Printmaker Posted September 28, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 28, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm not sure if FF alone is worth the upgrade but I put my name on the list because I miss the simplicity of traveling with a 35/90 combo and a quieter camera would be nice (I have a M8). Sure, I could buy a 28/75 combo but that would cost about the same. Or I could buy a less expensive 28 and skip the 75 but I will end up with a M9 sooner or later, so why add a lens that will not see that much use on the M9? So hopefully by December, I'll have sold enough little used gear (Linhof stuff) and business will have improved enough to pay for the new M. Until then, my M8 will keep on click... whirling and IRing away. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Hi Printmaker, Take a look here FF -- is THAT worth the upgrade?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
reven Posted September 28, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 28, 2009 Is it worth the upgrade ? YES, I don't have to use the hated Canon 5DII for hiking and other day stuff. I finally have enough MPs. 10 are not enough at all. The images quality is slightly better by moving to uncompressed DNGs. Not huge but nice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldp Posted September 29, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 29, 2009 For me, the overriding factor in this decision is that there is no downside (other than cost ) to the M9 over the M8, since with any given lens, I can crop the M9 image to M8 FOV, or keep it wide. Therefore my versatility when 'walking around' is greatly increased. There is not even a size or weight penalty. My MATE ( 28-35-50 TE ) for example will be much more useful since I can go from 28mm FOV @ 18 mpx to 66.5mm FOV at 10 mpx (as on M8). As a former pro, now a tourist, my most frequent opportunities are landscapes, where detail is king, and Wide lenses are very useful. I also regularly print large (24 X 36 ). I am hoping that the M9 will reduce the times that I have to carry my D3X which as been my primary landscape camera for the above reasons. While I am still eagerly awaiting my M9, I have gone through a similar change with Nikon , switching from a D300 (12 mpx 1.5X crop ) to a D3X (24 mpx FF), with similar (but not identical ) pixel pitch on a larger sensor, and similar per pixel noise (D3x appears less noisy due to less magnification at any given print size ). Since Nikon has available lenses to match FOV for each sensor size, while it makes no difference for many applications, for landscapes or other applications where detail and texture are critical, it is not even close, the D3X is much better. High ISO is rarely an issue for my kind pf photography, and I use tripods or monopods when I can. Keep in mind one must be using the best glass and technique for any of this to matter. Regards to all ... Harold Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamriman Posted September 29, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 29, 2009 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. I couldn't agree more. There will be used ones soon enough. I bet the M8 value will go up after the frenzy dies down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted September 29, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 29, 2009 From my perspective - which must be more eccentric than I thought - the discussion has mostly missed the point. If all you do is take pictures to post on the web or make little prints, then the main issue would be the one discussed so extensively: is it nicer to have the lenses match their formal focal lengths, or can you get along with the simple conversion that's involved in the crop factor? But if you make prints, the difference will be in smooth tonal transitions & better rendition of texture. Note that the 'normal' size for printing is getting larger & larger. Galleries commonly display prints of 20x30" & above, and large inkjet prints look much better than large darkroom prints used to, because they aren't sent through the 'filter' of an enlarging lens. The difference between 10 & 18 MP of the same pixel size/pitch will be easy enough to see. This is the first thing I looked for in trying out the M9, & it's impressive. Small details resolve more accurately even in the corners (at least with 35mm lens; might be problematic with 21). And the way a color modulates as the lighting shifts across it is noticeably improved with an 80% larger sensor. And texture will be more convincingly realized in medium & large prints. Kirk (To avoid confusion: I'm not talking about the sheer number of pixels; rather, about a larger sensor with 80% more pixels of the same size/pitch.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted September 29, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 29, 2009 From my perspective - which must be more eccentric than I thought - the discussion has mostly missed the point. If all you do is take pictures to post on the web or make little prints, then the main issue would be the one discussed so extensively: is it nicer to have the lenses match their formal focal lengths, or can you get along with the simple conversion that's involved in the crop factor?Kirk My point was not much different...at my print size (A4 mostly), I'm satisfied with the crop, for the work I do. The only real question is whether your equipment...camera, lenses, printer, software, whatever...allow you to capture the image you want, and print that image to your satisfaction. (If you don't print, don't waste the money.) The other features should help, not inhibit your ability and enjoyment in the process. But I said that already. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted September 29, 2009 Share #27 Posted September 29, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. As long as f4 is fast enough and this seems the case in your case- no problem-I would just keep the M8. Personally I like the idea of a fast 35mm lens and a fast 50mm lens with a 50mm FOV, A little more speed in the wider lenses isnt bad, but I also have to admit I never feltreally limited when using the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 29, 2009 Share #28 Posted September 29, 2009 ..... But if you make prints, the difference will be in smooth tonal transitions & better rendition of texture. Note that the 'normal' size for printing is getting larger & larger. Galleries commonly display prints of 20x30" & above, and large inkjet prints look much better than large darkroom prints used to, because they aren't sent through the 'filter' of an enlarging lens. The difference between 10 & 18 MP of the same pixel size/pitch will be easy enough to see. This is the first thing I looked for in trying out the M9, & it's impressive. Small details resolve more accurately even in the corners (at least with 35mm lens; might be problematic with 21). And the way a color modulates as the lighting shifts across it is noticeably improved with an 80% larger sensor. And texture will be more convincingly realized in medium & large prints. Kirk (To avoid confusion: I'm not talking about the sheer number of pixels; rather, about a larger sensor with 80% more pixels of the same size/pitch.) Kirk, those are INTERESTING feedbacks for me... can you tell me which print sizes are you referring to ? 20x30 INCHES is not frequent for me, but is about the minimum in centimeters... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted September 30, 2009 Share #29 Posted September 30, 2009 Hi, Luigi - I took some shots with the same 35mm Summicron Asph on the distributor's M9 & on my M8u, & res-ed up the DNG files to 14x21", which is the size I print my (successful) work on 17" roll paper. These were shots of a flat wall in the dealer's store (CameraWest), with small objects in the corners - a rack of accessories & film boxes. The differences in resolution were clear at 100% on the screen, & the tonal transitions were superior in the M9 print. It's the way the firmware & software work together in practice (metaphorically speaking): they're 'guessing' with regard to every adjacent pixel, not only "what shade are you," but "are you a continuous tone, or are you an edge?" The wrong guesses are the noisy part of the SN ratio. When comparing more pixels (& the pixels are the same size or larger), there are fewer wrong 'guesses.' That results in better resolution (given the same lens) & smoother tonal transitions. My camera salesman & I talked about this, & he says it's what he tells everyone considering a digital back for a MF camera: the resolution may not be so much better, but tonalities will look smoother & textures more 3-dimensional. Kirk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted September 30, 2009 Share #30 Posted September 30, 2009 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. Well I was told in another thread (by somebody with far more posts than me) not to generalise when connecting the desire for an M9 with the sad and bitter thought amongst M8 owners that it isn't different enough to justify an upgrade. So I fully agree with you, I didn't go with the M8 and now have an M9 on order. And the only thing I see in these threads is a recurring desire to spend money on the M9 if only the differences can be justified, which they can't in the majority of cases (there we go, generalising again). Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMB Posted September 30, 2009 Author Share #31 Posted September 30, 2009 Well I was told in another thread (by somebody with far more posts than me) not to generalise when connecting the desire for an M9 with the sad and bitter thought amongst M8 owners that it isn't different enough to justify an upgrade. So I fully agree with you, I didn't go with the M8 and now have an M9 on order. And the only thing I see in these threads is a recurring desire to spend money on the M9 if only the differences can be justified, which they can't in the majority of cases (there we go, generalising again). Steve Not sure I would buy into that logic. A good funcitioning M8.2 can be sold for, say, 2.500Euros (precise amount does not matter). So the owner of an M8.2 is faced with the decision to either keep the M8.2 or paying a net 3.000 Euros to get the M9 instead. Someone who did not get the M8/M8.2 is faced with the choice of either getting a good functioning second hand M8.2 for, say 2.500 Euros, or spending an extra 3.000 to get a new M9. Thus, both the M8 owner and the newcomer face the same economic choice as both have to evaluate whether the differences between the two cameras justify the extra cost (whether you have to count the pennies or not). Emotionally, the choice may be more difficult for the M8 owner, but from a rational economic point of view there is no difference. This of course brings us back to the original question whether FF is worth to upgrade or whether FF is such a big step forward that people who previously did not buy into the concept of a digital M now change their mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted September 30, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 30, 2009 Not sure I would buy into that logic. A good funcitioning M8.2 can be sold for, say, 2.500Euros (precise amount does not matter). So the owner of an M8.2 is faced with the decision to either keep the M8.2 or paying a net 3.000 Euros to get the M9 instead. Someone who did not get the M8/M8.2 is faced with the choice of either getting a good functioning second hand M8.2 for, say 2.500 Euros, or spending an extra 3.000 to get a new M9. Thus, both the M8 owner and the newcomer face the same economic choice as both have to evaluate whether the differences between the two cameras justify the extra cost (whether you have to count the pennies or not). Emotionally, the choice may be more difficult for the M8 owner, but from a rational economic point of view there is no difference. This of course brings us back to the original question whether FF is worth to upgrade or whether FF is such a big step forward that people who previously did not buy into the concept of a digital M now change their mind. Yes, good example of theory of economical choices and their relationship to the "expected value" of them (an important field in decision theory); in practice, however, it has to be taken into account that the M8.2 user has spent money not so long time ago (and so he has clear in mind his "net loss" trading the M8.2) , while the newcomer can be that hasn't afforded a buy for 10 years or so... . Personally, so is MY trouble: before M8, my previous camera was a M4 bought (used) around 15 years ago... now, thinking that could happen that I end up in buying TWO NEW in 3 years or something LESS, poses me into a disturbing mood... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted October 1, 2009 Share #33 Posted October 1, 2009 Back to original question: is it worth the upgrade (M8 vs M9)? If you own a 50lux ASPH and a 28cron ASPH, YES!! (BTW, owning a 50lux alone would be more than enough to justify the expense Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMB Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share #34 Posted October 2, 2009 Well, that leaves me with no choice:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted October 2, 2009 Share #35 Posted October 2, 2009 Back to original question:is it worth the upgrade (M8 vs M9)? If you own a 50lux ASPH and a 28cron ASPH, YES!! .... Whew... ... I've none of them... I'm safe for the moment... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted October 2, 2009 Share #36 Posted October 2, 2009 Whew... ... I've none of them... I'm safe for the moment... Luigi, see that the day we meet,once you've tried my M9, you'll be probably left with no choice... the M9 is addictive! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 2, 2009 Share #37 Posted October 2, 2009 Back to original question:is it worth the upgrade (M8 vs M9)? If you own a 50lux ASPH and a 28cron ASPH, YES!! (BTW, owning a 50lux alone would be more than enough to justify the expense How so? I own both, along with an M8.2. And, I have some terrific 7inch by 9inch prints as a result, from uncropped images as seen in the VF. Obviously, with the 1.33 crop, I'm not using the full FOV capability, but so what, I'm using the critically wonderful center of the lens. To capture these identical images on an M9, since in many cases there was no opportunity or room to move forward or backward, I'd have to switch to longer lenses such as my 35 cron and 75 cron. Don't get me wrong. I'm confident the M9 is capable of producing better results for some people....probably including those who print bigger, crop more, or shoot wider. But, for me, I'm a happy camper. And, I love the 28 cron and 50 lux! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 2, 2009 Share #38 Posted October 2, 2009 How so? I own both, along with an M8.2. And, I have some terrific 7inch by 9inch prints as a result, from uncropped images as seen in the VF. Obviously, with the 1.33 crop, I'm not using the full FOV capability, but so what, I'm using the critically wonderful center of the lens. To capture these identical images on an M9, since in many cases there was no opportunity or room to move forward or backward, I'd have to switch to longer lenses such as my 35 cron and 75 cron. Don't get me wrong. I'm confident the M9 is capable of producing better results for some people....probably including those who print bigger, crop more, or shoot wider. But, for me, I'm a happy camper. And, I love the 28 cron and 50 lux! Jeff Forgive my quoting myself...but the following newly added review from Erwin Puts basically confirms my points above. Here's the relevant point from Puts...."With other words, if you do not exploit the 1.33 factor of the bigger M9 sensor to the full, then the M8 might be as good as the M9. Of course the M9 has a higher potential for bigger enlargements, but if you restrict yourself to high quality A4 prints, then the M8 is a good alternative to the M9." And, here's the full article...M9, part3 Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted October 3, 2009 Share #39 Posted October 3, 2009 Jeff, I know the M8 is a great camera, I was probably one of the first to have it in 2006, and I used it extensively, but I always missed my lens to work for what they were meant to be. Let's not open a looong loooong debate on FF vs Crop factor, If the M8 it's good for you then I'm OK, but that's your choice, and when I'm asked, I recommend the FF for sure! Actually, (me for myself) I prefer to use my lenses, without the hassle of the UV/IR filters too, and I like to know that I'm using a real 50mm lens or whatever when I use that, then I enjoy not only the "critically wonderful center" of them, but I rather compose my images with my lenses' vignetting, FOV and DOF. If you ever used a film M you may understand what I mean. Mr. Puts is making is (right) paragon within IQ of both M8 and M9, anyway that should not be something to stop on IMHO. We may say what we want, but nobody may never convince me that using a 35lux on an M8 is the same as using a 50lux on an M9. Apples vs oranges here. I'm not hankering for the best clinic image I could get, that's not my game, I use to shot wide open after all, and I'm not one of those who use to crop pictures just to make a "better" picture. Photography (as all the arts IMO) is something about a "feeling", and the crop factor altered that "feeling", it was ok since no other DRF camera was on the market beside the M8, but now the M9 is here, and even if it's still not perfect, that's what many (me included) were waiting for. To get that feeling back; to get our "lenses" back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 3, 2009 Share #40 Posted October 3, 2009 Jeff, I know the M8 is a great camera, I was probably one of the first to have it in 2006, and I used it extensively, but I always missed my lens to work for what they were meant to be.Let's not open a looong loooong debate on FF vs Crop factor, If the M8 it's good for you then I'm OK, but that's your choice, and when I'm asked, I recommend the FF for sure! Actually, (me for myself) I prefer to use my lenses, without the hassle of the UV/IR filters too, and I like to know that I'm using a real 50mm lens or whatever when I use that, then I enjoy not only the "critically wonderful center" of them, but I rather compose my images with my lenses' vignetting, FOV and DOF. If you ever used a film M you may understand what I mean. Mr. Puts is making is (right) paragon within IQ of both M8 and M9, anyway that should not be something to stop on IMHO. We may say what we want, but nobody may never convince me that using a 35lux on an M8 is the same as using a 50lux on an M9. Apples vs oranges here. I'm not hankering for the best clinic image I could get, that's not my game, I use to shot wide open after all, and I'm not one of those who use to crop pictures just to make a "better" picture. Photography (as all the arts IMO) is something about a "feeling", and the crop factor altered that "feeling", it was ok since no other DRF camera was on the market beside the M8, but now the M9 is here, and even if it's still not perfect, that's what many (me included) were waiting for. To get that feeling back; to get our "lenses" back. Thanks, Maurizio. I can see all sides to this, so I'm not stuck in any particular view. I shot film for 35 years before getting the M8.2 seven months ago...and I owned M6s and M7s for over 20 of those years, and developed and printed in my own darkroom all that time So, I know where you're coming from. My comments were in response to an earlier post that said the 28 cron and 50 lux needed an M9 to shine. My rebuttal was maybe yes, maybe no, depending on how you shoot and print. Quite frankly, I was surprised to be as comfortable as I've been with the crop factor. So, for me, I don't feel like I'm missing something. If I had an M9, I'm sure I'd love it, too, and would be singing its praises. My only beef is when people make absolute statements about what's best for others. Equipment is a personal choice and only a means to an end, which for me, is the final (small) print. I know this is a cliche, but one I truly believe. And, right now, I'm getting great prints from the tools I have...including the 28 cron, 50 lux and M8.2. Until I print bigger, shoot wider or crop more, my prints wouldn't dramatically change with the M9. Having said that, I have no doubt that, at some point, I'll change or add equipment when I think it will help me capture and print images better than I currently can. I'm happy Leica continue to give us choices. Now, if they only came up with an R11. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.