M8 40 'Cron vs M9 jupiter 8--Late night thinking...

J

Jess

Newbie
Local time
6:28 AM
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
7
This may seem like a naive question but what would be the better combo?
I am in a position, money wise, where I can afford (sort of) a digital rangefinder. Money is tight though and the M8 combo is about $2000 cheaper than the M9 alone. I know the M9 is an amazing camera but is the M8 that bad? The high ISO noise dose not bother me as I am use to film. Are the IR filters that big of a deal though? Basically is the M9 with a inferior lens worth the extra 2K?

I have just sold my Fuji x100 that I liked but I really want a rangefinder like my Canon RFs.

One of my thoughts is that the M8s have already sort of bottomed out on price where the M9 is just beginning to really depreciate with the release of the new M. So I could probably sell the M8 in a years time for not much of a loss and get an M9. Is my thinking along the proper lines?


Sorry just kind of late night thoughts. Feedback is appreciated though. Thanks.
 
That would be a bit like buying a McLaren P1 and filling it with bio-diesel....

The M8 is great, I had one for about a year, back to film now. With the $2000-2500 you save, get yourself 2-3 second hand zm's and be merry.
 
sam_m said:
That would be a bit like buying a McLaren P1 and filling it with bio-diesel....
Click to expand...

I would rather save up for the M9 and get a Voigtlander 35 or 50mm lens, it's only a few hundred more and you'll get what you want. Shoot film for a while more, the M9 prices are already dropping as we speak...

I use an M8, it's a fantastic camera but the crop factor makes transitioning between film/digital a bit different.
 
Jess said:
This may seem like a naive question but what would be the better combo?
Click to expand...

The M8 w/40 'cron, field-of-view-wise would be the equivalent of the M9 + a 53mm f/2 lens; obviously, a 3mm difference with the M9 + 50mm f/2 Jupiter

You'll need a 39mm UV/IR filter with the right pitch for the 40mm 'cron; I'd recommend getting the 40mm Rokkor instead, which can take any 40.5 filters (but the UV/IR in that size requires some shopping).

So, the money you save M8 "vs" M9 will be translated into some work you'll have to do, including UV/IR filter gathering and competent noise post-processing for and above ISO-1250 (unless you're doing B&W, where the noise translates very well to give that so-called "film look").

This is where the "which is better" is up to you...
 
The 40 Summicron-C and 90 Elmar-C take the (absurd) Series 5.5 filters -- not 39mm. Many 39 mm filters will fit but the threading is a different (50 vs 75 ?) pitch so you can only screw it in halfway. DO NOT force it. Best solution is to buy a Series 5.5 to 39mm step up ring from an outfit on eBay (I think he also sells independently on the 'net) called "Heavystar."

All that said, if you can afford an M9, get an M9. Maybe wait a year for prices to begin really to drop, once the M and the M-E are out there and available etc. If you need digital shoot a used m4/3 camera til then. You can get a G1 for less than $200 now and it will take any lens you wish with proper adapter. I was just looking at my old G1 pictures and they still amaze me.

If you shoot Canon RF and have either the 50/1.8 or the 50/1.4 you don't need to buy a lens for now: those are as good as the lenses you've named.
 
the M8 is such a great camera for the price....and would highly recommend it if you are on a specific budget. I did not find enough advantages in the M9 to justify paying double for it....and I got a smoking good deal on my M8.1 (M8u). i have never ha to buy any UV/IR filters and have never noticed any magenta tinting in any photograph.

i dont find myself lusting after the M9....in the meantime...I will start saving for the Monochrome....a camera I DO find myself lusting after! :)
 
The B+W 39mm uv/ir filter screws reasonably into a 40 cron–much better than the leica version. Neither will go all the way in but the B+W will stay there: mine hasn't moved in a few years save for cleaning, and hasn't budged on its own. So take all of the filter madness with a grain of salt.

And it's a beautiful combo, M8 & 40 cron. You'll need to file down the mount just a little to make the 40 pull up the right framelines, and if that's going to be your principal lens then don't bother paying the extra for the 2m framelines–the original framelines will be more accurate with the 40.

And the M8 is not bad at all–high iso is mediocre, but the camera is 6 years old–eons in the digital age, and low-iso is just plain stunning. And if you get it and you're happy, you can likely sell it and get an M9 in a year's time. I wouldn't count on it having bottomed out, but I expect that the M9 will depreciate faster.
 
Earlier today there was a steel gray M9 at PopFlash, one of the RFF site sponsers, for sale for $4600.00 with the Leica 2 year warranty. I believe it is one of the Leica Demo models that is refurbished. I do not think you would find a New condition M9 with a warranty for cheaper then that. Otherwise the M8's have been in the use section at various site for between $2200 to $3500 depending on the model.

Good luck with your decision.
 
You can buy a better lens later. Buying the M9 later will be a MUCH more expensive undertaking. Go for the M9.

(Note: I have both M8 and M9 and lenses from 15 to 135mm for them).

Cheers,

R.
 
sam_m said:
That would be a bit like buying a McLaren P1 and filling it with bio-diesel....
Click to expand...

But the upper end of the cylinders, valves and the fuel pump/lines would be shiny clean and very well lubed up!

Jess, both the M8 and M9 make fantastic images. The M8 has its own advantages for creative work (IR photography) and of course, the M9 is full frame.

The problem with the J-8 on the M9 is that the nominal focal length is slightly different from Leica's 51.6mm standard so the lens must be shimmed to focus correctly at X distance and should really be adjusted precisely to work with a Leica DRF because the digital sensors have no depth and are unforgiving of the slight focus errors that the J-8 can incur.

Anyway, save up for the M9 and enjoy it. Or, get a film M and a few lenses and a trip to a foreign country for the same price.

Phil Forrest
 
I have to say I am totally fascinated by the responses to this! I was sure people would suggest (as I tried) that lenses are far more important than the camera, but it seems the consensus is to buy the m9 as the priority, lenses later. Interesting! I guess I took the question very literally, and didn't consider the option of holding out for a little while to save for a better lens, but in retrospect that seems the most sensible. Let us know what you decide to do Jess.
 
If you shoot B&w, then the M8 is the camera for you. I too have a Fuji x100 which never gets used because I find the B&w files from the M8 to be so much better. It's because of the increased spectral sensitivity of the M8 sensor, which also captures the IR spectrum. It gives stunning B&w files, the best I've ever seen from a digital sensor prior to the MM. Of course, if you're shotting B&W, you don't have to use the IR filters.
 
I appreciate all of the responses. The general consensus is that if I shoot B&W then the M8 is amazing for that. I only shoot B&W. I lusted after the MM as soon as it was released but it is 8K. Anyways, I think that I have made up my mind to go with the M8 and 40mm Rokkor. Perhaps I will add a VC 28mm 1.9 latter on down the line. I am a college student so that $2500 is a semester with books. I think that I would rather have the camera now and be using it plus a little money in the bank for the future.
Perhaps I can pick up an MM when finances permit and hold on to that one for life :)

Thanks for your response everyone.

So as a result I am now looking for an M8. In black preferably. Around $2000 if anyone is looking to unload theirs :)

Cheers
 
One more thing. Is the 35mm Summicron worth the $800 more than the 40mm Rokkor? Focal length aside. I have heard conflicting reports about bokeh and sharpness. Comments?
 
Jess said:
One more thing. Is the 35mm Summicron worth the $800 more than the 40mm Rokkor? Focal length aside. I have heard conflicting reports about bokeh and sharpness. Comments?
Click to expand...

No. Not for a college student.

Don't go down the road of chasing optical perfection until you're a well-established __________ making $300k a year and can afford to splurge to have "the best."

IMO, the optical excellence of Leica lenses is as much subjective wish-fulfillment as it is objective fact. I have a tack sharp VC 35 2.5 which, to my eye, is indistinquishable from a 35 Summicron costing $2000 more. Others will object, of course, but they're usually the ones trying to justify why the pay crazy money for Leica optics.

In a 40 year career, I've owned lots of Leitz/Leica optics. Sold them all when they got outrageous, which, luckily for us, was about the same time Cosina started pumping out exceptional lenses at 1/5th the price.

But then again, if you look at the Leica optics as an investment where you can recoup the cost when selling, then go for it. Just don't expect it to come with some magic character lesser lenses may not have.
 
sam_m said:
I have to say I am totally fascinated by the responses to this! I was sure people would suggest (as I tried) that lenses are far more important than the camera, but it seems the consensus is to buy the m9 as the priority, lenses later. Interesting!
Click to expand...


While the choice between paper and plastic can be a matter of conviction, it can also be a matter of convenience. If given the choice between buying a bottle of wine and pick a paper bag to carry it, and a Belgian beer six-pack and a plastic bag, a set of people would think that the bag is far more important and another set of people would think that the choice between the beer and the wine is the most important.

Laying the pros and cons of each choice does not mean one is absolutely more important than the other, but in which case which would be more important than the other.

Personally, I don't think that wine carried in a paper bag is far more important than a six-pack in a plastic bag, or vice-versa.
 
Teuthida said:
If you shoot B&w, then the M8 is the camera for you. I too have a Fuji x100 which never gets used because I find the B&w files from the M8 to be so much better. It's because of the increased spectral sensitivity of the M8 sensor, which also captures the IR spectrum. It gives stunning B&w files, the best I've ever seen from a digital sensor prior to the MM. Of course, if you're shotting B&W, you don't have to use the IR filters.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Do you mean you shoot B&W Jpeg files or do you post process from Raw files ?
I use to shoot Raw + B&W Jpeg but I never use Raw files for B&W excpet when I want to keep an image in color.

Regards
 
don´t even think....go straight for the m9 + jupiter 8...obviously the m8 plus cron is less expensive...if not wait until the sony rx1 arrives in store...i´m tempted...:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom