My trusty M8 and the really bad economy!!!!

All camera manufacturers have to keep making new models to stay in business. This only works by relying upon people's aquisitive nature - the "other man's grass is always greener" factor. (I should know, I fall for it all the time.) To be realistic, most times we do not really need the improvements that come from the "next model up." But to be fair, its also how cameras have gotten better and better over time. The differences between a model X and a model X+1 may be small but over time the cumulative differences between the model X and model X+5 become greater. OK in the case of the M9 the improvements are more than trivial - largely they are hardware based not just software but one has to ask if the imcremental gains are worth it when the really rather huge cost incement is considered. Having said this I would certainly trade my M8 if I had the cash to do so without feeling remorse. (I have the money so could if I really, really wanted to but it would be an indulgence I could not justify to myself - and more importantly to the other half.)

So for now I will stick to my M8. But I might also be convinced to apply my long term strategy. I usually do not buy a new camera while it is still "hot off the presses" and at its peak of demand and hence price. I much prefer to bide my tiime and buy a good second hand job a bit down the track after the next model has been released and people are keen to dispose of their older model camera for a lower price.
 
Last edited:
peterm1 said:
The differences between a model X and a model X+1 may be small but over time the cumulative differences between the model X and model X+5 become greater. OK in the case of the M9 the improvements are more than trivial - largely they are hardware based not just software but one has to ask if the imcremental gains are worth it when the really rather huge cost incement is considered.
Click to expand...

Just to recap what I said separately in a couple of posts, comparing the M8.2 and M9 (not M9-P):

M9 "better" in terms of....full frame (and all that entails, including ability to shoot wider), lack of UV/IR filters, one stop higher ISO, improved color transitions (according to some), soft release

M8.2 "better" in terms of...sapphire screen, top display, chrome finish, 2m frame lines (IMO), somewhat increased clarity out-of-camera due to less in-camera filtration, faster processing due to smaller files, marginally quieter shutter (tested with 2 M8.2s and 2 M9s with Leica rep and 4 customers at my local shop), lack of "red edge" issues associated with wider angles on full frame, IR capabilities, price

So, it depends on which attributes one needs or prefers. Newer doesn't mean better in all respects. But one important improvement is all it takes to make the difference for many customers.

Jeff
 
Well I can't afford either the M8 or the M9 even if the economy was rocking and rolling...this economy sucks so much I can't even afford a brick of film it seems!

I wish I had something digital I think...did I just say that??? 🙂
 
I suffered through this economy as well. Sales fell off by 50% in 2008 - 2010. They finally came back up to about 2/3 of 2007 levels. This left me with tons of debt that sucks money off my bottom line every month. But after years of biting my nails and eating beans, I sold my M8 and my M4 and traded in some of my better Nikon lenses to buy a M9. It still cost me $2,500 out of pocket but I'm glad I did.
Don't get me wrong, the M8 was a wonderful camera. But the M9 is better. The files look more natural. The color is better. How much? Maybe 5 - 10%. Best of all, my 35 Summicron IV and 90 Elmarit M really shine on the M9.
Another thing, if I shot too many frames too quickly, my M8 would lock up. I would have to pull the battery and restart the camera. That has not happened with my M9. On the other hand, like some others, I have had frames lost due to card issues. I do not doubt Leica will address the card issues. They were all over the IR issue on the M8.
Still, the M8 is a very impressive camera. Far better image wise (not spec wise) than any Nikon or Canon I've ever used.
Tom
 
being without a fast 35 is really frustrating, but I know I want to keep the M8 long term. I have grown attached to the 67 fov from my 50, so no trade in for me.

That means $6k+ for the M9/cv 35/1.4 or $1200 for an X100?

Economy or not, I only have one real option there!
 
I'm fond of the M8 too. The M9 "fix" for IR is incomplete IMO, with the M8 + IR cut filter more effective in blocking IR, noticeable in IR-heavy circumstances. Of course one could use a cut filter with the M9, but there's no in-built edge correction for that as in the M8.

I don't mind the 1.33x "crop factor" and find the 50mm surprisingly useful along with the 28 'cron and 21 ASPH. I think one has to free the mind from previous notions about focal length and instead consider angle of view. My advantage in that thinking has been long experience with the Pen-F half frame and medium format rigs, where "50mm" means something quite different.

At first with the M8 I resisted the idea that IR cut filters and lens coding were necessary. Once I saw that need with my own eyes, gave in to it and got that resolved, the M8's quirks were squashed and I now consider it a settled and reliable kit.

The M9 is another step up in file quality from the M8 due to the greater resolution reaching into medium-format film territory. But it's not as mature a product I think, still needing to fully resolve the wide-angle red fringing issue (which I notice even with 50mm), and unreliability with larger newer SanDisk SDHC cards that Leica is looking into. I've not seen those card problems with mine.
 
Last edited:
Doug said:
...I don't mind the 1.33x "crop factor" and find the 50mm surprisingly useful along with the 28 'cron and 21 ASPH. I think one has to free the mind from previous notions about focal length and instead consider angle of view...
Click to expand...
Matter of tastes IMO. I feel 50s either too short or too long on the M8. I much prefer FF or APS-C from this standpoint.
 
LCT said:
Matter of tastes IMO.
Click to expand...
Indeed! 🙂

I feel 50s either too short or too long on the M8. I much prefer FF or APS-C from this standpoint.
Click to expand...
Others have shared that opinion as well. Using the 50mm on M8 seemed a little peculiar at first but I adopted it with surprise. As I recall, that was on a vacation trip in Nov 2009, when I had expected to more frequently use a 25 Biogon but ended up mostly using the 2/50 Heliar.

For examples, click on my RFF Gallery link below... I've finally uploaded those 2009 Hawaii shots, and all but the first two are with the 50mm on M8.
 
I miss my M8 (which was sold to fund an M9). With the M8 the zm 18/4 and 50/1.5 made me very happy. I feel I can print more subjects well at larger print sizes with the M9, but practically I'm pleased with M8 files at 11x14 and sometimes even 16x20. The crop factor debate didn't influence me as I had lenses that I felt could really sing on the M8.

The smaller, crisper files of the M8 are a pleasure to process on my older hardware too. And the iso improvement doesn't matter so much imho given the noise reduction capability in LR3 and ACR, at least not in my experience in prints.
 
Economy or no... I will use my M8 (hopefully) until the M9's come down to current M8 prices. M8 is a great camera! I love it every day, and I am really fortunate to be able to rationalize even an M8's kits high price (Seriously for a camera body let alone lenses it is an expensive option but one of only few if you want DRF). For people waiting to afford M9's... don't forget there is a lot to love with a nicely selected used M8.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom