Why choose M9 over M8?

[Marignac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I ask those of you, who know and have operated BOTH bodies:

 

I am shooting with M8 currently (CV 21/4, Cron 35/2 and Cron 50/2, tele to be added). There is an offer for a M9 at a difference in price to what I can expect to get from my M8 of about 2.500 EUR/3,200 USD. For that price I can buy two desired lenses; Elmarit 28/2.8 and Summicron 75/2.5.

 

What should I prefer to do? Is the difference in money worth being spent for that body or do I prefer the lenses?

 

What do I get for the difference? Better ISO at about 2/3 stops? Better DOF? Softer and more reliable shutter (in terms of less blurr)? What else?

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Lenses that perform as they were designed?

[brianv]

I own and use both.

 

The M9 seems to have closer to 1.5 stops advantage over my late production M8.

 

You do not need to use IR filters.

 

Manual lens entry- a great advantage if you use lots of old lenses like I do.

 

Uncompressed, 16-bit per sample, raw data files. The M9 also offers compressed DNG as the M8 uses. For low-light, highi-ISO shots- the 16-bit uncompressed seems to offer an advantage.

 

And- it is full frame.

 

To me it was worth the purchase.

[haroldp]

I am shooting with M8 currently (CV 21/4, Cron 35/2 and Cron 50/2, tele to be added).

 

The M9 basically contains an M8 inside it surrounded by more sensor, so:

 

Your 21 is a real 21 on the m9, on the m8 it is a 28, 28s are cheaper than 21's

 

Your 35 cron on the M9 will have the FOV of a 28 on the M8, but at 18 mp. so you have the FOV equivalent of a 35 cron at 10 mp on the M8, and a 28 cron at 18 mp.

 

Your 50 on the M8 looks like a 65 would on the M9, so you can get the full coverage of a 50, or crop to 65 which the m8 does for you without any choice.

 

Other differences are well covered by other posters but this is a no-brainer.

 

I am not opposed to smaller sensors, but they only make sense if accompanied by lenses designed for them, of which Leica has none.

 

I still keep and use an M8 in addition to M9 but as a backup, and with longer (90mm) lenses where I know I would be cropping anyway. I would not even consider an M8 instead of an M9.

 

Regards ... H

[StephenPatterson]

If you find your CV 21 is wide enough, or even wider than you like, then I would not upgrade. Taking advantage of the full frame sensor with ultra wide angle lenses was the single most important reason I traded my M8.2 for my M9-P.

[haroldp]

If you find your CV 21 is wide enough, or even wider than you like, then I would not upgrade. Taking advantage of the full frame sensor with ultra wide angle lenses was the single most important reason I traded my M8.2 for my M9-P.

 

The poster stated he is planning to buy a 28 elmarit for his m8. His existing 35 cron has the FOV of a 28 on the m9, it is an f2 instead of 2.8 and the 35 cron is a spectacular lens. 18 mp at that FOV instead of 10.3 and better ISO performance. He has already stated a desire for wider FOV coverage.

 

... H

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ok, I'll be the contrarian...again. I owned a M8.2, tried the M9, and bought another M8.2 instead (price was not the issue). This works for me; maybe not for others, depending on needs and preferences. I bought the second M8.2 (used mint) for $3400, close to the price you cite.

 

Let me start by saying that I don't care about using UV/IR filters since I used color filters on film Ms for years....UV/IR filters are even easier...put them on once and that's it. Second, the crop is of no concern...after shooting every format from 35mm to 8x10, I readily adapt to the framing of the camera used.

 

Here's what I like better on the M8.2...

 

• 2 m framelines...best on any M I've used over 3 decades
   
  
• Top LCD
   
  
• IR filtering is better and files are somewhat crisper out of the camera compared to using the M9, which uses a somewhat less effective internal rather than external filter
   
  
• I prefer the files from the M8.2 for b/w processing
   
  
• I prefer shooting with my 28/50 combo better than the equivalent FOV 35/75 combo on an M9....never liked the 75 frame lines...and the 28 Summicron asph and 50 Summilux asph are favorite lenses (It's true the lenses were designed for FF, but another way to look at it is that the crop uses the 'sweet spot' on that fine glass)
   
  
• I prefer the sapphire screen and chrome finish (at no additional cost like the M9-P)
   
  
• The M8.2 is a well sorted, very reliable camera, without buffer issues, SD card issues, red edges and other M9 teething problems.
  

I should note a few things about my shooting style (that may not apply to you or others) that don't use the admitted benefits of the M9. First, I don't print big enough to see practical differences, and I try to maximize every possible aspect of the print workflow to ensure I'm getting the best possible prints from the M8.2. Second, I don't shoot super wide, so the crop factor is no disadvantage there. I also don't shoot high ISO with an M (ASA 400 suited fine for a few decades).

 

Both these cameras are fantastic, though, and I could certainly use an M9 to great effect. But the point is that I don't really need it for my shooting style and preferences. YMMV.

 

Jeff

[Jamie Roberts]

No green streak errors in the M9; no IR filters; full-frame-ness of the lenses.

[StephenPatterson]

The poster stated he is planning to buy a 28 elmarit for his m8. His existing 35 cron has the FOV of a 28 on the m9, it is an f2 instead of 2.8 and the 35 cron is a spectacular lens. 18 mp at that FOV instead of 10.3 and better ISO performance. He has already stated a desire for wider FOV coverage.

 

... H

 

Actually the OP did not state a desire for wider FOV coverage, which is why I was asking the question. If his 21 (28mm equivalent on the M9) is wide enough then the M8 is an extremely viable alternative to the M9.

[Marignac]

Well, so far I'm quite happy with my M8 and I like to invest rather in lenses than in bodies - for obvious reasons. A body is just a means of carrying the lenses, isn't it?

 

So I'd rather go with lenses. There are just 2.5 points that bug me with M8:

 

1) The shutter that is very loud and seems to make me blur images either for realy physical impact or for psychic impact (in that I'm more alert than I ought to be.). Though I like 1/8000 and do have quite a number of images shot at 1/6000 or 1/8000. Hey, that's why I have Leica lenses, don't I?

 

2) No more than 640 ISO feasible. The other day I was shooting at a fest and the light was good for 1/30-1/60, f2-f2.8 and ISO 320-640. Many a blur...

 

3) DOF is a bit better on FF than on Crop.

 

The second point is the critcal point and I wonder if a faster lens had saved me there. But which one? A 35 Lux on a cop camera is not what had been the design intention. A 50/1.4 is too long a focal length. The only lens I'd be really interested at that point would be Voigtlander Nokton 1.2 of which I have seen many, many excellent images on the web. However this will not be a general purpose lens for its size and weight. Plus I don't like the idea of getting a poorly calibrated lens - where will I find someone to fix that?

 

Other than that I'm interested in Summarit/Elamrit asph lenses for their IQ. I'm after the 28/2.8 asph not for its angle - I don't need ultra wide angles, I go for moderate ones - but for its 3-D and its crisp character. Same true for the Summarit 75.

 

All this, it seems, embodies just the one M9 + 50/1.4 Lux: fast, handy, 3-D & crisp image.

 

So one camera + one lens contra a camera with a bunch of lenses?

[AbbeyFoto]

I think you are right to focus on lenses first before you move over. Make sure you have the glass you need to maintain your style if/when you get a M9. I think the M8 is a sound camera (I have a M8.2). Moving to a M9 will require different filters (UV not UV/IR), lack of crop and a better interface. Can you afford both? Might be best, at least in the short run.

[albygentle]

I chose a M8.2 over an M9 for similar reasons to those Jeff noted.

 

A 35 FLE is my lens and it is quite the set up. I am very satisfied with this, and I never really felt the need for a M9 or M9P.

 

I took into consideration that a lenses are the better investment. The bodies will loose value eventually. If i really need to upgrade later on, I will.

I rather get more lenses.

 

That said, If you get a 50 Lux ASPH and M9, It would certainly be a good pair.

 

As long as you are taking beautiful images...it doesn't really matter what you use. Both are amazing cameras.

[StephenPatterson]

 

2) No more than 640 ISO feasible. The other day I was shooting at a fest and the light was good for 1/30-1/60, f2-f2.8 and ISO 320-640. Many a blur...

 

 

The ISO performance of the M9 is slightly better than the M8, but not a huge difference. The KAF18500 sensor in the M9 has the exact same pixel size and density as the M8's sensor, only in a larger size of 24x36mm and with UV/IR cover glass.

[swamiji]

I choose a M9 over a M8 to stop the headaches. I shoot often with a M7, and switching between a M8 and M7, caused me much stress, as my ability to pre-visualize was compromised because of the cropped sensor. When I changed to the M9, all that ended, as now I live in a harmonious FF world. Yes, I found that the M9 has about 1.5 stops more usable ISO performance.

[Paulus]

I choose a M9 over a M8 to stop the headaches. I shoot often with a M7, and switching between a M8 and M7, caused me much stress, as my ability to pre-visualize was compromised because of the cropped sensor. When I changed to the M9, all that ended, as now I live in a harmonious FF world. Yes, I found that the M9 has about 1.5 stops more usable ISO performance.

 

That was my reason too. I never regretted the decision to trade my M8 for an M9. I never like using the 1,4 /50 asph on my M8 and I sure like it on my M9.

 

It felt like coming home. And about lenses: Just wait a while and you can buy the ext one!

[Paulus]

To me at least - I use both cameras:-

 

M8.2 is slightly sharper and B&W is better.

 

M9 Full frame and better colour.

 

Both are great cameras and you won't go wrong with either of them. Get the M8.2 though before the original M8 for the quieter shutter and the non scratch screen.

 

ISO performance to me is not important as it's great at 400 on both cameras and I never shoot above that.

 

I read on the Leica.com page that the upgrade for an M8.2 no longer available is. So if you want an quieter shutter, you have to buy a used M8.2 or a M9.

[Jeff S]

So if you want an quieter shutter, you have to buy a used M8.2 or a M9.

 

Or find an M8 that has the shutter upgrade. The upgrade program offered 3 changes (shutter, frame lines and sapphire screen), either separate or together. (The shutter upgrade negates the 1/8000 speed.) The M8.2 of course has all of these and a few other differences.

 

As an aside, the issue with shutter noise IMO doesn't have anything to do with the shutter, but rather with the motor advance, which even in discreet mode eventually has to be released. This is the key distinction between the shutter sound in film versus digital Ms.

 

Jeff

[lct]

...I'm interested in Summarit/Elamrit asph lenses for their IQ. I'm after the 28/2.8 asph not for its angle - I don't need ultra wide angles, I go for moderate ones...

28 is more or less like a 35 FoV wise on M8/M8.2. Is it wide enough for you? If so you don't need a full frame camera right now. With crop cams you'll get the best part of your lenses anyway. But if you need a small f/2.8 or faster lens to get 28mm FoV, you won't find one for M8/M8.2.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[nugat]

in my case because of elmarit 21/2.8 and CV 15/4. on the other hand I put the hexanon 60/1.2 on my M8. Summilux 35/1.4 goes on both.

[wda]

Slightly higher image quality and less confusing framing.