A controversial thread? M9 blows the M8 out of the water.

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hope this will be good news for anyone who like me has ordered the M9 and is waiting for it. I've had the opportunity to test a demo of the M9 for a day. I didn't manage to take the greatest photos in the world, but my conclusion is as follows: the M9 blows the M8 out of the water!!! I shot pictures straight into light sources without filters and got no nasty flares or reflections. The color gradation of 16bit files is phenomenal. ISO 640 is by far cleaner than on the M8. The detail is breathtaking. Dynamic range is awesome. The one tiny little negative I give in all fairness is that the processor is a little slow for the huge 16bit raw files. When I want to zoom in to check focus, which I do on occasion, the image takes quite a while to build on the LCD screen.

 

I have been in love with my M8 and shooting a lot for the last three years, but I will happily testify that the M9 is a huuuuge improvement. I am personally shocked that a lot of reviewers, with the exception of Guy Mancuso, seem somewhat reserved about the M9.I shot in the same situations that I usually shoot with my M8. I am a professional and believe I have a very good eye, and even though I haven't and never will run any formal tests (charts etc.), I will say it for everyone to hear: the M9 blows the M8 out of the water!

[plasticman]

I shot the two side-by-side in 'real-world' test shots (indoors and outdoors) and I'm afraid I didn't see the phenomenal results you're talking about. I'm also professionally working with images (though not at the sharp end, and not 35mm) so I also think I have a critical eye.

Still I'm glad you're happy with your purchase. But unless you can objectively prove the 'phenomenal' improvement I think this sort of "my equipment is better than yours - just take my word for it" type of thread is kinda unnecessary.

[phovsho]

Fair enough, but I think the M9 is vastly superior simply because I will use it more due to the FF. I have collected my M lenses largely to serve my film bodies. Now there is a perfect and seamless match between these lenses on all my M cameras, film or digital. I have a compact 35/1.4A for digital, not having to use a 28/2A as a proxy for it; and a 75lux for 75, not a 50/1.4A playing at 67mm etc. The debate ends there for me. Everything else the M9 offers is a nice to have but not essential.

 

I'm confident I will reach for my M9 so much more frequently now than I did previously for my M8. That has got to be a good thing and worth the price of admission.

 

Enjoy what you enjoy.

 

M

[BerndReini]

First of all, at this point, my gear is still the M8. Maybe I am a little excited about the cumulative improvements in image quality. I believe that you have a good eye, but maybe you didn't shoot the M9 in the same situations I did. I shot some street photography at night at ISO 320 and 640 in extremely difficult mixed light situations during sunset. I had daylight, tungsten, sodium-vapor, halogens, and whatever else can mess up an image in my shots. I am not posting an example because the JPEG compression for a web file would negate anything I am trying to say, but there was no color banding in the sky. Street lights didn't flare or ghost. The colors straight out of the camera didn't exhibit much color noise, and the detail in the shots really did reflect the extra real estate of the sensor.

 

I sent the pictures I took to a friend of mine. He raved about the image quality so much that I thought he was just subconsciously favoring the new camera, so I mixed in some M8 files to trick him. He was able to tell in almost every single file, which camera it was shot with.

 

As I said, this was not a scientific test and it does not replace trying out the M9 for yourself in your specific shooting situations, but I think it is something that is necessary to be said here. In my opinion, the M9 is an enormous improvement over the M8 for my type of work. Does it make me a better photographer? No. But when I take a photograph that's a keeper, I'll be happy it's with the M9 instead of the M8.

[j. borger]

I remember 3 years ago some claimed the prints of the M8 could rival scanned 4x5.

So how about the M9 .... scanned 8X10

 

Seriously .. i have not been overly impressed from what i have seen so far.

Especially the B&W work i have seen from it have a more digital look to me.

Among them the prints in LFI magazine.

 

Do not get me wrong... i will get myself an M9 or M10 or whatever sooner or later. mainly because i can use all the great new and vintage 50mm lenses as 50mm lenses.

But i am not running...... still not convinced it's worth the extra $$$$ at this point.

[BerndReini]

Ok, here's what I decided to do. Here's an admittedly bad photo just for test purposes: mixed light, ISO 160, 50lux aspherical, f1.4, 1/125s, focus at infinity, straight out of Lightroom without adjustments. Please let me know if you want to see any part of the picture as a detail crop, or adjusted in exposure etc., and I will make the adjustments and post it.

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!

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One more for sharpness: 75 cron aspherical f8, ISO320, flash. The setup was a joke on a prom theme, so don't take this seriously as a portrait.

 

Not a 4x5, but with me at all times (unlike my 4x5!)

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!

[Fotomiguel]

Comming from the first M8, the M9 is a big improvement!

 

-Better shutter: quiter and less noisy

-Better iso: even when is just one f-stop, that in low light situations is a big, huge difference.

-Full frame.

-Bigger resolution till 18mpx

-Soft release ( very important even when nobody seems to use it. When I get my m9, I will use it)

-iso button. ( I asked many times for it in the forum with my M8. Now I'll enjoy it. Thanks to Leica)

-New and easy exposure compensation. (in combination with the soft release must work incredible)

-Pull 80 iso ( we get a better shutter but without 1/8000. the Iso 80 solve the problem in bright light)

-No more IR filters needed. It was not a problem for me ( and I got the 75mm cron so cheap) but many photographers asked for this.

-One more f-stop in dynamic range: I think specially in high lights. I'm going to enjoy the sommers in Mallorca much more.

-Unbeliveble colour rendering. I've seen the M9 files (in good hands) and I'm really impressed.

-Files at low iso are at least x 1.33 better than the M8 files ( is this not a huge difference???!!!!!!) If you want to get a M8 file from your M9 you need just to crop your file. So you have two cameras in one)

 

Leica has listened to this forum introducing some of our request in the M9. This makes this forum really important. Thanks Gott, they did not notice some of the request as well.

The M9 is a dream come true for me.

The ONE negative point of the M9 is that I'm still waiting for it. Leica should give more importance to Spain and send some more cameras. It seems that we don't exist for Leica.

[wattsy]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not obsessed by sharpness (like many Leica users) and I think your portrait is plenty sharp enough for a decent print but, as an exercise in showing off the sharpness of the M9, your shot doesn't impress me at all.

 

FWIW, like many here I've had a play with the M9 and used it as I would my M8. I can't say I was blown away in any sense whatsoever by the basic image quality. It just looked like the high quality I was used to from my M8 (if anything the latter is possibly a hair sharper when it comes to tiny detail). I was actually more impressed by the new soft release mode than anything else and I'd hope that is one thing that Leica might offer M8 users in a future firmware upgrade (though I'm not holding my breath).

 

I've still got an M9 on order because I will welcome the opportunity to use my lenses full frame and sans IR filters (which I have consistently hated) but I don't buy into the silly idea that the "M9 blows the M8 out of the water" at all.

[j. borger]

One more for sharpness: 75 cron aspherical f8, ISO320, flash. The setup was a joke on a prom theme, so don't take this seriously as a portrait.

 

Not a 4x5, but with me at all times (unlike my 4x5!)

 

Breathtaking detail for sure.

But what do you gain from it compared to the M8 unless you heavily crop or print postersize? M8 prints are already breathtaking at A2.

 

For me there are 3 very strong arguments for the M9

 

- FF so i can use all the great 50mm lenses as 50mm lenses

- the M8.2 shutter, especially the feel of it

- the extra stop of DR

 

 

I had the opportunity to buy an M9 at the day after the announcement but skipped it for now. I will get one sooner or later but certainly NOT for the noise performance or extra pixels ........

[ulrikft]

If you frame the same way, and don't gimp the M9 by stating that you always would crop the center of the sensor to liken it to the M8, the M9 does blow the M8 out of the water when it comes to noise, resolution and partially dynamic range. If you compare only the central portion of the M9 sensor with the entire M8 sensor, of course, not much difference can be found, but that is not really a very valid comparison, but for a few rare occasions.

[BerndReini]

Exactly, why would I frame for a later crop unless I absolutely have to? Leica puts a lot of effort into correcting these lenses all the way to the edges, so why not use it? In my opinion, the M9 files can be pushed further without falling apart. This may be a result of the 16bit files or a result of the lower magnification necessary. I have always been impressed by how far the M8 files can be pushed (colors, shadow recovery etc.) The M9 seems to go even further in that respect. This is something that is important even fro small prints. Also, increased micro contrast is visible even in a small print.

 

Here are some tonal adjustments without discernible image deterioration. I probably prefer the original straight out of the camera, but this is to illustrate what you can do with the files.

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!

[jlancasterd]

I hope this will be good news for anyone who like me has ordered the M9 and is waiting for it. I've had the opportunity to test a demo of the M9 for a day. I didn't manage to take the greatest photos in the world, but my conclusion is as follows: the M9 blows the M8 out of the water!!! I shot pictures straight into light sources without filters and got no nasty flares or reflections. The color gradation of 16bit files is phenomenal. ISO 640 is by far cleaner than on the M8. The detail is breathtaking. Dynamic range is awesome. The one tiny little negative I give in all fairness is that the processor is a little slow for the huge 16bit raw files. When I want to zoom in to check focus, which I do on occasion, the image takes quite a while to build on the LCD screen.

