M8 produces sharper photos than the M9: M8 is a better buy!!!!

E

eleskin

Well-known
Local time
6:57 AM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,080
I know I may create a firestorm here, but I am absolutely convinced the M8 is producing sharper files than the M9!

I cannot get it out of my head the test I ran with the M9 at the Photo Expo Plus with my late generation f1.0 Noctilux and the comparison I have made with "17"x22" prints made with the Noctilux and the M8 with the result being the M8 prints are sharper and the M9 prints look mushy!

This, sadly, looks like the result of adding a filter to the sensor. Everyone thought the M8 was a joke with the filters on the lenses, but it now seems Leica had it right the first time all along!!!!

I am seeing results with my Noctilux where the in focus areas are sharp and the out of focus areas give that lovely "NOCT" look! The M9 results look mushy i the in focus areas, with the typical "NOCT" background effect.

Some people are paying real money to have the IR filters removed from their Canons and Nikons so they can get the most out of their lenses. I have even heard of talk online of some who have the M9 and want to take the new filter off, esentilly making it a larger sensor M8!!!!!!

I hate to rain on all the hoopla about the M9, but these facts seem indisputable!!!!

I am now sticking with my trusty M8, and now plan to buy a second used M8.2 with a REAL CHROME FINISH (no cheap grey paint!!!!). The M9 may have better high ISO speed, but that is irrelevant when one is using high speed Leica lenses.
 
Wish you could make a raw file from the M9 you are talking about available for download. I would love to work with it in Photoshop and see what you are talking about.
 
While I'm happy for you since it will save you money, it would be nice to have a little more data, like shutter speeds, tripod use yes/no, example photos, etc.

For what it's worth I have seen huge and sharp enlargements taken with unmodified Nikon/Canon DSLRs.

Roland.
 
I wish I had an M9 to test.

I was at PDN Expo ad it was dark in there. Hardly ideal conditions to make such judgments.
 
Personally I wouldn't comment way or another quite yet and below are just a few of the many reasons why. I've learned not to judge till both all the original posters facts are in (details of how the tests were performed)..as well as others who have both cameras, also comparing large format prints. Something I've been in the process of doing.

1. Having shot with various M8, M8.2 and a few M9 bodies, I've noticed each can be ever so slightly different in precise focusing and therefore with ultra fast lenses, exactly what part of the subject is in focus. In order words, slight biases toward front or rear focsuing, ever so slight, enough to through a fast lens like the Noct 50mm f1 wide open, just slightly out of focus (or slight focus shift. THis also of course goes for focus repeatablity. Use a Noct on either of these two cameras, take a shot and repeat 6 times. No dount, some of the shots will have a slightly different focusing point, which will and can be seen.

2. One M8 and one M9 does not make it statistically significant and I would want others to observe and document the same thing.

3. As already pointed out, some "controls" in such a test would be use of a tripod and knowledge of shutter sppeds, other settings etc. Hand held shooting at f1.0 and compariing sharpness of two cameras using same lens is unfortunately something I couldn't depend on

4. I would rather use any very sharp lens and stop it down to it's best performing apature on M8, then repeat with the M9, but compensate for the M8 crop factor by moving the M9 "forward". The test can be repeated but after shooting with the M9, use same lens on the M8, but move M8 "Backwards". Of course all shots tripod mounted. Then print and compare.

I left many other things due to time constraints but I'm sure others will chime in.

One thing I have observed and others have commented on it too.....the files from the M8 do appear to be a bit sharper than the M9 on a per pixel basis (when proper controls are used..but there si no getting around the fact of the increase in size of the M9 file, other important attributes of the camera (M9) itself, which ultimately can have an advanatge in large format printing.


As for M9 files looking like mush when compared to M8 files....I'll leave that one alone at this point and again it all goes back to first using some of techniques and proper controls I listed here and what others
will suggest. That's my personal thoughts from years of testing optics. I'm sure others have equal experience and are aware of the general pitfalls of such testing. Time will tell.

I recently ran another comparision of M8 vs. M9 using same lenses but haven't got around to examining files nor printing them...which I'll eventually do. I'll print the M8 file as large as I can natively go without interpolation and compare to M9 file reduced to equal size. Then I'll reverse it and print the M9 file as large as I can natively go andincrese the size of the M8 file with some good interpolation scheme and see how they compare in large foramt prints. Although I already know the M8 interpolated file cannot match the native M9 file when examining at 100%, in large scale prints at normal viewing distance, it can often (but not always) come quite close, depending of course on subject matter. So many variables, so any pronouncement has to be made with care.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:
I'd rather have to put a bit of sharpening into my workflow than to deal with filters on my lenses.
 
I think the following link demonstrates the effect of the AA/IR filters on sharpness. This comparison was done using a Nikon D200, but it explains a lot.

http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm

I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.... if you want to use a filter, sometimes it's better to use one on a lens, so when you want to, you can remove it.

I wish my Nikon was available w/o the built-in filter.
 
It just goes to show you can't have everything.

Everyone complained about the filters. You'd think after 3 years you'd have them all by now. I know I have an IR filter for all my lenses. So that issue was no longer a bother.

Now that the M9 no longer needs filters. Its images are a bit softer. And now all that money that was spent on filters is gone to waste.
 
mikemyers said:
I think the following link demonstrates the effect of the AA/IR filters on sharpness. This comparison was done using a Nikon D200, but it explains a lot.

http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm

I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.... if you want to use a filter, sometimes it's better to use one on a lens, so when you want to, you can remove it.

I wish my Nikon was available w/o the built-in filter.
Click to expand...

I don't see any mention of the modified camera being without any IR filter. Quote: "The Nikon D200HR has a custom piece of an IR Cut Filter (ICF) that replaces the stock cameras Anti-Aliasing (AA) and ICF assembly."

In other words, the modified Nikon still has an IR filter - the original combined AA/IR filter is removed but a different IR filter is used.

Whether or not the M9 is less sharp than the M8 remains to be seen, but the hot-rod modification doesn't prove anything with respect to the M8/M9 comparison.

Some people do get their DSLR's IR filters removed, but this is so that they can be used for IR photography.
 
I find that the sharpness of both cameras is similar, the detail is better on the M9 and the colour and contrast transitions on the M9 are smoother. maybe that is what the OP noticed.
The contrast out-of-RAW converter is higher on the M8 too. That alone can give the impression of a "sharper image" whilst in reality that is not the case.
Of course sharpness is no real measure of image quality at all. There is much more to that.
 
jaapv said:
I find that the sharpness of both cameras is similar, the detail is better on the M9 and the colour and contrast transitions on the M9 are smoother. maybe that is what the OP noticed.
The contrast out-of-RAW converter is higher on the M8 too. That alone can give the impression of a "sharper image" whilst in reality that is not the case.
Of course sharpness is no real measure of image quality at all. There is much more to that.
Click to expand...
I fuly agree, add to that that a slight mistake in focus will show more on the M9 than M8. So if the tests were done on the Noctilux in the wide apertures, this could also explain why you had this impression.
 
There is another thing as well: The Noctilux is a barrelfull of aberrations -pleasant ones, but still- and the M8 cuts off the worst of them by cropping. To make a test like this valid, one should use an Apo-Summicron asph 90 @ 4.0, or something similar.

Having looked at several thousands of M9 images by now - and sixteen thousand M8 ones- I think I can claim some authority when saying there is nothing mushy about either camera. Both produce about the clearest images in the 135 class - with the top prize going to the M9.
 
Last edited:
Yanidel Wrote....>>>

"I fuly agree, add to that that a slight mistake in focus will show more on the M9 than M8. So if the tests were done on the Noctilux in the wide apertures, this could also explain why you had this impression.">>>

Yanidel,

Thats one of the specific comments I made in my post above...that and the choice of lens used for comparison should be on order of a high resolving lens when shot at its max apature for resoluion like a 50mm Summicron, or as Jaap suggested, a 90mm AA at f4.

My other comments reflect my extensive shooting and examining both M8 and M9 files, especially in large foramt printing.

Dave (D&A)
__________________
 
I got so fed up with the bloody purple filters that I would happily sacrifice some sharpness to be able to shoot unobtrusively again.
The reflections off the filters drove me mad when shooting street or meetings etc, it was like there was someone with a billboard behind me, saying "The guy with the camera is over here"

If an M9 were in my budget now I'd buy one, I will not go back to the M8, even though I miss the ease of an all digital work flow. With my film cameras I can at least work without being noticed straight away.
 
D&A said:
Yanidel Wrote....>>>

"I fuly agree, add to that that a slight mistake in focus will show more on the M9 than M8. So if the tests were done on the Noctilux in the wide apertures, this could also explain why you had this impression.">>>

Yanidel,

Thats one of the specific comments I made in my post above...that and the choice of lens used for comparison should be on order of a high resolving lens when shot at its max apature for resoluion like a 50mm Summicron, or as Jaap suggested, a 90mm AA at f4.

My other comments reflect my extensive shooting and examining both M8 and M9 files, especially in large foramt printing.

Dave (D&A)
__________________
Click to expand...
My comment was more on the fact the M8 and M9 do not have same DOF. As for printing, I haven't tried yet, but your comments makes sense.
I took some shots yesterday with the 60mm Hex (which is a very sharp lens), they are stunning on the M9. Sharp, wonderful colors, I see an improvement vs M8.
Also, I remember going into a store when I had the R-D1 and doing a quick comparison with M8 files. My conclusion were that R-D1 files were better. When I actually got the M8 a few months later, I found out the M8 was way superior. So it is always a bit tricky to base an opinion based on quick and uncontrolled tests. Only time and a lot of shooting can really forge that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom