The real difference M8 vs. M9 ?

[Makten]

True, you get more pixels and use the full image circle. The problem there is you're moving out from the "sweet spot" (center) of the image circle with a full frame sensor - which requires better quality glass (not cheaper).

You also get better resolution per picture height in the center of the image. I've moved from APS-C to FF with SLR:s, and I'd never move back. I've never had any "problems" with corner IQ even with cheap lenses. Sure they are unsharper out there, but I don't give a damn. 😉

 

[yanidel]

Thank you every one! I am really glad that I started this thread. It looks like it is even popular 🙂.
Based on the feedback I got, wanted to add some more details on my dilemma.
First, I am not a wide angle shooter. My perfect combo has been (and still is on film) M7 + 50/1.4. I am sort of dreaming of using the same lens on the M9. On M8.2 my main lens is the 35/2 and the CV 35mm Nokton for low light.
I really enjoy the APO 90mm Summicron on the M8.2 as it gives me a focal length what we needed an SLR for in the film age.
Bottom-line, the crop factor gives me an advantage with the M8.

Maybe I can sell my 35/2 and CV Nokton and get a 35mm Summilux, I don't know.

I absolutely love my 35 Lux Asph on the M8 as a 50mm lens. I owned the Nokton which is a fine lens but the Lux is better overall and a much smaller one. Maybe try to find one and experiment on the M8 first. If it works for you, great, if not you'll have a wonderful 35mm + 50mm Lux package for the M9 😉
I forgot to mention that bad corners are much more apparent on the M9 since it is not cropped. My 35mm Cron IV clearly show its lesser corner performance on the M9 while it did not on the M8. On might care or not, but if you upgrade, keep that in mind, your Nokton might struggle there.

 

[pkreyenhop]

I bet the placebo effect is distorting the reality a bit; The price of the M9 is a big, big pill to swallow so the pictures must be much, much better....

 

[Roger Hicks]

I bet the placebo effect is distorting the reality a bit; The price of the M9 is a big, big pill to swallow so the pictures must be much, much better....

No doubt true but 80% more megapixels help. The image is just more film-like in quality.

And, of course, I have all my lenses back, at their proper focal lengths. That's worth a bit too.

And, if I want to shoot B+W and colour simultaneously, I can swap lenses without worrying about focal length equivalents: I can go back to 35/75 just as I do with two film bodies.

Cheers,

R.

 

[downstairs]

I have both. As others say, A longer lens gives more detail but requires a larger sensor. You can see the difference (golf ball and shell detail) but the difference is so slight that I'm not selling off my M8.2.

 

[lainer]

I've decided to get a used mint M8.2 with a 35mm Summicron 2.0 ASPH 6-bit coded lens. I'm very excited. I will wait on the M9 until they are plentiful and cheaper. I may be waiting a long time, but that's okay.

 

[Jager]

Like Roger, the difference to me was enormous. Beyond being more ergonomic (dedicated iso button, info button, soft mode, etc.), gaining a modest improvement in low-light capability, and having more pixels which translate to greater detail and greater flexibility in post, the huge thing for me was the restoration of native focal length. Lenses operate as they were designed (a Noctilux has a very different signature on the M8, for instance, than it does on a full-frame camera). Depth of field is back to normal. And the elimination of filters eliminates the occasional problematic filter-induced-flare scenario you'd encounter with the M8.

The M9 just simply feels much more like a film Leica than does the M8.

 

[Roger Hicks]

As was mentioned previously, the main difference is about 4 K . . . and a bigger depreciation😱

Can someone explain the much requested dedicated ISO button on the M9. With the M8, just press SET and there's the ISO setting option. Hummm . . .

Oh yeah, just got a Voigtlander 25mm M mount lens. Nice and sharp and the extra veiwing angle is a god send for landscapes in portrait aspect and architecture . . . and a 1/4 the price of Leica glass. Recommended😀

No, those are quite minor differences if you're talking about the camera rather than the price, which is admittedly terrifying.

ISO change is quicker and easier, and with more choice, but like you, I find that it's not all that important.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ruslan]

I have both. Difference is very small and M9 has no 1/8000 and flash synch is 1/180 instead of 1/250, also small round LCD in M8 is just great..

 

[swoop]

ISO change is quicker and easier, and with more choice, but like you, I find that it's not all that important.

The ISO change is whatev with me. But the option for more ISO's in 1/3rd stops, combined with the better high ISO performance is simply amazing.

 

[thompsonks]

In your original post you said you print with an Epson 2400. Unless you have the habit of cropping a lot (or too much?), the difference between M8 & 9 when printing this size will be too small to justify the M9. The difference shows up more markedly as print size increases above 2400 paper width.

Kirk

 

[miklosphoto]

Thank you all of you for the comments. I just though to give an update on my decision.
So, I decided to stick to my M8.2.
And buy the 24mm Summilux. And start to figure out what to sell to pay off my CC.
All my wide angle CV lenses will go for sure. And also up for sale my 28mm Elmarit. Here is a link to the local craigslist listing:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/pho/1591956564.html
Anyone interested?

 

[jaapv]

For me, the difference was massive, like discovering Leicas all over again.

I agree. Well, maybe not so massive as to sell my M8s, but real enough.