Which Leica for me?

[Ben Z]

Just about everyone who's tried both agrees with me about the advantages of the M9, so it's not just a personal, idiosyncratic view.

I never said it was idiosyncratic, but it most definitely is personal. I don't deny the advantages, but for me they are nowhere as compelling as they are for you.

There are only three reasons I can easily think of to buy an M8 or M8.2 instead of an M9. There's the 1/8000 shutter speed (M8 only), the possibility of shooting IR through a visually near-opaque IR filter, and (most compellingly) the price. As the OP has already indicated that he doesn't want to buy the M8 only to find he'd rather have an M9, we may fairly assume he is not that worried about the price.

Agreed. But what you said was tantamount to "if you try an M9 you'll hate your M8" and that I disagree with most vehemently, having tried an M9 quite extensively myself.

I was thinking more about the 'airbrushed' look that you get even with the M8/M8.2.

Yours is the first and only time I've ever heard that alleged. In fact the M8's ability to render a tack-sharp DNG through lack of an AA filter is usually cited as a supreme advantage, and worth the trade-off in IR sensitivity and moire. Even the most ardent M9 converts have never made such a grandiose condemnation of the M8's IQ in comparison to the M9's improvement. It would be interesting to see some examples that back up your assertion.

(Slow, sharp) film renders texture much more convincingly. So does a high-megapixel camera.

Numerous examples come to mind where the generalization of your second sentence has been proven false.

Realize that I am not disagreeing with your basic premise that the M9 has advantages over the M8. Rather I'm disagreeing with your portrayal of those advantages as being of monumental magnitude and universal import. That is, as I said earlier, personal.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Ben,

'Monumental magnitude and universal import'? Differences of scale, not opinion. Of course megapixel quality (normally megapixel density) makes a difference.

And no, I didn't say anything like "if you try an M9 you'll hate your M8". Read what I said: "The M8/8.2 are great until you've used the M9." You then have a choice of thinking "The M9 is even greater" or "The M9 is great and the M8/8.2 are not as great." Where does hatred come in to it?

"Airbrushed"? Well, the BJP review didn't use the same words, but the reviewer said exactly the same thing about film-like quality. And all reviewers point out that you can judge virtually nothing from a computer screen and very little from photmechanical repro. How am I supposed to provide the evidence you demand? By sending you an A3 print? Ultimately it comes down to whether you trust the word of a experienced reviewer. If you don't, and if you place your own opinion higher, that's fine. You're not the kind of person that I am writing for (or that the BJP reviewer is writing for). But most people don't have a chance to try everything for themselves; are aware of the biases of the reviewers; and judge accordingly.

Cheers,

R.

 

[semilog]

How about trying a used film leica first?

I STRONGLY second this advice. If you buy a used M6 and a good lens you will learn whether you like the rangefinder way of doing things. Most of us here do, a lot. But not everyone does.

An M9 will depreciate, rapidly, and depreciaton of a $7000 camera is a lot of money lost. A used M6 will not noticably depreciate, and if after a few months you decide to go for an M9 you can get out of the M6 more or less what you put into it.

Shoot good films, have them developed and scanned here or somewhere equivalent, and take your time deciding.

Any lenses you buy will not go down in value, and can still be used if you buy an M8 or M9.

 

[Jeff S]

I find these M8/M9 comparisons overly simplistic.

I don't see any comments here about the size of one's prints in using or comparing an M8, M8.2 or M9. Or, for that matter, whether one even bothers with prints these days.

And, if one does print, what about all of the variables associated with the PP chain? One can use an M8, for example, and print b/w using 7 shades of Cone black inks on an Epson 3880 or 4880; or use an M9 with a far less robust system. Color results can similarly be influenced by increasingly diverse choices of software, papers, profiles, print drivers, etc., etc. Where does one choose to invest one's dollars?

Lenses are a whole other thing. For instance, I happen to like the 28 Summicron asph and 50 Summilux asph combination on an M8.2 better than the similar FOV combo from the 35 Summicron asph/ 75 Summicron asph on my film M's. Personal preference...no science.

The factors and variables are endless. All that matters is whether you have the right gear for your particular subject matter and style of work.

And, I challenge anyone to see one of my prints in person and tell me the camera, let alone the overall system, I used...and who cares?

