Thinking about upgrading my M8...Thoughts in 2019?

There does seem to be some confusion regarding the M9 corrosion issue, vis-a-vis the replacement sensors. When corrosion was 1st addressed, all Leica could do is replace the sensor with another identical sensor/coverglass. Obviously in those cases, many of these replacement sensors also corroded. Then sometime I believe in late 2016-2017, Leica worked with the sensor manufacturer to come up with a newly designed coverglass/sensor that addresses and avoids the corrosion issue. M9's that have this newly developed sesnor/coverglass, no longer have the corrosion issues nor have to worry about it. Problem solved. Leica by sending them the serial number can let a potential buyer know if their camera has the new non cooroding sensor or if the seller has the work order for sensor replacement and it's after that certain date (late 2016 I believe or early 2017), that M9 is good to go. Leica at same time of service, provided a CLA, new leather and more.

So much mis-information is out there regarding this sensor corrosion issue.

Lastly to many, the output of the M9 raw files have something special to them. It's not every lighting/shooting situation and of course using the camera at low ISO's is advantageous with this camera. Yet when shooting both M9 and M240 cameras side by side (same lens, same subject) at base ISO, many times I preferred the output from the M9, regardless how the raw files were adjusted in post processing. Yes the M240's are a significant upgrade in terms of capabilities on many fronts, but if the end product alone is considered, the M9 holds its own and for many, far more than that. That's one of the reasons it's value and selling price has remained close to the M240. It's certainly not from the lack or shortages of M9 bodies nor nostalgic reasons. Again it's subjective and one has to consider their priorities when choosing which model digital M camera to shoot with. Same goes for the M10.

Dave (D&A)
 
I have had 2 sensor replacements (both done for free) on an M9 I bought used.

I still love the camera and the images it produces, but I no longer trust it. I'm hoping that the above post about the new non-coroding sensors is true and that my current sensor is one of those and will last awhile.

Due to the sensor issues, I didn't bring the M9 along on my last trip and while I missed it, I just couldn't risk coming back with a bunch of screwed up images like I had in the past (both my sensor problems appeared after long trips overseas for some reason).

However I'm not in the least tempted by the M240. It's fat and it has a bunch of stuff I don't need (video, live view). I think my next Leica will be a used M10 when my M9 craps out. I think of the M240 like the M5, I'm sure it's a fine camera, but it's fat and ugly and I don't want one. For the money one pays for Leica, I want sexy as well as functional or at least not fat and ugly.

Not sure if that helps you but it offers another perspective. I don't find the low ISO limiting. I shoot at a max of 640 and I push it in lightroom if needed. I read somewhere on this forum years ago about this being a better technique than using the higher ISOs on this camera and it's worked for me.
 
I am "OK" with using an M8 and an M9 as I also use my M3 and several m 4/3 cameras. I do't really need a new camera of any sort now. The M9 must be used slowly and with good light, and then it can provide some beautiful images. My M9 has its third sensor. The last one should be corrosion-resistant. My M8 needed a $500 repair job at Leica for dead pixels. If I had to get today a replacement camera for the M8 or M9, I would most likely get a Leica M240. I used a loaner M 240 for 9 months last year.
 
With regards to the previous two posts, you can elivate your worries about your sensor replacement by simply calling Leica and giving them the serial number to determine if you have the newest non cooroding sensor. If you do, you're good to go and enjoy your M9. Likewise if you have the paperwork of your sensor replacement (often written as circuit board replacement) and look at the date of the work performed, this too is an excellent indicator if you have the new non corrosive sensor. If done in 2017 or later, it should be. If done in 2016, you'd need to ask Leica.

All this has been confirmed by many including Leica. A 3rd way is to go into the cameras service menu and many have determined which sensor they have.

That's why when someone sells an M9, if they have proof that they have the non corrosive sensor, the camera will sell for a premium and the buyer can feel comfortable.

Dave (D&A)
 
While I got many excellent photos out of the M9, I was never any more than just ambivalent about it as a camera. It was slow and unresponsive, the battery capacity was limited, and the in-camera JPEG rendering to my eye always looked off-color and irritating. The infamous sensor problems showed up on mine after three years using it: I had Leica evaluate it and they offered me full market value plus a bit against the M-P typ 240. I went for that, and was far, far happier than I was with the M9.

I would not touch an M9 now for any price. I'd buy an M typ 240 or typ 262 if I couldn't afford to go the extra for an M10. The M-D typ 262 is my M now, utterly simple and just what I want in an M.

G

Benjamin Marks said:
I have an M9 and like the images I can make with it. I had an M8 and found the color response/IRR filter issue annoying. Never had a problem with the RF or shutter replacement. Going back to the M8 files now, I find they are pleasant. However, the M9 was an upgrade on all fronts, though, no question. But I think Peter has the right idea: If even only for the sensor corrosion issue. You are buying a pig in a poke, even with a recent sensor replacement, because the replacement is the same product that just failed. If you are going to spend this much money, spend it once and do it right. Buy your way around/out of the CCD issue and go straight to CMOS.

