M8.2 as second / back-up body?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...Do you see any difference in a shot from a M9 cropped down to M8 size resulting in same apparent FL...

My point is not the way i view prints but the way i compose a photo. If i need 35mm FoV i take a FF 35 or a crop 28 but i don't take a FF 28 in view of cropping afterwards. People like me need a real frame i guess.

[Jeff S]

Also, not having a shift lens at hand for Leica M... while trying to correct a building to have parallel vertical lines, you can use a shorter focal length lens and then keep it vertical and in PP crop off the excess 'ground' that will be included but not needed,..

 

+1

 

I do this often with my M8.2, but it would be necessary with any M, using any non-shift lens. Just need to hope that there's enough room to back up, given the lens used.

 

Since I don't own the M9, I'd be interested in hearing from any folks who have cropped in this way (or any other way) with both an M8 and M9 to determine whether the M9 exhibits noticeably better file quality better and, if so, at what size print does this difference generally become apparent. I realize there are a lot of variables here, but a general sense would be helpful.

 

Jeff

[Doc Henry]

"Since I don't own the M9, I'd be interested in hearing from any folks who have cropped in this way (or any other way) with both an M8 and M9 to determine whether the M9 exhibits noticeably better file quality better and, if so, at what size print does this difference generally become apparent. I realize there are a lot of variables here, but a general sense would be helpful."

 

I will not leave the subject of this thread, but my impression after the trip I made ​​last year in Vietnam and Laos, as is globally the M8 as back up, saved me sometimes situations that I can not do with the M9 as some landscapes or pictures of flower, and when cropping I do not see any difference

In other words I have very well done to have an M8 as back up for this long travel (12.000 Kms and 12 hours flight)

Best

Henry

[Jeff S]

Not sure I follow, Henry. What situations wouldn't be suitable for the M9 that would be suitable for the M8?

 

I'm very satisfied with my M8.2 pics, as I've said often on the forum. Enough so that I bought a second one in lieu of migrating to the M9. I therefore have no doubt that an M8 (or 8.2) would serve more than adequately as M9 back-up. My question, I guess, is how large one needs to print (all other things remaining equal, including a steady hand) for the M9 files to hold up better than the M8. Cropping, in effect, simulates print enlargement, assuming one still wants to print at the same size.

 

Jeff

[ErikP]

I had the great pleasure of going on a Safari in 2009... there I used a fullframe and a crop camera to great flexibility and speed.

However the weight of the equipment was about 15 Kg D3 D2Xs 500/4 300/2.8 70-200/2.8 24-70/2.8 14-24/2.8 16/2.8 8/2.8 TC's tripod & monopod....

Borrowed D3x 600/4 200-400/4

We are in the range finder forum here, yes of course you can use two M8 or M9 with theri tiny lenses to great use...

But not really needed, you can get by with doing some cropping and stitching IMHO

M8 10.3 MP is a lot of data, the first real DSLR I had was D1 2.7 MP enough for a poster sized print here at work...

 

Have a few enlargement in A3 size from my D1. Love them.

[jaapv]

Not sure I follow, Henry. What situations wouldn't be suitable for the M9 that would be suitable for the M8?

 

I'm very satisfied with my M8.2 pics, as I've said often on the forum. Enough so that I bought a second one in lieu of migrating to the M9. I therefore have no doubt that an M8 (or 8.2) would serve more than adequately as M9 back-up. My question, I guess, is how large one needs to print (all other things remaining equal, including a steady hand) for the M9 files to hold up better than the M8. Cropping, in effect, simulates print enlargement, assuming one still wants to print at the same size.

 

Jeff

 

It is not so much print size. The difference shows up in three things

Obviously more cropping leeway

Better colour and contrast transitions and less visible noise (all due to less magnification)

The files are more torture-proof in postprocessing

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is not so much print size. The difference shows up in three things

Obviously more cropping leeway...(snip)

 

But isn't ability to crop a proxy for ability to print larger? In other words, let's say I crop in PP on an M8 (say 25% of the image, just for argument sake, not that I'm likely to this), then print the remainder at A2 or A3.

 

Given the "cropping leeway" as you call it on the M9, wouldn't cropping 25% on the M9 (after using a longer lens, or moving closer, to achieve the same or similar M8 image) allow one to print larger at some point beyond the general IQ capabilities of the M8?

 

I understand your point about color and transitions, regardless of print size, but I'm trying to focus on the cropping/print size aspect. Maybe there's a better way to frame my question...just don't know how.

 

Jeff

[Erik Gunst Lund]

We did A0 prints from the D1 it was/ is 2.6 MP everybody loved them. If you got the exposure and light right. There where no room for error.

You can make huge posters from M8 and M9 for the really big posters its about knowing how to do the RAW file in the camera, PP and the printing, choosing the paper or fabric etc.

[Jeff S]

You can make huge posters from M8 and M9 for the really big posters its about knowing how to do the RAW file in the camera, PP and the printing, choosing the paper or fabric etc.

 

And I guess if I stood across the room to view them, I wouldn't notice the difference.

 

I'm quite adept at PP and dealing with all the issues relating to print quality. Prints have always been my end product, just as in my darkroom days. But I have no need to print 'huge posters' from my M8.2; nor would I consider the resultant IQ acceptable (to me) for exhibition. I have never liked huge prints anyway, preferring to stand closer to see the entire geometry of an image.

 

Again, my question is more academic and relates to the M8 versus the M9, i.e., whether, all other things remaining equal (including 'perfect' knowledge and PP execution), there is some point (size-wise or cropping and enlargement-wise) at which the M8 breaks down in general IQ, whereas the M9 does not. Simply, do bigger files allow bigger prints and, if so, at what point?

 

Jeff

[Erik Gunst Lund]

Jaap stated that very well above...

 

The sensor sites are more or less equal between M8 and M9 so about the same amount of light gets into the buckets, The Iso is a little better so you can get away with some more PP'ing

If the light is good and exposure is right, there will be little to no difference in pixel to pixel comparisons.

 

Take a 1.5x crop camera and you start to see a difference.

 

All of the above is lost if you don't have good lenses and a steady hand...

[Jeff S]

But Jaap also said that there is more cropping leeway. And until someone explains it differently to me, this is analogous to allowing for larger prints of similar image areas.

 

Jeff

[menos I M6]

But Jaap also said that there is more cropping leeway. And until someone explains it differently to me, this is analogous to allowing for larger prints of similar image areas.

 

Jeff

 

No, it does not unfortunately.

 

The old M8 sensor and the M9 sensor indeed differ in sharpness output on pixel level (seen in 100% view on screen).

 

In theory, as often recited, the M9 sensor has the same pixel pitch and after cropping it's images to the same size as M8 sensor images, one should see no difference between them.

 

This is not the case.

 

M8 images do have a slight edge in sharpness. M9 images do provide much better high ISO performance and better tonality from what I see.

 

I use the M8.2 and M9 for shooting motor sports with a 135mm lens.

Many shots have to be cropped as of the limited reach.

 

M8.2 photographs have a better acuity. I won't sell my M8.2 body any time soon - it is a nice optional body with it's own characteristics and strengths over a M9.

It is not a lesser body to the M9, although many people make it sound like that.

[Doc Henry]

As said Jaap and according to tests done in september 2009,

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/98684-m9-versus-m8-1-tests.html

I found that in some difficult situations (in underexposure)

and if you do not set the ISO correctly, I missed pictures with the M9.

Fortunately I had brought the M8.1 for this wedding

Best

Henry

PS: I'll show you some examples

[lct]

...M8.2 photographs have a better acuity...

Non-placebo effect?

[menos I M6]

Non-placebo effect?

 

No.

[jaapv]

And the reason is....<drumroll>.... A thicker IR filter on the M9.

[Jeff S]

 

and after cropping it's images to the same size as M8 sensor images

 

This is the operative phrase for me. I didn't express it well, but I was asking whether the M9 could allow for a bigger size of the cropped portion than the equivalent M8 image, not the same size. I guess you're all telling me no.

 

I always thought a benefit to a higher resolution camera was the ability to print bigger without IQ deterioration. From your explanation, it sounds like the extra pixels (from the bigger M9 sensor compared to the M8) only serve to shoot with a bigger FOV at similar IQ (apart from differences you mention), not to print the same scene bigger. Is that the correct conclusion?

 

If that's the case, I've been thinking about it wrong (not a first for sure), and have one less reason to migrate to the M9...especially since I don't shoot using very wide angles.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

No - if you shoot the M9 you can print twice the area of the M8 or crop it down to make the image size identical.

[Jeff S]

No - if you shoot the M9 you can print twice the area of the M8 or crop it down to make the image size identical.

 

So, just to be sure, Jaap, my conclusion in post #32 is correct?

 

Thanks for you clarifications.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[menos I M6]

This is the operative phrase for me. I didn't express it well, but I was asking whether the M9 could allow for a bigger size of the cropped portion than the equivalent M8 image, not the same size. I guess you're all telling me no.

 

I always thought a benefit to a higher resolution camera was the ability to print bigger without IQ deterioration. From your explanation, it sounds like the extra pixels (from the bigger M9 sensor compared to the M8) only serve to shoot with a bigger FOV at similar IQ (apart from differences you mention), not to print the same scene bigger. Is that the correct conclusion?

 

If that's the case, I've been thinking about it wrong (not a first for sure), and have one less reason to migrate to the M9...especially since I don't shoot using very wide angles.

 

Jeff

 

My experience with this (printing motor sports crops from either camera) is, that the M9 sensor is inferior, when it comes to print sharpness, compared to the M8 output at same crop size.

 

This is a strong statement, please don't feel attached just by that alone!

The M9 sensor (and some handling improvements of the camera) even this one issue easily out for me.

 

I held out with buying a M9 for a very long time. I was prepared, to make the M9 my first digital Leica, back then, when it was introduced, but insanity and greed of dealers in Asia have prevented me to do so.

I then made up my two major arguments against getting a M9 after I started to use a M8.2 instead:

 

- the M9's pixel pitch, being the same as the M8 sensor's will not improve on resolution for motor sports application (at that time, I assumed, that otherwise, acuity would be identical or better due to imaging improvements with the M9 - I didn't expect the M9 files being actually inferior in this specific regard)

 

- I didn't prefer wide angle lenses, an effective 35mm FOV being my widest, often used view, so I never was very hot about the new possibilities with the M9 - I had wide with my film bodies, when wanted anyway

 

The only one point, why I have finally fallen for a M9 - and this is in fact the only one point - is it's much better file quality in low light, which happens, to be my preferred light.

The M9 just shines, where files of the M8 sensor started to complicate things.

 

See a 2:30min slideshow here on Youtube, of what I usually do:

 

The M9 finally allows me, to get one step closer to the excellent performance of pushed B&W film in low light (my preferred film is TriX400 @ ISO3200 in D-76 1:1).