M9 is an M8 full frame with minor improvements?

[eleskin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't get me wrong. The M9 is a wonderful camera. But I keep getting the feeling that the only gain over the M8 is a larger sensor, slightly better ISO performance and some improved dynamic range. I guess the big thing is no more IR filters, but as an M8 user I have found this easy to deal with. So for me, and as stated on another thread in this forum, the M9 is more of a transition camera to a much more mature and improved M digital. All of the physical camera work is done with the M9 body as it was for all film M's. So it seems for us, Eastman Kodak will be the place to look to for what is next. For me much better dynamic range equal to film woul be the key, followed by much better ISO beyond the ISO 3200 range. I believe we will see improved sensors within 2 years for the M9. For me right now, the M9 does not represent a big enough leap over the M8 to justify the expense. My money right now is better served with a second M8 as a spare and more lenses. It makes more sense to me owning an M8 to buy every other camera generation instead of always buying the newest model every time there is a change. Having said that, I would buy an M9 if it would be my first digital M, that makes sense to me, and I am sure all of the backorders are from many including pros who did not jump in with the M8 but are now with the M9.

[bybrett]

Don't get me wrong. The M9 is a wonderful camera. But I keep getting the feeling that the only gain over the M8 is a larger sensor, slightly better ISO performance and some improved dynamic range. I guess the big thing is no more IR filters, but as an M8 user I have found this easy to deal with. So for me, and as stated on another thread in this forum, the M9 is more of a transition camera to a much more mature and improved M digital. All of the physical camera work is done with the M9 body as it was for all film M's. So it seems for us, Eastman Kodak will be the place to look to for what is next. For me much better dynamic range equal to film woul be the key, followed by much better ISO beyond the ISO 3200 range. I believe we will see improved sensors within 2 years for the M9. For me right now, the M9 does not represent a big enough leap over the M8 to justify the expense. My money right now is better served with a second M8 as a spare and more lenses. It makes more sense to me owning an M8 to buy every other camera generation instead of always buying the newest model every time there is a change. Having said that, I would buy an M9 if it would be my first digital M, that makes sense to me, and I am sure all of the backorders are from many including pros who did not jump in with the M8 but are now with the M9.

 

Thanks for letting us know. Enjoy your M8 it's a great camera. Cheers.

[digitalfx]

For some the upgrade to FF is worth the cost of admission. The truth is the upgrade is not significant, and right now the M8 is the deal of the century.

 

If you cant afford the M9, the M8 will serve you well...it is an exceptional camera.

[Jager]

Don't get me wrong. The M9 is a wonderful camera. But I keep getting the feeling that the only gain over the M8 is a larger sensor, slightly better ISO performance and some improved dynamic range. I guess the big thing is no more IR filters, but as an M8 user I have found this easy to deal with. So for me, and as stated on another thread in this forum, the M9 is more of a transition camera to a much more mature and improved M digital. All of the physical camera work is done with the M9 body as it was for all film M's. So it seems for us, Eastman Kodak will be the place to look to for what is next. For me much better dynamic range equal to film woul be the key, followed by much better ISO beyond the ISO 3200 range. I believe we will see improved sensors within 2 years for the M9. For me right now, the M9 does not represent a big enough leap over the M8 to justify the expense. My money right now is better served with a second M8 as a spare and more lenses. It makes more sense to me owning an M8 to buy every other camera generation instead of always buying the newest model every time there is a change. Having said that, I would buy an M9 if it would be my first digital M, that makes sense to me, and I am sure all of the backorders are from many including pros who did not jump in with the M8 but are now with the M9.

 

 

All true. Except that that "only gain" of full frame is beyond huge for most of us. A fundamental paradigm shift.

 

My beloved M8 has sat unused since the week my M9 arrived. But it remains a terrific camera. By all means continue to enjoy yours!

[efftee]

So for me, and as stated on another thread in this forum, the M9 is more of a transition camera to a much more mature and improved M digital.

 

It's weird to hear people talk about 'transitional' as if there is a FINAL product on the horizon.

[eleskin]

And by no means is the M9 the FINAL M digital.

 

I await the future with great anticipation and optimism~!!!!

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's weird to hear people talk about 'transitional' as if there is a FINAL product on the horizon.

 

The point being made on that other threat was that every camera is a transitional product - assuming the manufacturer doesn't go bust of course.

[efftee]

The point being made on that other threat was that every camera is a transitional product - assuming the manufacturer doesn't go bust of course.

 

What difference would that make? If Leica decided to retire the M line and break the mold, would that make the M9 a better camera?

[stunsworth]

If Leica decided to retire the M line...

 

I'm pretty certain that isn't going to happen given that it's one of the main sources of revenue they have.

[Jamie Roberts]

You know, people who haven't shot the camera keep saying it's not enough of a jump beyond the M8.

 

Well, as someone who shot the M8 since its release, I have to tell you that though I loved it well and it more than paid for itself, if I could transform it into an M9 I would in a heartbeat.

 

Don't get me wrong... I still think the M8 is great! But...

 

The difference between full and 1.3x crop is significant in an of itself, especially shooting wide--when there's nowhere to move the M9 is much nicer. The resolution gain is significant, too--especially again, shooting wide (more pixels per point of detail) or where you cannot gain more distance (you can crop much more effectively). Don't scoff at the DR / noise improvements either, they are also truly great (and really all I need right now).

 

The shutter seems quieter than my original M8 and--importantly--there are zero image artifacts from bright point source lights at the border of the image.

 

The M9 also has its own colour palette, which I really like, and the ability to manually input a lens correction. Let's not forget instant access to ISO as well

 

On their own, all of these are small upgrades, though, again, the ff sensor arguably gets you the most out of a Leica lens investment.