I'll just pause and say that the old argument for the price of a Leica was that you'd buy the camera once and use it for decades and that it was therefore worth two or three month's salary. The camera industry has taken this argument away though. I have used the M9 since it came out, replaced my sensor once, and am basically just holding my breath on how long the replacement will last. If I had the scratch, I'd go straight for a CMOS sensor and never look back. This is not -- you understand -- because of any difference in image quality. It is just about being able to rely on your MASSIVE investment for the long run.

Also BTW: I have no idea why a shutter is necessary any more - go M10?
Click to expand...
 
Oh yes: There are many issues still with electronic shutters. From readout speed to crossover leakage between pixel bins, and on and on. Electronic shutters work best as an adjunct to a mechanical shutter at this time ... They are good for extending the exposure time range, for preventing first curtain vibration problems in some circumstances ("Electronic First Curtain" in many TTL-EVF cameras solves issues of poor shutter design, for instance in the Sony A7 that I had). They're also good for some situations where you want the camera to be 100% silent, such as photographing a piano recital in a quiet hall.

But most of the time, they add no particular advantage to the shooting situation or quality of the capture images.

G
 
Just to clarify my postings regarding the M9 and iits output. My observations reflect strictly on shooting "RAW" as I never shoot jpegs with any camera unless I need some small file for quick display to show others the shot. It's generally acknowledged that the admired output of M9's, is its Raw files, not jpegs.

Yes the camera when compared to a M240 and M10 is slow and methodical and battery life and capacity is truncated compared to the M240 but so is the M10 battery life when compared to the M240.

Just a side note: the M10 output is exceptionally good (read: excellent) and in some ways approaches more closely the M9's output than the M240. Make no mistake, all these cameras files (RAW) are more than just good and fully capable for most critical standards and applications and of course operationally, the M240/262 series and M10's are leagues ahead of the slower shooting style that's associated with the M9. Then again, most M shooters photograph in such a manor.

Dave (D&A)
 
I'm not sure I understand how an M9 is slow.

You turn it on and it starts right up. You can flip the switch and it's on before it gets to your eye. You set your shutter speed and aperture and snap a photo.

Are you referring to the write speed which I guess is slow but nothing that interferes with photo taking.

Have no idea what the in camera JPEGs look like. Never tried.
 
Congrats on the M262. Have you received it yet? Just wondering about your thoughts on the aluminum top plate and the shutter sound. I feel like the M262 gets overlooked a lot, but after owning one for a few months now, I know for sure I made the right choice. Hope you're having the same impression. Enjoy!
 
D&A said:
Just to clarify my postings regarding the M9 and iits output. My observations reflect strictly on shooting "RAW" as I never shoot jpegs with any camera unless I need some small file for quick display to show others the shot. It's generally acknowledged that the admired output of M9's, is its Raw files, not jpegs.

Dave (D&A)
Click to expand...

:this: ^^^ Yeah, I tend to shoot RAW only. I never find the JPG color to my liking, except Olympus files under ideal light. In general, the M9's images are superior in every technical respect to my film image with the low ISO images rivaling old medium format for detail. I don't find its higher ISO settings bad at all, but that, of course, is a personal preference. And my favorite B&W was for many years, Neopan 400, so that may tell you something about the grain I like in pictures. I often add "grain" back in to M9 files in Silver FX Pro2, but I know that is anathema to many of you.
 
As I wrote in another thread (I think) I was on the verge of buying an M240 as a natural upgrade to my M8, only to be side tracked by a mint condition Leica Q with accessories (grip, leather half-case) for the same price at the same store - they were sitting side by side. I ended up buying the Q. Mainly because I figured that the AF is a bonus I could not pass it up given how often I miss shots with my M8 due to my diminishing eye acuity and slower reflexes. (Age sucks!)

Especially if you shoot wider lens generally it is well worth considering. It can also be shot in MF mode - in fact its MF mode is implemented beautifully, and in addition, it has the aperture ring on the lens barrel (old style for aperture priority ) and it can of course be shot in shutter priority or full program mode or full manual mode. I have shot up to 6400 with no complaints whatsoever which at least matches the M240 in terms of its ISO handling.

I miss, a little, having interchangeable lenses - especially longer ones but there is no doubt that the Q's 28mm f1.7 is superb. And I even find that I quite like (though skeptical to begin with) the ability to crop in camera (at 35mm the images are about 15 megapixels - that is about the same as most of my other 16 megapixel cameras so I am comfortable with that). I have not cropped to 50mm, though it is possible, as the image pixel count for that is a bit too much for my liking. Still I will say that the ability to visualize the cropped image in camera is more helpful than I ever thought it might be considering that I always post process and could just as easily do it there.

Do I regret not having an M240? Yes a bit, mainly because I have a suite of M glass - but I still have an M8 and can at least use them on that in the same way and with the same limits as before. But can I say that regret buying the Leica Q? Not at all. It is a fun camera to use, even for me and I prefer lenses longer than 28mm/35mm.

A couple of early low light images (nothing special):

Night Time - Bar Crawl by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

Tapas Bar by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom