The real difference M8 vs. M9 ?

[miklosphoto]

My question seems probably just one of many, but if you read on (please do so), I hope you understand what I am really interested in.
I know all the technical differences between M8 and M9, so please spare me from that in your answers.

Here is what I really want to know:
Is there a difference in the "look" and "feel" of the images from the two cameras? Many people refer to some differences, but those are not really articulated in the forums. I am not interested in hearing, yes there is difference. I would like to know what is the difference you see.
Many people are talking about this fantastic look of the M9 images. My question is if that look is fantastic compared to M8, or it is just fantastic by itself.
My motives are very simple. I have been using M8 and M8.2 for two years now, and I am very happy with it. I feel that the upgrade to M9 just because of more MP and one stop better ISO is not worth it. But if somebody can demonstrate that the look and feel of the M9 images is way superior to those of M8, I will be considering the upgrade.
All the other stuff, like IR filters (I have 4 of them and use them all the time), wide angle lenses (I have the CV 15 and 21mm), terrible ISO 2500 (I manage to bring out gorgeous BW photos at ISO 2500), only 10MP (printing on Epson R2400 that is enough for me) - I do not care about. Those 'upgrades' in M9 are only nice to have to me.

Can you give me an aesthetic/artistic reason to use M9 over M8?
Otherwise, I just save money for more lenses.
(I use Leica 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 90/2 and CV 15/4.5, 21/4 and 35/1.2)
Thank you all.

 

[lainer]

I'm beginning to think the same. This will be my first Leica. If I get a later-made M8 or M8.2 in mint condition, I don't think I would notice the difference. I just don't want to see vertical lines or any quality failure issues. I think I'd get s 35mm Summicron as my first lens, and I'd use that system for a year. What do you guys think? I am on the list for a Leica M9, but it's so expensive, and if the quality isn't that much different, or worth 4k more, then I don't see the point. (Especially is I never used a Leica before). I'll just make sure I get a warranty from the dealer.

Any comments?

 

[Makten]

It's mostly about the lenses and the use of the image circle. The same goes for APS-C vs FF SLR:s. With the M9, you use the full image circle and get lower aberrations per picture height and shorter DOF (and the possibility to stop down a bit even at low light).

A Summicron 35/2 on M9 is (almost) equal to a 28/1.4 on M8, in terms of light collecting and DOF. But the summicron is small and very well corrected.

Edit:

My motives are very simple. I have been using M8 and M8.2 for two years now, and I am very happy with it. I feel that the upgrade to M9 just because of more MP and one stop better ISO is not worth it.

Well, there you are! Don't upgrade if you don't have to.

 

[lainer]

Taking it one step further. What do you think about files from digital Leicas VS files from film Leicas? Having used neither in my life, I don't know. I could save even more money by getting a used Film Leica, (Don't know which would be good, maybe M6?), and a good lens, maybe a 50mm Summicron? Then use that for a year, taking the money I saved to buy a Nikon D700 body to keep up on the D-SLR end. Then in 2 years, a M9 will be cheaper, because the M10 will come out. LOL! I trust your opinions, as you guys know Leica. I don't. (I prefer shooting digital, but...)

 

[f16sunshine]

While you get a narrower DoF with the M9 over the M8 "by default" the lenses aren't any "brighter" in terms of light gathering. An f/2 lens is still an f/2 lens.

If you needed a narrower DoF on the M8 you can always close your subject distance, use a longer focal length or open up the aperture...

I in fact enjoyed the extra dof field with the M8. Shooting a 35 @ f2 and having a FOV of a 50 on FF gave me much better focus accuracy.
Same goes using a 50 and having the FOV of a 70.
I'm more a portrait photographer so that works. Someone who is using more wides may find the M9 is a better option.
As stated above a 35mm lens is likely to be better corrected than a 24.
In addition to own a fast 35 will cost much less than a fast 24 (there is only one option there right?). So much less that you may be bridging the gap between the M8 price and M9 price.

 

[eleskin]

I also agree the depth of field and focus accuracy are better with the M8 with certain lenses. I have the Noctilux f1.0 that I have tested on the M9 and use extensivly on my M8, and I can tell you the focus is more on target wit the M8, and the area of focus seems to have more sharpness and separation of contrast as well detail. The M9 has a more mushy look in the area of focus with the Noctilux. The out of focus areas still give that wild bokeh look on the M8.

I am thinking of the M9, but may wait till the M9.2 or M10. Right now, for cameras (for wedding and commercial work) , I am excited about what Pentax may sell soon, the 645D 39MP for $6,300!!!!

 

[StaaleS]

While you get a narrower DoF with the M9 over the M8 "by default" the lenses aren't any "brighter" in terms of light gathering. An f/2 lens is still an f/2 lens.

True, but assuming that the camera it's bolted on to is has better high-ISO quality by about one stop (I do not know whether this is actually true for M9 vs M8!), a 35 f/2 on M9 at ISO 1600 gives about the same net result as a 24 f/1.4 on M8 at ISO 800, ie similar exposure, IQ and DOF for similar framing. I presume that this is what was meant in the post you responded to at any rate 🙂

 

[Makten]

While you get a narrower DoF with the M9 over the M8 "by default" the lenses aren't any "brighter" in terms of light gathering. An f/2 lens is still an f/2 lens.

Per area, yes. But with larger sensor area you get more information to build your image.

If you needed a narrower DoF on the M8 you can always close your subject distance, use a longer focal length or open up the aperture...

Well, that could also be applied to P&S cameras compared to larger sensor cameras. For me; a large sensor is necessary to get the pictures I want. Owning the M8, I'm fairly satisfied. But an M9 would do better, even with cheap lenses. 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

For me, the difference was massive, like discovering Leicas all over again. My review may give you some feeling for this:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/m9 review.html

Site navigation to other modules is more fun than it might be at the moment but with any luck this will be remedied over the week-end.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The infrared problem is solved, and there is no crop factor. The cost of the M9 over a late M8 like the one I bought is 3x. I bought the M8 with the idea of using it, seeing if I liked it, and getting an M9 later. The M8 will likely not depreciate much more than it already has.

 

[Ming Rider]

As was mentioned previously, the main difference is about 4 K . . . and a bigger depreciation😱

Can someone explain the much requested dedicated ISO button on the M9. With the M8, just press SET and there's the ISO setting option. Hummm . . .

Oh yeah, just got a Voigtlander 25mm M mount lens. Nice and sharp and the extra veiwing angle is a god send for landscapes in portrait aspect and architecture . . . and a 1/4 the price of Leica glass. Recommended😀

 

[dseelig]

m8 vs m9

m8 vs m9

If you shoot in night time city scenes there were times I would get ghosting reflections from the uv ir filter on the m8 . That no longer happens that the uv ir fitlers are gone. For me the extra stop is huge having my 35 lux be a 35 again huge. I do miss the magnification for my 75 lux but it is totally worth it for me. Those reflections were a kiiler for a street shooter like me.

 

[yanidel]

I have been using the M9 for 3 months after upgrading from the M8, I have come to the following conclusions :

PROS:
- the M9 has slightly better color rendition.
- I find I burn less highlights, maybe because of the different way it exposes.
- there is more room to recover / fill light.
- ISO1250 is much better, ISO1600 usable and ISO2500 can work if exposure is good, especially in B&W.
- the 8mpx additional are great for cropping, yet I hate to crop so not very useful to me.
Cons
- focus has to be much more precise due to less Dof, this has been my main struggle right now.
- I sometimes get the impression that the M8 produces files slightly sharper. So far, I have not been able to match M8+ 24mm Elmarit on the M9. Could be specific to the lens though.

But overall, I really feel the files have the same genes, which is great news since I love the M8 ones. My advice is that if you are a 35mm or wider shooter that wants speed, then upgrade to the M9. The M9 + 35 Lux + higher ISO will get you 2-4 stops more.

If you shoot mainly 50mm and above, stick with the M8.2 (from the M8.1, the ergonomy changes might justify the upgrade) , the difference in files is not big enough to justifiy the upgrade IMO and the crop factor is an advantage on the tele side IMO as you get fast lenses in a smaller packages.

My 2 cents.

 

[bobbyrab]

I owned an M8 for about a month and sold it on, the main reason being I didn't like the colours I got from the camera, I think you can often identify images as being from the m8 just by the colour, difficult to describe really, a slight pink bloom, but this is really down to personal taste and many people love the colours, I do think however the colours from the M9 were to my eye much improved. The second reason being I didn't think the M8 files showed the quality of the lenses in the same way as film did, with film my Leica and Canon shots it was quite easy to differentiate one from the other as the lenses had that quality about them, whereas I found the M8 files, colour aside, similar to the files from the 5D, again I know a lot of M8 users will disagree with that but I didn't get any files from the camera that had the quality i was hoping for. I had about 15 mins with an M9, and certainly not long enough to be completely convinced by the it's improvement in this area, but it was much closer to what I had wished of the M8, nor did it have that over sharpened look that the M8 files could have in certain contrasty situations. I'm not one for over analysing the technical stuff, it either looks right or it doesn't, but if I had the money to spare i would certainly like an M9.

