and repeats of the marketeers' term 'Full Frame' [ a term I hate so much I don't even like typing it].

 

My M8 is my first Leica [incidentally it's still a full-frame M8 - in that it has a full sized M8 sensor], however I have used rangefinder cameras for nearly 30 years alongside view-camera work. Always shooting rollfilm, and in various formats. I have used various Sneider, Linhof-Sneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, Mamiya, Nikon, and other medium/large format lenses and every lens has been extremely good to fantastic. The design advantage of rangefinder [and view-camera] lenses over SLR lenses is not unique to Leica [as anyone who has carefully read Sean Reid's excellent subscription lens-reviews will know], and of all the thousands of Hasselblad-lens [another source of mythologising] negatives I darkroom printed not one brought me close to thinking I should have been using a Hasselblad rather than my Plaubel Makina 6x7 with it's custom designed Nikkor lens. Of course Leica lenses are good, as are many non Leica lenses.

 

And when I was shooting roll-film; 35 mm film was never 'Full Format' film, it was always Miniature Film. So it occurs to me that I have a Full Frame M8, and the M9 actually has a Miniature sensor. Now there's a thought for the obsessives to grind on .......

 

................... Chris

[norsk]

Hallo,

 

when you today buy a "50 mm lens" for a M8 you need a 35mm lens. And, if you buy "tomorrow" a M9 you have no 50 mm - but 35mm.

 

So, buy today a M9 and begin with the lenses for it. My "stomach" says me, all the M´s in future have a 24x36mm-sensor!

 

Greetings

Heinz

[Printmaker]

I have not read all of this thread, so forgive me if I repeat anything already said.

 

While I'm on a waiting list for a M9, I am quite happy with my M8. Sure, I could complain about the shutter noise but its not that bad. And the filters are really only needed when shooting people wearing black polyester (cops and weddings) and some foliage. Most of the time I don't see much of a difference with or without a filter. And I do sometimes shoot IR which I would not be able to do with a M9.

 

The M8 shoots with the sweet spot of most lenses. Something obvious but not pointed out in many reviews. Here's an example:

 

The Zeiss ZM 25 Biogon 2.8 Lens Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

Not a big deal. We lived with darkened corners in the old film days. In fact, we burned in the edges of our prints just to draw attention to the subject in the center of the photo. Still, certain lenses will vignette on the M9. Thus, if you are going to be using fast cheap glass, you may have to live with this when shooting wide and wide open.

 

The M9 uses the same sensor as the M8 but with new micro lenses and processor. This means that the color and sharpness will be about the same when shooting. Note the word "about", as there has been slight color improvements on the M9. Still, I'm not sure you would see any difference in day to day shooting.

 

Obviously, 18 MP will give you better enlargements when printing over 13x19 but I've pulled some impressive prints at 24x36 from my M8. Would I be able to see a difference? Yes. But my customers would never notice the gain in resolution.

 

My hunch is that you would be better off with a M8 and 50 lux and 28 cron than you would be with a M9 and CV lenses (though the 35/2.5 is stellar). But, like nearly everybody else on this forum, you will end up with a M9 sooner or later. So maybe a M9 with a 35/2.5 CV and a 90 Summarit could get you started. Decisions... decisions.

 

Good Luck

 

Tom

[jaapv]

Tom, the Bayer filter is different too.

[MikeMyers]

But, like nearly everybody else on this forum, you will end up with a M9 sooner or later.

 

For now, I'm very happy with my M8.2, but I'm sure at some point I'll be buying another M camera... but I suspect it will be an M10 or M11...

 

To me, there's nothing I need to do with an M9 that I can't do with the M8, but since I very much enjoy IR photography, the opposite is not true. For that reason, I will certainly keep my M8, and at some point in the future maybe get a newer model.

 

 

 

On the other hand, if IR wasn't important to me, and if I were buying a brand new Leica "now", I suspect I'd most likely get the M9, although if I could find a "demo" M8, I'd probably get that instead to save money.

[ebenette]

I agree with many here who says it is the glass not the camera. However, I would still get M9 (within warranty) with one good Leica lens, Summilux 50, to start with. That way, you'd safely try out the system and see whether or not M system suits your taste. If you decided it wasn't for you after all, your camera and lens would still hold excellent sale value while if you liked it, you'd have the latest M with the best standard lens to enjoy and start saving for the second lens.

 

Two years ago, I moved from EOS to M8 (secondhand within warranty) with 28/2.8 in this way, loved the challenge the camera threw at me, got 35/1.4 pretty soon, and got 50/1.4 a year later. My absolute favourite is 35/1.4 (47mm in 35mm format) for its image quality and superb versatility. I currently have no intention to upgrade my camera.

 

Whichever you choose, I wish you the very best luck!

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you decided it wasn't for you after all, your camera and lens would still hold excellent sale value

 

I don't know about others, but if I wasn't sure the Leica was for me, I'd be far ahead buying a used M8, knowing I could sell it for pretty much what I paid for it, and ditto for the lens. This way, the "experiment" would cost very little.

 

If I bought a new M9 with lens, and sold it, I would lose a lot more money, probably well over $1000 at the absolute minimum, probably a lot more.

 

This was something I already went through on buying my new M8.2 - buy new, or buy used. I compromised by buying a "demo", but I don't think that's going to be possible on the M9 until the next version comes out.

[viramati]

one M9 has sold on ebay for £7327 and another for £6055!!

[MikeMyers]

one M9 has sold on ebay for £7327 and another for £6055!!

 

 

Makes me wonder two things. First, how much have these people gained or lost compared to what they paid, and second, why in the world would anyone be selling an M9 when they're so hard to get to begin with? If they liked the camera, wouldn't they want to keep it?

 

I don't know what the prices above represent in US dollars, but if they're making a profit, everything makes sense to me. It's just business. If they're losing money, then most likely they were not satisfied. (If they did make a profit, maybe that was their only reason for buying the M9 to begin with???)

 

Once Leica catches up with orders, and anyone can buy one off the shelf, it might be a very different situation.

[ChrisC]

The original poster wrote :

 

....after consideration I thought perhaps it would be best to spend my money on some mint 'used' Leica glass (28mm Cron and 50mm 1.4 Lux ASHP)..... The idea being I would have quality glass.....

 

Ebenette wrote :

 

..... it is the glass not the camera. However, I would still get M9 (within warranty) with one good Leica lens, Summilux 50, to start with......if you liked it, you'd have the latest M with the best standard lens to enjoy and start saving for the second lens....

 

I used the term 'mythologising' with respect to Leica in an earlier post, and one of the most frequent forms is the commonplace assumption here that fast-Leica equals best. To some a 50 Summilux automatically fits that description irrespective of what one gives up in order to have top performance wide-open. It might be that Ebennete, like some others, frequently needs the low light capabilities of a Summilux, but a 'best' 50 for me would not be a Summilux as I currently have no need for f1.4 shooting. I don't need that extra expense, extra weight, extra viewfinder interruption, and those wonderful corrections for shooting into the light at wide-open. 'Best' for me in this case would be a number of far less expensive lenses as I value compactness over speed that I don't use.

 

I have just re-read Sean Reid's interesting review of the 35 Summarit [Reid Reviews - subscription review site, and it makes very interesting reading. For me; 'best' choice in that focal length might well be the Summarit over the Summilux or the Summicron [out of the Leica choices], and there again - 'even better best' might just be sticking with the C.V. 35 mm Colour Skopar I already have.

 

.............. Chris

[Nicoleica]

I have just re-read Sean Reid's interesting review of the 35 Summarit [Reid Reviews - subscription review site, and it makes very interesting reading. For me; 'best' choice in that focal length might well be the Summarit over the Summilux or the Summicron [out of the Leica choices], and there again - 'even better best' might just be sticking with the C.V. 35 mm Colour Skopar I already have.

 

.............. Chris

 

I have the 35mm Summarit, and I think that it is an excellent lens. It may not be quite as fast as some others, but it gives beautiful results, and is very compact. I have absolutely no regrets in buying one. I've used the 50mm Summarit too, and that also is an excellent lens.

[melissah]

http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/LeicaM9/index.html

this one costs money ^ but! what i found interesting is that as well as complain about alot of the functions of the m9 he used non leica glass for most photos. in some cases the non leica glass looked better but that was due to critical focus issues.

when it came to the nocti the images are outstanding.

this review is long and interesting and altho i dont agree with alot of what he says its through.

i realized while reading it that the best case senario is to invest in glass.

 

its been pointed out many times on this forum that the camera is the more disposible component of the whole kit.

 

i have 2 m8s. i will get an m9 eventually.

i will keep an m8 as a back up and as my go to 8000/sec camera.

i cant say one is better than the other bc i dont own both.

i also think if your new to RF you will find as i have there is a trmendous learning curve.

but thats a good thing.

i too came from nikon, (my last being a dx2) ive recently been considering a D700for hi-speed low light.

so my advice? m8 or m8.2 and the best glass you can afford.

i hv nocti 28,35, 75, and a voightlander 15? 18...i dont use much.

keep us posted!

best melissa

 

Leica M9 and hands-on preview: Digital Photography Review

[Ecaton]

I've been dreaming of owning a Leica M for many years, and when the M9 was announced I thought it might finally be time.

 

But the M9 and couple of lenses is going to cost way more than I can afford. I considered for a while buying an M9 and then getting a couple of Voitlander lenses. Making the package more affordable.

 

But then after consideration I thought perhaps it would be best to spend my money on some mint 'used' Leica glass (28mm Cron and 50mm 1.4 Lux ASHP) and then maybe purchase a used / demo / new M8 (I'm looking at a 'shop handled' M8 for $US3200). The idea being I would have quality glass that will suit any upgrades to further M bodies in the future.

 

But I have read so many contrasting reviews and user experiences of the M8. The negatives seem to all focus on unusable 'noise' at ISO 1250 and above. Auto White Balance (has firmware upgrades fixed this?), cameras not working for many reasons (seems to be 'first batches' that seem to fall into this category).

 

Anyway, it's just been interesting reading all the gushy reviews of the M9 where alot of M8 hate seems to come out. You know the drill "problems finally fixed, here there and everywhere etc...."

 

Anyway I'll stop raving, but I would love to hear anyones thoughts on the M8 and my questions.

 

Are people still happy with their M8's. Is it really the digital v1.0 that needed to go to v2.0 (M9) to finally get the digital M right.

 

thanks for your time,

 

g

 

http://www.GlendynIvin.com

 

The M8 or M8.2 are still great. The initial teething problems are long gone. Got my first one in February 07, and it works flawlessly until today. The only reson for me to go FF would be to use the lux 50 asph as body cap, in my book the best lens there is, but an odd focal length equivalent on the M8, wherefore it gets little use (sigh).

[Rick]

From experience with both cameras I would say go with the M9 and cheaper lenses. The image quality and user friendlyness shows a clear advantage over the M8 (good as the M8 is) and it will certainly will be less hard on the wallet to upgrade the lenses gradually than to replace the body - which you will want to do within the year

Many people will tell you that there is no difference in the images between the M9 and the M8 apart from pixel number - I thought so too until I stated using the camera. The different Bayer filter gives more detailed colour rendering, slightly more difficult to handle in postprocessing, but if done right it results in richer prints. The higher pixel count will give you smoother contrast transitions at the same enlargement, regadless of print size. The downside is that if you are used to the M8 the images verge on looking "to smooth", this being something to bear in mind when postprocessing.

 

On postprocessing: 14/16 bits uncompressed files are far more robust in postprocessing, something DMR users have known for a long time.

 

In the using of the camera the new features like soft release and the extended ISO range and easy ISO change make more of a difference than one might think, although I do miss the battery state/image count LCD on the top.

 

All in all I find the changes singly evolutionary rather than a giant leap, but taken as a sum they make for a quite different camera, which feels "grown up"after the M8.

 

Thanks for that reply. For me, this was informative about the image quality of the M9 as compared to the M8. I know you have/had a DMR and an M8, and M9. And, your comments I always feel are fair and mostly unbiased.

 

This account of the M9 is what I would like to expect when I upgrade to the M9. It is reassuring to know that I will be able to work the files in PP a little bit more and that the files will appear to be smoother. That is an insight I haven't read elsewhere. I do print large (HP Z3200-44) So, I am looking forward to more pixel real estate.

 

As to answer the OP, I can assure you that you can not go wrong with any choice combination with the M8 or the M9. The M8 and CV glass will make fantastic image files for you. And, it gives you the advantage of dreaming your way to the M9 + Leica glass, without losing any/much money as you trade your way up. Can't say that it would be true the other way around.

[theendlesshouse]

My first post so hello!

 

I am currently having the same dilemma, very confusing, wouldn't it be nice to have the money for both M9 plus a great lens or two. I personally like the idea of the 35/47 but I get a more film-like sense from the M9 images I have seen. Currently use an old R4 and after years of abuse (I mean abuse!) it is on its last legs. It takes some pretty great shots alas I have no M lenses fore the changeover.

 

In the very first photography book I bought it had a quote from Man Ray that said,

 

"No photographer is better than the simplest camera."

 

I try to remember this quote when deliberating over expensive purchases, though I am not sure how true it is in the digital age?

[john_newell]

I have to confess that I do not understand the logic of putting a $7k camera behind a $500 lens.

 

OTOH, the observation about photography being more than 100% crops is absolutely correct, in my opinion. Great photography involves a great deal more than eliminating the last vestiges of optical faults or 16 vs. 14 vs. 8 bit files or 6mp vs. whatever or FF vs crop sensor...HCB would never make the cut on today's internet, no?

[cidereye]

I have to confess that I do not understand the logic of putting a $7k camera behind a $500 lens.

 

OTOH, the observation about photography being more than 100% crops is absolutely correct, in my opinion. Great photography involves a great deal more than eliminating the last vestiges of optical faults or 16 vs. 14 vs. 8 bit files or 6mp vs. whatever or FF vs crop sensor...HCB would never make the cut on today's internet, no?

 

Good point!

 

The thing is I guess with looking back at HCB (or anybody really, past or present), like any good/great photographer I guess, was far more concerned in taking photos as opposed to talking a good game, constantly analysing 100% crops and upgrading to the next great hope trusting it would make him a better photographer.

 

If he were still alive I'd think he'd have some strong opinions of our internet based society with today's photo mags & web blogs constantly pushing gear over skill and learning to be better somehow.

[dseelig]

Get an m9 cheaper lenses go with the zeiss do not go with the voigts. Or older model used leica lenses.

[phatnev]

Get an m9 cheaper lenses go with the zeiss do not go with the voigts. Or older model used leica lenses.

 

You should probably qualify WHY not to purchase CV glass. Their 35mm f2.5 is a much better choice for me than the Leica equivalent. I'll pay thousands of dollars for fast lenses, but an f2.5 lens? Not a chance. There are good reasons to buy Zeiss, Leica, and CV glass and each manufacturer makes some top quality glass.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[doug_m]

To the original poster,

 

I think of the M camera body, be it a film M,M8, or M9, as only a conduit to Leica glass which is mostly exquisite. The m8 and M9 are both excellent, but in my opinion, the M9 is better.

 

As you can get an M8 for much less than an M9, buying the M8 would not be a mistake but its a tough choice. Can't you get an M8 for less than $3000?

 

If you can afford it you might consider the M9 plus 50 1.4 ASPH as a single lens as this combo can not be beat as an all around set. Another option is the 35 /f2 but I doubt you will ever get rid of the 50 lux ASPH and you may not be able to say the same about the 35.

 

Many folks like some of the lenses in the the F2.5 line of Leica- which are relatively cheap but I have no experience with these lenses or the Zeiss lenses on Ms. However, I used Zeiss on a Contax G2 years ago and the images were very good.