DRCope
Newbie
I'm suddenly, perhaps temporarily, in a position to compare the M8.2 to the M-E. (Both purchased used here on RFF, thanks very much!)
Historically, over the last 10 years I've had a Minilux, M2, X2, M8.2 and now (as of yesterday afternoon), an M-E. I've also had a Nikon FA, F4, D700 and various lenses over that same time.
My plan was to sell off all but the D700 and M-E to cover the M-E cost, but as long as they're both here, I think I'll put on the hair shirt long enough to compare the digital Ms. Who knows, in the end, I may keep both. ;-)
Has anyone else already done the 8.2/E dance, and if so, please share the results here?
If we could skip the hypotheticals and back-biting, show actual results and experiences and remain civil to one another, that would be swell.
Historically, over the last 10 years I've had a Minilux, M2, X2, M8.2 and now (as of yesterday afternoon), an M-E. I've also had a Nikon FA, F4, D700 and various lenses over that same time.
My plan was to sell off all but the D700 and M-E to cover the M-E cost, but as long as they're both here, I think I'll put on the hair shirt long enough to compare the digital Ms. Who knows, in the end, I may keep both. ;-)
Has anyone else already done the 8.2/E dance, and if so, please share the results here?
If we could skip the hypotheticals and back-biting, show actual results and experiences and remain civil to one another, that would be swell.
Luke_Miller
Established
I bought an M9 while I still owned the M8.2. Initially I thought I would keep both, but found I enjoyed the M9 so much more that I sold the M8.2. Since the M-E is basically an M9 minus the frame line preview lever and USB port my experience should be relevant. With the M9 I found I really enjoyed getting back to the field of view I experienced with my film M and my Nikon FX bodies. Losing the IR Cut filters was a plus as well. I found image quality to be pretty much the same as you would expect. The M9's ISO performance was better, but not dramatically so. With the M8.2 my most used focal length was 28mm. 24mm when I wanted to go wide. I found 50 a bit long for me. With the M9 I bounce between 35 and 50. 28 is back to being a wide angle and my 24 is about as wide as I ever need to go. I picked up a used Leica Universal Wide-Angle ViewFinder, which works really well with the 24 and 28, and eliminates viewfinder blockage from the lens hoods.
CrisR
Well-known
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the M8 and M8.2 are functionally/image wise, identical aren't they?
And the ME is functionally/image wise, identical to the M9, isn't it? Tho, of course, missing the frame line selector lever and USB port.
I'm pretty sure that's the case, and if so, I run an M8 and M9 together - i'm pretty sure the comparisons have been made quite often haven't they?
Either way, my notes would simply be
Identical handling/shooting
Identical pixel pitch means the M8 image is just a cropped M9 image
M9 is 1 stop better/usable with regards ISO
Colours seem more appealing to me on the M9, but that's just my personal preference
M9 doesn't have any noticeable IR sensitivity, compared to the M8's high sensitivity
M8's black and white is somehow different to the M9's, a bit more punchy somehow, where the M9 appears to have smoother tones. This is just my observation. I essentially use the M8 as a poor man's M Monochrom, with color recoverable if needed, but the M9 is both.
I have a preference using 25/35/50 lenses on the M9 over the M8, simply because of the regular field of view, tho the 35/47/67 that they become on the M8 is a fine combo too.
Image sharpness is just as good at the pixel level
Wide lenses have better corner performance on the M8, but only due to the corners being cropped off. A cropped M9 image would be just as good.
Ummm i think that's about it?
I use the M9 mainly, but often use the M9 and M8 together with different lenses mounted, usually with one zone focused at f8 and the other wide open for shallow DOF.
If i had to keep just one, it would be the M9 naturally, but the M8 is hardly a generation behind, the M9 could just as easily be considered an M8.5 IMHO.
And the ME is functionally/image wise, identical to the M9, isn't it? Tho, of course, missing the frame line selector lever and USB port.
I'm pretty sure that's the case, and if so, I run an M8 and M9 together - i'm pretty sure the comparisons have been made quite often haven't they?
Either way, my notes would simply be
Identical handling/shooting
Identical pixel pitch means the M8 image is just a cropped M9 image
M9 is 1 stop better/usable with regards ISO
Colours seem more appealing to me on the M9, but that's just my personal preference
M9 doesn't have any noticeable IR sensitivity, compared to the M8's high sensitivity
M8's black and white is somehow different to the M9's, a bit more punchy somehow, where the M9 appears to have smoother tones. This is just my observation. I essentially use the M8 as a poor man's M Monochrom, with color recoverable if needed, but the M9 is both.
I have a preference using 25/35/50 lenses on the M9 over the M8, simply because of the regular field of view, tho the 35/47/67 that they become on the M8 is a fine combo too.
Image sharpness is just as good at the pixel level
Wide lenses have better corner performance on the M8, but only due to the corners being cropped off. A cropped M9 image would be just as good.
Ummm i think that's about it?
I use the M9 mainly, but often use the M9 and M8 together with different lenses mounted, usually with one zone focused at f8 and the other wide open for shallow DOF.
If i had to keep just one, it would be the M9 naturally, but the M8 is hardly a generation behind, the M9 could just as easily be considered an M8.5 IMHO.
raid
Dad Photographer
I use the M8 and M9 side by side. This combo works very well for me. I usually have a 50mm lens on the M8 for a short portrait lens, while I mostly use a 35mm lens on the M9. The comments above hold also for me.
pgk
Well-known
Me too. Both are lovely cameras and both are technically capable of producing excellent images. I've given up bothering to compare them and will pick up either as I feel inclined and enjoy each for its slight difference (FoV, colour, MPixels, etc.) from the other. If I had to choose one over the other I'd go for the M9 because I feel it is more versatile due to being full frame, but that's about it.
cz23
-
Image-wise, I didn't see much difference between my M8 and M9, which is really what you are comparing. Conventional wisdom says the M9/M-E has the same sensor as the M8, but bigger. The extra crop room, no IR filters, and lenses at native focal lengths (especially if you shoot wides) is definitely more attractive.
A more compelling factor to me would be ongoing Leica support. I would therefore be much more comfortable with a current model M-E.
John
A more compelling factor to me would be ongoing Leica support. I would therefore be much more comfortable with a current model M-E.
John
jippiejee
Well-known
I find the image quality of both cameras very close really, but enjoy the faster buffering of the M9, whereas the M8 can really slow you down when shooting series. As others have said already, I enjoy getting the 'true' fov's back on the ff M9 using it for 28mm and 35mm, while shooting my 50mm on the M8 for tighter shots. The iso performance of the M9 isn't really that much better, or not as much as I had hoped initially: maybe one stop?
I doubt you'll see much difference between the two cameras when comparing them at base iso's.
I doubt you'll see much difference between the two cameras when comparing them at base iso's.
wintoid
Back to film
I found the noise banded more on the M8.2 than the M9 when at high ISOs. In general I would limit the M8.2 to ISO1250 but the M9 I will go higher.
Otherwise I felt they were very similar.
Otherwise I felt they were very similar.
gwg
Established
I very much enjoyed using both - on the M9 I miss the frame counter, out of nostalgia but also because it does give a quick view of card and battery status and the lovely black and white images due to the stronger IR capture. But I find the full frame sensor, the slightly higher ISO and manually setting the lenses more than make up for those.
CrisR
Well-known
Yes, this is pretty much the only thing i feel they should have kept on the M9 and brought back for the ME, it was/is very handy at a quick glance, mainly for the battery. A 4 digit display would have been nice too.
But in reality, tho i missed it a lot at first, i've gotten use the the little info button on the back and appreciate the greater detail the screen gives.
But why not have both?
Overall tho, it sounds as if most comments on this thread are quite harmonious?
tester
Member
I used to use M8.2 and afair it was great camera those days but I was mad about lack of FF, color renderition, IR problems and overall image quality.
Now as M9 owner I'm really satisfied.
So if you can afford M-E - go for it, do not limit yourself to M8.
Now as M9 owner I'm really satisfied.