 

[swoop]

I just got my M9 today so here's an example. It's quick and the files are resized for web so that leaves a marked loss of quality but most of my images end up this size anyway. It shows you, using the same lens, how much more image area you get and the difference in noise.

Common factors
Nokton 35mm f1.2, tripod mounted, shot at 10 megapixel JPEG, auto white balance, no lens detection, UV/IR filter mounted.

M8 ISO 1250, f1.4 1/360

M9 ISO 1250, f1.4 1/360

M8 ISO 2500 f2.8 1/15

M9 ISO 2500 f2.8 1/15


There was no image editing whatsoever. But I use Apple Aperture which I think adds its own flair of sharpening and noise reduction just a tad to each image. I think the big difference is that given the same exposure the M9 is obviously darker.

 

[Tom Niblick]

I was on the list for a M9 and dropped off because I needed to spend that money on some studio equipment (computers, RAID, etc). Not very exciting but I've got a decade of customer files that I nearly lost. With that in mind, I've convinced myself that the upgrade from the M8 just was not worth the price. But as I see more M9 files, I know I'll end up with one.
I'm not sure how I would describe it other than the M9 seems to produce photos that have the Leica glow where the M8 seems to produce photos that are a bit more edgy... have more bite.
Push came to shove (or in my case the recession moves into a full blown depression) I could live with my M8 for another 4 or 5 years, it is a really great camera despite it's "flaws". But the more M9 shots I see the more I am convinced it might be a better tool for my style of photography. Maybe because the results seem more film like ie: softer edges and smoother tonal and color transitions. Maybe its because I'm seeing the lenses render the way they were designed to and not just capturing the sharp evenly lit inner circle. Whatever the reason, M9 shots just look more natural.
Another thing, I've never been 100% satisfied with M8 flesh tones. While they are better than the tones I get with my Nikons, there is still something artificial about the rendition... maybe there just too ruddy. Not all of the time but often enough. Let's say 90% satisfied. If the M9 brings that up to 95-99%, then its worth the upgrade.

Tom

 

[Jeff S]

Besides comments above (Yanidel summarizes well), I would ask...How big do you print? Do you shoot mostly color or black and white?

I own an 8.2 and have decided not to move to an M9 at this point, mainly because I'm satisfied with the images I can get given my style and print requirements.

Among other things, I generally print small (8x10), shoot 80% black and white, and have no problems with print quality when some cropping is necessary.

The camera is almost never the limiting factor...that would be me.

Is the 8..2 perfect? No. I'd still like a quiet manual shutter advance like my film Ms, but that may never come. And, a few other things, but nothing compelling change at this point.

Jeff

 

[gavinlg]

m9 will have a better "spacial feel" to the images due to using the whole lens circle, rather than a portion of it.

 

[miklosphoto]

Thank you every one! I am really glad that I started this thread. It looks like it is even popular 🙂.
Based on the feedback I got, wanted to add some more details on my dilemma.
First, I am not a wide angle shooter. My perfect combo has been (and still is on film) M7 + 50/1.4. I am sort of dreaming of using the same lens on the M9. On M8.2 my main lens is the 35/2 and the CV 35mm Nokton for low light.
I really enjoy the APO 90mm Summicron on the M8.2 as it gives me a focal length what we needed an SLR for in the film age.
Bottom-line, the crop factor gives me an advantage with the M8.

Maybe I can sell my 35/2 and CV Nokton and get a 35mm Summilux, I don't know.

 

[nicography]

I have my m8 for about 5 months now and I was originally a canon 5dMarkII users. I still have the 5dII but I have not touch the canon much ever since i brought the M8. M8 just provide much more interesting photographs.
Anyway, having full frame is really a great advantage because you get to use and capture the full characteristics of the lens. I have the Leica Noctilux, and when I shoot with the M8, I will not capture the vignette dark corners characteristics due to crop factor. In addition, I see that the M8 really has a great sense of characteristics, that I say the images are more cinematic. I will definitely grab a M9 if it wasn't this pricey.
Oh, and the lenses I use on the digital M are Tarcus 50mm f0.95, Leica Noctilux 50mm f1.0, VC 50mm f1.1, Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM, and VC 40mm f1.4 SC. I don't shoot wide angle, but i still prefer full frame if I can afford it.