Just based on image quality- M8 vs. M9 vs M240 vs M10 vs M10R vs M11

Twisting statements out of context works for politicians because they know the masses won't bother to research. But on a short thread on a net forum where the posts are right there at hand, not so much :D
 
LCT said:
What's the meaning of those rolleyes emoticons? "What a Jerk", "Grow Up", "You Jackass"?
Click to expand...

These are directed at the statement, not at the person. The statement is ridiculous, not the person. To say that "the M9 is substantially better than the M8 in every way" is, to me, a ridiculous and untrue statement. Based on your well articulated prior posts, I would think that you would agree.

There's a difference between that and someone saying that I personally don't know how to see details. And then when I give my background to support my ability to differentiate, the response is again a personal attack.

What I find amazing, forgetting about all the 'who said what' commentary, is that so far I seem to be in the minority here as one who has actually printed under controlled conditions using both cameras, side by side, and viewed actual prints to determine (for me, not anyone else) if there is any meaningful difference between the 2 cameras at my print sizes.

I get that people are in love with their M9s and will defend them to their death (correct that...until they get an M10). But, when people chime in without any such testing on their own (or in Ben's case, he chimed in even when he personally didn't see a difference in his own prints, which to me is the only relevant standard, regardless who did the printing), the conclusions they submit are not credible to me. Doesn't mean they are a bad person, just that their conclusions lack foundation.

Jeff
 
Jeff S said:
To say that "the M9 is substantially better than the M8 in every way" is, to me, a ridiculous and untrue statement.
Click to expand...

Dear Jeff,

I have both, and yes, I do see a difference. But what of it? As I think I said earlier, a very important point was getting my focal lengths back, especially fast wide-angles: I was screwing up my courage to buy a 24/1,4 when the M9 came out. No contest!

And, again as I said in an earlier post, really, all you are arguing with is 'substantially'; and, it appears from the above 'in every way'. To counter that with 'ridiculous and untrue' strikes me as very nearly as much an overstatement as 'substantially better in every way'.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I have both, and yes, I do see a difference. But what of it? As I think I said earlier, a very important point was getting my focal lengths back, especially fast wide-angles: I was screwing up my courage to buy a 24/1,4 when the M9 came out. No contest!

And, again as I said in an earlier post, really, all you are arguing with is 'substantially'; and, it appears from the above 'in every way'. To counter that with 'ridiculous and untrue' strikes me as very nearly as much an overstatement as 'substantially better in every way'.
Click to expand...

On paragraph one above, Roger, I fully understood your rationale regarding focal lengths. Many agree. On issues other than image quality, I too presented my own preferences for the M8.2 over the M9 (last two paragraphs of post #19). Different strokes is all, and that's what good discussion is about. There's no right or wrong on these points, merely personal preference.

On your second paragraph, we just disagree. At least we're arguing over statements, not our mothers.

Jeff
 
Well, I quit reading after first page.

I had M8.2 but now have M9... reason?

I like having a dedicated ISO button... :)

Lighten up, I come to RFF to relax.
 
As one of my lenses needs calibrating, my dealer now has my M9. He kindly loaned me a M8.2 while the lens is being matched with the body, and I've just started to look for differences in image quality between the two cameras.

This afternoon's limited shooting seems to show little difference between the M8 and M9, if one were to think of the M8 image as a crop of the M9's. I think the M9 has slightly different white balance and colour, and I think it is sharper or more detailed at 100% view. I don't have any IR filters, nor are many of my lenses coded, but so far I haven't encountered the dreaded purple black synthetics or over-vignetting in the Zeiss 21/2.8.

I haven't made any prints so I can't compare them in that fashion.

I am also finding the M8.2 slower to view things like menu functions. It also appears to have a different-sounding shutter recock motor! The M9's motor seems to have a higher pitch compared with the M8.2. I prefer the sound of the M8.2!
 
The M8 was a missed prototype
The M9 is a M8 with more pixels and corrections from the "prototype" M8

and that's the reason why I have a R-D1 :))

(c'mon, have a laugh !!!)
 
