jaapv Posted January 10, 2010 Share #1 Posted January 10, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) For the first time in nearly four months I took my M8u for a walkabout, mainly because I wanted to take a pre-scratched camera to drop into my coat pocket. In retrospect, I am very happy that I took the decision to buy the M9. Although the crop factor never was any kind of an issue with me, rather the opposite, it was amazing how constrictive the framelines of the M8u felt now. I found myself producing stitched images. The shutter sounds a bit less tight than the M9, but this may actually appeal to some. IR filters make no differerence at all imo, apart from some reflections of specular highlights, which weren't around today. It reminded me quite forcibly how much less postprocessing the M9 files require, especially regarding colour. Where I found myself moving to LAB to correct colour in 70% of the cases on the M8, that percentage has dropped to about 10 on the M9. Saves a whole lot of time behind the computer... Having said that the M8u is still a formidable camera and a perfect backup for me. I just feel sorry for my poor M8 classic. It has yet to take an image since September.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 Hi jaapv, Take a look here The feeling of the M9 vs the M8u. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted January 10, 2010 Share #2 Posted January 10, 2010 ...Although the crop factor never was any kind of an issue with me, rather the opposite, it was amazing how constrictive the framelines of the M8u felt now. I found myself producing stitched images... What do you mean by this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 10, 2010 Author Share #3 Posted January 10, 2010 Exactly as I wrote - the framelines of the various focal lengths are obviously smaller on the M8 - and I didn't like it. I might add that I never felt that the character of the lenses was immensely changed by the crop factor, so I never really changed focal lengths to accomodate the smaller format. I guess I used my feet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 10, 2010 Share #4 Posted January 10, 2010 No wonder why you feel the M8 frames smaller if you don't change focal lengths. Seriously, i do change focal lengths when i use both FF and APS but i feel it quite natural, hence my question. I don't use an M9 though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted January 10, 2010 Share #5 Posted January 10, 2010 I just feel sorry for my poor M8 classic. It has yet to take an image since September.... Just the reason that I traded both my M8s in for M9s. I can see a rational for keeping film Leicas but it is less clear with the M8. But of course Jaap your M8 might have some special engraving on the top? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFV Posted January 10, 2010 Share #6 Posted January 10, 2010 One question. What is an M8u? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 10, 2010 Author Share #7 Posted January 10, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) An M8 with upgrades, in this case framelines and shutter (and cosmetically, so of no real importance, LCD cover and vulcanite) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 10, 2010 Author Share #8 Posted January 10, 2010 Just the reason that I traded both my M8s in for M9s. I can see a rational for keeping film Leicas but it is less clear with the M8. But of course Jaap your M8 might have some special engraving on the top? Jeff Yes - it is the first one sold in Holland, so it has a Leica logo and its date of birth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted January 10, 2010 Share #9 Posted January 10, 2010 Indeed. My M8 was my favorite camera for nearly three years. It went everywhere with me. I loved it immensely. Alas. The M9 has rocked my world in exactly the same way that the M8 did during its first year. The excitement of using it is palpable. But beyond the studied improvement in image quality that it brings, and that frisson of joy that you get for your $7K, I've been struck by the "normalcy" that the M9 has brought back. I always rationalized it with my M8 - that my new 28 Cron was a reasonable substitute for my old 35 Lux. Or that it didn't matter that my new 50 Lux rendered like a 66mm lens. Or that I wasn't really bothered by having to use IR filters on everything. Except that it wasn't. And it did. And I was. I still love my M8. I love it for all the images it gave me. I love it for the all the excitement it brought into my life. I love it for having made a difference. But there it sits now, unused since the day my M9 arrived. I went to a wedding yesterday. The M9 went, of course. But when I was debating which body to take as a backup, the nod went to my M6, rather than the M8. Full frame is huge. Something I had chosen not to