M8 owners should buy new lenses NOT an M9?

[wilfredo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Frank and Lulu, thank you. The wait time was two months for a silver lens. I was told by my dealer that the wait time for a black lens is longer. I have to say, that this lens is not only a great performer (when I nail the focus) but the build is exceptional. I don't think I've ever owned a lens that feels as solid as this one, it has exceeded my expectations in that regard. The build lives up to the legendary status of the Leica brand.

Edited June 26, 2010 by wilfredo

[farnz]

Frank and Lulu, thank you. ...

Frank?!

 

Pete.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest BigSplash]

Wilfredo ...that image is fabulous in my opinion....was it taken with the M8 or M9?

 

I actually was prompted somewhat in writing this OP as I have used the MATE (28/35/50mm TriElmar) very much recently and after some use of the very new 35mm ASPH Summilux I was struck by the sharper contrast and detail.

 

That said I have now used my old 35mm Summicron at various apertures. I find it considerably sharper than the MATE, and even wondering if my MATE needs some ever so slight adjustment. The old Summicron is clearly not as contrasty or sharp as the new Summilux.

 

As for investment I agree with the sentiments posted, buying Leica is NOT an investment! That said my plan is to reserve about £2k to £3K for photography each year on average ...which is about one lens per year or so. I have been doing this for now 40 years but bought very little during the last decade, so I perhaps am in catch up mode!

I am not very interested in the M9 ...and see the M9.2 or M10 as a more likely choice given that my M8 is producing very good image.

[wstotler]

The question is should one invest £5000 in an M9 or buy two new ASPH lenses...for me it is a no brainer, buy the lenses and use on the M8. Anyone agree or think that is wrong?

 

I wouldn't say it's "wrong" to think like this--but now being the owner of two M8s, I'd advise an additional option. Put less than half the funds into an acquisition of a second, used M8, and the balance into one new lens. Dual-M8 shooting provides for an excellent shooting experience--I've been meaning to start a thread about that and will--and also removes fears of not being able to complete an assignment (with client or not) at the time of shoot due to a failed body. This is not a comment on the M8's relability or build quality--all equipment fails sooner or later--but has more to do with the security of having shooting capabilities regardless. (The M6TTL, from experience, is unfortunately not a proper backup when a digital workflow and high-volume shooting is demanded. But it was all I could afford when the M8s were running $5K and the M6s were running $1.4K-ish.) If I knew then what I know now about dual shooting, I'd have gotten a second M8 when their prices were higher, used. I do not expect the M8's used pricing to flatten below $2K USD in the near future--in several years when the price drops to just above used M6 pricing levels I'll seriously consider acquiring a third body. Bulletproof.

 

Cheers!

Will

[wilfredo]

Frank?!

 

Pete.

 

Sorry Pete :-)

[wilfredo]

Wilfredo ...that image is fabulous in my opinion....was it taken with the M8 or M9?

 

I actually was prompted somewhat in writing this OP as I have used the MATE (28/35/50mm TriElmar) very much recently and after some use of the very new 35mm ASPH Summilux I was struck by the sharper contrast and detail.

 

That said I have now used my old 35mm Summicron at various apertures. I find it considerably sharper than the MATE, and even wondering if my MATE needs some ever so slight adjustment. The old Summicron is clearly not as contrasty or sharp as the new Summilux.

 

As for investment I agree with the sentiments posted, buying Leica is NOT an investment! That said my plan is to reserve about £2k to £3K for photography each year on average ...which is about one lens per year or so. I have been doing this for now 40 years but bought very little during the last decade, so I perhaps am in catch up mode!

I am not very interested in the M9 ...and see the M9.2 or M10 as a more likely choice given that my M8 is producing very good image.

 

The image I posted was done with the M8. I've never been sold on the M9. I will wait to see what the M10 brings with it. I know this is subjective but I believe M8 images have a bit more flavor and character than M9 images. We all have our preferences. The M8 remains as viable as ever IMHO.

[redbaron]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As for investment I agree with the sentiments posted, buying Leica is NOT an investment!

 

Speak for yourself, Frank. Every Leica item I own is now worth more than I paid for it.

[jaapv]

I think the forum would have 50% fewer posts if this were true.

 

Or, would it be 75% fewer?

 

Jeff

That is not about making up their minds - that is seeking confirmation

[Jeff S]

You mean that they really already know which bag, which case, which strap, which lens, which camera, which software, which tripod, which color, which covering, which second lens, which second bag, which second camera, which accessories, which third bag, which...???

 

And, I thought these were real questions.

 

Jeff

Edited June 28, 2010 by Jeff S

[Guest BigSplash]

Speak for yourself, Frank. Every Leica item I own is now worth more than I paid for it.

 

Could that have anything to do with inflation?

[bocaburger]

Every Leica item I own is now worth more than I paid for it.