So if you can afford M-E - go for it, do not limit yourself to M8.
helvetica
Well-known
Simple question that would be obvious for someone who owned both - how do the frame lines of the M8 look in relation to other M's? Is it effectively the .72 frame line set on a .85 prism assembly? Or is it the same optical finder, but with 1.3x magnified frame lines? If you had a 50mm lens on the ME and a 35mm on the M8, would both viewfinder appear roughly the same?
jippiejee
Well-known
The physical framelines are identical, although the M8 has got framelines for 24mm that are absent on the M9. The M8 viewfinder just has a wider fov to compensate for the crop factor.
CrisR
Well-known
Yup, they look the same, they're all just smaller - so the 35mm frameline are almost the same size as a 50mm frameline on a film M or M9, the 50mm is almost like a 75mm, etc
jippiejee
Well-known
helvetica
Well-known
This all made sense until I saw the photo example. If you look at the 50mm lines, they vertically extend from the one dark figure on the dock to the [photographer's] left of the shack on the beach - in both examples. Granted the waves are exactly the same in all six frames, therefore it's a photoshop illustration not a real picture through the viewfinder. (and obviously it an illustration)
jippiejee
Well-known
Yes, skip the background image. But it shows how the framelines are identical, achieved by giving the M8 viewfinder a wider fov.
JPSuisse
Well-known
For me, it's ergonomically a toss up.
The M8 has the counter and the batter indicator on top. But, the IR filters do mean a bit of logistics... and once in a while having to carry an extra lens. The M8 is the digital camera leader for me in the file quality/to file size ratio!
Otherwise, when handling both I can't really tell a significant difference.
Note: the buffer on the M8 is slow. I wasn't paying attention, but isn't it even slower on the M9?
The M8 has the counter and the batter indicator on top. But, the IR filters do mean a bit of logistics... and once in a while having to carry an extra lens. The M8 is the digital camera leader for me in the file quality/to file size ratio!
Otherwise, when handling both I can't really tell a significant difference.
Note: the buffer on the M8 is slow. I wasn't paying attention, but isn't it even slower on the M9?
Dez.
Member
I have both the M8 and M9 (functionally the same as the M8.2 and M-E) and to be honest, I don't use the M8 much anymore and keep it mostly as a backup for when my M9's rangefinder goes out of alignment. When using IR filters on the M8, the the two cameras produce very similar results at base ISO, though the colors are very slightly different. If you're not using the IR filters, then the M8 has a very different color response, not just in black fabrics but foliage skews towards yellow and skin tones will shift depending on how much IR is bouncing around your environment. If you're in strong tungsten lighting, skin tones get absolutely murdered if you're not using an IR filter. M8 files have a little more sharpness at 100%, but it's not enough to show up in prints.
I think the main argument to keep both would be if you want to do IR photography at faster shutter speeds and with a working meter. The M9 will do IR photography at the usual tripod speeds, but the meter won't give you an accurate reading, while the M8 will.
I think the main argument to keep both would be if you want to do IR photography at faster shutter speeds and with a working meter. The M9 will do IR photography at the usual tripod speeds, but the meter won't give you an accurate reading, while the M8 will.
Monochrom
Well-known
Hi, when i had my m8 upgraded camera i used to shoot lots of film...once i bought the m9 i shoot hardly any film...
The m9 is such an improvement over the m8 in many terms not only the FF sensor, but menus and ease of use is better overall speed, etc.
The m8 produces punching B/W files..but the m9 does it too.
I kept the ir cut filters i used on my m8 u...since they are expensive and great!
Now i have a dp2 merrill that fills the gap produced when i sold the m8 up.
off the record: the m8 is better built than the m9, better materials (don´t tell anybody i said this, i´ll deny it)
The m9 is such an improvement over the m8 in many terms not only the FF sensor, but menus and ease of use is better overall speed, etc.
The m8 produces punching B/W files..but the m9 does it too.
I kept the ir cut filters i used on my m8 u...since they are expensive and great!
Now i have a dp2 merrill that fills the gap produced when i sold the m8 up.
off the record: the m8 is better built than the m9, better materials (don´t tell anybody i said this, i´ll deny it)