"And don't forget the rather important fact that the M8's image quality remains among the very top echelon, even compared with the M9 and the current top-range Nikon and Canon dSLRs.."
Awe, not that nonsense again. I thought all those claims evaporated when the M9 was released. The M8 certainly doesn't compare to the top Canon and Digital DSLR's. It's sensor is an antique.
The nonsense is from you...
Have you compared? People have - I have. There simply isn't that much difference, if any. Current sensors give better high-ISO performance (less noise) and large files, and that's about it. For example, let's compare the M9 with the M8: a worthwhile exercise as not only does it rebuff your erroneous statement but also clarifies why a lot of people are hanging on to their M8's.
So, let's list the changes: the M9 has 1 stop less noise, and has 18 MP compared with the M8's 10 MP; the M9 also has a slightly different colour rendition. I use my M8 professionally, so I went to my Leica dealer and spent a while testing the M9. When I got home and carefully examined the files, I decided not to get an M9 because its image quality matched the M8's for all practical purposes. Googling for large images will find full-size samples of M9 and M8 images, so you can confirm this yourself.
First, and importantly,
I'm not to say that M9 images don't have advantages over M8 images - but whether these advantages are relevant depends on your needs and preferences.
The following summarises my findings.
1. Full frame. This is a personal preference. I've never used a full-frame 35mm camera (film or digital) in my life, and, to me, the "crop factor" format is normal - I've used a full frame camera on occasion, but I don't like it because it feels unnatural.
2. Better high ISO performance. The M9 has about 1 stop less noise than the M8. This a major impact only at ISO 1250 and higher - below that, noise is either non-existent or is easily removed. If you use high ISOs a lot, this may be of relevance, but I don't often use high ISOs, and the small improvement of 1 stop wouldn't make much difference to me. I'd like less noise, but 1 stop is not worth $7000!
3. Larger files. The M8's 10 MP are all that's needed for most practical purposes - you can make prints of any size from them (whether for exhibitions or for a magazine/book). I've worked in the print/publishing industry for 25 years, so I
know what I'm talking about (for an overview of how to print your photo, and how many megapixels you need, see
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...al-printing-pixels-resolution-resampling.html). For me, the M9's 18 MP would be perfect, as my photo agency requires 50 MB TIFFs (equivalent to an 18 MP ), so I have to resample my M8 files - which works extremely well (tip: buy SizeFixer) but is extra work for me. Yes, the larger M9 file (As an aside, if you printed original and resampled M8 images side by side, you wouldn't see any difference in
practice - but photo agencies want maximum
theoretical image quality for a typical magazine spread [I have the requirements for my clients - better over-specified files than risk getting poor images].). Another benefit of the M9's larger file size is the ability to crop in tighter.
As an example of how well M8 images hold up in practice, DP Review resampled an M8 image to 17 MP (see
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/LeicaM8/page18.asp). Here's a 100% crop of it compared with one of the latest and best professional cameras, the Canon 1D Mark IV (also from DP Review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmarkIV/page26.asp). Not a huge difference, is there!? Bear in mind that each of these images would be a little under 1 inch wide if printed, so the only differences you'd see in prints would be down to colour rendition. And remember, this is a resampled M8 file - the original is less than two-thirds the size!
Left: Leica M8 resampled to 17 MP. Right: Canon 1D Mk IV.(Reproduced under the UK's fair usage legislation.)
In summary, the M9's larger file size does not improve the quality of prints but can be useful if you have a contract with a photo agency, or like to make major crops. Of all the changes, this is the one that I want - but, again, it's not worth $7000!
4. Colour rendition and tonality. The M9 handles colour slightly differently to the M8. It's not better - just different. When I was looking at photographs from the M8 and M9 of the same subject, I had no preference - the difference isn't huge, anyway. Shadows seemed less dense in the M9 images, though I couldn't always see any differences between M8 and M9 images: the M9 might thus be treat contrasting differently, but, if so, the difference is slight.
5. Camera features. The M9 has changes, of course, but these aren't numerous - not surprising since the raison d'etre of the Leica M is simplicity - and are more to do with personal preference than image quality. One change does impact image quality: the IR filter - the M9 has one, the M8 doesn't. With the M8, you have to put an IR filter on the lens - which I find inconvenient, and can produce unwanted reflections if you're photographing point lights sources (night shots with car headlamps) and forget to remove the filter. It's not all roses, though: some M9 images look very slightly softer than M8 images, possibly the result of having the IR filter over the filter (this being the reason why Leica didn't use the sensor filter in the M8).