Hmmm.. Different strokes for different folks I guess - the RD1 lasted one week with me for all its warts. Basically a Bessa (which I already disliked in the film days) with some Nikon D70 electronics thrown in... - My 2006 M8 I still have and I find only gradual differences when switching to it from the M9.... There is nothing prototype-like about it.
Still, the RD1 has its following, so I am probably missing something here.
 
ok, thanks for all your input guys. Im leaning towards maybe an m8.2 instead of an M9. I really wanted to see the difference but I printed out two 12x18 landscape shots taken with the M8 and the M9 and out 12-15 ppl I showed them to- 0% of my friends and photography friends could tell the difference besides a bit more detail in the M9 shot. From 4-5 ft away, they couldnt tell between the two. Sealed my decision on not upgrading to an M9.
 
rf1552 said:
. . . 0% of my friends and photography friends could tell the difference besides a bit more detail in the M9 shot. . .
Click to expand...

Yes, 'a bit more detail' is about all I'd realistically expect, though actually 'a bit more detail' can be a surprisingly complex subject. A lot depends on how much that 'bit more detail' is worth to you. That in turn depends on what sort of subjects you shoot, and what you like in a picture. There's no 'right' or 'wrong' in it, and indeed you'd be foolish to 'upgrade' after performing a real-world test that answers your questions.

Cheers,

R.
 
I revisited the M8 3 years later with the M8.2 and found myself enjoying it a lot more, very likely because I've stopped thinking about the crop. But again, that's me and I'm glad the OP has got this sorted out.
 
jaapv said:
Hmmm.. Different strokes for different folks I guess - the RD1 lasted one week with me for all its warts. Basically a Bessa (which I already disliked in the film days) with some Nikon D70 electronics thrown in... - My 2006 M8 I still have and I find only gradual differences when switching to it from the M9.... There is nothing prototype-like about it.
Still, the RD1 has its following, so I am probably missing something here.
Click to expand...

My RD1 lasted me longer than a week, but I can't say I miss it, or constantly having to take it halfway apart to readjust the rangefinder. The image quality for 6mp wasn't half bad though, and it was about a lot less sensitive to IR that the M8. I think I probably would have kept it longer had it not been for Epson's virtual abandonment of it in terms of repair service. The reason I remember the RD1 as fondly as I do, is that "coincidentally" soon thereafter Leica stopped insisting a digital M was impossible, and not too much later introduced the M8. I felt the same way about my Hexar-RF and how "coincidentally" soon thereafter Leica stopped insisting an M body with an electronically-controlled shutter and AE was impossible, and not too much later introduced the M7.
 
Ben Z said:
My RD1 lasted me longer than a week, but I can't say I miss it, or constantly having to take it halfway apart to readjust the rangefinder.
Click to expand...
Well, yours is probably not the average user experience. I find it pretty effortless to remove the hot shoe once a year or two.
 
Lss said:
Well, yours is probably not the average user experience. I find it pretty effortless to remove the hot shoe once a year or two.
Click to expand...

I agree it was pretty effortless, but it got old fast, especially since it was happening every few weeks even though I put a drop of nailpolish on the screw, and I was constantly taking test shots because I was afraid to trust it. It was odd because the screw didn't seem like it was loose. There probably was some anomaly in my particular rangefinder because like you said, it's not typically that bad. There were other things about the camera I wasn't fond of like the 42mm-effective maximum wide frames and manual frame switching, but all in all it was a very nicely executed camera and for 6mp the IQ was impressive, and it suffered from much less IR than the M8, that's for sure. I really liked that I could change all the settings I ever needed with the top dials and could flip the screen over and it was hidden and protected. I only use my M9 screen for the menus and wish it didn't have to remain exposed. The thumb-shutter cocking lever was nicely familiar after decades of film cameras. So as you see it's not as if I hated the camera, and to this day I admire it for being groundbreaking.
 
Hi, the m9 has the same photodiodes density of the m8 sensor, had an upgraded m8 and now an m9, i find impressive the m8 pictures but it can´t be used when you like to have both control of dof and 50mm fov.

If i was a wide angle shooter i wuld go for an m8 but i enjoy too much using real 50mm.

The crop factor can be annoying even with 1.3x.

But besides that my lte chrome m8 was better built than my black m9, even the neckstrap was better this m9 one is loosing all threads and now is hairy, the plastic caps that hold the strap fastened to the camera lugs are all lose!

Not to mention the black finish...
 
I would not choose a crop camera for wides. It is the main problem of R-D1 & M8/8.2 IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top