Why I still use the M8 and do not have an M9

E

eleskin

Well-known
Local time
6:06 AM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,080
The M9 is a wonderful camera. So why am I still using my M8?

1. Economics. I paid $4,700 and two years is not enough time to get the most out of my investment. I want to take my $4,700 as far as it can go.
Especially in this economy and all the other bills I have to pay. My kids education is more important this year than a camera. The M8 will have to do.

2. Full Frame vs M8 crop. Not that significant. At 1.33x, the crop is not as extreme as other cameras. I have always printed either 16"x20" or 20"x24" in the darkroom, and the M8 performs like a medium format in quality with these print sizes. Plus I never crop my photos, so from the viewpoint of actual prints, M8 vs. M9 for my work (I shoot Black and White alot) will not show that much difference.

3. I need a second body. I thought about the M9 and making my M8 the backup. Economics again, but here, the M8 is getting cheaper. We will see M8's at around 2K or less soon, which is where they should be. That price is acceptable for a backup. Nice thing is I have a black chrome M8 and would like to have the silver chrome too. Unfortunatly, the M9 is painted, and the M8 has a higher quality and more durable chrome finish in silver.


So what for me is the only plus for the M9?

I would say improvements in dynamic range and better high ISO. Thats abut it. I have very fast Leica and Voigtlander glass, so I can get around the M8's ISO limitations 90% of the time.

What Leica should have done is continue the M8 as a cheaper M digital model with improved high ISO. It is too bad they did not. The M8 could have been priced at $4,700 new and if you want full frame, 7K for the M9.

Nice thing is if they would have kept the M8 in production, those of us who wanted to upgrade the electronics could in the future. But it was not to be.

I may yet buy the M9, but something in the back of my head is telling me to get a second M8 and buy the M9.2 or M10 because an upgrade to the M9 has some improvements, but not that many to justify the cash layout. The M9.2 or M10 will have a very significant difference in high ISO, which to me is the most important factor of all. 18MP is getting close to the limits of what can be done in resolution or what you really need for great museum quality prints.
 
I think you've got your head screwed on right. I would start saving up for an M10 or M11 when they make a dramatic improvement in the high ISO capability. 1.33 is much better than 2 or 1.5 and you are getting the results that you want. While the M8 might come down a bit more I would look at the prices of Nikon D2 and D200 series as an example of what you might expect a few more years out. I doubt they will go down below $1000 for many years, they are just too good.

Stay strong and keep taking the GAS-EX every night as needed.

B2 (;->
 
Common sense and realistic views.

So much nonsense is talked about the crop factor but the only downside I really see with the crop factor is that wide angle lenses are a lot more expensive, other than that I'm happy with my M8 apart from the frameline accuracy that is but then again you do get used to it so no real big deal.
 
The M9 gave me my familiar focal lengths back and the extra resolution makes an impressive difference to textures, a much more 'film like' look. As I almost never used colour film over ISO 1000, I don't see the Leica's high-speed performance as a significant problem. Sure, I'd like it higher and better, and sure, I use 2500 sometimes; but it's easy to forget how well we used to do with film.

Cheers,

R.
 
Well, it's always a personal choice, and what it does for you. Eleskin's happy with what he's got. I'm happy with what I've got. All I was pointing out is that there are other advantages than his 'only plus' (f.l. and texture/detail, and I didn't mention IR), and that the advantages that others are waiting for are not so important for me.

Edit: Also, when you've been using Leicas for 40 years, and don't buy and sell lenses much any more, and when you shoot film alongside digital, familiar focal lengths are perhaps more important.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
One of the biggest things I love about the M9 is that I get the "juicy" part of the frame back. Some people actually like the fatty part of the steak. :)
 
tom.w.bn said:
Whatever that means...
Click to expand...

it means lens performance falls off towards the edge of the field with varying (usually lower) resolution and more distortion. Thats what gives a lens its character. The way the image looks. Using only the central section tends to give a more clinical look to images but that may be a good thing for digital sensors. Depends whether you are a fat or lean type of person.
 
tightsqueez said:
One of the biggest things I love about the M9 is that I get the "juicy" part of the frame back. Some people actually like the fatty part of the steak. :)
Click to expand...

I do miss that. Always getting the sweet spot of most lenses with the M8/8.2 . Sometimes I want more of the edge fall off of focus and illumination of some lenses. The 1.33 crop eats most of that charm away depending on the lens. Of course the opposite is true as well. My hex Dual is perfect on the M8 not so on full frame.
 
Why I still use the M8 and do not have an M9?

The only reason for me is that I don't want to pay the $7000. Outside of that, I;d gladly get rid of my M8.
 
I chose to avoid the M8 because my thinking is lens-centric rather than body-centric. I already had a fine collection of lenses, and wanted to add a couple. At which point it didn't seem sensible spending £2500 for a 21mm Elmarit when 1/3 of its function (and the build and materials that make it cost £2500) would be wasted on a crop frame camera should I go digital with an M8. An M9 now gives me full value just like a film body. Given my lenses cost far more than an M9 body it seems to me its the lenses that should be looked upon as the priority and given the camera they deserve.

Steve
 
Steve,

Since I bought an M8, indeed my first priority has been lenses. I have bought more M mount lenses with my M8 than I ever did with my M6. So the big bucks and priority has been lenses and not the M9. Nice thing is I lost no money in that values have increased and my vision enhanced significantly!
 
I started saving a couple of years ago for an M9, but the more I think about it, the less likely I am to plunk down the cash. It is just A LOT of dough for me. For anyone, except the vastly wealthy, I'd imagine. Maybe two years after the M10 comes out, I can buy one for $5,300 off of a wealthy RFFer.
 
jsrockit said:
Why I still use the M8 and do not have an M9?

The only reason for me is that I don't want to pay the $7000. Outside of that, I;d gladly get rid of my M8.
Click to expand...

Like Smokey Robinson said, I second that emotion. If the M9 were $5000 I'd have one already. But if I have to wait a year or longer for a demo at that price (or hopefully lower) it's fine with me. And if that never happens, I'm fine with that, too. The crop factor isn't an issue for me, and from shooting them side by side I found the IQ so close as to be also a non-issue, and in fact the M8 with IR filters still has less color shifting than the M9.
 
Last edited:
I've asked Tony R. to put me on the waiting list for a 'user' M9 some weeks ago :D.
Nothing came up yet :bang:
 
jsrockit said:
Why I still use the M8 and do not have an M9?

The only reason for me is that I don't want to pay the $7000. Outside of that, I;d gladly get rid of my M8.
Click to expand...

Like Smokey Robinson said, I second that emotion. If the M9 were $5000 I'd have one already. But if I have to wait a year or longer for a demo at that price (or hopefully lower) it's fine with me, the M8 is that close in IQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom