M8 VS M9

[Olsen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have had an M8 since it first came out - use it every day. The big day arrives and my M9 appears. The big news is that as for resolution you cannot tell them apart. I have done test after test. I interpolate the m8 images up to 18mp as a rule so comparing the two is easy. Using 28mm on the M8 and 35mm on the M9, photographing the same scene so the field is identical, you cannot tell the difference. I should have waited - or stuck with my much loved M8 and saved a pile of money. I have tried to love this camera, but comparing photo after photo I would not know which was which. I know it has lower noise etc. etc. but making this possible has taken the edge off what should have been a heck of a chip. My advice for anybody out there with an M8 is.......wait.

 

Approach,

 

Thanks for your frank feedback.

 

I share your opinion, but I think it is a bit dependant on the stock of lenses one has. I have a 50 mm 1,0 Noctilux, a WATE and a 35 mm Cron. I feel strongly that a M9 won't make that much sense for me either. The M8/M9 update equals that of Canon's move from 1Ds II to III, regarding resolution/noise levels. Also a too small a upgrade to justify the cost, which I found out. - I did this update, and regret it.

 

I have been close to buying a 2.hand M9 in what could have been a good deal, but I will not buy a new M9 to 'list price', or thereabouts. I will be buying the future M10 with it's 21 million pixels and perfect high ISO/low noise properties for the price of the M9 - if this M10 ever materialize.

[Advertisement]

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

[ezc203]

I think the idea of the Nocti on FF is motivation enough to set up to the M9.

[menos I M6]

Approach,

 

Thanks for your frank feedback.

 

I share your opinion, but I think it is a bit dependant on the stock of lenses one has. I have a 50 mm 1,0 Noctilux, a WATE and a 35 mm Cron. I feel strongly that a M9 won't make that much sense for me either. The M8/M9 update equals that of Canon's move from 1Ds II to III, regarding resolution/noise levels. Also a too small a upgrade to justify the cost, which I found out. - I did this update, and regret it.

 

I have been close to buying a 2.hand M9 in what could have been a good deal, but I will not buy a new M9 to 'list price', or thereabouts. I will be buying the future M10 with it's 21 million pixels and perfect high ISO/low noise properties for the price of the M9 - if this M10 ever materialize.

 

Olsen, I feel very much the same about this. The M9 is no significant update for me, but a "nice to have update" in a second hand body for a good price, when considering, buying a digital M (for backup or as the only body).

If I had the choice now between spending sticker price on a M9 and less than half that amount on a M8.2, I clearly would choose the M8.2 and keep the change.

As we are musing about this, the first more and more interesting second hand deals show up and will continue, to get more interesting over the next two years with falling prices.

 

The M9 indeed exchanges the M8 functionally, as it has the same pixel pitch in the cropped sensor, but in contrast it also has a few tiny annoyances, my M8.2 does not have (they might be small niggles, if one is not grown to it): the "back to 1m frame lines" - this is "a typical Leica thing" - they just can't stick to a thing for Pete's sake - why are they going back and for with the frame line adjustment?

 

Aligning it to 2m as with the M8.2 is just perfect - I use a M body not for close ups anyway, as my SLR is way superior for this. Most of my shots are in the 2−5m range. I suppose, there are a lot of users, who use the M even as a landscape body - are these all heavy croppers?

 

Also the much discussed LCD cover glass is a step backwards, as is the ISO selection screen for me (I don't want to set ISO speed in 1/3 stops, I want to be able, to push ISO up to 6400 IN CAMERA - now that would have been an improvement in usability).

 

Why is the hot shoe silver chrome again with the black paint model? Do it black please, as with the M8.2 - a lot more beautiful to my eyes.

 

If the M9 would not only have added a 24x36mm sensor and a slight edge in high ISO, but indeed would have added more functional advantage, while not going backwards with some, this would have been an entirely different discussion. I hope for major upgrades in an all new M10 (finally weather sealing for more confidence in bad weather and much improved high ISO + better frame lines, and I am in).

 

I think the idea of the Nocti on FF is motivation enough to set up to the M9.

 

Eddie, why would that be?

To have more of the edge softness and heavy light falloff in the picture?

If arguing about the real focal length and image angle, then it is understandable.

 

I use a Noctilux f1 on the M8.2 and love it, for what it is on the cropped sensor, but I happen, to always have liked the ~60mm focal length a bit more than the straight 50mm.

 

When arguing along the "magic character" (read light falloff), this is nonsense to me, albeit I like the occasional added vignetting in PP and mostly ape the Noctilux vignetting signature that way, as it is naturally looking.

[Olsen]

I think the idea of the Nocti on FF is motivation enough to set up to the M9.

 

Both yes and no. I never was good at using a 50 mm lens, angle of view wise, anyway. Surely, a cropped 50 mm makes that no better. But the Noctilux (the old version with the built-in sun shade) vignettes heftily. Cropping away the dark corners makes the pictures look better from a M8. I have found one application that the cropped 50 mm is just excellent: Shooting the landscapes from the deck of the ferries going different routes here in Scandinavia, like Oslo - Kiel or Stockholm - Helsinki. I had a ZM 50 mm 2,0 which was just excellent for this job. I sold it along with my Zeiss Ikon and a ZM 25 mm 2,8 - a sale I deeply regret. I just sold my MP. It felt like selling an organ...

 

I use my M8 a lot with my WATE. A lens I feel would be too extreme on a M9, for my taste. Anyone here with WATE/M9 experience to share with us?

[delander †]

The M8 is great camera, I used two of them for two years, but when the M9 came out I sold them and bought two M9s. I never had an M8.2 so I cant comment on its cosmetic improvements except to say that I was not interested in them at the time.

 

Simply put the M9 is a better camera than the M8 and the M9 sensor although similar to that in the M8 is better. And megapixels count. Although I was able to make fine A3+ prints from the M8, there was very little cropping leeway (not necessarily a bad thing).

 

Use any lens on the M8 and then move in closer with that same lens on the M9 to get the same framing and compare. The 18Mp of the M9 are better than the 10Mp of the M8, not just in resolution but in noise performance and tonal distribution. 18Mp also offers more flexibility when post processing.

 

But if you are happy with your M8 then fine. If one of your motivations is not to lose too much money then buy lenses instead of an M9, but if your motivation is photography get the M9.

 

Jeff

[Guest]

I must say I am happy (content) with my M8 and 24 Lux, but everytime I get the prints back from the lab of my 24 Lux on full frame, I curse the M8 a little.

This lens made me do it!

Wanted FF for my 24SX!

 

btw the 21SX is a monster, Yanik

 

So I was lucky to get a M6 0.58 for it only.

When I've spent 4500€ on slide film for this combo, I'll let you know. High ISO is not a requirement at f:1.4

When there will be an M9 0.58 in the stores, I'll consider.

 

All other lenses here are ok on the two M8us, which are more quiet, with a faster buffer, a permanent window for left battery power and pictures number instead of a dent in the corner and more scratch resistent than the younger model, that presently is twice as expensive.

[eurotraveler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I bought a demo M8.2 in pristine shape with a one-year Leica warranty from Collectible Cameras about 6 weeks ago. Also a brand new 28mm Elmarit f2.8 lens to go with it. Leica Germany sent 2 UV/IR filters for free after I registered the camera body online. I considered the M9, but I bought the body and lens, an extra battery, an Artisan and Artist Rina case and a Voigtlander 21/4 P Color Skopar lens, all for less than the cost of the M9. For me, it's perfect. My other gear (which is going to be sold soon) is a Rolleflex 2.8GX, a Contax 35mm with lenses and a Pentax N20 with prime lenses. All great cameras, but I'm downsizing and plan on the rest of my shooting being only rangefinder shooting. Maybe when the next version of the Leica M digital comes out (M10) I'll consider upgrading the body, but I really bought this with the thought that it would last me for the rest of my life (being 58 that's probably not as long as a lot of you.)

I find I carry the M8.2 with me a lot more than I had carried the others, at least for the past few years, and of course the build quality and the images are amazing.

I'm very happy with what I have.

And if you have an M8 or M9, you should be happy with what you have as well. You own a camera that most people would not be able to own.

[dseelig]

I had a m8 the uv ir fiters would reflect into the frame at times when shooting at night and having lights in my frame. Not to mention a 50 being 64 mm I had one m8 got a m9 had to get a second asap.

[beewee]

I can't say I have much, if any, experience with the M9 but I have been shooting with the M8.2 for about half a year now. Overall, I don't think the M8.2 leaves me with much desire to "upgrade" to an M9 since I regularly shoot in IR on the M8.2. Also, since I primarily shoot landscape, the 2m frame line of the M8.2 is perfect for my needs.

 

I think I can go so far as to say that even if I were to ever upgrade to a used M9 or future M10 to take advantage of my 18 SE, I would still keep the M8.2 around purely for shooting in IR.

[bocaburger]

If one of your motivations is not to lose too much money then buy lenses instead of an M9, but if your motivation is photography get the M9.

 

Jeff

 

Funny, but I've got both cameras and my motivation is photography regardless of which one I'm using. And I spent $6500 (including the upgrade) on my M8, which I could now maybe get $2300 for. I don't expect I'll be in a worse loss position on the M9 in 3 years.

[markgay]

I usually hold back from comment on opinions (they're personal), especially as one who hasn't used the M9 but who kept his M8 and spent the difference on a broadcast video camera.

 

But I do notice a touch of circular logic, especially where people justify the M9 as a camera "you can crop" and retain the resolution of the M8.

 

It's an argument which is equally opposed by the advantage of NOT having to crop with the M8 to deal with the vignetting (from lenses) and red edges (from sensor, assuming you can't be bothered to use profiles to remove miscolouring).

 

PS I crop one in a hundred images. I try to follow the suggestion to get closer to my subject.

 

PPS How can one obsess as many do about the accuracy of framelines and then crop! Consistency, guys and gals.

 

Using lenses at their "real focal length" is also a nicety. It's even less real than my preference for real books rather than my Kindle. Ultimately, it's a relative thing, something we'll adapt to.

 

When people argue that the M9 is mature. Well, the M9 undoubtedly came with a number of issues and has anyone counted how many M9s got sent back to Solms compared with M8s? Will people hail the M10 as the "one and only mature Leica digital M"? You can be sure.

 

Cool it. I'm just cruisin' the brain!

 

That leaves, IMO, the M8/9 difference largely in the mind and in the wallet.

 

I do like the real metal finish on the M8 but I'd surrender that for a significant improvement in quality - heck I've argued for changing the form factor if it improves the image quality obtainable with M lenses.

 

I just feel that with several of my lenses, the advantage of using them at their "real focal length" would be offset by the handicaps of doing so. I'm talking about the 15/2.8. WATE, Noctilux.. that leaves the 28/2, 75/1.4 and 90/2.

 

50/50 I think you'd agree. And I'd probably have to throw in a new 35mm to match my most-used 28mm from the M8 and that's a chunk.

 

Finally, there are practical issues: M8 has been considered more sharp, the IR issue benefits afficionados, the file size (less is more - and faster), the failure of Leica to increase the size of the M9 buffer to the same extent as it increased the file sizes.

 

This is looking like a dead heat.

 

That's my logic, flawed as it is.

 

Regards,

Mark

[leicamr]

With all the excitement I purchased an M8 when it was first released. I should have waited and I certainly would have gone for an M9 instead. If I were to buy a digital M today I think an M8.2 would do the job for me. But I shall wait for an M10. I love my DMR's too much anyway.

 

Mark

[Kittyphoto]

In my opinion M9 is better than M8 in 3 things.

1. Full Frame vs 1.3 crop.

2. Better dynamic range. (Capture more highlight)

3. Better firmware. (Manual lens selection)

 

M8+UV IR is a must and sometimes create problem with filter reflection. (Not always.)

But M8 is better with infrared so one gain one lose.

 

I really wish Leica will update M8 firmware for the manual lens selection.

So I would have one less reason to get M9.

 

kitty

[k_g_wolf ✝]

>> Miguel

 

Went through (part) of your slideshow, great photography, really enjoyable !

 

Thx for sharing.

 

 

Best

GEORG

[erl]

Want to see the difference between the M8 and the M9?

Open your eyes!

 

In reality there are many differences. The fact is everyone wants/needs different qualities. There are no two members here with the same needs so there will be no two members with same view on either camera, both of which are 'excellent'. I have both and I would dump the M8 for another M9 in a heartbeat except for the cost. Ah! the cost. many commentators use that against the M9. Well, if you are discussing which is better, cost is another argument, which is personal and not influential on the camera functionality.

 

I find these discussions on 'A' V's 'B' a bit ridiculous as everyone has entirely differing criteria and cannot have much bearing on another's need or desire. Stating A or B does this or that is one thing, but declaring one is better than the other is just pointless. Better for what? I know my preferences and why, but probably not valid for many others.

[eleskin]

I really do not think A vs. B really means anything if two great photographers use both cameras well and produce stunning photographs. You could have someone with an M9 take a lousy photo, while someone who has an M8 takes a masterpiece. The masterpiece is what it is and does not have a badge on it as to what camera made it. It simply exists. The camera is a tool for how the brain expresses itself. If it happens with a Nikon, great, Cannon, great, Leica, great.

 

I happen to own the M8 and I love the photos I take as well as the people who see them. IF I had an M9, so be it. The point is the photo, not the camera. We choose our tools for what is in our mind. The creative thought is eternal. Cameras come and go!

[delander †]

It is quite valid to compare a Canon 1ds2 with a Canon 1ds3 and the same is true for the M8 and M9. Can you make the same photograph with either camera? well yes, but 'technically' the M9 photo will be better. Otherwise what is the point of developing new and technically improved cameras?

 

Jeff

[erl]

It may well be valid to compare cameras, but to what end? So one may be 'technically' better than another and yet how do we define technically better? Is it based on 'latest technology', or is it based on durability, or ..... what?

 

As a matter of (maybe) interest, so far this year my best (my opinion) image was made on the M7, despite owning and using both the M8 and M9. So, does that mean the M7 is 'technically' superior to the M8 & 9, or does it mean the best pictures are made by me?

 

Well I always thought comparisons were odious. A tool is just that and I strive to select the correct one and it is frequently different. As for which one I favour emotionally, well even that varies but the M7 and M9 jockey for preference. There is no definitive answer because emotions are involved. The M9 does see more service.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M