FF -- is THAT worth the upgrade?

[GMB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having read a lot on the net, I came to the conclusion that for me the "only" significant difference between the M8/M8.2 and the M9 is that the latter is full frame and hence allows to make full use of the M lenses. The somewhat better ISO performance and the additional pixels would not be decisive for me.

 

So the question is whether the FF is worth to buy the M9 and take a hit on my M8. What do those who tested and use both cameras think?

[Advertisement]

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

[noah_addis]

If you have to ask the question, then you don't need it. Stick with your M8 and be happy, it is still a wonderful camera.

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

+1. There is only one focal length with an available lens for the M9 that can't be duplicated effectively on an M8, and that is 12mm. And according to my friend who buys everything Leica and thus already has an M9, the 12mm has terrible light-fall-off in the corners, much worse than it did on film. Says he, his 35 Summilux non-ASPH, 4th-version 35 Summicron, and all of his 21mms also show more corner light-fall-off than on film, although it is subtle and he didn't notice it until some of his new-Leica-euphoria had worn off. He can't wait for the M9.2 which he expects will have upgraded microlenses.

[AlanJW]

Speaking purely out of selfish self interest, I am all in favor of all those who are indecisive about the M9 to stick with their M8s. There will be fewer people on the M9 waitlists and fewer used M8s for sale (better price for those of us selling to make the switch). My recommendation, therefore, FWIW, is if you are all hesitant, to wait at least six months and then decide whether the M9 is worth it. In fact if you are on a waitlist now and have any misgivings, by all means please relieve your angst by removing yourself from the list. 8-)

[jamriman]

Speaking purely out of selfish self interest, I am all in favor of all those who are indecisive about the M9 to stick with their M8s. There will be fewer people on the M9 waitlists and fewer used M8s for sale (better price for those of us selling to make the switch). My recommendation, therefore, FWIW, is if you are all hesitant, to wait at least six months and then decide whether the M9 is worth it. In fact if you are on a waitlist now and have any misgivings, by all means please relieve your angst by removing yourself from the list. 8-)

 

Well I am forced to agree with you also for financial reasons ;^)

[chris_tribble]

From the experience of using the M9 over the last three weeks, if having 28mm that really is 28mm without using an external finder matters to you, then the camera's worth it. Larger image size isn't the be all and end all for me, and I like the improved IQ... but for me it's the ability to use the lenses which make really makes the difference.

 

If you've only got a couple of lenses and you're happy with the M8 then it's probably not worth the change...

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

if having 28mm that really is 28mm without using an external finder matters to you, then the camera's worth it.

 

Yup. Worth every penny of $7K American to squint around those framelines with a 28 instead of use a 21 and squint around the entire finder on an M8.

 

If you've only got a couple of lenses and you're happy with the M8 then it's probably not worth the change...

 

Actually that's exactly bass-ackwards. If you have a wide assortment of lenses, especially wides, and especially ultra-wides from CV like the 12 and 15, you're fine with the M8 because chances are you can find one to effectively get you whatever FOV you need. Someone who stuck with just a 28 or 35 and didn't buy a wider lens to regain FOV, might be better off going to an M9 vs buying a new lens especially if they have a fetish for buying only the latest Leica glass, new.

[bybrett]

Having read a lot on the net, I came to the conclusion that for me the "only" significant difference between the M8/M8.2 and the M9 is that the latter is full frame and hence allows to make full use of the M lenses. The somewhat better ISO performance and the additional pixels would not be decisive for me.

 

So the question is whether the FF is worth to buy the M9 and take a hit on my M8. What do those who tested and use both cameras think?

 

Here's another answer to your question... if you want full frame digital, buy M9.

[batmobile]

Yup. Worth every penny of $7K American to squint around those framelines with a 28 instead of use a 21 and squint around the entire finder on an M8. .

 

There's a bit more to it than that:

 

Speed: A 28 1.9/2 is not hard to find. There are not many 21s faster than 2.8 out there. One I believe - the new 1.4 lux. A 28 2.8/3.5 can be tiny. The CV 21 is tiny, but a stop slower and with very erratic QC. The ZM 21 4.5 is small, but now a stop and a half slower.

 

Squinting about the entire finder to try to find the approximate corners for the 21 is not the same for some as working with a defined 28 frame line. Everyones mileage varies on this one.

 

I agree, however, that if someone is asking the question they have probably not identified issues/problems on the M8 they could find solutions to on FF. If happy with the M8, I would stick with it and consider upgrading when the M8 either kicks it or comes up lacking in clearly identifiable terms.

[chris_tribble]

Actually that's exactly bass-ackwards. If you have a wide assortment of lenses, especially wides, and especially ultra-wides from CV like the 12 and 15, you're fine with the M8 because chances are you can find one to effectively get you whatever FOV you need. Someone who stuck with just a 28 or 35 and didn't buy a wider lens to regain FOV, might be better off going to an M9 vs buying a new lens especially if they have a fetish for buying only the latest Leica glass, new.

Earl - I see your point - but from my experience squinting round the 21 on the M8 never worked and I don't need to squint round the 28 framelines on the M9 as they work great for me. Never having bought a 24 I'm now able to shoot usefully wide in a style that suits me with a fast lens, beautifully sharp lens (the 28 cron asph). For me the M9 is worth every hard earned penny. We each make our decisions.

[Guest BigSplash]

My own plan is to stay with the M8 and this is why:

• There remain some niggles with the M9 such as:
  
  • Slight magenta cast due to the current built in UV / IR filter not being as good as an external UV / IR filter which I now have on all of my lenses.
    
  • Inability to have a saphire protection screen on the monitor
    
  • Firmware issues will need fixing (eg shutter lock up issue of M8)
    
  • No 1/8000 shutter speed
    
  • ISO range is pulled but is actually a generic ISO 160 identical to M8
    
  • No frame counter or battery status indicator
    
  • ISO setting procedure now requires 3 presses of the buttons to change the value which is not user friendly
    
  • High price compared to the original M8.
    
  • 18MP file sizes and overhead this imposes on the same DSP graphics chip set, SD memory card, Battery usage.....to yield essentially the same picture quality.
    
  • Slight degradation at corners on wide angle lenses......
    

  [*]As mentioned above the gain for the M9 user is:

  • One wide angle lens ...all other lenses work well with M8 but are cropped
    
  • Bracketing function, which maybe something nice to have BUT it does not fit well with the type of camera that a M seeks to be. . I have heard arguments that suggest that this is NOT something used very much in a rangefinder camera noted for fast discrete shooting, and lack of gimmicks.
    
  • 
    

  [*]Likelihood of a M9.2 or M10 being released in about a year.

  • My personal view is that Leica have built something quite extraordinary with the M9 and they will enjoy probably 20 to 30K Units of sales this year, if the initial launch 3 years ago of M8 is an indication. The following year sales will drop to the 10 to 12K level again based on M model experience (Stefan Daniels gave the numbers). Therefore in business terms Leica will want a M9 replacement in a year's time.
    
  • M9 has used the same shutter, DSP graphics, firmware, battery, LCD monitor sensor technology, body as the M8. I foresee that the next camera should be able to exploit newer technology that probably will include:
    
    • Maestro chip set (as used on S2)
      
    • Latest sensor technology with lower generic ISO, plus higher ISO numbers with lower noise and possibly ability to offer live view. (The current Kodak sensor has been 3 years in production so is 5 year old technology...surely some improvement has happened during this time?)
      
    • Firmware upgrades to make ISO setting for example more user friendly.
      
    • Saphire glass covering an OLED technology rear screen (Brighter less power, and high definition)
      
    • Top plate small OLED display showing: frame counter, battery condition, and ISO value selected.
      

[bill]

Stepping back from the details for a moment (I'll wait for the PowerPoint... ) it's interesting to see the behaviors and justifications around whether or not to buy the M9.

 

I remember when the M6TTL came out many (myself included) did not see a significant benefit in upgrading from the M6. When the M7 came out I had one of the first in the UK. The benefit of upgrading increased incrementally with each "release" - effectively I skipped one and went for the next.

 

By the same logic I expect that many of the M9s are being sold to people - like me - who never bought into the M8, regarding it as an evolutionary dead-end and who held out for full-frame. M8 and particularly M8.2 users who have to count the pennies are in the position of deciding if the incremental benefits - full-frame, loss of UV/IR filters, etc - are worth the money or whether they should stay with their (still perfectly functional) M8s.

 

...as I say, interesting to watch, and to read the justifications...

 

Carry on.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[cme4brain]

Having read a lot on the net, I came to the conclusion that for me the "only" significant difference between the M8/M8.2 and the M9 is that the latter is full frame and hence allows to make full use of the M lenses. The somewhat better ISO performance and the additional pixels would not be decisive for me.

 

So the question is whether the FF is worth to buy the M9 and take a hit on my M8. What do those who tested and use both cameras think?

 

Not for me. I am a well-heeled hobbist who barely talked his wife into the $5500 for the M8, only to now watch its value on eBay drop to $2000USD if I am lucky. I would love to have the camera not to have the 1.3X crop factor, nor have to use IR cut filters (although not that big a deal for me). Yes, I would love one, but another $5000 ($7000-resale value of M8) worth of marital drama ain't gonna fly at my house. I am glad that Leica managed to make a FF rangefinder, something I thought not possible, but I will sit back and buy a used one.

[GMB]

Stepping back from the details for a moment (it's interesting to see the behaviors and justifications around whether or not to buy the M9.

 

Carry on.

 

 

Thanks for all responses. While reading them, it occurred to me that I probably asked an impossible to answer question -- or at least a question which will generate a lot of very subjective responses.

 

My current line up of lenses (Leica 24, 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, and 135, and CV15) is such that with the M8 I can cover, in principle, what I want to shoot (and arguably more than what I need). The only thing I am "missing" is that my 24/28 is not a 24 and that the CV15, as great a lens it is, is no substitute.

 

My question is in fact more whether (1) a 50 on the M9 will render a "different" image than a 35 on the M8, (2) by going full frame one can "experience" more of the true character of the lenses, and (3) whether and why people think this is good or bad. In particular, I have some nice pieces of glass (28 cron, 50 Lux ASPH, Nocti 1.0, 75 Lux), where I wonder whether the M9 would allow me to more fully exploit their “true” characteristics.

 

I should add that I only shot film Ms for less than 2 years before getting the M8, and that some of my lenses, including the four lenses mentioned above, were bought after I got the M8. So I never really used them on film.

 

As regards costs, I don't like spending 5.5k Euros if that can be avoided. OTOH, life is short I can afford it without having to break the bank and without risking a divorce ,. I am also conscious that most likely a M9.2 or M10 will come sooner or later. However, if knowing that the future will bring something better would be a reason not to buy something now, I would never have bought the M8 and that, in my view, would have been a mistake.

[tom0511]

Having used both cameras I see the following advantage in the FF of the M9:

 

I think going full frame allows you to save money in your lens line up. Before you had to buy expensive wide angle lenses to get a normal view, or expensive ultra wide angle lenses to get a wide angle view on the M8.

On the M8 the fastest rangefinder coupled lens to get a 21mm FOV was the WATE with f4. On the M9 you can get 21mm FOV with f2.8 or even f1.4.

I also believe that the 50/1.4asph and the Nocti are more usefull/flexible on full frame than they were with the M8.

 

If you wanted a fast 35mm FOV lens on the M8 you had to buy a 24lux which is only available new for 5000€, for the M9 you could buy a used 35lux-asph for maybe a little over 2000€ and get the same FOV.

 

The other thing is that you get a little shallower DOF with the full frame sensor. Is this good or bad? it depends. I think it gives you more crative flexibility.

[luigi bertolotti]

Personally, my only issue about lenses lineup is that with M9 I should regain my 21 asph "a real 21" instead of having to count on the CV15 as superWA on M8 (the WATE is far from my pockets...). Apart this, I am a lot tempted by M9. but am curios to verify it on PRINTS which are my real goal : if the difference in prints' quality around A4/A3 is not significant... I can wai until my M8 dies...

[adan]

One can find substitute focal lengths for the M8, but not substitute focal length/aperture combinations. No true 21 f/1.4 or f/2.8, no true 24 f/1.4 or 2.8 equivalents, and no true visual equivalent (FoV + DoF) for a 35 f/1.4.

 

I just shot a wedding last weekend that would have been a complete flop without a "real" 21 f/2.8 and a 35 f/1.4 - the 15 c/v f4.5 would not have even come close in the light I had. Frankly, a "21mm f/4.5" lens was obsolete in 1966 (when Nikon came out with their first 20 f/3.5 - or maybe even earlier when Canon produced a 19 f/3.5)

[Olsen]

+1. There is only one focal length with an available lens for the M9 that can't be duplicated effectively on an M8, and that is 12mm. And according to my friend who buys everything Leica and thus already has an M9, the 12mm has terrible light-fall-off in the corners, much worse than it did on film. Says he, his 35 Summilux non-ASPH, 4th-version 35 Summicron, and all of his 21mms also show more corner light-fall-off than on film, although it is subtle and he didn't notice it until some of his new-Leica-euphoria had worn off. He can't wait for the M9.2 which he expects will have upgraded microlenses.

 

Having switched from Canon EOS3 to 1ds to 1Ds II and to 1Ds III, I can assure you that 'all' my lenses shows 'more light fall off on any Canon digital camera compared to the film EOS3.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Olsen]

Further....

 

I bought a WATE along with my M8 which keeps me covered in view angles similar to 21 - 24 and 28 mm. Which very much covers what I need. I never had a need or a lust for an extreme 16 mm. So, what is my problem? I don't need a M9.

[Jeff S]

... but am curios to verify it on PRINTS which are my real goal : if the difference in prints' quality around A4/A3 is not significant... I can wai until my M8 dies...

 

Exactly so. Primary questions (price aside), it seems to me, are whether you can capture the images you want with the equipment you have, and whether the prints (at your print sizes) do the images adequate justice...for you. The rest...ergonomics, features, etc...are important to the extent they allow/encourage you to get out and use your equipment more often.

 

For me, the M8.2 serves my goals just fine. Having shot film (from 35mm to 8x10) for 35 years, I didn't know how digital capture, let alone the crop factor, would influence my photography. After 7 months with it, I'm satisfied for now with the results I can achieve. Money is not the issue for me.

 

For others, the M9 may be the perfect tool. And, I applaud Leica for continuing to give us choices.

 

Jeff