 

Having owned an M9 for two weeks, I agree with almost all of the above - except I haven't yet tried shooting into the light without filters. I do do a lot of work where the improved high ISO performance is a great boon - I didn't like to go above ISO320 with my M8, whereas the M9 produces excellent images at ISO640 (see my 'Red Wheels' in the Technology & Industry section of the Photo Forum). I am by inclination and necessity a wide-angle photographer and the ability to use 35, 28 or 24mm lenses at their designed focal length is a great boon. The Summarit 35mm and M9 make a perfect walk-around kit for me.

 

I'll wait for the optimised firmware before finally deciding whether the uncompressed 16-bit RAW files are significantly better than the compressed 14-bit files from the M8, but the initial results are encouraging. The D700 that I bought to replace my DMR when the R10 was cancelled is getting some serious competition from the M9, and may find itself relegated to a rainy day role.

[plasticman]

I'll wait for the optimised firmware before finally deciding whether the uncompressed 16-bit RAW files are significantly better than the compressed 14-bit files from the M8, but the initial results are encouraging.

 

The M9 files are also effectively 14bit, incidentally.

 

As I've said before, there are many reasons to want a full-frame digital-M, but I've yet to see any proof that the sensor really delivers this supposed quantum leap in quality. As others have noted, there's even a tiny bit less sharpness, and at low ISOs I can discern a tiny amount more color differentiation in the M8 files than in the M9 files. YMMV.

 

The most important thing is that people are happy with their equipment. But we went through all of this nonsense before with the M8 ("as good as MF", "better than the 5D" etc etc). I guess it was only to be expected that the same sort of meaningless d*ck-measuring was gonna accompany the release of the M9.

[johnbuckley]

I've used the M9 for a week, and I think it is a step up from the M8 in many ways. (I have photos, and some descriptions of usage, on my WordPress blog linked below, and some more photos on the Zenfolio site.)

 

I wouldn't say the M9 blows the M8 away, because the M8 is a great camera. What I've noticed about the M9 is that the files are more dynamic -- you capture more information, or so it seems, at the larger file size, with 80 percent more pixels, and with a sensor 1/3rd bigger. I also, honestly, find the M9 is more demanding in some ways: in order to really nail a shot, you need to think more about the proper ISO and compensation, etc. I like that.

 

I'll admit that since I received mine, I haven't been able to get out with it as much as I would like, as I've been finishing a long project and chained to my desk. But there is no question it is a step up -- well, maybe better to say, a stop up -- over the M8. To say it blows the M8 out of the water is perhaps a little too much to say, IMHO. JB

[hammam]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not obsessed by sharpness (like many Leica users) and I think your portrait is plenty sharp enough for a decent print but, as an exercise in showing off the sharpness of the M9, your shot doesn't impress me at all.

 

...

 

 

Balderdash. Why would you want anything sharper than your eyes can ever see? Reminds me of the guy who buys a $10,000 stereo sound system to listen to with his $35 ears.

[BerndReini]

What this comes down to is that Leica built a camera with almost twice the amount of megapixels without changing the pixel pitch, which results in a camera that simply out-resolves the older one significantly. Whether anyone needs that quality was not the question of the thread. I simply do not understand why people are so resistant to admit how much better the camera is. Instead I get answers like "this is a d* comparison" or ""why would you need that sharpness?" Why would anyone in the US need a Ferrari? You can only drive 70mph anyway. It's still a damn good car and much faster than a VW. If threads like these are unnecessary, then so are certain comments.

[plasticman]

What this comes down to is that Leica built a camera with almost twice the amount of megapixels without changing the pixel pitch, which results in a camera that simply out-resolves the older one significantly. Whether anyone needs that quality was not the question of the thread. I simply do not understand why people are so resistant to admit how much better the camera is. Instead I get answers like "this is a d* comparison" or ""why would you need that sharpness?" Why would anyone in the US need a Ferrari? You can only drive 70mph anyway. It's still a damn good car and much faster than a VW. If threads like these are unnecessary, then so are certain comments.

 

Well no-one is arguing with the advantages of a larger sensor with significantly more pixels.

But that's not what you were talking about in your first post.

 

(PS: and if sharpness at the pixel level is what you're after, then the M8 has the slight edge anyway, so no-one was arguing that in any case.)

[georg]

@Plasticman

 

The M9-shots are every bit as sharp as M8-shots on pixel-level. Why shouldn't they with the same pixel-pitch and no AA-filter?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ulrikft]

It was exactly that he talked about in the original post, and I think you know that plasticman, why this obsessive need to talk the M9 down all the time? The M9 sensor has more megapixels and resolvs more detail, as a sensor, than the M8 sensor does. It does so with quite a marked advantage too. I don't see why this is a controversial or weird statement, It is a larger sensor with more megapixels, it is only natural that it resolves more.