Handled M9 today...reinforced decision to stick with M8.2

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So instead of using a 28mm lens on the M8 to achieve your desired FOV you could use the 35mm on the M9

The OP prefers the 28/2 if i understand well. There is room for both FF and crop cameras anyway. Aside from brightness, i much prefer the 35mm framelines of my M8.2 to the 50mm ones of my M240 for instance. And what a pleasure to use the MATE on APS-C cameras in good light.

[DigitalHeMan]

I assume you realise this is a thread from 2009?

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Wouldn't the crop lines on the M8 of a 28mm lens be almost in the same place as an M9 with a 35mm?

 

So instead of using a 28mm lens on the M8 to achieve your desired FOV you could use the 35mm on the M9.

 

No?

 

You're responding to a post that's over 5 years old. I think I explained all the reasons I stuck with the M8.2. Until last year, that is, when I bought the M240, which is better than my M8.2 in most respects (except sapphire screen, top display and frame preview lever). And, yes, I now use my 35 Summicron more than my 28 Summicron. But I still slightly prefer the rendering of the latter (it most often resides on my M8.2, which is now a back-up) .

 

The M240, btw, retains the 2m frame line of the M8.2….much better than the M9 frame lines, which are optimized for only 1m.

 

And, given the M9 sensor corrosion issues, my decision to skip that model is looking even better.

 

Jeff

Edited December 13, 2014 by Jeff S

[Photoskeptic]

Jeff, I had a similar reaction when I bought an M9-P, so I sold it on. I will probably pick up an M early next year but only for the resolution for travel landscapes, I'll keep the 8.2 for street.

[Jeff S]

. I will probably pick up an M early next year but only for the resolution for travel landscapes, I'll keep the 8.2 for street.

 

You may change your mind about 'traditional' M use. I find it to be a much better all-around RF camera…better shutter feel, quieter operation, better RF, better battery, bigger buffer, better weather sealing….and better files, including for b/w, without need for filters. I rarely use the other features (LV and video are shut off, although LV can be helpful for lens/camera calibration checks). It reminds me more of my film Ms that I used for decades; it's just a better built and more refined machine. The M8.2 rests.

 

Jeff

[gfspencer]

I assume you realise this is a thread from 2009?

 

I noticed that. Thing is . . . I still think about and wish I had a full frame M but I keep using my M8.

[Photoskeptic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You may change your mind about 'traditional' M use. I find it to be a much better all-around RF camera…better shutter feel, quieter operation, better RF, better battery, bigger buffer, better weather sealing….and better files, including for b/w, without need for filters. I rarely use the other features (LV and video are shut off, although LV can be helpful for lens/camera calibration checks). It reminds me more of my film Ms that I used for decades; it's just a better built and more refined machine. The M8.2 rests.

 

Jeff

Jeff, I've already had a week with the M. Agree with your assessment.

[Jeff S]

Jeff, I've already had a week with the M. Agree with your assessment.

 

I was primarily addressing your comment that you'd reserve the M for 'travel landscapes' and retain the M8.2 'for street', suggesting that your M may become (as did mine) your all-around camera, barring need for back-up. The M qualities are ideally suited for 'street', i.e., as a traditional RF machine.

 

Jeff

[bender73]

I am perfectly content with any Leica M. Right now it is the M8 and M3. Unless I win the lottery, I will be more than happy to be 2 generations behind each new M body Leica releases. LOL

[Jeff S]

I am perfectly content with any Leica M...

 

IQ-wise, I agree…all are really plenty good enough in most instances, along with a disciplined workflow, to make wonderful prints. I think the new M is a cut above other digital Ms in build quality and smoothness/quietness of operation…but those attributes are geared toward user preferences, and are generally irrelevant and invisible to photo/print viewers.

 

Jeff

[david strachan]

IQ-wise, I agree…all are really plenty good enough in most instances, along with a disciplined workflow, to make wonderful prints. I think the new M is a cut above other digital Ms in build quality and smoothness/quietness of operation…but those attributes are geared toward user preferences, and are generally irrelevant and invisible to photo/print viewers.

 

Jeff

 

It might have been Leica’s first digi rangefinder, but it is the best.Uses the sweetest part of the lens (very important) and uses filters to capture the best part of the spectrum.

I carry mine around all day and take about 100 pics a day; often more.It prints well the files are ideal size, and very plastique.The quality of the lens and sensor combination has been previously discussed and compared to the M9…the M8 comes up exemplary.

It’s robust with a very few reports of “coffee stain”…just hope they can keep their other parts available. I’d love a sliver one.

From Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 to Leica Hector 135mm…easy focusing.

 

Sometimes I think about FF, but I have my M6 and good film/scanning for that.

Cheers Dave S

[Jeff S]

It might have been Leica’s first digi rangefinder, but it is the best.

 

Obviously an issue of user preference, not an absolute (many actually prefer using outer edges of Leica lenses for a 'sweet' pic). It was the best for me for 4 years (as dozens of my posts attest…including this one, which I started years ago), until I got the M240 (passing on the M9). I sold one of my 2 M8.2s, and keep the other for back-up. Different strokes….whatever works for you.

 

Jeff

[Lenshacker]

It’s robust with a very few reports of “coffee stain”…just hope they can keep their other parts available. I’d love a sliver one.

From Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 to Leica Hector 135mm…easy focusing.

 

Sometimes I think about FF, but I have my M6 and good film/scanning for that.

Cheers Dave S

 

135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit on the M8. My M8 is chrome...

 

135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit on the Leica M8

[david strachan]

has some scratches and is starting to add a lot of flare - and is $250 to replace. I'm putting that $250 towards the M9.

quote]

 

I use cheap Rocolax filters, they are only a few dollars.

 

cheers Dave S

[DBAUDUI1]

Hello,

I am a happy Leica M8 user since 5 years. I have taken pictures in Greece, France, Belgium, Germany, United Kingdom, Mali, Marocco and USA (Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California) with a lot of success, under very different wheather circumstances. I scarcely print pictures bigger than A3, but have made a few books and the quality of the pictures made is astonishing; people looking at them immediately ask which camera I use.... So far I have preferred to buy and use Leica lenses, both from the latest production and from the years 1960... Its is like for painting, you need different brushes. I use IR/UV leica filter on all my lensens, but the summaron 28mm 5.6. Honestly the images produced are sharp, colourful, and very detailed. I process all the dng files in Lightroom 5. I fear that the Leica M 240 will give me pictures not different or better than the ones from any other CMOS FF camera and that I will loose that special M8 look by upgrading to a Leica M240. What do you think?

Best regards.

Dominique.

[Lenshacker]

The M9 has a different "look" from the M8, the spectral response is different- ie different color dye used in the sensor. The M 240 has a different look, uses different color dye and is CMOS. So- if you love the look of M8 images, the 10MPixel size is fine for you, why get a new camera?

 

This month marks 5 years since I bought my M8. 4 years since the M9, and 2 for the M Monochrom. The M8 gets a lot of use, and is producing better images than ever since using Arvid's "M8RAW2DNG" software to get uncompressed DNG's from it. The amount of details in the shadows is much improved. The monochrome conversions are improved, and the low-light performance to ISO2500 equivalent is almost as good as the M9.

 

Some with High-ISO, can compare with M9 here: