Moving from M8 to M9

[MarkN]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The best method I've found for removing a stuck filter is to press the filter flat against a rubber surface, such as the sole of a shoe, and turn the lens. The turning force will be distributed around the entire rim of the filter, which should loosen it much more easily.

 

Pete.

 

Thanks! I just tried that but no luck.

[k_g_wolf ✝]

Put the lens, filter down, on a frozen steak and allow it to rest there for 10 seconds

or so. Then try to turn it off.

 

If it doesn´t work, back on the steak again and take off your shoes ...If it still

doesn´t work, you might have to sell the M9.

 

Good luck.

 

 

best

GEORG

[Advertisement]

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

[MarkN]

Thanks. I tried that too, but still no luck.

[farnz]

Thanks. I tried that too, but still no luck.

Sorry to hear that and I don't know what else to offer because I've always managed to remove filters with the above method. (When you're using the 'filter flat against the rubber surface' method you need to press the lens down with some force so that the rubber grips the filter and twist the lens firmly but I expect you've already done that.)

 

... I see a few of your are keeping the IR cut filters on - how does that affect the image on the M9?

I would only expect there to be a problem when shooting into the light or with point light sources in the frame because rays reflecting off the front lens element may reflect off the rear of the filter and onto the sensor and show up as flare. You may prefer the look of in-camera b&w jpeg conversions where UV and IR rays have been removed; I know some owners who do.

 

Pete.

[wattsy]

I recently bought an ex-demo M8.2 (as a colour back-up to my M9-P) and took it for a spin yesterday. I enjoyed being reunited with the cropped 35mm focal length – there is something about it that just seems right to me for "RF type" photography – but I was struck by two things that I had obviously forgotten about since buying an M9 in October 2009. The first is the shutter release. It seems I must have become entirely used to the 'soft' mode introduced with the M9 and the M8 release seemed unresponsive by comparison (I initially found myself not pressing it in far enough and wondering why the camera was not taking the shot). The second thing that took me by surprise was how long the preview takes to appear. I shoot entirely in manual mode and I like to sneak a peek at a preview now and again to check my exposure. The M9 (which everyone complains about) seems like lightning in comparison. All said, the M8 is still a very fine camera, one that I'd be perfectly happy to use if (hypothetically) somebody took away my newer M bodies.

[Jeff S]

Yup, love the M8.2, but I'm looking forward to trying the improved shutter release on the new M. But I never had an issue with speed of previews...DNG only?

 

Jeff

[Guest JMF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks. I tried that too, but still no luck.

 

I use a piece of bicycle inner tube, it's safe with a good grip , just like Pete said :" flat against a rubber surface" !

[MarkN]

Sorry to hear that and I don't know what else to offer because I've always managed to remove filters with the above method. (When you're using the 'filter flat against the rubber surface' method you need to press the lens down with some force so that the rubber grips the filter and twist the lens firmly but I expect you've already done that.)

 

I use a piece of bicycle inner tube, it's safe with a good grip , just like Pete said :" flat against a rubber surface" !

 

I took it to Leica Mayfair today and they couldn't get it off either. They sent me to London Camera Exchange where they had some big long piece of rubber around it and couldn't it off!

[k_g_wolf ✝]

My conspicion: perhaps the previous owner was fed up with loosing filters and had loctite the thing.

 

Get a wrench, ruin your filter forcing it off (or tell a repairperson to do it

for you) by taking A LOT of care of the lensbarrel and buy a new one.

 

Since many M8-owners jump on the M9-MM-M- offers there should be plenty

of them around - filters, not lenses - for small money ...

 

Good luck and

Regards

 

GEORG

[MarkN]

My conspicion: perhaps the previous owner was fed up with loosing filters and had loctite the thing.

 

 

I put the filter on!

 

I decided to just leave it as it is. But then when I was cleaning it, I noticed the glass is moving about now.

[don_panko]

Try some gentle heat using a lighter to expand the metal of the lens barrel where the filter is screwed in. It should release. Keep a couple of pieces of rubber inner tube close by for grip and insulation. You will need to apply force while it is still hot.

[jaapv]

I put the filter on!

 

I decided to just leave it as it is. But then when I was cleaning it, I noticed the glass is moving about now.

That is normal. It must have some play for thermal expansion.

 

To remove cut two small slots in the rim of the filter @ 180 degrees and use a dual screwdriver type spanner to turn.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited May 3, 2013 by jaapv

[tobey bilek]

Brass filters do not stick as easily as aluminum rimmed ones.

 

Never tighten. A wee dab of silicone pasted from the plumbing aisle will grease things up.

Wee dap is trace, minute, as little as you can apply etc.

 

Put a fat rubber band around the filter, apply a tie wrap .

 

Certain lenses have front optical cells that come loose, so be careful. If the tie wrap does not work with moderate twist, then you have to cut it off

[NJH]

I have a question for those who have moved from M8 to the M9. Do you tend to downsample on the computer to benefit from the supposed 2/3 or so EV gain in noise/DR?

 

In other words if one looks at the dxomark graphs there is practically no difference at the pixel level which is why I feel many report no real improvement apart from having more resolution for big prints. Or are the people reporting this lack of a leap in performance comparing images at the same output size, such as dxomark do in their 8MP graphs which is what they show by default?

[Jeff S]

In other words if one looks at the dxomark graphs there is practically no difference at the pixel level which is why I feel many report no real improvement apart from having more resolution for big prints.

 

It's the same sensor, same pixel density, only bigger.

 

The weaker internal IR filtration on the M8, however, provides for a somewhat crisper out-of-camera result, which I prefer for b/w.

 

Since I don't print huge, nor use super wide lenses, I prefer the M8.2.

 

Jeff

[NJH]

Well this is my thinking likewise. When I look at images 100% in ACR every pixel on my computer is full of crisp detail. Since I can't afford the huge price associated with huge prints I really don't need more resolution but greater dynamic range and much lower noise yes please. Lighten up the shadows and it gets pretty noisy very quickly even at base ISO, its actually as bad as the old Olympus and Panasonic m4/3 sensors just without the horrific banding my E3 had.

 

I guess my perfect Leica rangefinder is a camera which doesn't exist. It would have dynamic range and low noise like current generation FF sensors, a fast internal processor but otherwise no more pixels or other features than the M8. I will pray tonight that this new mini M is in fact an M8.3 using a 1.3x cropped M240 sensor in the M8.2 body. I will keep saying this prayer every night until the 11th. One can but dream, lol.

[Jeff S]

. I will pray tonight that this new mini M is in fact an M8.3 using a 1.3x cropped M240 sensor in the M8.2 body. I will keep saying this prayer every night until the 11th. One can but dream, lol.

 

The M8.2 and M240 are almost identical in size; your dream of different output or features is understood, but the 'mini' part is missing as long as the RF remains.

 

Jeff

[NJH]

Oh I am fairly sure its an unlikely dream, the digilux 2 remake seems most plausible.

 

I learned something new and interesting for me earlier playing with an image in ACR. Previously I had lifted the shadows a very long way (probably was 100%) on an image already pushed a bit resulting in really bad blotchy colour noise in the darkest areas. Well I got rid of much of that noise by adjusting the black level as a lot of it was in areas I could do without seeing detail in anyway. Really pleased with the end result but all in it says to me I just can't see the point in upgrading unless the jump in performance is a very big one and thus far I am not convinced the M9 represents that kind of improvement.

 

I was convinced before that I needed full frame to get the 35mm focal lengths but now I have had my M8 a little while I am not at all convinced by that argument. For starters the cheaper CV lenses seem to work really well on the M8 and might not be so great on the M9 leading to yet more cost.

[lct]

...I will pray tonight that this new mini M is in fact an M8.3 using a 1.3x cropped M240 sensor in the M8.2 body...

Or in a smaller one a la Leica CL. My dream as well, even in APS-C format. Optical rangefinders are too expensive though but i would be glad to be proven wrong on that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[plewislambert]

" relative to focus does the larger sensor and presumably shallower depth of field on the M9 make focusing any more difficult? "

Depth of field is unlikely to be affected by the change from M8 to M9 for a given lens.

It is determined by the focal length and aperture in use and the degree of enlargement.

Presumably you have to magnify the M9 images less than you did the M8 images to get the same print size; you should on this basis see more depth of field.

Philip:)