M9 or M8.2?

[Carterofmars]

If you had to choose, M9 or M8.2?

Please explain why.

 

[ktmrider]

M9. I want the angle of view of my lenses to be the same on digital as they are on film. And the M9 is just a bit better at higher ISO's.

 

[raid]

I have M9 and M 8.2. The M9 rules. I get wide angle perspective with wide angle lens.

 

[View Range]

The M8.2 would have to be a lot cheaper than the M9. I took a lot of great pictures with my M8, but the M9 is simply a better camera.

 

[Darthfeeble]

Had both, the M9 is better by more than the money difference.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I owned M8. M8.2 is better. I sold M8, because I already have M-E. M8 was doing the same except crop sensor and worse handling of third party batteries.
Silver M8 has very special feel. It is classic, somehow digital, but still analog camera.

M9 is still fully supported, M8 only partially.

 

[raid]

I thought the the M9 has a worse handling of third party batteries.

 

[Takkun]

I thought the the M9 has a worse handling of third party batteries.

Really? For some reason I assumed it was better than the terrible situation with the M8, but it makes sense that nothing wouldn't have changed.


If I did it again now, I'd go with the M9, with a known good sensor. M8 had the shutter and screen issues (mine had both), m9 had the sensor rot.
But the M9 has a hair more sensitivity, a few more megapixels, but you keep your wides, which can be a plus or not. And most importantly, no hot mirror filter needed. They're hard to find, pricey, and a pain to keep switching from lens to lens.

A while back I shot a wedding with the M8 and couldn't find a 39-43 step up ring anywhere (mine came with two 43mm filters, guess the previous owner was a Zeiss guy). Sensitivity and file size weren't important; it was outdoors and the couple didn't want big prints.

But man, the groomsmen were all wearing rented polyester tuxedos, and every single one looked purple. That was a LOT of editing.

I went with the M8 since, at the time, they were going at times below $1k, but the M9 was still probably around $4k+ not long after the M240 came out. Nowadays it looks like the M9 has come down a lot, but the M8.2 has come up a bit (seeing one on eBay right now for $3600.

 

[Fjäll]

I loved the M8.2. Not so much the fact that my 35mm became closer to 50mm and I had to use IR cut filters (expensive) to get the colours right.

The M9 was fantastic. Some might complain about the ISO limitations in low light but coming from film it's a luxury. One of my favorite cameras ever.

 

[Takkun]

The M9 was fantastic. Some might complain about the ISO limitations in low light but coming from film it's a luxury. One of my favorite cameras ever.

Agreed. I got soft and lazy shooting concerts with a D800 and zooms. The M8 doesn't have nearly the leeway or shadow detail, but I like to think of it like having Provia and Superia 1600 in the same camera at will, and shooting it as you would film.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I thought the the M9 has a worse handling of third party batteries.

M8 would just lock itself if shutter fired twice in burst mode.
To unlock it, second battery would be always nessesary.
M9 is not doing this. I don't have spare battery with me for short self-assignments.

 

[Pioneer]

M3 and a scanner?


Oops, wasn't one of the options was it.

 

[Lss]

M9 has bigger files and provides the field of view you likely want. The practical image quality difference is the file size difference. There are some UI improvements, too. It is more future-proof in terms of service.

M8.2 is a bit more responsive, has better scratch resistance on the screen, is friendlier wrt third-party batteries, and allows shooting hand-held IR. It is cheaper. If your screen dies, you can’t get a new one.

 

[jarski]

10mp of M8 feels very low these days, least to me personally (and I know some here strongly object 🙂 ).

 

[Rayt]

Unless the M9 has had a recent sensor replacement I would go for the M8.2.

 

[jamin-b]

I hardly use mine anymore, mostly because i don't want to travel with a camera with insufficient low light capability, but I still have a soft spot for the M8 (and I don't own a more recent digital Leica). There is something creamy about the b/w images that I don't see on (my) other digital cameras. And there's the plus of the occasional quasi-infrared shots with a dark red filter...

 

[Peter_S]

I owned the M8, M8.2 and now M9. The M9 is overall the better camera, no doubt, but the M8.2 has its charms. The M8/8.2 yielded double-page spreads in magazines, and a 3m-wide print on Photokina a few years ago. I did not believe much in the theory that the M8 is the better b/w camera, but now, after having used the M9, I getting there.
Would I buy the M9 again over the M8.2? Not sure. The issue is the prices. M8.2 and M9 are not much apart anymore, making the M9 a better value. I was thinking to swap back to the M8.2, but they are hard to find and I would hardly get any cash in. The M8 I would skip, the M8.2 IS more refined.

On reliability...both are not new, you take a chance either way. I needed sensor replacement twice in the M9, my M8.2 was the only M (incl. film Ms) that never needed to see Wetzlar. Go figure.

In the end - best is to get an M9 from a dealer with warranty. That is what I did, and experienced flawless service by Leica (very recent).

 

[Fraser]

I think maybe if I was wanting a cheap way int digital Rf an M8 not an M8.2 as thats too close in money to a well used M9, I still have my M9 and does everything it needs to, don't worry about high ISO its fine up to 1600 and the lenses are mostly a stop faster than 2.8 zooms so that makes it effectively 3200. I would say if you are wanting low light performance no Leica is a good buy, better off buying a Nikon df or a canon 5dmk3 for £1000 and saving the cash.

 

[NickTrop]

You must choose the camera what's right for you!

 

[jsrockit]

The M8.2 would have to be a lot cheaper than the M9. I took a lot of great pictures with my M8, but the M9 is simply a better camera.

EXACTLY MY THOUGHTS....