Jeff

 

[arnulf]

The factors and variables are endless. All that matters is whether you have the right gear for your particular subject matter and style of work.

And, I challenge anyone to see one of my prints in person and tell me the camera, let alone the overall system, I used...and who cares?

Jeff

Jeff, I couldn't agree more. Although I strongly recommend the m9 I totally respect and understand the ones claiming the m8 is just as good. It all depends on how you work.

 

[Ben Z]

And no, I didn't say anything like "if you try an M9 you'll hate your M8". Read what I said: "The M8/8.2 are great until you've used the M9." You then have a choice of thinking "The M9 is even greater" or "The M9 is great and the M8/8.2 are not as great."

I'm not seeing an essential difference between yours and my interpretation of your implication. You are obviously more strongly impressed with the improvements than I, and many others.

Ultimately it comes down to whether you trust the word of a experienced reviewer.

I tend to trust experienced reviewers who provide me with specific details and supportive examples and data, rather than asserting I should just trust them because they're experienced reviewers. And I would certainly trust a consensus of experienced reviewers over the contrarian opinion of one. That consensus is the M9's IQ is a subtle improvement on the M8...which makes perfect sense since they share the same basic sensor technology. (Actually, I have even seen a couple reviews asserting the M9's raw files are a tad less sharp than the M8, however I didn't see evidence of it in my own test shots.)

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm not seeing an essential difference between yours and my interpretation of your implication. You are obviously more strongly impressed with the improvements than I, and many others.



I tend to trust experienced reviewers who provide me with specific details and supportive examples and data, rather than asserting I should just trust them because they're experienced reviewers. And I would certainly trust a consensus of experienced reviewers over the contrarian opinion of one. That consensus is the M9's IQ is a subtle improvement on the M8...which makes perfect sense since they share the same basic sensor technology. (Actually, I have even seen a couple reviews asserting the M9's raw files are a tad less sharp than the M8, however I didn't see evidence of it in my own test shots.)

It is? Hmmm. Depends on whom you read. Contrarian? Not from what else I've read. But as I say, you're not obliged to believe me, and I'm not sure what 'supportive examples and data' you require.

EDIT: You may also be missing one of my fundamental points, that anyone's opinion of a reviewer depends on their opinion of his (rarely her) prejudices, literary style, etc. You don't care for mine. Others do.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ben Z]

EDIT: You may also be missing one of my fundamental points, that anyone's opinion of a reviewer depends on their opinion of his (rarely her) prejudices, literary style, etc. You don't care for mine. Others do.

Please don't take my comments personally. In point of fact I own most of your books and happen to like your literary style and share quite a few of your "prejudices". If you said "I (meaning yourself) liked the M8 until I tried an M9", I would applaud and defend your right to express that opinion. However, when you say "You (meaning anyone and everyone) will like the M8 until you try an M9" I must object, because in point of fact there are many others like myself who have indeed tried an M9---some even bought one--but did not become disenchanted with the M8, or find the differences (in IQ) to be more than subtle. That is not to say that a subtle difference can't make a huge difference in one's own highly-subjective assessment. Photography is equal parts science and art. I believe a credible reviewer should tell me what he thinks (and why, specifically), not what I should think.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Ben,

Thanks for the kind words, which are more than I deserve, but I fear that ultimately, the differences between an M8 and M9 are sufficiently subjective but also sufficiently strong in most of the reviews I have read that all an honest reviewer can say at this point is, "Try it and I think you'll agree with me."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ben Z]

Dear Ben,

Thanks for the kind words, which are more than I deserve, but I fear that ultimately, the differences between an M8 and M9 are sufficiently subjective but also sufficiently strong in most of the reviews I have read that all an honest reviewer can say at this point is, "Try it and I think you'll agree with me."

Cheers,

R.

Evidently I haven't seen the reviews you've read. Links?

And perhaps you missed all the times I've mentioned that I used an M9 for most of a day of actual shooting, and I'm afraid I don't agree with you.

If I were just coming into the digital Leica world today would I buy an M9 for $7K versus an M8 for $2K? Yes, I would buy the M9. Partly because while the 1.3 crop doesn't bother me, I'd prefer full frame, and partly because I'd rather not be dependent on IR filters (and thus need to carry at least one spare for each size). Taken alone, the improvements in IQ (which, to reiterate, I am not denying exist) would not be a compelling factor.

 

[arnulf]

Evidently I haven't seen the reviews you've read. Links?

Aw, come on!! I would turn it around and ask whether you could show me a review that the M9 isn't better than the 8. Apart from the three things Roger points out (the shutter speed, the IR thing and the price), what could possibly make the M8 a better camera?

As I said, I don't blame anyone for saying the M8 is sufficient and don't feel the need to get the 9, but the 9 is clearly a better camera.

 

[Vics]

How about trying a used film leica first?

Plus one for that.
Vic

 

[jaapv]

Please don't take my comments personally. In point of fact I own most of your books and happen to like your literary style and share quite a few of your "prejudices". If you said "I (meaning yourself) liked the M8 until I tried an M9", I would applaud and defend your right to express that opinion. However, when you say "You (meaning anyone and everyone) will like the M8 until you try an M9" I must object, because in point of fact there are many others like myself who have indeed tried an M9---some even bought one--but did not become disenchanted with the M8, or find the differences (in IQ) to be more than subtle. That is not to say that a subtle difference can't make a huge difference in one's own highly-subjective assessment. Photography is equal parts science and art. I believe a credible reviewer should tell me what he thinks (and why, specifically), not what I should think.

Hmmm.... Three weeks ago I would have agreed with the sentiment that though the M9 is clearly the better camera, the current price difference might make an M8(.2) a more attractive proposition. However being forced by my M9 being in Solms to fall back fully on the M8u, I really felt unhappy until the M9 returned. Not that the M8 isn't my favorite second choice 😉

 

[Jeff S]

Hmmm.... Three weeks ago I would have agreed with the sentiment that though the M9 is clearly the better camera, the current price difference might make an M8(.2) a more attractive proposition. However being forced by my M9 being in Solms to fall back fully on the M8u, I really felt unhappy until the M9 returned. Not that the M8 isn't my favorite second choice 😉

Jaap, I don't think you addressed the last sentence of Ben Z's comments, i.e., why?

Jeff

 

[Richard Marks]

Jaap, I don't think you addressed the last sentence of Ben Z's comments, i.e., why?

Jeff

I think the simple reason the M9 is preferable is that it is full frame. To me that would make all the difference in the world even if the M8.2 and m9 were equal in every other way. Additional lesser advantages of an M9 to me would be the lack of IR filters and higher resolution. Surely? Obviously if you do not place any advantage on full frame, avioding IR filters and higher resolution, then the differences may not be worth it. One might even argue that higher M8 noise looks more like film grain or that the 1.3 gives a bit more pull for telephoto lenses or that the M8 wins on infrared monochrome images but I think this would be a minority view.

best wishes

Richard

 

[Ben Z]

Aw, come on!! I would turn it around and ask whether you could show me a review that the M9 isn't better than the 8. Apart from the three things Roger points out (the shutter speed, the IR thing and the price), what could possibly make the M8 a better camera?

As I said, I don't blame anyone for saying the M8 is sufficient and don't feel the need to get the 9, but the 9 is clearly a better camera.

First thing: I never said the M8 is a better camera than the M9, so that part of your proposed argument is baseless.

Second thing: I never said the M9 did not improve upon the M8, so there again your proposed argument is baseless.

The issue for me is not whether the M9 is improved (I acknowledge that it is). This issue for me is 1. how much improved and whether those improvements open up significant photographic possibilities not possible with the M8; and 2. Does that fit my criteria for worthiness spending an additional $4500 over what I can sell my M8 for.

In absolute terms, the M9 can be judged the "better" camera, but that alone is not sufficient for me. For others, being able to say their camera is "better" is worth a king's ransom. Like I said time and again, it's personal and subjective.

 

[Ben Z]

Hmmm.... Three weeks ago I would have agreed with the sentiment that though the M9 is clearly the better camera, the current price difference might make an M8(.2) a more attractive proposition. However being forced by my M9 being in Solms to fall back fully on the M8u, I really felt unhappy until the M9 returned. Not that the M8 isn't my favorite second choice 😉

I think the simple reason the M9 is preferable is that it is full frame. To me that would make all the difference in the world even if the M8.2 and m9 were equal in every other way. Additional lesser advantages of an M9 to me would be the lack of IR filters and higher resolution. Surely? Obviously if you do not place any advantage on full frame, avioding IR filters and higher resolution, then the differences may not be worth it. One might even argue that higher M8 noise looks more like film grain or that the 1.3 gives a bit more pull for telephoto lenses or that the M8 wins on infrared monochrome images but I think this would be a minority view.

Jaap and Richard, good points which I agree with wholeheartedly. I did say earlier that if I was just now getting into digital M I would get an M9. I wouldn't advise someone else in that position to get an M8 unless cost was the only factor.

But having sunk $6500 into an M8 ($4800 + $1700 for upgrade) less than 3 years ago which I'd be lucky to get $2200 for now, the improvements in image quality of the M9 are not enough to pry another $4700 from my hands. Repeating what I said earlier, I would like a FF, and I would like to be free of the IR filters. And I would like the modest but noticeable high-ISO noise improvement and whatever other more subtle IQ improvements the larger sensor and newer signal-processing offers. But given the M8's capabilities as they are, I am perfectly content to sit on my cash for a couple more years until I can get an M9 for at least a couple thou less.

I've been down this road before. When the 5D came out there were plenty of articles and reviews implying that I should feel depressed and inadequate using my 20D. Many of the same things were said regarding FF, higher resolution (the # megapixels are proportional to the sensor size increase, with equal density, as between M8-M9) and improved NR @ high ISO. Eventually I got the 5D. To my utter shock, none of its improvements (including FF) seem as huge as I anticipated. I'm not unhappy I bought the 5D, but very glad I waited to get a refurb for $1400 instead of buying a new one in the beginning for $3400.

We all go by our own experience. I expect there will be an M9 in my bag someday. Just not right now.

 

[Ben Z]

Aw, come on!! I would turn it around and ask whether you could show me a review that the M9 isn't better than the 8. Apart from the three things Roger points out (the shutter speed, the IR thing and the price), what could possibly make the M8 a better camera?

As I said, I don't blame anyone for saying the M8 is sufficient and don't feel the need to get the 9, but the 9 is clearly a better camera.

First thing: I never said the M8 is a better camera than the M9, so that part of your proposed argument is baseless.

Second thing: I never said the M9 did not improve upon the M8, so there again your proposed argument is baseless.

The issue for me is not whether the M9 is improved (I acknowledge that it is). This issue for me is 1. how much improved and whether those improvements open up significant photographic possibilities not possible with the M8; and 2. Does that fit my criteria for worthiness spending an additional $4500 over what I can sell my M8 for.

In absolute terms, the M9 can be judged the "better" camera, but that alone is not sufficient for me. For others, being able to say their camera is "better" is worth a king's ransom. Like I said time and again, it's personal and subjective.

 

[jaapv]

I think the simple reason the M9 is preferable is that it is full frame. To me that would make all the difference in the world even if the M8.2 and m9 were equal in every other way. Additional lesser advantages of an M9 to me would be the lack of IR filters and higher resolution. Surely? Obviously if you do not place any advantage on full frame, avioding IR filters and higher resolution, then the differences may not be worth it. One might even argue that higher M8 noise looks more like film grain or that the 1.3 gives a bit more pull for telephoto lenses or that the M8 wins on infrared monochrome images but I think this would be a minority view.

best wishes

Richard

It probably won't wash with Ben 😉😀 but most of it is purely subjective. The fov of the lenses feels better, the camera itself feels more -I dunno, Leica-like, the image colour and contrast please me more, etc....

 

[Jeff S]

Hmm, I wonder if the M8.2 feels different than the M8...different covering, etc. When I handled the M9 along with my M8.2, they both seemed quite 'Leica-like' to me. I think it's what one gets used to. When I pick up an older film M now (which used to feel just right), now it feels on the thin side.🙂

Eventually I will get a full frame digital M...perhaps not until a M9.2 or M10...but in the meantime, I think I might get another M8.2 (used) for back-up and to lessen the need for lens changes and dust. I hope the price dips a bit when more M9s hit the market. Maybe a chrome one this time.

Jeff