Is it worth to invest in a M9 compared the M8?

[PasMichiel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well the difference as I can find:

 

The MegaPixel and Fullframe chip;

A ISO button;

A Info Menu;

Manual Lens selection;

A Soft release incl. the discreet;

You can set the self release off;

Bracketing;

Exp. comp. setup;

Clipping Histogram;

Folder selection;

DNG compression;

USB mode selection.

 

Is there more? And is it really much better?

[jaapv]

1. Better image quality due to higher pixel count, both in microcontrast and color transition (= less magnification)

2.Better noise behaviour (partly because of #1, partly because of different firmware)

3. "Old fashioned" angles of view for your lenses.

 

All improvements viewed separately are evolutionary rather than spectacular, but the sum of the parts does result in a different, more mature camera.

[rob_w]

... the sum of the parts does result in a different, more mature camera.

 

Agree -- they feel like two different cameras. Looking at the list of improvements alone, I was not prepared for the extent of the difference and how delightful and satisfying the M9 would prove to be once I purchased it. Better? Well, yes, but the M8 also produces marvellous pictures so it is difficult to be emphatic.

[PasMichiel]

Agree -- they feel like two different cameras. Looking at the list of improvements alone, I was not prepared for the extent of the difference and how delightful and satisfying the M9 would prove to be once I purchased it. Better? Well, yes, but the M8 also produces marvellous pictures so it is difficult to be emphatic.

 

As I understand it's more the M as we are used to with the M6 M7?

[Jamie Roberts]

M9 is much better IMO, though I loved my M8.

[bocaburger]

I agree with most of the above comments, in particular that the improvements are significant but not startling, and do not put the M8 to shame in the least. I agree the M9 is a more mature version of the M8, now with full frame, acceptable IR blocking (though not as complete as my Canons of even 2 generations back, but those are CMOS and DSLR therefore somewhat apples-to-oranges) without the band-aid filters, and some refinement in noise and other IQ parameters as mentioned. All in all I am impressed with the M9, albeit not enough to stand in line for one and pay full MSRP at this time. The M8 is that good I don't feel the least bit inadequate holding onto mine for a year or maybe two, until the M9 market softens, which it will certainly do at some point.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me, upgrading to the M9 was worth the cost because it:

 

- gave me back my Leitz 21 f/2.8 and 35/90 'crons.

- got rid of the screaming pink filters on my lenses.

- gave me a quieter shutter than the M8 classic.

- gave me a "soft-release" option that feels more like a film M.

- gave me a useable (non banding) ISO 2500

- gave me a more flexible ISO selection throughout the range. Sometimes ISO 640 was too slow and ISO 1250 was too noisy and ISO 800 is "just right".

 

The crop difference alone was worth the cost of the upgrade, since it meant I could use $3,300 worth of nice Mandler lenses (21/35/90) instead of $9,000 worth (even used) of 15(Zeiss f/2.8)/28 'cron/75 cron - whose rendering I didn't like as much anyway.

 

But realistically, if you don't use lenses wider than 28mm and don't print bigger than 40 x 60 cm and don't use ISOs above 1250, then the other differences alone may not be worth the €2500 cost of trading up.

[PasMichiel]

The full frame part is ok, but the quieter shutter and the soft-release film M feel, does make me think.

 

thx

 

For me, upgrading to the M9 was worth the cost because it:

 

- gave me back my Leitz 21 f/2.8 and 35/90 'crons.

- got rid of the screaming pink filters on my lenses.

- gave me a quieter shutter than the M8 classic.

- gave me a "soft-release" option that feels more like a film M.

- gave me a useable (non banding) ISO 2500

- gave me a more flexible ISO selection throughout the range. Sometimes ISO 640 was too slow and ISO 1250 was too noisy and ISO 800 is "just right".

 

The crop difference alone was worth the cost of the upgrade, since it meant I could use $3,300 worth of nice Mandler lenses (21/35/90) instead of $9,000 worth (even used) of 15(Zeiss f/2.8)/28 'cron/75 cron - whose rendering I didn't like as much anyway.

 

But realistically, if you don't use lenses wider than 28mm and don't print bigger than 40 x 60 cm and don't use ISOs above 1250, then the other differences alone may not be worth the €2500 cost of trading up.

[LuxBob]

Not having been an M person I decided to try the M8, via a fine s/h model bought from a forum member, as a stepping stone. I reasoned that if I didn't like it I could sell it at a reasonable price and if I did like it maybe I would move up to an M9 and then possibly sell it. I am still on the learning curve but more than satisfied with what the M8 can deliver in terms of quality so that, at the moment, I see no reason to move up.

Just about to go out with it now.

[tobey bilek]

Unless the M8 comes very cheap and you are willing to put up with coding lenses and special filters when necessary and the crop factor, buy the M9.

 

The advantage of the 8 is it is already severly depreciated which means you can not loose as much money. They do take fine pics if you can get past the idiosyncracies.

[PasMichiel]

Unless the M8 comes very cheap and you are willing to put up with coding lenses and special filters when necessary and the crop factor, buy the M9.

 

The advantage of the 8 is it is already severly depreciated which means you can not loose as much money. They do take fine pics if you can get past the idiosyncracies.

 

till the M10 keep the M8 and not buy the M9.

[R9user]

Having owned an M8 and now replaced with a M9 I can say I prefer the M9 for the following:

• No IR Filters
  
• No Crop - Lens is used with designed focal length
  

However, having said that, I will not sell an M8 to buy an M9 unless you have a very specific or technical need. My upgrade was not my decision to make (my insurance made my upgrade possible)

 

If you can get an M8 at a bargain - great buy, otherwise get the M9

[ashfaque]

Few days ago, I almost bought a used M8. But lately I've been noticing quite a few used M9 appearing on various forums. The lowest on LUF I saw was around 3600 GBP. It went very quickly. Now I'm thinking should wait a bit more (i.e., saving,) and then go for a used M9. I don't like this dilemma at all!

 

Ashfaque

[esquire53]

Having owned an M8 and now replaced with a M9 I can say I prefer the M9 for the following:

• No IR Filters
  
• No Crop - Lens is used with designed focal length
  

However, having said that, I will not sell an M8 to buy an M9 unless you have a very specific or technical need. My upgrade was not my decision to make (my insurance made my upgrade possible)

 

If you can get an M8 at a bargain - great buy, otherwise get the M9

 

I agree with the reasons to buy the M9, but don't buy M8, even at a bargin price. You loose it when you try to sell it. Go for the M9

 

Cheers

[jsrockit]

...but don't buy M8, even at a bargin price. You loose it when you try to sell it.

 

Huh?

[wparsonsgisnet]

I agree with the other descriptions of small changes. I would say it's like moving from the least expensive model of a car to the top model. It's not the leather seats; it's more fun.

 

To me, the M9 is "tighter" than the M8 and more enjoyable to use. Color seems to be different as well, tho I thought it was a larger version of the "same" chip from Kodak. In another thread I compared the two cameras and the images were just about the same, and this required turning off a lot of default settings.

 

The sw seems to work better, as well

 

However, now that the M9 is here, the M8 is a WHOLE lot cheaper. The images are not much different. Can't spend your money.

 

And the complaint about the IR filters is about the same to me as having to wear shoes at the office. That is, I sort of got used to it. (Of course, there are benefits to many others as a result of my wearing shoes at the office....)

[Jeff S]

The full frame part is ok, but the quieter shutter and the soft-release film M feel, does make me think.

 

 

The quieter shutter aspect could be realized a lot more inexpensively through an M8.2.

 

Jeff

[vanhulsenbeek]

The quieter shutter aspect could be realized a lot more inexpensively through an M8.2

 

That I think is true and my M9, is in my hearing, even a little louder than my upgraded M8.

 

The biggest gain is the better IQ, not only in pixel count, but also colorwise. I feel that M9 pictures need a lot less work in post and sometimes come out just perfect straight from the camera. But this may also be due to technology improvements in LR2 and now in LR3.

 

And without attention here yet: the bracketing function is great! Bracketing, like for HDR pictures, was a PITA with the M8. With the M9 you can do it even without a tripod.

Just 3 examples:

Zenfolio | Sander van Hulsenbeek Photography | Panorama's (With tripod as HDR panorama)

Zenfolio | Sander van Hulsenbeek Photography | Religious (No tripod)

Zenfolio | Sander van Hulsenbeek Photography | Rome 2010 (idem)

[bocaburger]

I agree with the other descriptions of small changes. I would say it's like moving from the least expensive model of a car to the top model.

 

And the complaint about the IR filters is about the same to me as having to wear shoes at the office.

 

I have a different set of analogies. I would say it's like moving from a V6 5-series to a V8 5-series. The differences are there to be sure but outside of a racetrack and bragging rights, the V6 is already more power than needed or that most of us can use effectively.

 

However the IR filters to me is more analagous to having to wear a condom

 

I feel that M9 pictures need a lot less work in post and sometimes come out just perfect straight from the camera.

 

That implies the M8 needs quite a bit of post. Of all the praise [formerly] heaped on the M8, the most prevalent one was that it needed almost no post.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[vanhulsenbeek]

.................

 

That implies the M8 needs quite a bit of post. Of all the praise [formerly] heaped on the M8, the most prevalent one was that it needed almost no post.

 

 

Well...I never said such thing!