Calling all M9 users who've owned an M8

[OurManInTangier]

I'm a user of the old M8 and despite it's 'problems' very much enjoy using it. I am, however, thinking of going fully Leica digital. I get very little time to process films and scan negs these days, often finding that once I've processed my work images the last thing I want to do is set up my chemicals and start processing negs.

As such my options appear to be to buy another M8, though this would seem to me to be false economy in the long term, or to buy an M9. So, the reason for my post is to ask those of you that have used the M8 but also have an M9 what the everyday advantages of the M9 are.

No longer needing IR filters, full frame and the 'extra stop' all sound like reason enough to pay the extra but is this really the case? What other perks or disadvantages are there over the M8?

...and does anyone want to swap two battered M6 bodies and a shedload of old Nikon bodies, both digi and film, for a nice M9😀

I appreciate that many will think that I should stay with film for all of it's benefits but for the purpose of keeping things on topic can we take this as read and understood.

Many thanks

 

[yanidel]

Hi Simon,

I'll have my M9 with me in Florence, so if you are still coming, we can definitely do some comparisons. 😉

But answer your question, if you are a wide angle shooter (35mm and below), then get a M9. If you are mainly a 50mm shooter, I feel a second M8 is a better option.
In terms of IQ, unless you print very big, you won't see much difference. High Iso have improved a little bit, so as colors (but you do mainly B&W I believe). Also I'd even say the M8 gives a bit more sharpness impression on a computer screen.
In terms of ergonomy, the ISO button and quieter shutter are nice. For the rest, it is pretty much the same as the M8, no real influence on picture taking. I could not care less about the lack of battery indicator on the top. Finally, you do lose the 1/8000th speed, even if a Pull 80 exists (which is tricky in high contrast situations), so I had to start using ND filters ...

So in the end, if you are a fan of the 35mm 1.4 combination, than no question, the M9 is the way. Otherwise, the M8 will do just about everything the M9 does.

 

[jaapv]

Taken on their own, the changes from the M8 to the M9 are evolutionary rather than a revolution. However, having used M8s form November 2006 and now the M9 from early September, I feel that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. To me the M9 is the M8 come of age. However, if one has not got the inclination to spend the money, the M8 is still a very satisfying camera. BTW I prefer the M9 with the longer focal lengths as well. After all the "crop advantage" does not exist in the M8 vs M9, as the pixel pitch is identical. An M9 image cropped 1.33x is the same size as an M8 one, albeit with the sensor improvements of the M9.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I'm all booked up for Florence so I'll certainly be there Yannick.

It's interesting that you bring up the b/w vs. colour thing, that's partly another reason to move to a fully digi RF set-up. I do tend to shoot mostly b/w with my M6 bodies but the ability to shoot digi and 'switch' between the two means I can still get those shots that have to be photographed in colour.

I'm intrigued by the quieter shutter too, contentious as it is any improvement in that area would impress me.

50mm is my longest focal length and 28mm my widest so I probably fall into the category of 'wide shooter,' just. Though this is only really an issue for me with regard to M8/9 in so far as I'd like to have exact framelines without having to code all of my lenses.

Having had a hefty tax bill and paying out for a new D3 plus 80-200 I would certainly need to sell as a means of funding so I want to make sure before I buy.

Thanks for the feedback so far

 

[jaapv]

No rangefinder will ever have exact framelines, except at one distance only. The M8 is optimized at 0.7 m, the M8.2 at 2m and the M9 at 1m, so take your pick 😉 However, it is impossible or nearly so to use an M8 or M8.2 for wideangle lenses without coding them, whereas the M9 has at least got a lens selection in the menu, so that is really the only option, given your wishes. The quietest shutter is the M8.2, with the M9 very close to that.

 

[victoriapio]

I have both although I will probably be selling soon my M8 with a brand new upgraded shutter (and 1 year warranty) if you are interested. That being said, I think the image quality difference makes a jump to the M9 worth it. I jumped from the R-1ds to the M8 because of the image quality and the jump from the M8 to the M9 is another improvement. As has been pointed out when printing large (even 13x19) I see improved quality; having 33% more pixels obviously helps in this regard.

The cameras handle equally well although the M9 feels a bit larger and heavier. I don't know why, but it seems to me the M9 rangefinder seems easier to focus too, brighter perhaps? I have seen no change in specs to indicate this is so and it may have something to do with getting the normal lens aov versus the crop factor, but with the M8 I used a 1.25 magnifier and on the M9 I am comfortable without it even with the 90 cron. Perhaps it is psychological 😕

I tried using both cameras at our local livestock show and carnival last weekend but ended up using the M9 for bascially everything. For me more pixels and large prints are worth it, but the M8 is no slouch in any category. Both are good cameras, pick your poison 😀

 

[yanidel]

On the M9, the 28mm framelines are on the very edges of the viewfinder. So basically, you can use the whole viewfinder to frame. This being said, I find one of the advantage of a rangefinder is to be able to anticipate and compose given the space around the framelines. This is hardly possible with the 28mm mounted on the M9, which explains my preference for a 35mm lens.
Forgot to mention that bad corners show up easily on the M9 vs M8. For example, the 35 Cron IV which was perfect on the M8, doest not perform well in the corners from F2-F4. If you are still using the Ultron, you might have the same issue (if you care about corners obviously, I don't as usually they are blurred anyways wide open...)

 

[jaapv]

No, it is not psychological. It has to do with the geometry differences due to the different sensor size.In fact Mr. Daniel told me months before the M9 came to the market that it would be easier to focus, just for this reason.

The cameras handle equally well although the M9 feels a bit larger and heavier. I don't know why, but it seems to me the M9 rangefinder seems easier to focus too, brighter perhaps? I have seen no change in specs to

 

[dseelig]

m8-m9

m8-m9

I have had both and had one m8 never thought the camera was worth it to own two of. I owned 3 m6 s in the film days. I now own 2 m9's and I am not rich never made more then 50 grand in a year. In low light the m9 is far more useful. No strange reflections from the uv ir filters to deal with. Also a 35 lux is a 35 lux. If you shoot low light or a wide angle shooter do not buy a m8.

 

[greggebhardt]

I have both and just the wide angle ability was worth it to me. I guess each has to make their own choices but loosing the crop factor was enough for me.

 

[photogdave]

I've owned neither but used both enough to know what I'm talking about.
To me the the major differences don't hinge on IQ but on interface. The ISO button, manual focal length input in the menu and soft release option are all helpful improvements for me.
I also find the AWB on the M9 a big improvement, although I believe firmware updates to the M8 can make it just as good.
I find the files from the M9 needed very little adjustment to get them where I wanted them. This is a huge deal for me because I hate the post processing of digital workflow. So far the M9 beats every other digital camera I've ever used in this regard.
The exposures seem to be more accurate from the M9 to my eye too. Another big help for speeding up post processing.

 

[Ben Z]

In low light the m9 is far more useful. No strange reflections from the uv ir filters to deal with.

That was my main concern before I got an M8. But after 2 1/2 years with it, I've yet to see the problem come up in practice. (NB I do use mainly Heliopan IR filters which have less surface reflectivity, but even the couple lenses I'm using Leica IR filters have not given me reflections).

If you shoot low light or a wide angle shooter do not buy a m8.

I might have to agree with the first part. My Canon 20D gives about the same noise at ISO 1600 as my M8 at ISO 640. I suspect then it would be about equal with an M9...so if high ISO noise was a deal breaker then I would definitely have to go with the latest Canon or Nikon which are something like 3 stops improved over the 20D.

To the second part, the only wide angle of coverage available to me on an M9 that I can't effectively duplicate on the M8 is the Voitlander 12mm, and it did not perform well at all on the M9 I had to use for an afternoon of shooting. Also, I get no one-sided red color casts with any lens on my M8, whereas I did with the M9 and 12 and 15 Voitlander (coded as a WATE) and coded 21mm Elmarit-preasph lenses. It was correctable with Cornerfix but I really despise postprocessing so an extra step doesn't sit well with me (especially on a seven grand camera). But hopefully the first firmware update will resolve that issue.

 

[dcsang]

I'm a user of the old M8

hehe.. man.. I'm using an ANCIENT M7 then *LOL* 🙂

Cheers,
Dave

 

[yanidel]

To the second part, the only wide angle of coverage available to me on an M9 that I can't effectively duplicate on the M8 is the Voitlander 12mm

It is true yet to duplicate the 35mm Lux Asph on the M9, you need the 24mm Lux on the M8. I would not call that effective duplication since the lens is a monster. Also, it cost as much as a M9 so really it does make more sense to go M9 + 35 Lux if you like wide-angles with thin DOF or low light capability.

 

[victoriapio]

No, it is not psychological. It has to do with the geometry differences due to the different sensor size.In fact Mr. Daniel told me months before the M9 came to the market that it would be easier to focus, just for this reason.
Quote:
The cameras handle equally well although the M9 feels a bit larger and heavier. I don't know why, but it seems to me the M9 rangefinder seems easier to focus too, brighter perhaps? I have seen no change in specs to

Thanks for this information Jaap, this is news to me. Now I can cancel my appointment with a psychiatrist 😀

 

[alecgold]

Wouldn't it make sense to have either two M8 and filter everything or have two M9 and not need to IR filter?
Or you need to use one specific lens on the M8 and another on the M9 and then not have to worry about the IR. I know there are ICC profiles to reduce IR, but it is better to not have to do extra processing and the ICC profiles are very good, but not perfect.

 

[swoop]

I have the M8 and M9. I thought I would be using both side by side but that hasn't happened yet. I'm a one body person. The M8 just sits there a lot of them time. I've only taken it out twice for quick trips since the M9 came in and have even considered selling it. But I'd like to keep it around just in case.

I think more significant than the extra stop in performance. Which is highly noticeable is that you can now select your ISO in 1/3rd stops. It really helps to get the exposure just right. Also shooting in RAW and using Nik Dfine noise reduction increases noise performance another stop. Since the Leica performs no noise reduction whatsoever. It really brings it to the level of the DSLR's.

The full frame sensor is beautiful. It renders images just the way you'd expect it to.

The IR filters aren't a big deal. I actually still have them on my lenses even with the M9 out of laziness. It works just fine.

The batery life of the M9 isn't terrible. But it's noticeably less than the M8. Always keep a spare with you.

The files are huge in comparison to the M8. You're going to want a larger hard drive. 200 images occupies 4GB in the compressed RAW mode.

The LCD on the M8 is one of the worst I've ever seen and it remains in the M9. It's not a vital component to photography. But it helps every so often. The screen makes your images look more pixelated than they actually are. There's a lot more detail and resolution in the images once you've transferred them to your computer. Also it cannot be relied upon to check exposure. Areas blown out on the LCD or are underexposed are fine once you've got them open in an image editor.

 

[OurManInTangier]

Wouldn't it make sense to have either two M8 and filter everything or have two M9 and not need to IR filter?

Sorry, reading my original post again shows I obviously didn't make myself at all clear.😱 Yes, the intention would be to use two M9 bodies. If at first I have, through supply/finance issues, to use both M8 and a new M9 then I would do as you suggest with the lenses I have. However, I would intend to have two identical bodies - something I always do with my work gear as it just makes everything flow.

This is why I asked the question really, it would be an immense investment that would require me selling much of my old Nikon gear, old Mamiya 645s' and my two M6s' as well as the M8....though I may just keep my old OM stuff as it won't fetch much and I can't be without some old cameras knocking around the place😎

 

[OurManInTangier]

Swoop - I already ignore my LCD on the M8. I must have lost some good images from that by deleting before realising just how unreliable it is...should've known better really. I didn't think much of the M8 battery life so hearing the M9 is slightly worse isn't great but then I do always carry spares around.

The 1/3rd stop increments sounds useful, maybe not something I'd make the most of everyday single day but I bet it helps under a number of certain circumstances.

Thanks for the info, very much what I was hoping for.

Thanks