Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I keep thinking about moving from the M8.2 to an M9. The main thing I don't like about the M8.2 is having to code my lenses with the coder kit. With an M9 I could enter them manually, right? The marks don't stay on the lens for any length of time before I have to do it again. And I'd rather not have to use my IR/UV filters. I guess I don't have to take them off when switching to a film M, but I often do, if I want a skylight filter or a yellow filter for film shots. It would be nice to have the full frame of the M9, but I seem to get along with the M8.2's crop factor.
If I gave up the M8.2 I would have to give up the (for me) very accurate framelines sized for 2 meters distance. And the sapphire glass is nice. And the frame counter readout.
So. I think could get my most used lenses, the 21, 28, and 35, coded by DAG for around $300 plus shipping. That's a lot cheaper than the $1500 or more to trade up to an M9. I don't seem to feel the need for 18MP. 10 is good enough for me. I don't make large prints. Still, I'd like the freedom from filters, and I guess full frame would be better. And I can't take the $1500 with me anyhow (I'm working on that, though).
I figured if I typed all these thoughts out, it might help me decide.
Comments?
If I gave up the M8.2 I would have to give up the (for me) very accurate framelines sized for 2 meters distance. And the sapphire glass is nice. And the frame counter readout.
So. I think could get my most used lenses, the 21, 28, and 35, coded by DAG for around $300 plus shipping. That's a lot cheaper than the $1500 or more to trade up to an M9. I don't seem to feel the need for 18MP. 10 is good enough for me. I don't make large prints. Still, I'd like the freedom from filters, and I guess full frame would be better. And I can't take the $1500 with me anyhow (I'm working on that, though).
I figured if I typed all these thoughts out, it might help me decide.
Comments?
shiro_kuro
Charles Bowen
M8.2 was my favorite camera .... never bothered coding the lenses and was not to strict about the filters either .... crop factor never bothered me ... I upgraded to the MM which is now at Leica having the sensor replaced due to corrosion ... now going on almost 6 months with no idea when I 'll get it back ...
I would say keep the M8.2 and get the M9 with the sensor already replaced ...... and see if you take to it ...
M8.2 is a fine camera .... I regret selling it
I would say keep the M8.2 and get the M9 with the sensor already replaced ...... and see if you take to it ...
M8.2 is a fine camera .... I regret selling it
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I've had both, I would go with the M9. I think it's at least twice the camera that the M8 is.
Back when I first got my pair of M8 cameras, I struggled against the stated need for UV/IR filters and lens coding. I took an overseas education tour and even before getting back home I found the IR issue was real. And then coding logically follows too. So I accepted the wisdom and sent the lenses I wanted to use on the M8 to DAG for coding. Done, happy.
When I got a used M9 from an RFF member I kept the M8s, one of which was upgraded with M8.2 shutter and framelines. When I sold the M9 before the sensor corrosion was well-known, I still kept the M8 pair as by that time their value had tanked to the point they were worth more to me as users than I'd get in a sale. And I do use them, very fine cameras! Maybe you'll have the permanent coding done and relax with the IR filters and be happy too!
Added: And the M9 is not free of IR either, and benefits from use of the UV/IR filters in my experience, especially in a high-IR environment. The sensor cover glass that incorporates the IR filtering is indeed thicker than on the M8, but it doesn't deal with the IR as effectively as the M8 + IR filters. And I understand that the M (typ240) cover glass is slightly thinner than the M9, so it has as much or more need for IR filters as well.
When I got a used M9 from an RFF member I kept the M8s, one of which was upgraded with M8.2 shutter and framelines. When I sold the M9 before the sensor corrosion was well-known, I still kept the M8 pair as by that time their value had tanked to the point they were worth more to me as users than I'd get in a sale. And I do use them, very fine cameras! Maybe you'll have the permanent coding done and relax with the IR filters and be happy too!
Added: And the M9 is not free of IR either, and benefits from use of the UV/IR filters in my experience, especially in a high-IR environment. The sensor cover glass that incorporates the IR filtering is indeed thicker than on the M8, but it doesn't deal with the IR as effectively as the M8 + IR filters. And I understand that the M (typ240) cover glass is slightly thinner than the M9, so it has as much or more need for IR filters as well.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I had the M8 for almost 6 years and I never saw the need to upgrade to the M9. Last year I moved forward and when I look back, the upgrade was such a good move. The overall quality is so much better, I never want to touch an M8 again. M8 without filters produced so horrible colors especially in nature. Sold the IR cut filters with the M8 and I don't have a single M9 image where I see the need for a filter. The m8 failed in a lot of darker scenes due to the bad iso capabilities. The M9 is far from being the best in class here but it's clearly better than the M8 and just enough for my needs.
The manual lens selector is working but for me it's not practical. I switch lenses often and forget to use the lens selector often. I set it to automatic because no lens information in the exif is better for me than a wrong information and 3 of my 5 lenses are coded anyway.
I can't say anything about correct framelines because I tend to shoot a bit wider and 90% of my images are cropped to the desired size in postprocessing.
If you have the money for the M9 just do it. There is a very good chance that you perceive it as a big step forward.
The manual lens selector is working but for me it's not practical. I switch lenses often and forget to use the lens selector often. I set it to automatic because no lens information in the exif is better for me than a wrong information and 3 of my 5 lenses are coded anyway.
I can't say anything about correct framelines because I tend to shoot a bit wider and 90% of my images are cropped to the desired size in postprocessing.
If you have the money for the M9 just do it. There is a very good chance that you perceive it as a big step forward.
Fraser
Well-known
What about coding the lenses yourself just swap out the mounts, that would only cost £35.
user237428934
User deletion pending
How does this work?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I was thinking of sending the lenses to DAG for coding. My understanding is that Don sends the flanges to a machinist to be modified. When he gets the coded flange back, he checks the lens for collimation and does any necessary work such as shimming the lens before returning it. You get your original Leica flange back. where would the swapped out mounts come from? Is it your original mount, or some aftermarket third-party item?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
It would be helpful to know what makes the M9 "twice the camera that the M9 is." Specifically?
raid
Dad Photographer
I am using the M8 and the M9 as a set. I never bothered coding any of my lenses. The M8 is a great camera. I usually have on it a 50mm lens (as a longer normal lens) while I have on the M9 a 35mm lens.
Fraser
Well-known
You can buy new mounts online and it's just a matter of swapping them using a good quality screw driver. If it doesn't work it's completely reversible I've changed all mine except for a 35 summilux which is a different design never had any problems.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yes, OK, I see some on eBay. Some are $11.90; some are $15.50; and some, branded "Kipon" are $37.56 to $40.00 range. All are from China. My concern is that the tolerances on genuine Leica items are very tightly controlled. The factory, I have read, actually uses wavelengths of light (red, I think) to check lens-to-film-plane distances. So what happens to all that precision with an $11.90 Chinese adapter? And is there a difference in precision between the cheapest and most expensive ones? Or can they be obtained from a well-known maker? Like Novoflex, for instance?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Thanks, Raid, I thought you might comment. I think that for 50mm and longer, and maybe even for 35mm, the coding is not considered important. But I use 21, 28, and 35mm lenses on my M8, in addition to longer ones. I think that the codes help to optimize or correct for the characteristics of some of the wide angle lenses, including, I believe, corner falloff, color errors, and so on. And I'd really like the lens info to show up on the computer.
I also use the 15mm CV lens on the M8, with a 21mm aux finder. I code it as the WATE, and the camera decides it is an 18mm, which I guess is close enough. I wonder if there is a way to get a coded flange for it?
Gee, I guess it would be simpler to just get an M9?
Scrambler
Well-known
How so? Don't you have to manually enter the lens? Surely the coding proves easier in the long run?
Spoken from a position of near - ignorance with my most modern Leica being from 1950.
AFAIK the coding only alters the internal JPG settings (and imprints the EXIF) so for anything other than in-camera JPGs an EXIF editor should do the trick? Given the low cost of a digital photograph, a card set with your lens choice marked (or to avoid focusing even a color code eg red=15mm) would make "coding" the output pretty easy for off-camera editing. Just photograph the appropriate card after you change the lens.
External correction will allow you to create (or adapt) custom settings specific to your lens, that may well differ from the nearest Leica equivalent.
Not just the JPGs, but the coding affects corrections written into the DNG as well.
For manual entry of lens ID, you're limited to those on the camera's list... and those don't include all Leica lenses.
I agree... coding is a real convenience. And I would be wary of those cheap flanges from China...
Ronald M
Veteran
You must remove uv/ir filters for film, not for the M9. Tell the M9 filters are in place.
The cheap flanges from China require work with a grind and micrometer to match the flange thickness of original flange which are nominally .039". The Chinese ones are
.040 to .039. Originals are .039 or .040. They must match or focus goes off. .001" will throw it off.
Either buy new lenses or let Leica code them. I think they originally did it cheaply, but then found out the extra work required and doubled the cost. It is not a simple change out unless you are lucky.
GM black and arctic white car paint work fine.
The cheap flanges from China require work with a grind and micrometer to match the flange thickness of original flange which are nominally .039". The Chinese ones are
.040 to .039. Originals are .039 or .040. They must match or focus goes off. .001" will throw it off.
Either buy new lenses or let Leica code them. I think they originally did it cheaply, but then found out the extra work required and doubled the cost. It is not a simple change out unless you are lucky.
GM black and arctic white car paint work fine.
rodinal
film user
Very likely, the 6-bit coding just tells the camera which lens to choose from that same list. The required corrections for each lens are already stored in the camera firmware, not in those 6 bits.
Fraser
Well-known
The last mount I bought I put a micrometer on it it couldn't see any real difference in thickness, all I can say is it works for me. The other handy thing is that you can now buy coded ltm adapters for the likes of canon 1.2 etc.
Fraser
Well-known
user237428934
User deletion pending
The list in the M9 does not contain all the lenses that have a 6-bit code. For example: if you have the Zeiss 18mm, there is no chance to select the Leica 18mm. Luckily I have the Leica 18mm with the 6-bit code. I bet there are more examples for Leica lenses that are not in the list.