jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Come on - where did I say substantially - there is a difference - but it is subtle. I mix M8 and M9 images without hesitation. The content and photographic execution has magnitudes more impact.
But we were reacting to somebody who claimed a technical superiority of M8 images - and that is clearly untrue.
But we were reacting to somebody who claimed a technical superiority of M8 images - and that is clearly untrue.
Jeff S
Well-known
Try reading the whole thread, Jaap (at least from pst #8). You jumped in the middle.
My point wasn't that the M8 is better, only that the M9 isn't (substantially) better (in every way) either. For my needs, there is no significant difference.
Jeff
Ben Z
Veteran
I'd say that sums it up in the most objective way. I've got camera steadiness, focus and exposure down pat, but postprocessing and printing technique, no. I just can't seem to force myself to delve into it. So for me, I haven't found print-image quality jumped ahead since I made the move from M8 to M9.
Jeff S
Well-known
And if you took the time to 'delve into it,' and really mastered it, you'd find that prints from your M8 would be better than anything you're currently producing with your M9. And if you're not concerned about print quality, then why bother with any of this? Your agreeing with Jaap holds no water if you haven't verified it...in print.
Jeff
rf1552
Member
If I only plan on using 28-35mm lens on the M8.2, will I see a benefit from the revised framelines vs. the M8? Or is it only for lens 50mm and >?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The framelines on the M8 and M8.2 are not essentially different. RF framelines can only be 100% accurate at one given distance. As the lens is focussed to infinity, they will get too narrow. Experienced users compensate for this. Normally one would expect framelines to be accurate at the shortest focussing distance, to avoid accidentally cut off edges. And that was the way it was on the M8. As the M8 attracted quite a few new users that were not familiar with the phenomena and protested, Leica decided to take a chance and shift the optimum accuracy from 1 m. to 2 m. As this is closer to the usual shooting distance of 3 m. and less pronounced at infinity, the gamble paid off in far less complaints. But the "zoom" effect of the field of view in relationship to the framelines is unaltered. And now the framelines are too wide at closest focussing distance on the M8.2. So on the M9 they reverted to 1 m. And you know what? Nobody even noticed...
Jeff S
Well-known
Different strokes. I am an experienced user, and for my shooting habits (distance), the 2m lines are the best I've used, including all my film Ms. I think Leica erred by not including these in the M9, and others (Sean Reid, some of my experienced M user friends) agree. YMMV.
Jeff
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Quite possible - I have the 2m lines on my M8 u, and 1 m lines on the M9, and I have yet to find a problem. But then I have been using RFs for 40 years...My mind is geared to them, I guess.
LCT
ex-newbie
I don't use printers nor scanners to compare cameras but developping files from M8 & M9 with the same raw converters gave me the feeling that the M9 files need more sharpening than their M8 counterparts. Not a big deal to be honest but the M9 files need also more IR correction which is hardly satisfactory for a $7K or 8K camera IMHO. I would still use my IR-cut filters on the M9 if i had one i guess but the M10 will do better on this issue hopefully.
LCT
ex-newbie
Hey i did not think you were that old Jaap
I've been using M cameras for 41 years myself but the M8.2 framing is so much superior to me that i wonder if i'll buy the M10 if it keeps the M9 framelines as is seriously.
MCTuomey
Veteran
<<Better color?>> I don't see a difference in my prints, but I've never done a side-by-side same subject, light, lens, etc. More experienced users report smoother tonal gradations which are likely related to the larger sensor and lack of file compression. I always used IR-cut filters on my M8, btw.
<<More 3D?>> Can't say, the 3D thing is hard to fathom. Generally I like the way both cameras image with the lenses I use.
<<Worth the price difference?>> Yes, but not for the reasons you're considering. I made the change for resolution, mostly.
Jeff S
Well-known
And about 35 years for me (and most other formats along the way).
A good friend, whose work I admire, had the M8.2 and moved to the M9, primarily since he tends to print quite large. He almost didn't buy the M9 because of the frame lines, and would trade his camera (or update it) immediately if that were a possibility.
Jeff
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Nearly all digital cameras need IR correction or filtering. According to leica the M9 is in the top 30% which is quite a feat with the -optically dictated- relatively thin IR filter (0.8 mm) which is, btw, the reason one needs a tad more sharpening than the m8 (0.5 mm).
Yes - in high-IR situations and on not too short lenses I do use 486 filters.
Teuthida
Well-known
I know this: my M8 produces files better than drum scanned 6x 4.5 ACROS 100 negs shot with a Fuji GA645, so its more than good enough for me.
Ben Z
Veteran
Can't disagree with that. However, in that case the prints from my M9 would also see an increase in image quality.
You're assuming facts not in evidence. Never said I wasn't concerned about print quality, just that I don't have the patience to f+ck with postprocessing. There are other ways to get quality prints done than print them myself.
Again assuming facts not in evidence. Never said I haven't verified it in print, just not in prints I've made myself.
Jeff S
Well-known
But, you said: "So for me, I haven't found print-image quality jumped ahead since I made the move from M8 to M9." Sure sounds to me like you haven't verified Jaap's comments in your prints...in any way whatsoever.
But, in any case, we have different views on printing one's own work...I get far better control, choice of papers and inks, and better results printing my own work...same as I did with my darkrooms over several decades. And, on top of it, the turnaround time on a print is far less (saves my time, not increases it), as is the long term expense. YMMV.
Jeff
Ben Z
Veteran
Is this RFF, or PNet? I didn't realize someone would use my comment as a springboard to a pointless pissing contest, so I didn't spell it out. But I believe I clarified myself adequately in the post directly preceding, so I think we're done here.
Jeff S
Well-known
Very mature way to admit your mistake. Your quote above is crystal clear, and totally contradictory, and you're the only one who appears pissed.
Now we're done.
Jeff
gdi
Veteran
I hear one is never too old to learn, so why not go for it?
Dude, why don't you just chillax? You childishly insult people with a different opinion than yours, and when you get reasoned rebuttal, you question their maturity?
Have you considered creating a blog? You wouldn't have to be bothered by differing opinions - as long as you don't allow the posting of comments. Then yours could be the final word every time; you would find it a lot less frustrating.
Jeff S
Well-known
Interesting summary of the discussion. Let's recap.
I challenged someone's statement about a camera (saying that it's ridiculous to say that it is substantially better in every way), but I never personally attacked any person. You, however, insult me personally by making a snide personal remark that you pay more attention to the details than I (post #14). You don't even know me. Then when I respond with personal information to inform you, you respond with this post.
In Ben's case, he offers a contrarian view to mine, which is fine, but he admits that he has never experienced the results he endorses in his own prints.
Look inward, guys.
Jeff