remember... until the M9 gently reminded me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFV Posted January 10, 2010 Share #10 Posted January 10, 2010 An M8 with upgrades, in this case framelines and shutter (and cosmetically, so of no real importance, LCD cover and vulcanite) Ahhh, so this would be the same as the M8d mentioned in another post... got it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 10, 2010 Author Share #11 Posted January 10, 2010 Yes- but the U is less pretentious than the D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheewai_m6 Posted January 11, 2010 Share #12 Posted January 11, 2010 Indeed. My M8 was my favorite camera for nearly three years. It went everywhere with me. I loved it immensely. Alas. The M9 has rocked my world in exactly the same way that the M8 did during its first year. The excitement of using it is palpable. But beyond the studied improvement in image quality that it brings, and that frisson of joy that you get for your $7K, I've been struck by the "normalcy" that the M9 has brought back. I always rationalized it with my M8 - that my new 28 Cron was a reasonable substitute for my old 35 Lux. Or that it didn't matter that my new 50 Lux rendered like a 66mm lens. Or that I wasn't really bothered by having to use IR filters on everything. Except that it wasn't. And it did. And I was. I still love my M8. I love it for all the images it gave me. I love it for the all the excitement it brought into my life. I love it for having made a difference. But there it sits now, unused since the day my M9 arrived. I went to a wedding yesterday. The M9 went, of course. But when I was debating which body to take as a backup, the nod went to my M6, rather than the M8. Full frame is huge. Something I had chosen not to remember... until the M9 gently reminded me. i agree with this reasoning totally. i don't have an m8, and i don't have an m9. but if i put myself in a position where i have an m8, and is going to buy an m9, i see no reason at all to keep the m8. hyperthetically, if i had my m8, and m9 sitting there, and i'm deciding which i will take with me to wherever i am going, i can't ever, ever think to myself 'hmm i'll take the m8 today' the m8 would really just sit there and do nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted January 11, 2010 Share #13 Posted January 11, 2010 Indeed. My M8 was my favorite camera for nearly three years. It went everywhere with me. I loved it immensely. . . . But beyond the studied improvement in image quality that it brings, and that frisson of joy that you get for your $7K, I've been struck by the "normalcy" that the M9 has brought back. ] +1. I was trying to express how I feel about the M9 vs the M8 and the word "normal" came to mind as well. I really, really liked the M8 for the results one could create, but throughout my ownership, there was something awkward about it -- the mental arithmatic on the 1.3x factor; the fact that a 50mm just didn't feel right; the wides that weren't so wide; and the UV/IR filters, all made me feel like I was doing something just a bit off. Now everything just feels "right". I am not saying everything is perfect, but working with the M9 just feels more natural. I felt exactly the same way when I used less than full frame DSLRs. Perhaps it was the fact that I started with FF 35mm more than 50 years ago and my sense of "normal" is thereby affected by what has been imprinted in my mind over the years. It is a long way from my first camera, a Samoca 35, to a Leica M9 but 50 years or not, they are both FF rangefinders, and to me this is the essential virtue of the M9 and why the M8 never felt "right". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted January 11, 2010 Share #14 Posted January 11, 2010 Jaeger - perfectly expressed. Having grown up with fullframe... one have a pre-defined expectation to lenses. the M9 deliveries exactly that. I have never sold a camera body.... Yet, however, I can not really see choosing between the M9 and the M8, as jaeger said, the M6 is a good backup because of the "sensor" size. though the M8 still have a digital immediacy to it. I do not regret buying the M8 and using it until I got my M9, thousands of pictures was created with that camera and I appreciate having used it for each of them. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted January 11, 2010 Share #15 Posted January 11, 2010 At the risk of sounding like an M9 philistine, I'm going to say I don't really see what the fuss is about. I kept one of my M8u's to carry always as a 'beater' camera, & I use an M9 when shooting more purposively. I find them for most purposes interchangable, & in particular I don't agree with the idea that FF is somehow 'natural' & 1.33 'unnatural.' My basic lens set for the M8 is 21-28-35 (sometimes 40), & for the M9 28-35-50. These are closely equivalent focal lengths. If you wear glasses as I do, then both the M8 21 & the M9 28 need an external viewfinder. I see pretty much the same thing with either body & the equivalent lens. I can't fathom what Jaap said about viewfinder lines: they're equally accurate/inaccurate on either body if you're using lenses of equivalent focal length. And the only trouble I've experienced with the UV/IR filters is having to buy another set of lens-protecting UV filters for M9. I find only a few true advantages to the M9 (besides quibbles about how exposures & battery life are displayed): 1. Slightly better image quality on medium-large prints. I normally print 14x21" on 17" paper rolls, & where some folks thought my M8 prints looked like MF, now they're sure of it. But on the other hand, if one doesn't normally print on paper sizes above 13x19', there's no amazing M8-9 IQ difference. If I regularly printed 20x30" or above, I suppose I'd see a greater M8-9 difference, but I don't own a 24" or larger printer. I'm now working on a portfolio of 14x21" prints that mixes M8 & M9 images, & the critique group with whom I meet – all of whom make their own exhibition-quality prints – doesn't seem to care about the mix. 2. More room for sloppiness/cropping. I 'came of age' in the black-border era when you carefully filed out the negative carrier of your Focomat. I still retain the 2:3 proportions & try not to crop an image. Lately, however, I've been doing a lot of hand-held twilight street-shooting, & I always use the M9 because I can crop a bit without concern. 3. A slightly faster lens set. I didn't have the money for 21 or 24mm Summiluxes, so my 28 Summicron, 35 Summicron & Nokton 1.2, & 50 Summilux give me a 1-stop advantage over my lenses of equivalent focal length on M8. IMO larger aperture matters more than higher ISO, because I haven't been greatly impressed by the M9's supposed reduction in noise levels. While I'm more comfortable with M9's ISO 320, I still see too much shadow noise in M9 files @ 640. My overall point is that unless you consistently make rather large prints for gallery exhibition, just use & enjoy what you can afford – & don't sweat the M8/M9 difference. Kirk PS, a related issue: I sold my pristine black M8u early enough to get most of my money out of it, & I applied that to the M9. Ever since, however, I've been wondering: is it more advantageous to have an M9 as a primary camera & M8 as backup (with filters to change)? Or would the 2-M8u's have been easier to use together? Obviously 2-M9s are ideal, but maybe 2-M8u's were better than a mixed M8/9 pair! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted January 11, 2010 Share #16 Posted January 11, 2010 Kirk, I stand corrected, forget "natural" and substitute with "what Im used to" Yes, I find the M8 being a wonderful camera, but having both I like the M9 more and find that I have not really used the 8 since getting the 9. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share #17 Posted January 11, 2010 . I can't fathom what Jaap said about viewfinder lines: they're equally accurate/inaccurate on either body if you're using lenses of equivalent focal length. That I can imagine - I never said a word about accuracy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted January 11, 2010 Share #18 Posted January 11, 2010 Obviously 2-M9s are ideal, but maybe 2-M8u's were better than a mixed M8/9 pair! I think you're probably right. I shifted to two M9s because I wanted to use my lenses in native FOV (I'd never been happy with the fact that I couldn't shoot @ 28 without using an external finder + being limited to my slower 21 Elmarit) + because could afford to do this (last year ). For me, 2 bodies remain essential (whether on SLR or RF) as for a lot of my work I need to be able to switch between wide and long in an instant + I prefer to work with primes or limited range telephotos (e.g. on SLR 16-35 on one body and 85 prime or longer on another). If funding hadn't made it possible, I'd have stayed with my excellent M8u + M8.2. Matched bodies make more sense for me. The second body isn't back up for me - it's part of the working method.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted January 11, 2010 Share #19 Posted January 11, 2010 Coming from DSLR land I was used to zooms. Using the M8 I quickly found that I would like two cameras, just to cut down on the number of lens changes. Moving to the M9 I found it very difficult to work with the M8 and M9 together. Mainly because of lens focal length choices but also because of the need for IR filters on the M8. One could of course assume that the M9 was an M8 with extra 'picture'. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share #20 Posted January 11, 2010 Although- from 35 and longer there is no need to remove the filters for the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.