Moving from m8 to m9

A

Astragony

Newbie
Local time
6:28 AM
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
7
Hello guys, I am very new to posting on this site even though I have been reading it for a very long time.

I have shot my m8 for 2 full years, personal and professional work,
I sold it about a week ago and I am now waiting for my m9 to arrive.

I have always been deeply impressed by the image quality coming from my m8 and voigtlander lenses, just a very particular rendering that I find very unique.

I am now afraid that the m9 will brake this bubble and deliver a less characterized look.

How did you feel when you went from m8 to m9?
I hear per pixel sharpness is lower?

I am just really nervous about spending so much on a camera.

Here are a couple of faves that my trusty m8 helped me produce :)

6678553853_a06dab1cd9_b.jpg


6305518892_ea411e81e2_b.jpg


6198883904_becd840ff9_b.jpg


If you want to check out my shots and shooting style: www.flickr.com/astragony
 
Astragony said:
I am now afraid that the m9 will brake this bubble and deliver a less characterized look.

How did you feel when you went from m8 to m9?
I hear per pixel sharpness is lower?

I am just really nervous about spending so much on a camera.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know much about "per pixel sharpness", but can tell you that M9 delivers stunningly good files, also compared to M8 (in this case meaning larger files and more noise free at high ISO).

You will definitely see pixels or noise over 1000 ISO, especially if the picture happens to be a bit underexposed, but I still haven't got a file where the noise was so unpleasant that I rather trashed it.

And if you convert those high ISO, slightly underexposed pictures to black and white, and then "open" and contrast them a bit in Lightroom, the result is IMO truly fantastic, resembling som good old film pushed a couple of stops and developed to bring out contrast.

Relax, now the money is spent.. enjoy that jewel you're gonna get.
 
My short answer, having moved from an M8 to an M9 last year, is that you'll need to make some modifications to your M8 workflow to accommodate the M9's files. In my experience, these were limited to color balancing and sharpening routines. The M9 files seem to require more sharpening than the M8's, for example. Much more obvious, you may find you need to change your lens line-up due to the lack of a crop factor in the M9.

I agree with what Andrea said re noise. The M9 files require less noise reduction which is partly the product of having more resolution available when I need to crop high iso files.

Great work on your flickr site! Your use of contre-jour lighting is beautiful to behold.
 
Thanks for the answers,
the high iso performance doesn't worry me at all since the m8's is dreadful but I learned to live with it (I actually mostly use base iso).
I never sharpen my m8 shots, I just find the rendering that good.

Another thing is that I never ever used IR filters on my m8, I think part of the unique look is also given by that (?)
 
Astragony said:
Thanks for the answers,
the high iso performance doesn't worry me at all since the m8's is dreadful but I learned to live with it (I actually mostly use base iso).
I never sharpen my m8 shots, I just find the rendering that good.

Another thing is that I never ever used IR filters on my m8, I think part of the unique look is also given by that (?)
Click to expand...

I think you may want to reconsider getting rid of your M8.
 
I am really craving the full frame look with proper wideangle lenses and I sort of need some more resolution for my professional work.
Other than that the m8 is a wonderful camera.

I'm very much hoping I will love the m9 even more, I'm just a little scared of the move.
I've never been attached to a camera, before going Leica I went through pretty much the whole Canon lineup without feeling sorry about departing with the cameras.
But the m8 (maybe it's leica) is different from those souless mass produced cameras :)
 
Astragony said:
I am really craving the full frame look with proper wideangle lenses and I sort of need some more resolution for my professional work.
Other than that the m8 is a wonderful camera.

...... before going Leica I went through pretty much the whole Canon lineup without feeling sorry about departing with the cameras.
But the m8 (maybe it's leica) is different from those souless mass produced cameras :)
Click to expand...


Sounds like my story, only difference being that I went through much of Nikon's lineup, not Canon's. You won't regret the upgrade to M9.
 
For me, the switch was no big deal. Liked the fact I could use my lenses at their actual focal lengths, and NO FILTERS (those things cost). Plus there were some other features which made the M9 more convenient ( the "info" screen and an easier exposure compensation setup , among others).

I can't say I've noticed any significant difference in image quality between the M8 and the M9, and I've always been happy with the high-ISO performance of both the M8 and the M9--and I shoot regularly at ISO 1600.
 
The upgrade from M8 to M9 can't be measured in dollars... its not a great value and it is a luxury. However, I'm still glad I did it. To be able to use all of the wonderful 50mm lenses that are in M mount as actual 50mm lenses was worth it alone for me. No filters and slightly better high ISO were bonuses. I have no regrets and I'm not sure I know anyone who regrets it (unless they spent money they weren't supposed to).
 
I switched pretty much seamlessly. I don't find the M9 files need more sharpening, but then again I used C1 with M8 files and LR3 with the M9, so I'm not sure whether that's a factor.

I wasn't terribly bothered by the crop factor of the M8, and I accepted the IR filters even though from a rational standpoint I thought and still think it was a ridiculous and embarrassing band-aid on such an expensive camera. Making the switch was a frivolous act of conspicuous consumption on my part, and I make no attempt to couch it in rationalizations. Tis my money, and I can't take it with me.

If you liked the M8 you will like the M9 at least as well if not better. Rather than buyer's remorse, I suggest accepting it as a challenge to justify the expense with increased productivity and great photography :angel:
 
You won't regret the move to the M9 for moment. The files are large and post processing for me seems much easier with the DNG files this camera produces. I use Aperture and some Lightroom. Make certain that your post processing includes periodic monitor calibration. I thought that these files required more sharpening than with my Nikon raw files, but since switching over to a 27in Apple monitor that calibrates quickly, I'm seeing Leica DNG files require less sharpening by far. But keep in mind that the lens you use will have a great deal to do with that as well. Good luck with your 9. Its a nice piece of kit.
 
The sharpening remarks are correct and understandable, as digital sharpening is not sharpening at all, but microcontrast enhancement. As the M9 has a thicker IR filter than the M8 it has a smidgin less microcontrast rendering, and you have to bring that back in postprocessing.
 
jaapv said:
The sharpening remarks are correct and understandable, as digital sharpening is not sharpening at all, but microcontrast enhancement. As the M9 has a thicker IR filter than the M8 it has a smidgin less microcontrast rendering, and you have to bring that back in postprocessing.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is spot on. I would also add that within the actual image itself which is made up of varying characteristics in the different areas of the image may require differing levels of sharpening, i.e., some levels greater, some levels less so and some levels not at all.

RD9
 
I just spent a few hours going over my M8 and M9 files so the visual difference is fresh in my mind. Still, it is hard to put in words, measure or even say "ah ha, there's the difference".

The M8 files were impressive but had a distinctly digital look. The M9 files were smoother and had a more natural look. The colors seem cleaner and the transitions are more natural. I guess the easiest way to express this is to compare the cameras to film formats. The M8 is like shooting chromes with a 35 mm camera where the M9 is like shooting negatives on a good medium format camera. Kinda... sorta...

I have a gallery in the waiting room of my studio. One wall is full of 24x36 inch prints shot with my M8 and the other wall has a 40x60 and a 24x36 shot with my M9. People used to marvel at the M8 shots but now they pass them by and look at the M9 work. They love to read the newspaper in the man's hand standing in the background of the one photo and the protest buttons on the jacket of the man behind him.

The M9 opens a whole new world. Where I knew the M8 was a transitional camera, the M9 is a camera I plan to keep and use.

Tom
 
... I am just happy that someone else working professional felt the need to get the M9 too and therefore sold his M8 ...to me! So have fun with a new M9 and make someone else happy too ...;-)
 
Tom Niblick said:
One wall is full of 24x36 inch prints shot with my M8 and the other wall has a 40x60 and a 24x36 shot with my M9.
Click to expand...

I never print this large, even for my exhibitions, so for me the M8.2 is still the tool of choice. I tried the M9 and found that my print success had much more to do with print equipment/software, good PP techniques, papers, profiles, inks, settings...and more...than on the camera. And a great image to start helps a bit.

Different strokes for all.

Jeff
 
Jeff S said:
I never print this large, even for my exhibitions, so for me the M8.2 is still the tool of choice. I tried the M9 and found that my print success had much more to do with print equipment/software, good PP techniques, papers, profiles, inks, settings...and more...than on the camera. And a great image to start helps a bit.

Different strokes for all.

Jeff
Click to expand...

Making big prints, posters, window displays and doing art reproduction is my business. I have prints of various sizes on paper and canvas on my walls so I can say "a 16x20 gallery wrap looks like this" or "watercolor paper looks like this". It helps people make up their minds. Were I just printing for myself or for gallery exhibitions, then I'd probably never go beyond 16x24.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom