Thinking of Taking the Plunge

K

ktmrider

Well-known
Local time
1:39 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
1,363
Location
el paso, texas
View My Gallery
I am toying with the idea of going digital (or at least adding one to the film cameras). Now, I admit to having VERY limited experience with digital to date (a couple point and shoots). I am attracted to the ease of processing compared to scanning but I am not quite ready to take the plunge.

I had a Leica M8.2 for an afternoon but did not care for the noise level above ISO600. I know the M9 is about one stop better. I have five M mount lenses which is one of the main attractions of the M9. I do not like the size of dSLR's but am wondering if I would be happy with an X100. I know it has its own quirks but $1200 vice $7000.

Again, I know only I can make the decision but wondering if anyone else has faced this dilema and what you eventually decided. By the way, I have owned every M from the CL through the M6TTL and am presently happy with the M2. I am not a professional in any sense of the word and the camera would be used for a lot of travel.
 
Attracted to the ease of processing? Prepare yourself for a VERY steep learning curve..M8 and M9 are raw cameras that give their best when postprocessed .
If you are thinking of using jpg, an M9 or M8 is quite a bit of overkill and you would be far better off with an X1 or even X100.
 
Echoing jaap's point, i would say there are two plunges, not one. The first is the M9 commitment. The second is the commitment to develop a digital workflow that suits you. Without the latter you may waste the former. I suggest that you obtain a few M9 RAW (dng) files, take advantage of the various free trials with a few processing applications, like Lightroom 3, etc., print some test files, and see how it goes before you acquire the M9.
 
MCTuomey said:
Echoing jaap's point, i would say there are two plunges, not one. The first is the M9 commitment. The second is the commitment to develop a digital workflow that suits you. Without the latter you may waste the former. I suggest that you obtain a few M9 RAW (dng) files, take advantage of the various free trials with a few processing applications, like Lightroom 3, etc., print some test files, and see how it goes before you acquire the M9.
Click to expand...

Actually, the remark about noise at 600 (640?) triggered the warning bells. That can only be made with sub-optimal exposure (film differs from digital!) and/or raw conversion. One should be able to get excellent prints up to 1250 with the M8.
 
Last edited:
With the M9, as explained above by jaapv for the M8, the M9 does very well on 1250 and on well exposed 2500, I am happy considering how film did at 2500. Correct exposure and post processing the RAW file does the trick.
 
Actually, there is a third plunge, so to speak. For me anyway, going from a VF camera to an LCD screen is like kissing your sister when you want a seductress. The M3 is a seductress and I imagine the M9 is as well, having only a brief experience with one.

Going to a camera with a an optical VF is not an option for me as I absolutely hate those cameras along with those where I am stuck with a single lens choice. And then there is that crop factor...🙄...

Save yourself the money in the long run (if money now is not a problem), get the M9! And don't forget FAST lenses.
 
Last edited:
I suggest you try the X100. Except for focusing, the camera can be used in manual mode. As a M6 owner, my biggest concern for you would be converting to an AF camera. The X100 really is not designed to be used a a pure manual-focus platform.

The X100 make great RAW images up to ISO 1600. You can shoot ISO 800 all day and night and not ever worry how exposure might affect noise. You do not have to mess with IR filters or adjust to using your M lenses in with a different field-of-view and depth-of-field.

For a fraction of the M9's cost, you can establish a digital work flow and get experience. If the X100 does not meet all your needs (and it probably won't due the fixed lens) then you can sell it and get a M9. If it turns out you do not enjoy digital photography, you will have spent much less. If you do like digital photography the X100 will be a cost effective way to get started.

Another scenario would be to start with the X100. Then if you enjoy digital photography get a M8.2. You could keep both cameras and spend much less than the M9. The X100 would work best when you need the best signal-to-noise ratio and the M8 would be best when you need focal length flexibility and the advantages of analog manual focus.
 
Noise comments Interesting

Noise comments Interesting

Well, I find it interesting that my remark about high noise in the M8 not only reflects my experience but just about every review I have read. I don't want to step on the toes of M8 owners but it was Leica's first attempt at a digital M camera and it did have some limitations. Two of my friends who shoot for National Geo would not use the M8 but are now happily using their M lenses on the M9.

Yes, I know there will be a learning curve unless I want to stick with TriX, D76 and my analog darkroom. Will probably sell the Nikon F and Hasselblad systems to help pay for whichever camera I purchase (especially the M9 if I go that route).

Since I am merely a hobbiest and retired after 32 years of cheating death in law enforcement aviation, I have LOTS of time to learn a new skill.
 
My digital workflow (was not called that) consisted of writing custom image processing code in FORTRAN for one of a kind digital imagers.

These days I shoot raw, import it into Lightroom, tweek a few pictures for exposure, export them into JPEG.

It's much easier than it was in the 1980s.

Leica M8 with Jupiter-3, wide-open at F1.5. ISO 640, auto-White balance. Shot raw, straight export using Lightroom 3.4.1. PS7 used to resize.

 
Last edited:
ktmrider said:
Well, I find it interesting that my remark about high noise in the M8 not only reflects my experience but just about every review I have read. I don't want to step on the toes of M8 owners but it was Leica's first attempt at a digital M camera and it did have some limitations. Two of my friends who shoot for National Geo would not use the M8 but are now happily using their M lenses on the M9.

Yes, I know there will be a learning curve unless I want to stick with TriX, D76 and my analog darkroom. Will probably sell the Nikon F and Hasselblad systems to help pay for whichever camera I purchase (especially the M9 if I go that route).

Since I am merely a hobbiest and retired after 32 years of cheating death in law enforcement aviation, I have LOTS of time to learn a new skill.
Click to expand...

Any review you read dates from before the newest raw conversion software - Trust me, 1250 on the M8 prints clean. I may be an M8 owner but it is one of my lesser cameras - I don't have any toes to be stepped on in that respect.
 
ktmrider said:
Well, I find it interesting that my remark about high noise in the M8 not only reflects my experience but just about every review I have read. I don't want to step on the toes of M8 owners but it was Leica's first attempt at a digital M camera and it did have some limitations. Two of my friends who shoot for National Geo would not use the M8 but are now happily using their M lenses on the M9.
Click to expand...

However, per your previous post, you have virtually no experience with an M8. From my much more in-depth experiences (3.5 years), the M8 is very useable above 600 in black and white. Color is more of a gamble. But, like you, I'm not a Natl Geo photographer 😉
 
I am beginning to believe in DXO marks. I would suggest doing some comparisons. The DXO marks of the Sony Nex, I own a Nex3, are very high. As good as many expensive alternatives. With the new focus peaking feature, Google it, it is very easy to focus with the LCD. I have been playing with a Voigtlander 28mm and it works well.
To me all EVIL cameras have their drawbacks but I think the Nex offers more bang for your buck.
 
If your book will be mostly B&W then go for film, scan, PP to add some contrast and sharpness. If mostly colored, X100 or X1 or even EP3 may do the work. Imagine a scanner of good quality like the Nikon LS5000 and 9000 may cost you more than what the mentioned cameras will. For books your print are small so not much issue.
 
jaapv said:
One should be able to get excellent prints up to 1250 with the M8.
Click to expand...

I'm at best an intermediate in post-processing and seemed to manage to do so. Truth is I regret having to sell my M8 to fund an M9. The M8's file size and out-of-camera quality make me smile when it comes to processing and printing. Properly exposed iso 1250 and processed in LR3, I was rarely disappointed in print. Worth trying one out, despite all the unfavorable comparisons to the M9.
 
Last edited:
I have both the M8 and M9. I would not hesitate to suggest the M8 to anyone looking at adding a digital RF to their Leica system. It is about 1/3rd the price of the M9 and will deliver most of the performance. Advantages to the M8: higher shutter speed, and slightly crisper images when using an IR reflecting filter. The M9 has a thicker IR absorbing filter over the sensor, compared with the M8's 0.5mm IR absorbing filter. Slight difference, but it exist.

That does not mean I am getting rid of the M9, but does mean I will keep the M8 for a very long time. My oldest DSLR is from 1993. Still works.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
I have both the M8 and M9. I would not hesitate to suggest the M8 to anyone looking at adding a digital RF to their Leica system. It is about 1/3rd the price of the M9 and will deliver most of the performance. Advantages to the M8: higher shutter speed, and slightly crisper images when using an IR reflecting filter. The M9 has a thicker IR absorbing filter over the sensor, compared with the M8's 0.5mm IR absorbing filter. Slight difference, but it exist.

That does not mean I am getting rid of the M9, but does mean I will keep the M8 for a very long time. My oldest DSLR is from 1993. Still works.
Click to expand...

Dear Brian,

Surely you are mistaken. Everyone knows that after 3 years, all digital cameras explode in a cloud of toxic waste. Well, everyone who doesn't own a digital camera more than 3 years old, that it. My M8 (nearly 5 years old now) still receives reasonably frequent use, though it is mostly just a backup to the M9.

Cheers,

R.
 
M8, ISO 2500, 1/20th second, Jupiter-3 wide-open at F1.5.

LR 3.4.1 export to JPEG, PS7 noise filter used, threshold 31, interpolation 3 pixels.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Roastchestnuts
m8.2 or a m9? In 2024?
4 5 6
Replies
118
Views
8K
stephane_tougard
S
PatrickT
How long do we think digital Leica M cameras will last?
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
5K
boojum
boojum
Timmyjoe
Apple taking aim at Adobe?
Replies
12
Views
961
Godfrey
Godfrey
Roastchestnuts
M246 or M10M or....
Replies
3
Views
408
Roastchestnuts
Roastchestnuts
A
Thinking about a SL2-S yet again vs Panasonic S1
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
Archiver
A
Back
Top Bottom