I have both the M8 and M9. It is fair to state that the M9 is better for color, "better" meaning not having to use IR cut filters to attain normal colors. High ISO is better on the M9 by 1~2 stops. IR cut filters introduce a set of problems with reflections and color shift that is avoided in the M9.
I will not be selling my M8, and will continue to use it. But between the M8 and M9, the latter is improved in several ways. Some of the improvements, such as displaying the most recently shot image- could be implemented on the M8 via firmware. Others, such as IR filtering and higher ISO performance- cannot.
Anyone interested in Digital M photography that does not want to drop $7K- an M8 is a great camera, and can be sold to receover most of the cost if you decide to upgrade. Or, upgrade to the M9 and use the M8 for a backup. For me- it will be used for Telephoto lenses where the crop factor is not a detriment. IR Cut filters are less of an optical issue with Telephoto lenses than they are with wide-angle lenses. the 1/8000 shutter speed is also an advantage.
I will not be selling my M8, and will continue to use it. But between the M8 and M9, the latter is improved in several ways. Some of the improvements, such as displaying the most recently shot image- could be implemented on the M8 via firmware. Others, such as IR filtering and higher ISO performance- cannot.
Anyone interested in Digital M photography that does not want to drop $7K- an M8 is a great camera, and can be sold to receover most of the cost if you decide to upgrade. Or, upgrade to the M9 and use the M8 for a backup. For me- it will be used for Telephoto lenses where the crop factor is not a detriment. IR Cut filters are less of an optical issue with Telephoto lenses than they are with wide-angle lenses. the 1/8000 shutter speed is also an advantage.
Last edited:
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Yes, another good reason to keep the M8! I have got an original M8 with a replaced sensor, so I should be in business with it for a while. I miss 1/8000 on the M9--a little bit, anyway.
menos
Veteran
Brian, this is a point, often brought up.
I use the M8.2 exclusively without filters and render mostly in BW.
Although I never saw any issues with detail and sharpness, I am genuinely interested, to what extend this effect can be visible.
With the 10.000s of images, I have seen and inspected from the M8.2, I am inclined, to say, that this effect is negligible, but I am very interested, to be shown otherwise (one never ceases, to learn).
I always did the same with the R-D1 - I treated the camera as a film body with standard pushed ISO1600 film constantly loaded.
I would even push the files up to ISO 3200 regularly and in times even to ISO 6400.
The R-D1 is extremely forgiving, showing up serious file defects only very late or in serious situations (horizontal banding on bright light sources after 2- 3 stops pushing).
The only one reason, I don't use my R-D1 anymore is indeed it's limitation to 6MP, while the M8.2 files allow for more and film even more (I use two bodies mostly).
I love the output of SilverFX, but slimmed down my workflow to the least number of different tools involved.
Lightroom is pretty powerful in what can be achieved for BW conversions.
The ease, one can create specific profiles is great, while the universal work flow in batches is extremely nice.
For this reason, I skipped SilverFX at some point.
I for example always shoot two bodies with different focal lengths (my favorite pairing is a 50mm on the M8.2 and a 35mm on a film body).
In my opinion, having a crop and a 24x36 mm body and just one lens on each is extremely quick, but flexible in mixing your focal lengths.
It works even better, when adding just one tele or super wide to the bag (if a bag is even necessary this way).
I think, there is no "this or that camera" ,but a great pairing, given the fact, that these cameras work so very similarly (even share SD cards, batteries and lenses)
On the IR issue, if you use a Summicron or other lens as well color-corrected, you will not see an issue. The IR index of the 50 Summicron is within the f2 DOF marks. Use a Sonnar forumula lens, it is between the F4 and F5.6 marks on many lenses. I "Pixel-Peep" when testng a lens after shimming it, and the soft "secondary" image was apparent. It tends to soften the image, almost like veiling flare. In B&W, would not be an issue.
Lss
Well-known
Do you like IR photos? I haven't been too interested in IR photography before, but the fact that M8 makes it super easy is a good reason to give it a try. You can easily trade in a couple of IR cut filters for an IR filter. If you stick to your plan (and I think it's a pretty good plan), you won't really be needing them anyway.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I just sold my IR filter...couldn't really get into it. I did give it a try, though!
