M9 and M8.2 side by side comparison

akarin

akarin

Established
Local time
6:10 AM
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
116
I picked up an M9 in Auckland for a friend while vacationing there last week. Stumbled on this amazing shop by accident, found one piece on sale, so I had to call a friend who I know want one. He did the deal quickly after. Long story short, I have the M9 for a couple of days, so I did a few test shots (with my friend's blessing, of course). I thought I'd share them here. These are the four that I think you may find helpful. Enjoy!

All shots are taken on tripod, using aperture priority mode and +2/3 EV

1) M9 CV50mm f1.1 at f5.6
741681547_jsqPY-XL.jpg


2) M8.2 CV35mm f1.4 at f5.6
741680644_XZCTu-XL.jpg


3) M9 CV35mm f1.4 s.c. at f5.6
741680176_FyFNi-XL.jpg


4) M8.2 CV28mm f2.0 at f5.6

 
Good initiative!

Just wondering here, did the lens on the M8.2 have an UV/IR filter on? In the first comparision, the M9 shot looks slightly more cyan and more saturated than the M8.2's. Not sure if that would be a situation where the filter would make a difference, though... Maybe each camera's autoWB setting is different. Apart from the tones, I like how the shadows are smoother in the M9 shot (higher DR?).

But all in all, in the M8.2's defense I think I would not find those 'weaknesses' on its shots if I didn't have the M9's to compare to.
 
In all but a few circumstances, it does not matter that the M9 has more megapixels. For practical purposes, then, the only difference is that the earlier camera gives more depth of field and increased focal length with the same lenses.
 
I hadn't thought about the filter. You are absolutely right, only the CV28mm has UV/IR filter on. The other 2 lenses do not have that.

I'm still looking for UV/IR in 43mm and 58mm sizes, by the way, so any pointer welcome! :)
 
payasam said:
In all but a few circumstances, it does not matter that the M9 has more megapixels. For practical purposes, then, the only difference is that the earlier camera gives more depth of field and increased focal length with the same lenses.
Click to expand...

The number of megapixels certainly makes a difference, it makes for smoother transitions, both in contrast and colour at all enlargements. The sensor has different colour filtering, different microlens architecture. The lenses show their edge aberrations. It may not show clearly in small web JPGs, but the OP is right that there is certainly a difference in images. A photograph is not just about counting pixels and dividing them up to calculate resolution.
 
akarin said:
I'm still looking for UV/IR in 43mm and 58mm sizes, by the way, so any pointer welcome! :)
Click to expand...

I use B+W 486 UV/IR filters - cheaper and easier to get hold of than Leica's filters. Schneider Optics, who make B+W filters, have confirmed that, for all practical purposes, their IR-cut filter works identically to Leica's.
 
I like the colors a little better from the M9 in those shots. More peppy, more like what I get straight out of my Canons. But a slight boost in saturation in C1 or CS2 and my M8 colors can look just as good, to me at least. From what I've seen (and not seen, as in major teething troubles) I'm optimistic about someday getting an M9 when there are demos.
 
Ben Z said:
I like the colors a little better from the M9 in those shots. More peppy, more like what I get straight out of my Canons. But a slight boost in saturation in C1 or CS2 and my M8 colors can look just as good, to me at least. From what I've seen (and not seen, as in major teething troubles) I'm optimistic about someday getting an M9 when there are demos.
Click to expand...

The clouds seemed to have moved too dramtically during changing cameras to imply that the colour files produced by either camera are that different. The presence of light is much stronger in the first shot.
 
It is hardly scientific, a "test" like this. Somehow the highlights in the M8 shots are far more blown. That means exposure differences make them completely uncomparable.
 
Jaap is certainly right. It wasn't meant to be anything near scientific. The test shots were more to make sure that there aren't any obvious problem with the new camera. I just thought to add comparative shots with the M8.2 for my own curiosity's sake. I shared them here because I was thinking there may be other curious souls out there
 
"The number of megapixels certainly makes a difference...". This is correct, Jaap, in absolute terms. I'll only say that few people can make out the differences of which you speak even on the large, high quality enlargements of which not many are made. Small prints and magazine pages are the end for the overwhelming bulk of photographs.
 
where in Auckland did you get the camera from? Last time I checked, the prices here were off the charts..
 
Giving my twopence worth, the glass & paintwork of the car taken by the M9 appears more shiny and richer in both pictures, with a deeper more polished appearance, if that makes sense?

Personally, there's very little between them and would need the boffins in white coats to `nail` the key differences. Plus the fact that everyone views colours and details differently.

Having never seen side-by-side pictures from both cameras and of the same subject, I had expected more. So I will be sticking to the M8 (mainly because I'm poor).:p
 
akarin said:
I hadn't thought about the filter. You are absolutely right, only the CV28mm has UV/IR filter on. The other 2 lenses do not have that.

I'm still looking for UV/IR in 43mm and 58mm sizes, by the way, so any pointer welcome! :)
Click to expand...

I think the difference between the unfiltered and the filtered M8.2 shot makes quite clear how the IR issue is annoying :\ I'm considering getting an M8 (currently I use an R-D1) and this is actually my main concern, as the IR problem is more obvious, so far I've only felt a difference when shooting a barbecue and the ember came out... violet. But in the M8 it seems all tones come out a bit tweaked...
 
It was Camera & Camera on Queen Street. The price was NZD10,000 which was slightly lower than that in Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore.

-kk- said:
where in Auckland did you get the camera from? Last time I checked, the prices here were off the charts..
Click to expand...
 
The greens in the M9 shots seem to be brighter and vibrant. Is this because of the UV/IR filter missing on the lens for the M8? (Sorry, I'm a newbie to RF's and was curious if this was what all the commotion was with regards to having UV/IR filters).
 
If you can shoot the same scene from the same position with a longer lens you must be doing better. What would it be like with a 240mm lens on 8x10?
 
Wow..on "downstairs" last shots you can see clearly. Of the last four shots in the gallery, the first still life set, shadow detail decreases noticeably in the M8 shot. Also on the golf ball, however, seems maybe the M8 shot may have needed a tad more critical focus? Either way one cannot deny the M9's resolving strength...and why should it not be an improvement with a larger sensor, no UV/IR filters and good optics? Of course it should.

Ah....will be some time before I can go the M9 route, in the meantime, my trusty beat up M8 will have to do...(haha...not complaining...actually the opposite, the M8 is still a luxury and very capable item!!)

msbel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom