Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Rich,
The high cost of an M9 and the low trade-in value of an M8 are nothing to do with camera quality, so we can ignore that one. You like huge cameras with multiple screens. Others don't. You like black chrome: I think it's horrible (as the result of bitter experience with a new M4-P). 'Less-accurate framelines'? A matter of opinion and choice. Doesn't worry me either way. Baseplate: again, I prefer it. Arguments about body strength are meaningless. High-res screen? Sure: more processing power, bigger battery, no more small camera. Personally, I regard today's obese SLRs as 'pathetic', to borrow one of your words.
Cheers,
R.
The high cost of an M9 and the low trade-in value of an M8 are nothing to do with camera quality, so we can ignore that one. You like huge cameras with multiple screens. Others don't. You like black chrome: I think it's horrible (as the result of bitter experience with a new M4-P). 'Less-accurate framelines'? A matter of opinion and choice. Doesn't worry me either way. Baseplate: again, I prefer it. Arguments about body strength are meaningless. High-res screen? Sure: more processing power, bigger battery, no more small camera. Personally, I regard today's obese SLRs as 'pathetic', to borrow one of your words.
Cheers,
R.
Try this Rich.
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Veteran
Interesting idea, the M-Mate2. Will only work on a tripod if the doors clear the clamp and/or plate, though.
leicashot
Well-known
I agree the M8 is a wonderful camera and highly capable in the right hands, but saying it's as good or better than the M9 in file quality is just wrong. Both sensors are great at their respective resolutions, being 10 vs 18MP. The same could be said by upsizing the M9 files and so on and on.
Those that try to emphasize such justifications seem that while they're happy to own and enjoy the M8, they're still thinking about the M9. My suggestion is just to forget such comparisons. Enjoy what you have and can afford and focus on improving your photography, not your files.
Those that try to emphasize such justifications seem that while they're happy to own and enjoy the M8, they're still thinking about the M9. My suggestion is just to forget such comparisons. Enjoy what you have and can afford and focus on improving your photography, not your files.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
As Frances pointed out when we discussed this over dinner, tell me how the M9 is worse than the M8. Do not tell me what improvements you'd like to have seen, but weren't there. Just tell me how it's WORSE.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
yanidel
Well-known
I disagree, in the traditional domains of M cameras, reportage and street photography, most shots are taken at close to mid distances.
And anyways, framelines are more an indication of the field of view, very seldom I find the time to precisely frame.
I've taken 5000 shots with my M8 in the last 8 months. I really like it.
It's Chrome. You have to pay a lot of money these days for a new, chrome Digital Leica M.
Tell you what- for any of you that are unhappy with the M9, black paint and all that- trade a CHROME M8 for your M9.
If the M8 delivers the images that you require, stick with it. The M9 is improved in multiple ways. It solves the IR contamination problem and it has a full frame sensor. It also uses 16-bit per pixel uncompressed RAW images rather than storing the square root of the 16-bit value as does the M8. The firmware allows manual selection of lenses as an over-ride for the 6-bit code. Those are advantages. $7,000- that is the cost to upgrade to an M9. I suspect that is the only "real" disadvantage.
It's Chrome. You have to pay a lot of money these days for a new, chrome Digital Leica M.
Tell you what- for any of you that are unhappy with the M9, black paint and all that- trade a CHROME M8 for your M9.
If the M8 delivers the images that you require, stick with it. The M9 is improved in multiple ways. It solves the IR contamination problem and it has a full frame sensor. It also uses 16-bit per pixel uncompressed RAW images rather than storing the square root of the 16-bit value as does the M8. The firmware allows manual selection of lenses as an over-ride for the 6-bit code. Those are advantages. $7,000- that is the cost to upgrade to an M9. I suspect that is the only "real" disadvantage.
Last edited:
gdi
Veteran
Exactly...
I held out for almost a year to get the M9 and also had the original M8 concurrently. But it didn't take long to realize there was no need to keep the M8. IMO the M9 image quality was significantly better in all ways - unless one wants to shoot IR.
My disappointment with the M9 doesn't come from comparing it with the M8. That comes only when comparing it to the M3 and Tri-X!
MCTuomey
Veteran
excellent advice - it's good to be reminded of what really matters amid the rattle of gear talk
Paul Luscher
Well-known
I'd agree. The M8's a very good camera. Only got the M9 because I could afford it (big hit to the saving account, though--had to sell a lot of photo gear, too), I wanted to use my lenses at their proper focal lengths, and it was the 25th anniversary of my first picking up a (real) camera. That's my excuse.
Do like certain features of the M9 over the M8, though. For example, the exposure compensation feature is easier to use on the M9.
Do like certain features of the M9 over the M8, though. For example, the exposure compensation feature is easier to use on the M9.
Tom Niblick
Well-known
Be careful when using the sharpening tool in AS Blowup. It can produce some rather strange artifacts.
You might also want to consider a 4x5 with a scanback. The results can blow away 8x10 drum scanned film. I use a BetterLight Super 6K on a Toyo view and sold all of my 8x10 gear. I get more dynamic range than I can use and can program various tonal curves, color profiles and lighting compensations into the capture before I shoot. That is a great feature when you're switching back and forth between art repro and still life.
BTW: Do you know what 8x10 film costs? And the processing? Shooting a serious volume would quickly pay for a scan back and a compatible MF back. And drum scans are not cheap. I charged $35-$300 to drum scan chromes when I had my big scanners. Even at the best possible prices, we're talking $50 per shot. That's what I charge to shoot a painting. I'd need to triple my rate if I were to go back to film.
You can check out my set up here: http://www.kauaisprintmaker.com/how-to-print-the-perfect-giclee.php
I'm with you on the M8. About the only big reason I lust for the M9 is for a quieter shutter. A lesser reason is - and I'm not even sure about this one - but I think the M9 has a bigger buffer. Shooting fast with the M8 tends to freeze the camera and requires a battery pull to restart. It sure would be nice to shoot 9 or 10 frames quickly without worry.
Tom