M9, I have a problem

[fotolebrocq]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have you tried printing the images from the M9??

.

 

Sure - I print M9 files on Canson Baryta (Canon 9500 mkll) and I am very pleased with the reults. The M6 prints also look OK printed the same way but they lack the bite and fine detail. It may be me I don't know. I just think the M9 is better (or maybe just different)

 

Tony

[Advertisement]

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

[jpattison]

Tony,

I suggest you try B&W film, and print your own....

 

You will love your M6 again!

 

John

[Jeff S]

I just noticed this thread. If it weren't serious, it would be a perfect parody on the state of much forum conversation, where people won't try anything for themselves anymore, content to ask the rest of the world what they like and what the OP should do or like.

 

The guy owns and M9 and and an M8, but goes on the forum to ask how they compare? Please tell me it's a joke so I can restore some faith.

 

Jeff

[NB23]

I just noticed this thread. If it weren't serious, it would be a perfect parody on the state of much forum conversation, where people won't try anything for themselves anymore, content to ask the rest of the world what they like and what the OP should do or like.

 

The guy owns and M9 and and an M8, but goes on the forum to ask how they compare? Please tell me it's a joke so I can restore some faith.

 

Jeff

 

No Joke. But I totally agree, it's quite pathetic. It's the digital age that's a Joke, if you ask me, though. But a NECESSARY Joke.

 

All the Pixel peeping, the "sharpness" talk and all this thing happening around a computer screen on a desk has got me so tired. Endless files, endless file names that mean nothing. It's all unreal and it's all happening in the unreal cyber-world.

 

But this is really not a digital Versus film thread. I somewhat can't stand the action of testing two cameras on a tripod, taking the Card out, then loading it, then the obligatory peeping where one has to sound really professional about it all. Words like "fingerprint", "micro-contrast", "100% crop"... do not belong into my head.

 

But my question is valid: Is the M9 all that superior compared to the M8 besides the FF sensor? I repeat myself: I don't feel like using them, and even less testing them.

Edited February 17, 2012 by NB23

[cocker]

No Joke. But I totally agree, it's quite pathetic. It's the digital age that's a Joke, if you ask me, though. But a NECESSARY Joke.

 

All the Pixel peeping, the "sharpness" talk and all this thing happening around a computer screen on a desk has got me so tired. Endless files, endless file names that mean nothing. It's all unreal and it's all happening in the unreal cyber-world.

 

 

But my question is valid: Is the M9 all that superior compared to the M8 besides the FF sensor?

 

Absolutely agree. Digital this that and the other is presented as progress but it's just change. As for your question I had a M8 and and an M8.u and now I have a M9 and I'm delighted to say ALL OF THEM took great pictures. And before anyone asks the question why did I buy the M8.u or the M9 - because I could !

[Bill W]

I think my first 5 shots with my M9 were pretty poor. But now that I have been using it regularly I am amazed at the quality of images it can produce including landscapes with a 3D effect. I still produce my fair share of duds of course but that is down to me not the camera.

And with my M9 I can see my duds right away and they do not make it home. I hated waiting for my film to be processed and then see the duds. I have a garbage can full of dud slides.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No Joke. But I totally agree, it's quite pathetic. It's the digital age that's a Joke, if you ask me, though. But a NECESSARY Joke.

 

All the Pixel peeping, the "sharpness" talk and all this thing happening around a computer screen on a desk has got me so tired. Endless files, endless file names that mean nothing. It's all unreal and it's all happening in the unreal cyber-world.

 

But this is really not a digital Versus film thread. I somewhat can't stand the action of testing two cameras on a tripod, taking the Card out, then loading it, then the obligatory peeping where one has to sound really professional about it all. Words like "fingerprint", "micro-contrast", "100% crop"... do not belong into my head.

 

But my question is valid: Is the M9 all that superior compared to the M8 besides the FF sensor? I repeat myself: I don't feel like using them, and even less testing them.

 

Thanks for responding to my post, which admittedly was harsh, albeit warranted.

 

I, too, am not interested in a digital/film debate, but I will briefly say that we see things very differently. To me, it's still all about the pictures and the print. The rest is merely the tools. My picture taking process is essentially the same in the digital world as it was for 40 years with film and darkroom; having a disciplined workflow is a common element. I shoot just as methodically, with the print still my only goal.

 

I don't think in terms of 'crop'. After years using every film format from 35mm to 8x10, the M8 (sensor) size is just another one of many formats. It becomes second nature after using the camera and lens for a short period. I don't think about a crop; I think about the picture that I see in my VF...period.

 

And if I were testing two cameras, I'd never put them on tripods for some technical exercise. I would merely use them as they're meant to be used...out taking pictures. Oh, and I have compared the M8.2 to the M9, and as I've discussed elsewhere on the forum, I decided to get a second M8.2 rather than an M9 (even though I could have afforded a pair of the latter instead). I see little benefit to the M9 for my prints sizes, and since I don't shoot ultra-wide, nor at high ISO (400 ASA suited for years), I wouldn't benefit from the M9 as others might. Plus I like my current lens arsenal on the M8.2 better than the alternate selection that I would have to use to achieve a similar FOV on the FF camera. And having filters on my lenses is no different than in my film days. Finally, the 2m frame lines on the M8.2 are the best I've used on any M...ever.

 

Others have different needs and preferences, which have no bearing on mine.

 

Jeff

Edited February 18, 2012 by Jeff S

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

But my question is valid: Is the M9 all that superior compared to the M8 besides the FF sensor? I repeat myself: I don't feel like using them, and even less testing them.

 

Yes, IMO the M9 is the superior camera to the M8 in every important aspect I can think of:

 

• the 75mm framelines don't suck (as much)
  
• no IR filters on the lenses (so no flare artefacts)
  
• an extra stop or a bit more of ISO for the same noise level
  
• quieter shutter than the original M8
  
• no extraordianry edge-light defects. This alone makes it a much better image maker
  
• and yes, more resolution. Not a little more; almost twice as much. Makes a difference in wide angle prints with detail.
  

[Jeff S]

Yes, IMO the M9 is the superior camera to the M8 in every important aspect I can think of:

 

Perfect counterpart to my post above, Jamie. These are aspects important to you. Not one of them affects or concerns me based on my needs and preferences (as described).

 

Different strokes...

 

Jeff

[NB23]

Yes, it seems the M9 is a real M after the very quirky M8 that I've acustomed to... And it wasn't easy. Inaccurate framelines, somewhat weird framelines (too thick, too large, too broken) and a pathetic 50, 75 and 90mm interface. And those UVIR filters!

 

I decided I'd use the M8 strictly with a 28, 24 and 21mm and compose really loosely and snapshoot away. This kind of approach made me like the camera. But never, I repeat, I will never use the M8 as an accurate device: way too unpredictable.

 

I guess the M9 is finally a real M in the same way my MPs are: accurate and reliable, seamless.

 

Now I just hope my M9 doesn't have a cracked sensor. Most of all I hope I din't purchase it with a cracked sensor. This is totally me.

 

My 2012 season will be hectic and I plan at least 100k clicks until october on this camera alone... I hope it lives up.

[hhanebeck]

Yes, it seems the M9 is a real M after the very quirky M8 that I've acustomed to...

 

To me the M8 is no less a Leica M than the M9 or any other body. Of course, it has its drawbacks, filters, sensor size and such, but it also has strengths that other M bodies do not possess. I use mine for B&W digital exclusively these days and happily leave the UV/IR filters off.

 

The M9 is much sharper (obviously) and renders images from the Nocti or 35 Lux like no other M body does, but that does not always lead to the best results. When you want images that are closer to film Ms, than the M8 is, IMHO, better suited. I can see that you use your M8 very well for weddings where you want to convey strong emotions and moods.

 

You'll probably come to appreciate your M9 just as much as your M8 once you take it out. It took me a few days to extract viable results as others have stated here as well. However, I am truly glad that I have both by now and would not want to trade either of them.

 

Cheers, Chris

[Jeff S]

 

The M9 is much sharper (obviously)

 

Define sharper. The M9 files are actually subject to more in-camera filtration; the pixel density is the same; and I bet you couldn't distinguish A2 or A3 prints side-by-side.

 

There are many variables to take into account. Here is one older discussion. Your saying it's "obvious" is anything but in many circumstances.

 

Jeff

[Double Negative]

The M8 is just as sharp as the M9; in fact it might even be a little sharper due to the thinner IR filter (which is why Leica went that route in the first place). But in the end, I doubt you could really tell the difference. They're both excellent.