eleskin
Well-known
I just took the plunge for a second M8 on Eaby for $2,350. Camera is mint with 4,000 exposures taken. Still under warranty from being purchased in 2009. My M9 will have to wait a few years. I could not justify 7K and feel my M8 files are more than adequate, and I am a professional. I will probably get a used M9 before the M10 comes out.
Any new technology in my future will come from the Fuji X100 next year. I feel it would cover the gap well for me. So for me, 2 M8's and a Fuji X100 and a used M9 in 2 years.
I do not have that empty wallet feeling and feel great today!!!
Any new technology in my future will come from the Fuji X100 next year. I feel it would cover the gap well for me. So for me, 2 M8's and a Fuji X100 and a used M9 in 2 years.
I do not have that empty wallet feeling and feel great today!!!
ramosa
B&W
congrats! glad you're enjoying the new camera and the post-purchase feeling. i, too, have an M8 and am not tempted by the M9. maybe someday ... but not soon (i hope). "i hope" because i hope my M8 works on and on. like you, i could see getting an M9 in a few years when the prices fall dramatically.
also, i am interested in the X100 as a camera to supplement my M8. it's supposed to cost about $1,000, no?
also, i am interested in the X100 as a camera to supplement my M8. it's supposed to cost about $1,000, no?
GMcD
Established
Yes, at Photokina the guide price was said to be around $1000.
filmfan
Well-known
One can't help what they like...
Just kidding-- the M8 is clearly worthy.
Just kidding-- the M8 is clearly worthy.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry, I've forgotten what you mostly shoot. I'm not disagreeing with you: I just feel happier with the knowledge that the M9 can handle a double-page spread better than the M8. 'Professional' covers a multitude of sins.
Cheers.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Well, I'm just as happy after having nabbed my fifth Leica... Curiously enough, a Leica M5. So, I'm with you in the feeling!
Of course, mine is at the shop right now...
Congratulations on your new tool!
Of course, mine is at the shop right now...
Congratulations on your new tool!
eleskin
Well-known
M8 70,000 exposures so far
M8 70,000 exposures so far
The M8 that I bought in 2007 is still running strong at 70,000 exposures. This second camera is a backup for me, or maybe a second lens camera to save time for "the moment". Originally, I was planning on the M9 and having my trusty and reliable M8 as the backup. Economic considerations forced me not to get the M9 right now, and frankly, I have tested the M9 twice only finding a small improvement over my M8. Not enough to justify thousands more than an M8. The Fuji will be my next new camera, and the M9 will be my next used camera when prices come down enough.
M8 70,000 exposures so far
The M8 that I bought in 2007 is still running strong at 70,000 exposures. This second camera is a backup for me, or maybe a second lens camera to save time for "the moment". Originally, I was planning on the M9 and having my trusty and reliable M8 as the backup. Economic considerations forced me not to get the M9 right now, and frankly, I have tested the M9 twice only finding a small improvement over my M8. Not enough to justify thousands more than an M8. The Fuji will be my next new camera, and the M9 will be my next used camera when prices come down enough.
ramosa
B&W
wow. i'll need to check my exposure #. i'm sure i lag way behind you. what i have read about the M9 makes me thinks it's a great camera, but--as you note--not one with tremendously better IQ than the M8. or that's what i tell myself, so i feel good about my M8
sprokitt
Established
What's that, M8 euphoria?? I'd be careful how much joy you spread. There's some powerful cures for that in other threads.
porktaco
Well-known
do you guys all have boatloads of ir-cut filters?
sprokitt
Established
Haven't you heard?
Dark magenta. Its the "new black."
Dark magenta. Its the "new black."
eleskin
Well-known
IR filters I have, but not needed all the time
IR filters I have, but not needed all the time
I would say IR filters are needed 10-20% of the time for me. I have 3. One for my Noctilux, one for both my 35mm Summicron and 50mm Summicron, an one for my 35 f1.2 Nokton. Thats it. But seriously, most of the time the M8 is fine without the filters for me. I believe this IR issue was overblown to some extent. I learned to live with it, and since I do alot of Black and White, the sensor may be even better for tonal range.
For me, the M8 has proven as great as a camera as my M6 or my M4-2. Yes, they are different beasts, but with the M8 I truly saw what M lenses are capable of and I am still astounded, and folks, it is not the sharpness!
The M9 is nice, but not $7,000 nice. What will be really cool is when this Fuji hits the street and how I will integrate it into my rangefinder M photography. I doubt it will out resolve or better the M8, but it will be better for times where I do not want to take my Leica with me and where autofocus would be handy. It may even prove to be better at some low light photography at higher ISO's. The fast lenses on my M8 more than compensate for me going no higher than ISO 640, and with the Fuji, I am thinking why do I need the M9? In a way, the Fuji pushed me into buying the second M8 instead of buying the M9 (imagine that!). Yes, full frame is great, but really, 1,3x crop is not that huge at all, and it is easy to compensate. Micro 4/3 is a different matter!
So here, those of you who own M8's take heart, if you need a backup, a second M8 with a Fuji X-100may be the best bang for the buck in digital rangefinder photography.
By the way, when I first bought my M8 in 2007, I had only 2 surviving lenses from my M6 days (I had moved on to medium format and sold my other M lenses off to pay for my medium format equipment). The M8 gave me medium format quality, and I bought used lenses like crazy on Ebay during the time when everyone said the M8 was so bad. Now my lenses are worth much more that what I paid because of the M9 causing greater demand for used M lenses (my Noctilux is worth 2 grand more than I paid-YESSSSS!!!!!)
So here, I am convinced more lenses for my M8 have done much more for my image quality than sinking money into the M9 with limited lens choice. I am one who firmly believes the lens is way way way more important than any camera, so here, I yawn at the M9, but rub my hands in excitement when I use the lenses that I love!
IR filters I have, but not needed all the time
I would say IR filters are needed 10-20% of the time for me. I have 3. One for my Noctilux, one for both my 35mm Summicron and 50mm Summicron, an one for my 35 f1.2 Nokton. Thats it. But seriously, most of the time the M8 is fine without the filters for me. I believe this IR issue was overblown to some extent. I learned to live with it, and since I do alot of Black and White, the sensor may be even better for tonal range.
For me, the M8 has proven as great as a camera as my M6 or my M4-2. Yes, they are different beasts, but with the M8 I truly saw what M lenses are capable of and I am still astounded, and folks, it is not the sharpness!
The M9 is nice, but not $7,000 nice. What will be really cool is when this Fuji hits the street and how I will integrate it into my rangefinder M photography. I doubt it will out resolve or better the M8, but it will be better for times where I do not want to take my Leica with me and where autofocus would be handy. It may even prove to be better at some low light photography at higher ISO's. The fast lenses on my M8 more than compensate for me going no higher than ISO 640, and with the Fuji, I am thinking why do I need the M9? In a way, the Fuji pushed me into buying the second M8 instead of buying the M9 (imagine that!). Yes, full frame is great, but really, 1,3x crop is not that huge at all, and it is easy to compensate. Micro 4/3 is a different matter!
So here, those of you who own M8's take heart, if you need a backup, a second M8 with a Fuji X-100may be the best bang for the buck in digital rangefinder photography.
By the way, when I first bought my M8 in 2007, I had only 2 surviving lenses from my M6 days (I had moved on to medium format and sold my other M lenses off to pay for my medium format equipment). The M8 gave me medium format quality, and I bought used lenses like crazy on Ebay during the time when everyone said the M8 was so bad. Now my lenses are worth much more that what I paid because of the M9 causing greater demand for used M lenses (my Noctilux is worth 2 grand more than I paid-YESSSSS!!!!!)
So here, I am convinced more lenses for my M8 have done much more for my image quality than sinking money into the M9 with limited lens choice. I am one who firmly believes the lens is way way way more important than any camera, so here, I yawn at the M9, but rub my hands in excitement when I use the lenses that I love!
ashrafazlan
Established
Good plan, I bought an M6 to compliment my M8 and plan to shoot as much film as I can before it's extinct and then sell both and buy an M9/M10
It's funny how we make excuses not to buy the M9. I was ready to pull the trigger, but I just couldn't do it. $7000 is just too much for me mentally. I went the M8.2 route instead and like the camera a lot more than the M8 I used prior. The M8.2 is a solid camera... Now, the X100 has my mind off of the M9.
Now, the X100 has my mind off of the M9.
willie_901
Veteran
You may personally find results without IR filters to be completely acceptable. That's up to each photographer to decide for themselves. But I do not understand how can IR contamination be overblown.
IR photography exists and is trivial to perform with the right equipment, so IR frequency photons are not rare and in fact are significant more often than not.
Without a filter, the presence of IR light will cause erroneous photon counts and the true, but unknown, visible-light photon count (what you want to estimate) at each Bayer cluster will be wrong. The error may be profound (IR reflective fabric and blood vessels near the surface of the skin) or subtle (foliage) – but the color estimates are always wrong without filters unless there no IR light is present.
Some lenses have IR hot spots, so even B&W work can benefit from IR filters.
IR filters completely solve this problem. They may induce reflections and wide angle lenses will exhibit cyan color shifts (which can be corrected in post). So except for the rare case where filters cause reflections, the M8 works well when a filter is in front of the lens.
IR photography exists and is trivial to perform with the right equipment, so IR frequency photons are not rare and in fact are significant more often than not.
Without a filter, the presence of IR light will cause erroneous photon counts and the true, but unknown, visible-light photon count (what you want to estimate) at each Bayer cluster will be wrong. The error may be profound (IR reflective fabric and blood vessels near the surface of the skin) or subtle (foliage) – but the color estimates are always wrong without filters unless there no IR light is present.
Some lenses have IR hot spots, so even B&W work can benefit from IR filters.
IR filters completely solve this problem. They may induce reflections and wide angle lenses will exhibit cyan color shifts (which can be corrected in post). So except for the rare case where filters cause reflections, the M8 works well when a filter is in front of the lens.
ashrafazlan
Established
I'd rather have an IR-Cut filter on than off, not particularly for the color (I enjoy B&W) but because of the loss of sharpness you get when shooting without it (especially in low light)
ampguy
Veteran
have them, don't use them
have them, don't use them
very rarely, only visible to me, with very specific materials and lighting, or with lenses that don't filter UV light (or any portion of IR), then any uv not necessarily a uv/ir filter, will help.
have them, don't use them
very rarely, only visible to me, with very specific materials and lighting, or with lenses that don't filter UV light (or any portion of IR), then any uv not necessarily a uv/ir filter, will help.
sprokitt
Established
The way I see it, I'm not using a lens without some kind of filter on it anyway. Whether its UV or IR makes little difference to me.
The only lens I have without an IR (but with a UV) is my 15, mainly because I haven't gotten around to buying one. Give IR issue is with synthetic black fabric, its not a priority. I rarely shoot people with the 15.
Want to see some cool stuff?? Shoot the M8 with an 092 or other dark red. The enhanced IR sensitivity is very cool.
The only lens I have without an IR (but with a UV) is my 15, mainly because I haven't gotten around to buying one. Give IR issue is with synthetic black fabric, its not a priority. I rarely shoot people with the 15.
Want to see some cool stuff?? Shoot the M8 with an 092 or other dark red. The enhanced IR sensitivity is very cool.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
This demonstrates exactly what I was saying in another thread: the X100 changes the parameters of the waiting game.
I suppose I may get one myself.
Enjoy your new second M8!
I suppose I may get one myself.
Enjoy your new second M8!
Tom Niblick
Well-known
I use them 90% of the time. But I have shot color without a UV/IR. I can not see a difference on most shots taken with my 21 Biogon. I can, however. see the difference with most shots taken with my 35 Summicron and my 90 Elmarit. It probably has much more to do with the nature of the photos. I use my 21 mostly for landscapes and architectural shots while the 35 and 90 are people lenses where skin color and plastic fabrics are more obvious.
Tom