Jump to content

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


Hoaxville

Recommended Posts

Guest Chris M

:rolleyes Well if this was me, who had dreamt about owning a Leica, but had never used one before, I'd take the causious route and try a used M8 and a 28mm cron, and see if I liked the style of shooting and handling, and if I enjoyed it, I'm not out a whole lot of cash and can continue to purchase Leica glass and practice untill the unbeleivable M19 comes out in 2-3 years from now.

 

If that was me,

 

chris m.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Thanks for all the thoughts and considered feedback. What a great forum.

 

As a teenager and through my 20's I had a Nikon that I used so much it pretty much fell apart. Then when the Canon 30D was released I jumped into the digital world. I think i shot more on that camera and then a 40D then I ever. I learnt so much about photography, with the ease and quality I was getting. I actually quite enjoyed the cropped sensor. I liked the extra focal length it gave a 50mm for example.

 

Then I upgraded and bought a 5DmII, and to be honest even with all it's bells and whistles, I just felt a bit bored by it. I even forked out for a nice 50 1.2L and I think that really made bored.

 

So to cut a long story short, the cropped sensor isn't an issue. It might even be an advantage for me.

 

I think the good Leica glass and the M8 might well be the perfect set up. If and when I'm ready for an m9 (or M10) upgrade, my lenses will upgrade with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just recently gone through a similar decision process: Keep the M8 or upgrade to an M9. After a lot of thought, I've decided to stay with the M8. Here's why:

 

Coincidentally, about the time the M9 came out, I was spending a fair amount of time looking at old (1950s) Leica work, mostly in books by well-known street photographers or journalists. It was striking that, shooting with IIIf's, these folks had created images that essentially changed the course of photography.... while using equipment that most people today would consider to be obsolete.

 

Looking at those old images, it was evident on close inspection that a lot of them don't match modern technical standards in the sense of resolution, flare reduction, acutance, or microcontrast. Some of them aren't even all that sharp, although they do typically have that magical Leica glow.

 

So it got me thinking about what it is that creates outstanding images when using a Leica. I conclude that a lot of it is about lens characteristics and camera handling. But think about it... we take some of the best lenses ever made, and we put them on cameras with a small negative or, now, a small sensor, and we create beautiful things with, we hope, clarity as well as emotional immediacy.

 

If it were maximum resolution we were after and nothing else, we'd use view cameras or now, we'd rush out and buy an S2. But we'd lose the handling characteristics of our little rangefinders by doing that.

 

So many of those old Leica images are sharp and not sharp at the same time... I'm pretty sure a lot of you know what I mean. They epitomize the paradox of the Leica M.

 

So with that in mind, I went and looked at examples of M8 and M9 images. It's easiest to do in the LFI gallery. And of course, there are plenty of good images in both the M8 and M9 galleries. Blow them way up and pixel-peep, maybe you'll find a difference. But I can't see it looking at those images on my monitor.

 

Next question: Will an M9 help me to take better pictures? I doubt it. And it's especially not worth an approximately $4,500 US margin to upgrade, at least not for me.

 

Specific rationale, looking at the camera handling and in-use aspects: The bodies physically handle the same. The IR issue is, for me, actually an a dvantage, because I mostly convert RAW to B&W, and the IR sensitivity can add a glow I can't get any other way. In the rare cases when IR might be a problem, I have no objection to using a filter. High ISO capability theoretically should matter more to me, since I shoot a lot in poor light. But in practice, I haven't felt that the M8 has held me back in that area, and I've rarely had to go over ISO 640 even shooting at night, thanks to the ability to handhold at slow speeds. I've settled on using a 35mm 'cron most of the time, so the crop factor isn't currently bothering me.

 

It's so easy to be lured in by all the marketing hype, after all that's what the marketing folks are paid to do. But I've learned not to leap at every new better-faster-improved toy, and I'm happier that way. Whenever I'm tempted, I just pick up my M4 and a roll of film and go create some images to remind myself that the camera is just a tool, and in this case just about any Leica M is a very capable tool... a better one than most of the alternatives of any age or cost.

Edited by Knomad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, IMO, the answer is M8-something + Leica lenses over M9 + CV lenses.

 

IMO the remaining M9 advantages in this equation are perhaps one EV advantage in low light conditions and no IR issues. I am going to get whipped and beaten here, but I mostly do not use IR filters and mostly do not notice color rendering issues.

 

So - my vote: M8__ + Leica lenses.

 

+1. I tend to like the M8 for B/W, and have gotten the lenses to work with the crop factor. Sure, all things being equal, I'd probably like the M9, but the M8 does most (90%+) of what it does, and I'd rather have the glass. The M8 is slightly quirky - IR/crop/some electronic issues, but these pass with time. The electronic issue is practically non-existent for me, the camera is now fine.

 

The IR and filter issue is not one in B/W, and I haven't been plagued with problems like some. I'd rather not have filters, and some of my lenses have and some don't, so its a hassle to keep the camera dialed in when changing lenses frequently. Answer: don't change lenses frequently, get filters for all, or not worry so much.

 

The crop isn't ideal, but now it doesn't matter - each lens has its function, and the fact that they once meant something different in 35 mm is no longer relevant to me. I've found the 50 mm (on the M8 a 65) to be a really interesting lens, and that is great. The 21 is very nice, and the biggest issue is that I'll probably have to give up the CV for a Leica lens in that size, needing the extra quality.

 

As to 10MB vs 18 - sure, I'd like 18... whoops, I forgot how much more storage space is needed, and I'm not printing that large. Yes, it would be nice to crop 1/2 the image and have 9 MB left over - but that isn't worth $7k to me (close to $8 with tax). I'd rather put that money into a new printer, or into Medium Format.

 

Geoff

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by jaapv
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Three years from now a used M9 will be the same price as a used M8 is today...

The same is not true of Leica glass... A used Leica lens bought today will be worth about the same in 3 years...

 

You might pose the same question in the M9 forum and see what their opinion is...

Edited by sfokevin
Link to post
Share on other sites

I went thru a similar process and will stay with the M8.2 for the time being. I had a Nikon D700, Leica M8.2 and a Leica D-Lux4 plus lots of pro Nikon and Leica lenses (CV15, 21/2.8asph, 24/2.8 asph, 28/2.8 asph, 35/1.4 asph, 50/1.0, 50/2.0, 75/1.4, 90/2.8). When the first rumors about the M9 came out, I sold my M8.2 at a very good price and remained without a Leica M body for a couple of weeks in expectation of delivery of my new M9 (I was #11 on my local dealer's list) on 09/09/09. My dealer got 5 M9 so far. Meanwhile I heard about the first teething problems of the M9, that reminded me so much of those I had gone thru by going from a M8 to a M8.2: sudden death of the camera, IR not fully solved (but can't use IR filters anymore), slow processing plus at best one stop better high ISO performance, hope the next firmware update will make this a fundamentally better camera, vignetting....I am sure I have forgotten some.

 

At that time the first side by side comparisons of pictures taken by M8's and M9's came out, and I realized that - taking everything into consideration - the M9 does NOT leapfrog the M8.2. The M8.2 is a technically mature camera (by today's Leica standards) and the

M9 is not (yet). I am sure things will be sorted out for the M9 - but it will take a while.

 

As a result of my analysis I (re-)bought an "as new" M8.2 with less actuations than my old M8.2 and with a remaining 22 months Leica warranty at a signicantly lower price than the one I had sold my old M8.2 for. If a need decent available light performance, I take the Nikon D700 with one of my fast Nikon (mostly manual AIS) primes (35/1.4; 50/1.2; 50/1.4; 85/1.4, 105/2.8) and yes, it is a little bit heavier than the M8.2 with comparable lenses...

 

What is the downside of my decision not buy a M9? Well, Leica may cease servicing the M8.2 a couple of months earlier than the M9.

 

What is the upside? Money and not jumping onto a 2,5 years product cycle for a 5500 Euro electronic gadget where the custormer is in half of the product's liefecycle the most important beta tester.

 

To make a long story short: I would advice you to get a good used (warranty is important) M8.2 plus the best glass you can afford. I am sure you will have a lot of fun with this combo and no regrets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

M8 with latest available firmware 2.004 make 1250 ISO very usable.

 

There is a new firmwarte update upcoming soon, and there maybe a way, against fee this time, to have some of the M9 features introduced in the M8.

 

Do privilege Leica lenses above all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went thru a similar process and will stay with the M8.2 for the time being. I had a Nikon D700, Leica M8.2 and a Leica D-Lux4 plus lots of pro Nikon and Leica lenses (CV15, 21/2.8asph, 24/2.8 asph, 28/2.8 asph, 35/1.4 asph, 50/1.0, 50/2.0, 75/1.4, 90/2.8). When the first rumors about the M9 came out, I sold my M8.2 at a very good price and remained without a Leica M body for a couple of weeks in expectation of delivery of my new M9 (I was #11 on my local dealer's list) on 09/09/09. My dealer got 5 M9 so far. Meanwhile I heard about the first teething problems of the M9, that reminded me so much of those I had gone thru by going from a M8 to a M8.2: sudden death of the camera, IR not fully solved (but can't use IR filters anymore), slow processing plus at best one stop better high ISO performance, hope the next firmware update will make this a fundamentally better camera, vignetting....I am sure I have forgotten some.

 

At that time the first side by side comparisons of pictures taken by M8's and M9's came out, and I realized that - taking everything into consideration - the M9 does NOT leapfrog the M8.2. The M8.2 is a technically mature camera (by today's Leica standards) and the

M9 is not (yet). I am sure things will be sorted out for the M9 - but it will take a while.

 

As a result of my analysis I (re-)bought an "as new" M8.2 with less actuations than my old M8.2 and with a remaining 22 months Leica warranty at a signicantly lower price than the one I had sold my old M8.2 for. If a need decent available light performance, I take the Nikon D700 with one of my fast Nikon (mostly manual AIS) primes (35/1.4; 50/1.2; 50/1.4; 85/1.4, 105/2.8) and yes, it is a little bit heavier than the M8.2 with comparable lenses...

 

What is the downside of my decision not buy a M9? Well, Leica may cease servicing the M8.2 a couple of months earlier than the M9.

 

What is the upside? Money and not jumping onto a 2,5 years product cycle for a 5500 Euro electronic gadget where the custormer is in half of the product's liefecycle the most important beta tester.

 

To make a long story short: I would advice you to get a good used (warranty is important) M8.2 plus the best glass you can afford. I am sure you will have a lot of fun with this combo and no regrets.

 

You misread and are very wrong about the M9. The M9 is not a complete camera and not as mature as the M8? I hope the OP can at least discern when the advice he is given is total BS.

 

I know this response is inflammatory, but I think it does more harm when people spout off complete nonsense that they have no idea what they are talking about.

Edited by spersky
Link to post
Share on other sites

M8.2 with the latest firmware and those are coming is a top choice,lenses is the priority,bodies and sensors will have a 2,5 year life circle or even shorter in the future mostly under the buyers compulsive pressure for a new purchase more and less of actual technical improvements on sensors.As in professional video and digital cinema environment there is a point that sensor and process technology reach a plateau that will stay for some time-maybe a decade-M8 is in this plateau and M9 has some characteristics that improve images in certain areas -visible-but is not a huge step,is an intermediate step in the same technological plateau as M8,lenses is always the real investment.

 

PS:very important in the new M8 firmwre/harware upgrade the interval iso to be included as that only can prove enough step to improve high iso performance-i suppose 1000 iso will have less noise to 1250 iso setting and 1600 iso will have less noise compared to 2500 iso for eg.

Edited by Angelos Viskadourakis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm RichC's poster child for the M9 - love my 21 f/2.8 as a real 21.

 

But if you're mostly interested in the mid-range lenses (28 as a "35", 50 as a "70"), the M8 will be great.

 

Traded my M8s to get the M9 - both sold within a month from the store where I traded them. As far as I can tell, that makes for THREE happy Leica M users.

 

I think the argument that Leica glass has a magic resale value is a bit overblown - they are basically worth 70% of new once the 14-90-day return period is over. But that's true regardless of which camera you get.

Edited by adan
Link to post
Share on other sites

It all starts with the lenses! Camera bodies come and go - lenses will stay. A 50mm 2.0 or 1.4 of the recent Leica production are more than perfect. And the older lenses are at least perfect. So if you are considering such an expensive camera body do not try to save money on lenses. If wider angles are needed get a M9 - if not - M8 will do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lenses, lenses , lenses.......I had an M3 and couldn/t afford an M8 or 9.....bought an e-p1 and had great fun til the M9 came out....M8 prices dropped and I sold my M2 and e-P1 for a good used M8....never looked back, now building my lenses and , when the M10 comes out....will think about an M9 ha ha!........I prefer tighter shots so tend towards the longer M lenses (but love my summarit 35.......bargain or what???

 

so there you have it.....M8 plus good glass!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot has been said so I wont add much. A couple of months ago I decide to try Leica so bought 8.2 2 months old at great price as the M9 was just coming out. a week ago (out in the rain) I came across a M9 and couldn't resist. Now I use corn 35, Leica WATE 16-18-21, zeiss biagon 25 f2.8, Voigtlander Nokton 50 f1.5 and a brilliant Canon 85 f1.8 from 1964. So as you can see I only have 2 leica lenses at the moment (will change the voigt for lux 50 f1.4 ASPH when I find one used. Anyway to the point If I had the choice I would go for the the M9 and good non leica glass any day. I love the 8.2 and will keep it as 2.nd body (it now lives with the canon lens on which I like at the 1.33 crop as it gives a bit more reach) but apart from the lack of sapphire glass the M9 is a much more usable camera if only for the better menu and software system. It is a better camera and you can't get around that. Now if Leica ever do a firmware update that improves the menu system adding manual lens coding bracketing etc then I would say go for 8.2 but who knows if that will ever happen.

Edited by viramati
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...