 

But together, they all add up to a very sweet, and not "transitional" in the slightest, experience. I'm constantly amazed at just how good the M9 really is. I'm sure I'll have two by the end of the year.

[earleygallery]

The M9 is a massive improvement if one prefers wideangle lenses, surely?

[arthury]

It's weird to hear people talk about 'transitional' as if there is a FINAL product on the horizon.

 

Literally speaking, all current models from any manufacturer are transitional to the next model still under development.

 

But, as it is, the M9 is probably the best rangefinder camera you can get with your money.

[AlanJW]

You are entitled to your opinion. Just two points: first, My opinion differs; the FF is not the only change but it is for me key. Second, if you wait to buy a camera because something better is coming you will never buy anything. There is always something better coming. If your point is to buy used to save some money, that's a fair point. But not because it is a "transition" camera.

[andym911]

 

But, as it is, the M9 is probably the best rangefinder camera you can get with your money.

 

That prize goes to the Leica CL in my opinion , closely followed by the M6:)

andy

[jaapv]

Today I was just thinking, the M9 does something that gives an extra edge to lesser lenses. I was shooting an Elmarit 28 III, and Elmarit 90 and an Telyt-V280 III today and the results were simply better than I was able to get on the M8. Don't ask me for an explanation, it is just an observation. Maybe it is just that the lenses are used as they are designed. So if nothing else, it the M9 allows you to get the best from older glass.

As for the next thing around the corner, see the thread I am starting later....

[adan]

"But I keep getting the feeling that the only gain over the M8 is a larger sensor, slightly better ISO performance and some improved dynamic range."

 

Almost the identical wording came up in another thread recently - my almost identical response is that this reminds me of the famous joke "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

 

Figure out the cost of shooting a 21mm FoV @ f/2.8 or faster - or a 35mm FoV at f/2 or f/1.4 - with the M8, and your "only" is a rather huge difference.

 

M8 + Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 (no RF coupling) + 28 'cron = $5,995 + $3,995 (used) + $3,295 (used) = $13,285

 

M9 = Leica 21 f/2.8 pre-ASPH + 35 'cron v.4 (my existing lenses) = $6,995 + $1,000 (used) + $900 (used) = $8,895.

 

And that doesn't even count buying IR filters all 'round and getting the Zeiss converted to code correctly.

 

Even at the longer end - a 50 'lux (ASPH or otherwise) or 75 f/2 cropped 1.33x is just not the same as shooting a true 75 f/1.4 or 90 f/2. A whole different feel to the interplay of sharpness, softness, bokeh, etc.

 

The lower noise, and the sudden reduction in subjects twitching because they see the pink glow on the front of the lens and think I'm pointing a Laser sight at them are just icing on the cake.

 

The transition to FF was the big leap - Leica will never increase the sensor size for M lenses again. Anything else that happens in future models will just be incremental.

[efftee]

I'm pretty certain that isn't going to happen given that it's one of the main sources of revenue they have.

 

God forbid, course not! From what I have read, some M8 users who do not see economic sense to upgrade to an M9 are unfairly basing their decision on a case against its marginal improvements as a 'transitional' camera. As if, somehow, the perceived deficiency of the M9 would go away if it was the final product of the M-line.

 

Anyway, I may be going off tangent on an already off tangent argument. Minor or major, there is a difference between the M8 and M9, even in my own limited layman experience, I have been able to tell. Never mind the dynamic range and ISO and AWB and whatever grouses the critics throw at it, bottom-line is -- the M9 images are indisputably better. Isn't that what it is all about -- why we're using Leica in the first place?

[dpattinson]

The transition to FF was the big leap - Leica will never increase the sensor size for M lenses again. Anything else that happens in future models will just be incremental.

 

I think the transition to digital (M8) was the big leap, the incremental improvement from M8 to M9 is trivial in comparison

 

There is no doubt that the M9 is a better camera than the M8. FF and resolution of course, but also in handling with direct ISO access etc.

 

For me at least, that improvement doesn't justify the upgrade cost from my M8. That's largely because: I very rarely shoot wider than 28; I very rarely print larger than A3; I very rarely crop; I have all the focal lengths I want covered with my existing coded set of lenses.

 

If the high ISO performance were substantially better, or there were dual SD slots, or the camera was more robust or weather sealed, then that would be a different story.. but that's not the case.

[dpattinson]

Figure out the cost of shooting a 21mm FoV @ f/2.8 or faster - or a 35mm FoV at f/2 or f/1.4 - with the M8, and your "only" is a rather huge difference.

 

M8 + Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 (no RF coupling) + 28 'cron = $5,995 + $3,995 (used) + $3,295 (used) = $13,285

 

M9 = Leica 21 f/2.8 pre-ASPH + 35 'cron v.4 (my existing lenses) = $6,995 + $1,000 (used) + $900 (used) = $8,895.

 

And that doesn't even count buying IR filters all 'round and getting the Zeiss converted to code correctly.

 

I'm not sure this logic is really applicable because the people making the comparison already have an M8, or would be buying it second-hand.

If one buys those lenses second hand then in 3 years they will still be worth the same amount. If one buy an M9 and the cheaper lenses, in 3 years the M9 with be worth about 1/3 of what was paid for it. The cheaper long term option is to stick with the M8 and invest in good second-hand lenses

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[vanhulsenbeek]

The M9 is a massive improvement if one prefers wideangle lenses, surely?

 

Spot on! And that is also where the most IR trouble was. While I was always afraid of funny color-shifts with the WATE, that lens is a joy to use on the M9. Better color-palette, better TTL-metering, plus do not forget the bracketing!