 

You have an M8 worth more than you paid for it

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

having tested for long the M9 -an excellent Leica product- i decided to keep my M8"s as i didn't find the difference not even close to the cost of changing camera bodies.Lenses is always the real investment and real joy,so many good lenses around and so rewarding to use them.Digi camera bodies come and go very fast even m8 was announced discontinued in less than 3 years,go figure,not even firmware updates not even hardware upgrade.Lenses have a long life.

[SJP]

Could that have anything to do with inflation?

Presumably yes, but let's do some simple sums.

My M2 in 1959 was bought for 385 Dutch guilders (not by me admittedly, as I was only just born) = 175 euro approximately, using the NLG to euro exchange rate of 2.2

Now a M2 is ca. 800 euro so its value in euro has increased by 800/175 = 32/7 = 4.6 or so.

Inflation would be about a factor 7 over the same period (4% per annum just as a guestimate).

So it is probably not a profitable investment, but stuffing the money in a sock is a worse deal and somewhat less interesting.

So far my investments have yielded 2% per annum over the last 10 years, Leica investment is doing OK from that perspective. Nearly all the other stuff I buy (cars & bikes) get cheaper over time, including inflation would make that even worse.

[dpattinson]

Could that have anything to do with inflation?

 

I think you'll find that second-hand prices of current model lenses have increased by at least 20% on average over the past couple of years. Certainly that's the case for the 50lux and 28cron I bought. (probably would have increased more if I'd left them in their boxes).

So comparing second-hand with second-hand, which is a fairer comparison - my lenses have done way better than anything else I bought

[jsrockit]

I'd buy the M9 and keep using the same lenses....if the money was burning a hole in my pocket.

[talentfrei]

If I was you, I would get the M9!

 

I am an M8 user myself and while it's picture quality amazes me, the crop sensor is a HUGE con in terms of lens selection.

If you want the 35mm FOV with a shallow depth of field, you have to get a 28mm Summicron, which is 1000$ more expensive than the 35mm Summicron.

If you want a fast normal lens, you have to get the 35mm Lux which costs 1000 bucks more than the excellent 50mm Lux you would need on the M9.

Same with the Wide and Superwide Lenses.

 

Just imagine, you buy some new ASPH lenses for your M8 now and when you finally upgrade to the M9, you find that your favorite lenses are different on full frame and maybe you'll be at the point where you have to buy new lenses to get your favorite FOV again.

 

The picture quality of the M9 is also better, especially at high ISO, where the M8 is almost useless.

[Guest BigSplash]

If I was you, I would get the M9!

 

I am an M8 user myself and while it's picture quality amazes me, the crop sensor is a HUGE con in terms of lens selection.

If you want the 35mm FOV with a shallow depth of field, you have to get a 28mm Summicron, which is 1000$ more expensive than the 35mm Summicron.

If you want a fast normal lens, you have to get the 35mm Lux which costs 1000 bucks more than the excellent 50mm Lux you would need on the M9.

Same with the Wide and Superwide Lenses.

 

Just imagine, you buy some new ASPH lenses for your M8 now and when you finally upgrade to the M9, you find that your favorite lenses are different on full frame and maybe you'll be at the point where you have to buy new lenses to get your favorite FOV again.

 

The picture quality of the M9 is also better, especially at high ISO, where the M8 is almost useless.

 

You raise very valid points. That said I am thinking to get the 35mm ASPH Lux and possibly the 18mm In the future I shall upgrade to a FF Leica M and hope that the M9.2 or M10 is available then .

 

I agree that the M8 is useless above 640 ISO but then I like to shoot at ISO 160 mostly and use fast lenses as much as possible. I am not sure that the ISO range of the M9 is so great an improvement either. the 80 ISO is a tricky way of using the same generic ISO 160 sensor and the higher values maybe better by measurement but do theyh really give good performance?

[andybarton]

Chris Tribble has proven that the M9 is now perfectly useable up to 2500 ISO

[dpattinson]

Chris Tribble has proven that the M9 is now useable up to 2500 ISO

 

Which - given it's pretty much the same sensor (just 30% bigger) means the M8 is useable as well (at a somewhat lower enlargement) - I'm playing with the new raw processor in CS5 and it does seem to be rather better than the CS4 one.

 

I think the M8 was already eminently useable at above 640iso, but then I don't think that the most important thing in a photograph is affected by noise/grain

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[plasticman]

Chris Tribble has proven that the M9 is now perfectly useable up to 2500 ISO

 

Seems to me that the raw converters are simply taking-over some of the ground previously held by in-camera processing and proprietary software like Noise Ninja. The images that I've seen (and downloaded and tested for myself) are certainly useable for pro use, but there is gross loss of very fine detail and even color merging in the final result.

 

Whether that is significant in the final print is another matter - and please note that I personally like a somewhat grainy image, and also don't see low noise as a sine qua non of a good image.

 

But as far as I'm concerned, the only difference between M9 and M8 images run through the new noise reduction algorithms, is that the M9 has already smudged away some noise internally, and therefore has a head start (down a questionable track).