The Meaness
Well-known
I agree with you here. I wish you could create a silver efex preset (like the other presets in Lightroom), or some kind of default setting you could run a whole batch through, then tweak in LR.
The results are what keep me using it - but it is time consuming.
menos
Veteran
Not only the time is an issue for me, but the waste of hdd space.
I start with a 10MB DNG file in my photo library, which stays at that size, if I process entirely in Lightroom.
The moment, I flip to another tool, I have to generate an immensive TIFF, clogging up my hdd, which is an issue for me.
Well, people say, hdd space is cheap, buy another one …
It ain't so easy - I am an expat, working on a laptop with limited internal space and do not really like the idea of lugging more than one external drive with me at all times.
For the moment, I am just getting around with my yearly shot files and technology advances and upgrades, to keep things simple to one computer and one external.
I hope, the SilverFX people get bought by Adobe and their great software assimilated into a few nice Lightroom functions ;-) (that's mean isn't it)
250swb
Well-known
Whatever happened to the skill of visualising from a colour scene or image what it will look like in B&W? Why does every image need to be converted to B&W, surely only the good ones need Silver Efex? 
This goes back to the original premise of the thread. Once upon a time a photographer looked at a colour landscape and 'saw' what it would look like in B&W, or B&W with a red filter, or B&W with and IR filter, etc. Now a separate dedicated camera is needed to make a B&W image! Is it the short attention span of the modern man, or desire for ever quicker fixes?
If anything great has come from digital photography to aid B&W work its the very fact that you can go home with a colour image. Then using Silver Efex and Photoshop you can not only chose the colour filter to apply to a scene, but if necessary create a different tonal range for each individual photograph (if you really want to) and using the maximum file information possible (RGB). This is all without all these decisions being locked into the film as in the past. So you'll forgive me if I can't quite decide, but is a dedicated B&W digital camera an expression of the modern short attention span, or a Luddite harking back to the past where useful advances in technology are thrown out? There is a dichotomy in the very idea.
Steve
This goes back to the original premise of the thread. Once upon a time a photographer looked at a colour landscape and 'saw' what it would look like in B&W, or B&W with a red filter, or B&W with and IR filter, etc. Now a separate dedicated camera is needed to make a B&W image! Is it the short attention span of the modern man, or desire for ever quicker fixes?
If anything great has come from digital photography to aid B&W work its the very fact that you can go home with a colour image. Then using Silver Efex and Photoshop you can not only chose the colour filter to apply to a scene, but if necessary create a different tonal range for each individual photograph (if you really want to) and using the maximum file information possible (RGB). This is all without all these decisions being locked into the film as in the past. So you'll forgive me if I can't quite decide, but is a dedicated B&W digital camera an expression of the modern short attention span, or a Luddite harking back to the past where useful advances in technology are thrown out? There is a dichotomy in the very idea.
Steve
Umm, a dedicated camera is not needed now (since digital can be either)... once upon a time it was.
Once upon a time I used to paint portraits... this photography thing is the devil!
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Perhaps you can't decide because neither is the correct answer! The idea interests me, anyway, in the same way that a sonnet interests me, or a pop song. You start with limitations and innovate within them, and the results are often something different (not necessarily better) from those you would have gotten by leaving your options open. Sometimes options are distracting: when you can do anything, you might sometimes do nothing.
Most of my photography is color, but I hardly ever print in color--indeed, I have a B&W inkset in my only printer. (I will probably upgrade this year to a new Epson, though, and print color at home.) In any event, the B&W-only digital camera is a voluntary limitation that streamlines the artistic process. One doesn't necessarily always want this, but it can have interesting results.
peterm1
Veteran
No I have fallen into the habit of shooting in color and converting to mono in post whether I am shooting my M8 or something else. I like the flexibility it gives me. Usually when I shoot color I seem able to pick tones OK so I am happy to be able to do this and converison process allows me to produce pretty well whatver result I fancy. Thats just me though. Even when I use say a Panasonic L1 which has some excellent in camera mono options I find it hard to make that decision.