M9 and M8: practical difference?

[Likaleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The larger sensor of the M9, compared to the M8, allows for larger prints at the native 240 dpi, and it allows one to crop and retain a decent file size. However, most pictures probably never make it off the computer monitor, and the majority of those that are printed probably seldom are larger than A3.

 

Assuming that the vast majority of M pictures are taken handheld, rather than with the camera mounted on a tripod and with the use of a cable release, and realizing that few of these pictures will ever be printed larger than A3, is there really a practical difference in image quality of prints obtained with the M9 versus the M8? Put another way, is a print from a handheld M9 any *better* than one from an M8, or does handholding eliminate any theoretical difference?

 

Jeff Plomley has addressed this elsewhere in the forum, but I am interested in others' opinions.

[Advertisement]

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

[zlatkob]

As each camera is handheld the same way, I don't think that handholding the cameras can eliminate any differences between the cameras. I believe the key practical differences are that the M9:

1. allows for larger prints (or a little extra detail at larger print sizes) and more cropping when desired

2. has no crop factor

3. does not need IR filters

4. has about one additional useable stop for high ISO photos

5. offers a soft shutter release mode

6. offers exposure compensation via the rear dial

For some photographers, those differences may be significant and practical; for others they may make little difference, in image quality or otherwise. It depends on your subject matter, print size, shooting style, etc. Of course, the lower price of the M8 is a real practical advantage too.

[redbaron]

The M8 has been discontinued.

[jaapv]

The higher pixel count/ lesser magnification make for:

1. less noise

2. smoother contrast and color transitions

 

Also the red- green handling have been altered.

 

The sum of this is a different (improvedved) look of the M9 images, regardless of print size.

[earleygallery]

Surely the main advantage is full frame, a 28mm lens is a 28mm lens - no crop factor.

[sabrewolf]

The M8 DNG is compressed...

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes - but in normal circumstances that is not a visible difference. It does come into play with extensive postprocessing, but not in the daily workfow.

[theendlesshouse]

Full frame

better dynamic range

[luigi bertolotti]

For me, the main reason to switch from M8 to M9 (or next FF...) is probably to have the "standard" focals as used to be with film: but I expect, generally speaking, to enjoy also some gain in image quality even at "normal" (A4/A3) prints.

And... ... M9 allows more space for cropping... it has a "M8 sensor" inside, which makes me feel comfortable in case of crop... my 21 will be a 21... but also a 28/M8 like.

[Likaleica]

As I expected, all very insightful responses. Thanks. Have M8, thinking of going M9, but I like to work with 2 cameras and the capital outlay for two M9s is daunting. So I was wondering if members thought the M9 had substantially better IQ in actual prints to justify the leap, especially given that most photos will be taken handheld.

[andym911]

I would be very surprised if you could notice any quality differences in the final print at normal viewing distances.

 

My largest prints are 30x40 cm (using M8.2) and I find the quality to be shockingly good (I use Epson 2400 and Hahnemuhle Baryta paper)

 

good luck

 

andy

[Rolo]

The M8 does produce exceptional quality prints. I have many of them.

 

The M9 is my camera of choice, is so much better for what I do with a rangefinder camera confined to prime lenses. For a given lens, not standing 30% further away making it difficult to focus on fine details and having the extra pixels to crop to overcome the absence of a zoom in a fast moving situation makes the M9 so much better for me.

 

I miss the M8 not one bit and circumstances will never arise where I'd need to acquire, as there will always be a preferred alternative.

[Artichoke]

As I expected, all very insightful responses. Thanks. Have M8, thinking of going M9, but I like to work with 2 cameras and the capital outlay for two M9s is daunting. So I was wondering if members thought the M9 had substantially better IQ in actual prints to justify the leap, especially given that most photos will be taken handheld.

as with an SLR

I suspect your concerns are that the added resolution will be negligible as the camera is used hand held

this may be a problem with an SLR due to mirror vibrations, but is not a problem with the M9

it even has a soft release mode which helps minimize shake at slow shutter speeds

no question that the extra resolution is an advantage with the M9 over the M8

in addition to the increased resolution, full frame and no need for an ir/cut filter, the M9 has many more ISO steps & I think produces even deeper files than the M8, which were already excellent

both are outstanding cameras, but the M9 is clearly better from my experience with both, beyond just the increased resolution

[Viv]

I never bought an M8 (I bought A Zeiss Ikon instead, because of the easier and faster film loading) but, for me, the full-frame M9 allows me to use my lenses as they were intended.

 

I concur with previous remarks regarding other differences between the two cameras.

 

I frequently make A3+ prints, for framing and hanging..

[jaapv]

Well, most film cameras load film easier than the M8...

[rwchisholm]

I used and owned an M8 for several years and really enjoyed the camera (had 3 different ones over time, kept coming back to it).

 

I recently purchased the M9, wanting to get back into the rangefinder way of shooting and because I was dearly missing the portability the M8 had afforded me.

 

I was not expecting a great deal of difference in the files of the M9 vs 8 except in size. That said, I was very surprised and am extremely pleased with the improvements in the file quality, the DR, and color processing and the highlight preservation. The one stop improvement in the ISO abilities also is a much bigger gain than it sounds. Overall, the camera is superb, and Leica has done a wonderful job in making subtle but substantial improvements in the IQ of the M9 files. Costly, yes. Worth the upgrade, absolutely!

[adan]

First, just a technical point. I'm wondering how you zero in on a "native" 240 "dpi" (actually ppi - pixels per inch). That may be hardwired into jpgs, but RAW (.dng) files don't have a native size. It is something that can be set, and changed, in the raw developing software. And even jpegs can be resized (not resampled, simply adjusted to make larger, lower-res prints or smaller, higher-res prints).

 

At the highest print quality setting (2880 dpi - ink dots per inch) my Epson shows improved IQ right up 288 pixel per inch file size. At 288 ppi, M8 files don't even fill A3 paper - there is a large (1 to 1.5 inch) white border. M9 files print beyond the edges of A3 paper.

 

Boiling all that down - in prints larger than 10x14-inch (24x36 cm) - the M9 will start to show more printable detail. Otherwise, it will be overkill.

 

Yes, hand-holding can neutralize that advantage, depending on focal length and shutter speed used - as can focus accuracy and a host of other variables. Most of the time, in my shots, it does not. And the ISO advantage allows for a higher shutter speed in any give situation.

 

The other - and to me more important - practical difference. A 28mm f/2.8 lens for the M9 costs $1,995. A "28 f/2.8" on the M8's cropped sensor means a 21 f/2.8 - which from Leica costs $4,495. That goes a long way towards neutralizing the cost difference of the bodies. Although you can recoup it a bit at the long end, getting a 50 f/2 instead of the pricier 75 f/2, for example.

 

In your case, wanting two cameras and already having M8s, one approach might be to keep one M8 and use it with the longer lenses (IR-filtered) and replace the other with an M9 (using unfiltered wide lenses).

[wparsonsgisnet]

I posted a thread some time ago where almost identical M8 and M9 images were cropped similarly. They are quite alike.

 

However, I find the M9 feels 'sturdier." The software and moving parts seem to be tighter. I also prefer the M9 image to that of the M8. It has more life to it. Perhaps its the difference the Jaap refers to, above.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tjphoto]

I was pretty happy with M8 and didn't really want to spend the dough right now. but, since my dealer had one and i had my account paid off. I bought one. I had heard around the net that the files were almost as good as medium format digital. I have a leaf aptus 22

and the files are amazing. I've only had the M9 a couple weeks, but the files are looking really good ! I am getting pretty excited about it. More so than i thought i would.

Thanks,

Tim

[adli]

When I had the M8, I always dragged along the M6 also. With the M9, the M6 feels more obsolete.