eleskin
Well-known
All of these threads regarding resizing M8 files (By using Alien Skin Blow Up, Genuine Fractals, etc,, has me thinking how good the M8 files are and why this amazing camera can more than hold its own against the M9 and any other camera with sensor sizes up to the 35mm full frame.
I was thinking about getting the M9, but two things prevented me, and I decided to buy another used M8 to back up the one I already have instead of using the M9 and having my single M8 as the backup.
Number one was cost. I just cannot spend $7,000 right now.
Number two, and this is the big one: The files of the M8 are of such high quality, that the jump to the M9 offers some gain, but not a huge gain, hence, the cost of the M9 is much higher than the slight performance gain.
Other members of this forum have stated that the M8 is very capable of very large prints in the 40" range. I have Alien Skin Blowup and am astounded as to how well the M8 files look after resizing. The fact that there is no anti-aliasing filter is a huge factor. Even if the M8 is a 10MP camera, the files are closer to 14MP and with blowup software, you basically have a poor mans M9 (not full frame, but I can live with 1.33 crop, it is not a huge deal at all). I just bought a used M8 on Ebay for $2350 with only 4,000 cycles in the shutter. Mint, and a perfect sensor. 7K was just too crazy for me. By the way, film is not dead at all, and I have the large format bug hitting me for some applications. I want to shoot 8'x10" color positive, and that drum scanned is a 800MP camera! WOW!!! I will buy the 8"x10" with the money I would have used for the M9, and still have plenty left over! Not bad considering the 8"x10" blows away $50,000 cameras!
I am off track here. All in all, the M8 is still a great camera that has quite a few years use in it. No anti-aliasing filter is a big factor combined with the high quality sensor and wonderful M mount lenses (Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss, etc,,,).
I was thinking about getting the M9, but two things prevented me, and I decided to buy another used M8 to back up the one I already have instead of using the M9 and having my single M8 as the backup.
Number one was cost. I just cannot spend $7,000 right now.
Number two, and this is the big one: The files of the M8 are of such high quality, that the jump to the M9 offers some gain, but not a huge gain, hence, the cost of the M9 is much higher than the slight performance gain.
Other members of this forum have stated that the M8 is very capable of very large prints in the 40" range. I have Alien Skin Blowup and am astounded as to how well the M8 files look after resizing. The fact that there is no anti-aliasing filter is a huge factor. Even if the M8 is a 10MP camera, the files are closer to 14MP and with blowup software, you basically have a poor mans M9 (not full frame, but I can live with 1.33 crop, it is not a huge deal at all). I just bought a used M8 on Ebay for $2350 with only 4,000 cycles in the shutter. Mint, and a perfect sensor. 7K was just too crazy for me. By the way, film is not dead at all, and I have the large format bug hitting me for some applications. I want to shoot 8'x10" color positive, and that drum scanned is a 800MP camera! WOW!!! I will buy the 8"x10" with the money I would have used for the M9, and still have plenty left over! Not bad considering the 8"x10" blows away $50,000 cameras!
I am off track here. All in all, the M8 is still a great camera that has quite a few years use in it. No anti-aliasing filter is a big factor combined with the high quality sensor and wonderful M mount lenses (Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss, etc,,,).
thegman
Veteran
Don't own either the M8 or M9, but the M8 appeals more for some reason, probably just the idea of walking around with $7000 plus lens around my neck makes me feel queasy.
RichC
Well-known
I agree.
Yes, there are some advantages to the M9 over the M8 - notably better IR handling, a larger file and a little less noise - but if you don't want or need full frame, the huge cost of the M9 makes the few minor advantages not worthwhile. I'm happy with my M8: I like the x1.3 crop - the only cameras I've used are crop-factor digital ones (I've never used film), so that APS sensors are what I'm used to and are "full frame" - to me!
Additionally, the M9 is a worse camera than the M8 in some minor but annoying ways, which also reduced its appeal to me: less-durable finish (paint - why!?), less-accurate framelines compared with the M8-2, and no secondary LCD (that's like having a flap with an awkward latch over the frame counter on a film camera - a bizarre omission!).
I'll reassess upgrading when the M10 comes out.
What's probably more likely is that these new mirrorless cameras will continue to develop, and someone will produce one aimed at professionals before long, which I'll buy and use my Leica lenses on - unless the M10 has major improvements over the M8. I'll need a viewfinder - but I'm seriously impressed by how much electronic ones (EVFs) have improved: 5 years, I tried an EVF camera, and it was awful - low resolution and laggy; but a recent Panasonic camera blew me away - its EVF was bright, sharp and had no lag. EVFs will continue to edge closer to the clarity of the optical viewfinder.
I suspect I won't be buying Leica's version, assuming they bring one out (the X2?), unless Leica seriously improves its game - the X1 is outperformed by its competitors in the usability stakes (naff LCD, long shutter delay, slow image display, etc.). It goes without saying that high image quality is a necessity, but that's not enough by itself...
Yes, there are some advantages to the M9 over the M8 - notably better IR handling, a larger file and a little less noise - but if you don't want or need full frame, the huge cost of the M9 makes the few minor advantages not worthwhile. I'm happy with my M8: I like the x1.3 crop - the only cameras I've used are crop-factor digital ones (I've never used film), so that APS sensors are what I'm used to and are "full frame" - to me!
Additionally, the M9 is a worse camera than the M8 in some minor but annoying ways, which also reduced its appeal to me: less-durable finish (paint - why!?), less-accurate framelines compared with the M8-2, and no secondary LCD (that's like having a flap with an awkward latch over the frame counter on a film camera - a bizarre omission!).
I'll reassess upgrading when the M10 comes out.
What's probably more likely is that these new mirrorless cameras will continue to develop, and someone will produce one aimed at professionals before long, which I'll buy and use my Leica lenses on - unless the M10 has major improvements over the M8. I'll need a viewfinder - but I'm seriously impressed by how much electronic ones (EVFs) have improved: 5 years, I tried an EVF camera, and it was awful - low resolution and laggy; but a recent Panasonic camera blew me away - its EVF was bright, sharp and had no lag. EVFs will continue to edge closer to the clarity of the optical viewfinder.
I suspect I won't be buying Leica's version, assuming they bring one out (the X2?), unless Leica seriously improves its game - the X1 is outperformed by its competitors in the usability stakes (naff LCD, long shutter delay, slow image display, etc.). It goes without saying that high image quality is a necessity, but that's not enough by itself...
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
We know from another thread, that folks are very pleased with their 24" x 36" prints from the M8, how about the M9, anyone print this large?
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Ben Z
Veteran
I own both an M8 and M9 and I agree 100% with #2. I had the opportunity to buy the M9 with 0% interest for a year, and decided carpe diem and be wildly extravagant.
The crop factor and IR filter issue I think are the main reasons most people buy the M9. For me the crop factor remains as unimportant to me now as before I got the M9. The IR filter issue is most definitely not completely solved in the M9. Especially in indoor light, black synthetics are rendered with a brownish cast. Not the horrendous Barney-the-dinosaur-purple of the M8 mind you, but for true black, a front filter on the M9 is still the way. Outdoors I can get away with no IR filter, which is nice. I used to carry spare IR filters in each size I was using, because if one were to get damaged, I'd be in for a nightmare in post processing.
In fairness, the M9 does have a few new niceties (ISO in 1/3-stops, soft/hairtrigger release option, histogram with indicators for both under and overexposure), and the info screen I find much more accurate and useful than the little un-lit top LCD. If you have the camera in A and point it at the subject it'll tell you what shutter speed will be used, without putting the camera to your eye. This gives you the chance to change ISO or aperture before "announcing" your intent to shoot. And the menu for manual lens coding input is nice for lenses you don't often use and don't want to bother hand-coding.
From an IQ standpoint there are subtle differences, but nothing earth-shaking.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I have both. The big arguments for getting the M9 were IR and getting my lenses back to the film focal lengths I know and love, but I really do see better, more 'film-like' image quality from the M9. This is not to denigrate the M8: just to say that the M9 is even better.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
thompsonks
Well-known
Agree with Roger: Tonal transitions are subtler with larger M9 files, & IMO this is even more important than sharpness in making large prints.
(Also if you do street shooting or grab shots, you can crop a bit & end up with M8-size files.)
Kirk
(Also if you do street shooting or grab shots, you can crop a bit & end up with M8-size files.)
Kirk
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kirk,
Absolutely! But some people apparently don't see this. The worst example was Kodak Technical Pan. The best prints I ever saw were merely tonally acceptable, and the vast majority were awful. But Tech Pan devotees apparently cared only about sharpness and fine grain.
Cheers,
R.
ramosa
B&W
great comment. i have an M8--and have wondered if the M9 could bring back some of the film feel. (i'm still not ready to jump at an M9, but that has to do with money.)
bluepenguin
Established
M8 and M9, both don't have AA filter. So I'd say both makes a good results.
But it was a freedom for me to use M9 on following reasons.
1. No UV/IR filters: Since there are times that UV/IR makes weird ghost/flare, I hated to use UV/IR filters.
2. Right Frame: 50mm is my favorite frame line with many enjoyable lenses.
Think about 1.3 crop takes most of beautiful bokeh from your picture.
But it was a freedom for me to use M9 on following reasons.
1. No UV/IR filters: Since there are times that UV/IR makes weird ghost/flare, I hated to use UV/IR filters.
2. Right Frame: 50mm is my favorite frame line with many enjoyable lenses.
Think about 1.3 crop takes most of beautiful bokeh from your picture.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
A few thoughts from a prospective M9 owner
The M8 isn't really equivalent to 14Mp - all Bayer array cameras actually resolve less than the full pixel count if you consider resolution in each colour channel. It may be slightly better than AA equipped cameras, but there are also likely to be more aliasing artefacts, which may be mistaken for detail/sharpness. Based on images from the launch I would expect it's pretty similar to a canon 5D. I have printed 5D images at sizes up to 36 by 24, but the acceptability of the results depends on the subject matter - 36 by 24 does not make a nice print if you need lots of fine detail resolved... 15 by 10 is almost always fine.
Moving to a 1Ds3 I found, like Roger, that the images 'felt' much more film like. I have thought about why, but not concluded. Certainly it's better tonally and in resolution terms. Pictures can be printe dthat bit bigger than the 5D images before they become unacceptable. I would expect similar results from the M9 (Michael Reichmann's M9 vs !Ds3 test shots looked suspect to me - the 1Ds3 was far worse than anything I get with good glass).
IR filters wre a very big disincentive for me - extra cost and more faffing.
Mike
The M8 isn't really equivalent to 14Mp - all Bayer array cameras actually resolve less than the full pixel count if you consider resolution in each colour channel. It may be slightly better than AA equipped cameras, but there are also likely to be more aliasing artefacts, which may be mistaken for detail/sharpness. Based on images from the launch I would expect it's pretty similar to a canon 5D. I have printed 5D images at sizes up to 36 by 24, but the acceptability of the results depends on the subject matter - 36 by 24 does not make a nice print if you need lots of fine detail resolved... 15 by 10 is almost always fine.
Moving to a 1Ds3 I found, like Roger, that the images 'felt' much more film like. I have thought about why, but not concluded. Certainly it's better tonally and in resolution terms. Pictures can be printe dthat bit bigger than the 5D images before they become unacceptable. I would expect similar results from the M9 (Michael Reichmann's M9 vs !Ds3 test shots looked suspect to me - the 1Ds3 was far worse than anything I get with good glass).
IR filters wre a very big disincentive for me - extra cost and more faffing.
Mike
Symeon
Established
I have an M8 which works perfectly well after 9,000 shots in 3 years. The M9's full frame, no IR issue, better ISO, better menu, etc, do not really impress me, I can name just as many drawbacks on this expensive upgrade. I don't expect a camera to "make" a picture for me, or to cover up my mistakes with its superior technology. Having said all these one then has to consider the outrageous price of the M9.
ampguy
Veteran
yup!
yup!
+1!
With the M9, they really threw the baby out with the bath water.
Have seen a lot of great M8 images. Not many good M9 images. Anyone take any yet?
yup!
+1!
With the M9, they really threw the baby out with the bath water.
Have seen a lot of great M8 images. Not many good M9 images. Anyone take any yet?
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Dunno, but it doesn't really matter what camera I use - the pictures remain as good or bad as ever. And that doesn't depend on resolution or capture technology either.
Maybe I should turn on face, smile and blink detection
Mike
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You've used both, then, and your M9 pics are significantly worse than your M8 pics?
Cheers,
R.
MCTuomey
Veteran
5D owner here and this has been my experience too. M8 files and 5D files are comparable - it's the glass i use that differentiates them more than the sensors, i think. in any case, the acceptability of a print of a low resolution or heavily uprezzed file depends a great deal on subject matter, as many have said, generalities aside.
if i had the money, i'd love to have an M9. more resolution isn't often a negative
i also second/third roger's and other's comments about the relation between resolution and tonal gradation. when i moved from a canon 1Ds to a 1Ds II a few years ago, i was struck by the comparative smoothness of the Mk II's files, especially in B&W conversions.but wanting and needing are 2 different things. i'm very happy with my M8 since i earn very little from shooting and its files print detailed subjects very well for me at A4 and often at A3.
cam
the need for speed
have you looked at Yanidel's blog?
he sure has!
i know his work and how he shoots and, i think, it has only gotten better with the M9.
the M9 is a stunning camera! but that's not to say the M8 is chopped liver... everyone justifying why they are or are not buying such and such.
i honestly hate these my camera is better than your camera threads.
the best camera is the one you have in your hands!
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
RichC
Well-known
As I mentioned, I've never used film (and never will!), only digital. So, for me, APS sensors are what I prefer and am used to. Full frame is alien to me. Since I don't want full frame, the advantages of the M9 over the M8 such as slightly better sensor performance (tonality, less noise), higher resolution and better ergonomics (internal IR filter, improved controls - e.g. ISO access) are offset by the disadvantages.
The disadvantages?
• High cost, low M8 trade-in value. A definite disadvantage as most of the cost is for the full-frame sensor, which I don't want.
• Inferior finish. Paint - why!? Obviously a fashion statement, as the difference in cost between paint and chrome is minimal. I prefer black chrome as it's very hard wearing - certainly more so than paint.
• No secondary LCD with essential info that can be seen at a glance without pressing a button. There's a reason why every serious digital camera has a secondary LCD: the M9 is a digital camera and needs a secondary LCD. Even film SLRs have an LCD! Omitting it is like hiding the frame counter of a film camera behind an awkward flap!
• Reversion to less-accurate framelines. The tighter M8-2 framelines were perfect. Most people - including me - take photographs are taken at mid to long distance: surely it makes sense to set the framelines so that they're at their most accurate for the majority of shots.
• Issues that remain unresolved from the M8 (none of which fall into the "You're turning it into a digital SLR" category). For example:
- The ridiculous base plate remains: there's a good reason no other digital camera uses such a pathetic arrangement. It might be needed for film (don't know - never used a film camera) but it's out of place on a digital camera. It has no advantages whatsoever: it's clumsy and costly and introduces mechanical weakness (a closed shell is far stronger). And a personal niggle: I use the M8 for still lifes, and shoots can take over a day to get right, so the battery/card often needs changing - I have to remove the camera from the base plate, and often the camera position will change minutely when replaced however careful I am; this wouldn't happen if the camera had doors.
- No PC socket for flash. I don't buy the lack of space: it's a tiny socket - I'm sure Leica could have squeezed it in if they had wanted to.
- Main LCD is pathetic. A top-of-the-range digital camera should have a high-resolution LCD with accurate colour and tonal reproduction. A high-quality LCD is crucial, and is integral to digital image-making. As a digital photographer, I use the LCD to compose, even if it isn't live view, and to check image quality: the poor LCD is frustrating.
- No shutter speed in manual mode. Despite owning my M8 since 2007, I still find using it in manual mode disconcerting. Perhaps it's because I've only used modern cameras - which ALL display the shutter speed - but I prefer to always see my shutter speed.
--------
So, I'm waiting for the M10. I hope Leica will embrace digital and the 21st century fully whilst remaining true to the M's heritage. I'd like to see a similar form factor to the M9 but with the above shortcomings addressed and a better rangefinder mechanism with ACCURATE electronically projected framelines.
I don't want full frame, but if the shortcomings are addressed in the M10, I expect I'll buy it since the pros will outweigh that particular con. (And part of the con is that all my lenses were bought to suit the 1.3 crop - so I would have to sell/buy some lenses - a pain!)