M8 vs M9

1750Shooter

1750Shooter

Established
Local time
4:49 PM
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
191
Is the M9 really that much better than the M8? Considering buying one, but can't decide, M8, M8.2, or M9. Thanks for any input.
 
It's my understanding that it's becoming rather difficult to source critical parts for the M8. I can't speak definitively to any of them as my first digital Leica was the M240, but I was leaning more towards the M9. Largely because of it being full frame, having slightly more usable resolution, and didn't require the use of IR filters.

That being said, I've seen some really impressive B&W work come from the M8 shooters and it seems to generate a very appealing B&W file which intrigued me. If I found a good enough deal on an M8 I probably wouldn't shy away from it. But just be aware you may have trouble getting it repaired if something critical fails.
 
Satijntje said:
Go for an M8 or 8.2 or M240. Do not touch the 9 or MM!
See LUF Forum!
J
Click to expand...

Per the initial post, I had an M8 and loved it, especially its b&w rendering. I sold it to get an M9, didn't like its b&w rendering, didn't bond with it, and sold it. I have never been tempted by the M240 because, in my eyes, it's the anti-Leica. (I'm sure that will draw some fire.) I am, however, tempted by the MM, as I shoot almost always in b&w and prefer CCD to CMOS (more fire please?).
 
ramosa said:
Per the initial post, I had an M8 and loved it, especially its b&w rendering. I sold it to get an M9, didn't like its b&w rendering, didn't bond with it, and sold it. I have never been tempted by the M240 because, in my eyes, it's the anti-Leica. (I'm sure that will draw some fire.) I am, however, tempted by the MM, as I shoot almost always in b&w and prefer CCD to CMOS (more fire please?).
Click to expand...

CCD and CMOS will not draw differently. If you process your files using any camera is not inherently different (with the exception of the MM, because of the lack of a bayer filter). In fact the M240 will produce better results because the sensor's greater base iso tonal depth and dynamic range. Of course, the M9's OOC might be more preferable...

The MM really is a different beast, and cannot be compared in the same league as the other cameras...But the M240 will still have more versatility in producing B&W (post process color filters). It's ultimately a tradeoff between tonality and resolution (MM) and the ability to choose between rendering styles (M240).
 
I definitely have liked the M9 color more than that from the M240. (Of course and as you suggest, others may be able to overcome that much better in PP!)
 
YYV_146 said:
CCD and CMOS will not draw differently. If you process your files using any camera is not inherently different (with the exception of the MM, because of the lack of a bayer filter).
Click to expand...
You cannot post process M9 and M240 to get the colours identical. The spectral rendering of the R,G and B of the Bayer filter is different. You can get close through careful profiling, but never the same.
 
jaapv said:
You cannot post process M9 and M240 to get the colours identical. The spectral rendering of the R,G and B of the Bayer filter is different. You can get close through careful profiling, but never the same.
Click to expand...

Depends on what colorspace. For printing, I agree. But the difference will be minute...
 
Had both I think its worth it just for the full frame. As for reliability they are all as unreliable as each other:p
 
YYV_146 said:
CCD and CMOS will not draw differently. If you process your files using any camera is not inherently different (with the exception of the MM, because of the lack of a bayer filter). In fact the M240 will produce better results because the sensor's greater base iso tonal depth and dynamic range. Of course, the M9's OOC might be more preferable...
Click to expand...

This is certainly the case. In both technologies (CCD, CMOS) PIN diodes convert light energy to electrical energy. The differences have to do with timing circuitry and chip fabrication methods. The end result - electrical charges converted to analog DC voltages - is the same for both CCD and CMOS. At the same time CMOS technology typically operates with a superior signal-to-noise ratio compared to CCD. This not only affects read noise levels but also impacts the maximum analog dynamic range.

"Both CMOS and CCD chips sense light through similar mechanisms, by taking advantage of the photoelectric effect, which occurs when photons interact with crystallized silicon to promote electrons from the valence band into the conduction band. Note that the term "CMOS" refers to the process by which the image sensor is manufactured and not to a specific imaging technology.

However if the color-filter array components are different, then the M8 and M9 could render differently. In fact, the M8 and M9 renderings many prefer could be due to higher quality, more efficient R, G and B filters compared to other brands. In this case each channel is less contaminated with light from unintended wavelengths. The Bayer reconstruction model assumes the light from each pixel is restricted to a narrow range of wavelengths.
 
1750Shooter said:
Is the M9 really that much better than the M8? Considering buying one, but can't decide, M8, M8.2, or M9. Thanks for any input.
Click to expand...

I don't know. The M9 has a number of refinements to the control options that I like and the 35mm format sensor is what I wanted. The sensor has the same pixel density as the M8.x, it's just bigger for more pixels; the Bayer filter array and sensor stack is different so the images captured are different and you don't need an IR blocking filter.

(What both lack, for me, compared to the M typ 240 is truly responsive shutter operation on a par with my M4-2. And of course the M typ 240 sensor is different again and produces different results—but that's mostly a wash to me. At some point, I'll update to the M-P or whatever the current M is at that time.)

Some bits for the M8 have either become scarce or unavailable now, so from a service and maintenance point of view an M9 or M-E is a more practical purchase. That said, my M9 has not required any service since I bought it at the beginning of 2012; it looks/feels/operates as if new. I'm sure there are plenty of M8s for which the same is true.

G
 
The m9 is much much beter than the m8

Menu
Auto iso
Compensation dial
softer shutter, etc.

And the most significant thing is the fact that to achieve the same FOV and low DOF, on the m9 is much cheaper.
 
willie_901 said:
This is certainly the case. In both technologies (CCD, CMOS) PIN diodes convert light energy to electrical energy. The differences have to do with timing circuitry and chip fabrication methods. The end result - electrical charges converted to analog DC voltages - is the same for both CCD and CMOS. At the same time CMOS technology typically operates with a superior signal-to-noise ratio compared to CCD. This not only affects read noise levels but also impacts the maximum analog dynamic range.

"Both CMOS and CCD chips sense light through similar mechanisms, by taking advantage of the photoelectric effect, which occurs when photons interact with crystallized silicon to promote electrons from the valence band into the conduction band. Note that the term "CMOS" refers to the process by which the image sensor is manufactured and not to a specific imaging technology.

However if the color-filter array components are different, then the M8 and M9 could render differently. In fact, the M8 and M9 renderings many prefer could be due to higher quality, more efficient R, G and B filters compared to other brands. In this case each channel is less contaminated with light from unintended wavelengths. The Bayer reconstruction model assumes the light from each pixel is restricted to a narrow range of wavelengths.
Click to expand...
The end result is determined by the transmission characteristic of the R,G and B facets of the Bayer filter, not so much by the quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom