rf1552
Member
I used to work at a camera store. Last saturday I went back with my M8 and 28 elmarit asph and 35 cron asph. I sat in the Leica section for about 1.5 hours testing both lenses on the M9 and on the M8. Took a bunch of indoor shoots, outdoor shots, close up shots, etc. It was fun
I got home and loaded up the images on lightroom. Other than the crop difference, and resolution, I could not see a much of difference between the M8 and M9. Yes, higher iso did look better on the M9 but I dont care about that either.
Based solely on color and dynamic range, is the M9 supposed to be better than the M8?
--------- admin edit
M240, M10, M10R and M11 added to the comparisons on this very interesting thread
Stephen
I got home and loaded up the images on lightroom. Other than the crop difference, and resolution, I could not see a much of difference between the M8 and M9. Yes, higher iso did look better on the M9 but I dont care about that either.
Based solely on color and dynamic range, is the M9 supposed to be better than the M8?
--------- admin edit
M240, M10, M10R and M11 added to the comparisons on this very interesting thread
Stephen
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeff S
Well-known
The pixel density of the cameras is the same, so a cropped M9 picture is essentially the same as an M8 picture that starts out cropped in the first place. For me, only prints matter. And for prints up to A3 or A2, even the difference in resolution is not apparent. The real benefit comes from larger prints, or on significantly cropped (edited in PP) pics. The difference in high ISO performance is well known, but even here technique matters.
Color is a personal matter and can be affected by a host of variables besides in-camera factors...conversion software, PP choices, and even whether one uses an external UV/IR filter (which some do even on the M9, where internal IR filtration is sometimes not as effective as the M8 with external filters). In fact, because of stronger in-camera filtration, the M9 files may be marginally less crisp out of camera, but this is inconsequential due to PP controls.
Anyone who claims to see the differences in reasonably small prints would never pass a double blind test. But that's true of most camera/lens combinations in real world prints where pixel peeping is irrelevant.
Jeff
Color is a personal matter and can be affected by a host of variables besides in-camera factors...conversion software, PP choices, and even whether one uses an external UV/IR filter (which some do even on the M9, where internal IR filtration is sometimes not as effective as the M8 with external filters). In fact, because of stronger in-camera filtration, the M9 files may be marginally less crisp out of camera, but this is inconsequential due to PP controls.
Anyone who claims to see the differences in reasonably small prints would never pass a double blind test. But that's true of most camera/lens combinations in real world prints where pixel peeping is irrelevant.
Jeff
sojournerphoto
Mentor
I can't say I'm surprised really. I would be inclined to think of the M8 as a crop M9 that needs external filters.
The resolution difference will show up at some print size, but is not really huge (about 30% linear). Although people are happy making big prints with M9s, I tested (very unscientifically I will admit) an M9 print at 36 by 24 against a 30 by 24 from my Mamiya 7 using Ektar and the medium format print was clearly better. A similar result to a comparison I did before with Mamiya 7/Ektar vs 1Ds3. But the res difference of the files there is much greater - 360ppi (non Bayer, but thre is a question over underlying scan resolution of course) vs 144 ppi (Bayer)
Mike
The resolution difference will show up at some print size, but is not really huge (about 30% linear). Although people are happy making big prints with M9s, I tested (very unscientifically I will admit) an M9 print at 36 by 24 against a 30 by 24 from my Mamiya 7 using Ektar and the medium format print was clearly better. A similar result to a comparison I did before with Mamiya 7/Ektar vs 1Ds3. But the res difference of the files there is much greater - 360ppi (non Bayer, but thre is a question over underlying scan resolution of course) vs 144 ppi (Bayer)
Mike
MCTuomey
Mentor
Other than the difference in resolution and slightly greater sharpness out-of-camera, assuming IR-cut filter correction, I think the M8 files are hard to distinguish from the M9's.
Last year I did a similar print test to what Mike describes. Up-rezzed M9 files to down-rezzed Mamiya 7 E-6 scans, printed large. M9 held up well, but the Mamiya prints were better at one foot inspection. Actually increased my confidence in printing M9 files beyond my usual 11x14 35mm limit.
Last year I did a similar print test to what Mike describes. Up-rezzed M9 files to down-rezzed Mamiya 7 E-6 scans, printed large. M9 held up well, but the Mamiya prints were better at one foot inspection. Actually increased my confidence in printing M9 files beyond my usual 11x14 35mm limit.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
As soon as I tried the M9, I thought the image quality had gone from 'almost 35mm' to 'for all practical purposes, 35mm'. I didn't WANT to think that. I didn't WANT to buy an M9. But between the image quality, and getting all my old focal lengths back, buying the M9 was something I felt I had to do. Bear in mind, of course, that I can put it through the business, so it's not just a toy. But I found the difference impressive http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/m9 review.html
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
gdi
Mentor
I have to agree with Roger - comparing the two side by side, there was no way I could choose the M8 over M9. I find the images substantially better in all ways (and the M8 is very good!) and, for me, full frame and the ergonomics are much preferable.
Jeff S
Well-known
Gimme some of what those guys are smokin'.
Jeff
Jeff
Jeff S
Well-known
uhoh7
Mentor
Both are coming down--I saw a clean low count m8 for 1750 and have seen several M9s for 5k
The M8 may not be an M9 but it's looking like a good deal these days
I find M8 images impressive myself.
The M8 may not be an M9 but it's looking like a good deal these days
I find M8 images impressive myself.
Araakii
Well-known
Why would image quality even be a consideration? For the M system it's always been about operation and weight.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Ridiculous statement.
Jeff
Not quite - the larger sensor with the same pixel density will result in less magnification. That will result in better contrast and color transitions, and less noise.
Subtle, but clearly visible - provided the photographic technique is up to it. No camera shake, perfect focus, proper exposure, good postprocessing and printing technique. As soon as one of these factors is lacking the advantage will evaporate.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
In what ways do you find the M8 images better? Or are you merely arguing about the word 'substantially'?
Cheers,
R.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I noticed that my M8 was better in resolution only over my M9, tested with both cameras on tripod, using the same lens. I think this was due to the weak filtration on the M9 and is only seen at 100% magnification, so it's really a moot point.
The M8 was a great camera but the M9 is better. They are different enough that it could make sense to keep an M8 for the extended spectral sensitivity it has. I loved my for the limited amount of far IR imagery I did.
The M9 is just a basic fantastic camera that has almost completely taken the place of my film M camera (when the M9 isn't off to the factory for repair.)
Regardless they are both excellent tools but they tax the technique of the photographer in order to make the use of their strength to resolve images that rival the best from other manufacturers in the miniature format industry.
Phil Forrest
The M8 was a great camera but the M9 is better. They are different enough that it could make sense to keep an M8 for the extended spectral sensitivity it has. I loved my for the limited amount of far IR imagery I did.
The M9 is just a basic fantastic camera that has almost completely taken the place of my film M camera (when the M9 isn't off to the factory for repair.)
Regardless they are both excellent tools but they tax the technique of the photographer in order to make the use of their strength to resolve images that rival the best from other manufacturers in the miniature format industry.
Phil Forrest
gdi
Mentor
Ridiculous statement.
Jeff
Of course not. I just pay closer attention to details than you.
gdi
Mentor
Exactly, I had both for a while and compared them with the hope that I would find the images close enough to continue to be satisfied with the M8 and forget about the new camera. That wasn't the case so I sold the M8.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
He probably finds a slight advantage in the unsharpened image on a pixel level due to the thinner IR filter, but forgets that there is a decisive difference in magnification.
rf1552
Member
Ok, so the people that had both the M8 and M9, why EXACTLY is the M9 better than the M8 minus the resolution, ISO, FF, larger prints.
Are you saying the color is better in the M9?
Does it have more 3D 35mm film pop to it?
Are the advantages worth the difference in price?
My theory is because m9 is FF, shooting wide open will appear to have more "pop" but does it really?
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It has more resolution for the same print size which gives, as I said, better contrast transitions, better color transitions, less color bleeding and less noise. Also the color rendering has been altered which gives better differentiation. Simply said, more pixels per square cm of image at the same final image size gives more data per square cm of image gives better quality.
If that is worth the money is an individual decision - many people are quite happy with far less than an M8, let alone an M9 or - the Lord forbid- an S2....
If that is worth the money is an individual decision - many people are quite happy with far less than an M8, let alone an M9 or - the Lord forbid- an S2....
Jeff S
Well-known
C'mon guys...substantially? in every way?
I own 2 M8.2s and would have owned 2 M9s instead (cost is not an issue), but after trying the M9 and making prints for 14x18 (framed) size, there was no justification for moving to the M9. I don't print super big, don't shoot super wide, nor at high ISO (400 ASA worked fine for me for a few decades).
Given my workflow, I find that there are far more differences in print quality by what happens down the chain after the files come from the camera (once starting with either the M8 or M9)...everything from software to papers to custom profiles to printer to inks...and all the myriad judgments and settings along the way.
I recently hung an exhibit of color and b/w prints for a gallery at a major TV network studio, where there is a 3 year wait list for shows. The building manager and many staff told me it was the nicest show they had seen in years. All prints were made using the M8.2 (except one scan from an M6 neg).
I suppose my show would have been 'substantially' better in 'every way' if I had only had the common sense to use an M9.
Oh, and not that it makes any difference in the print quality, but I'll take the following features of my camera any day compared to the M9: the 2m frame lines are the best I've used on any M... ever (and this has real effect on my picture taking); I much prefer having a top display; and I get chrome and sapphire screen without having to pay anything extra. In addition, for the same FOV, I prefer using my 50 Summilux asph and the 50 frame lines any day compared to using my 75 Summicron asph... never liked those 75 lines on any M.
Plus, with a second generation camera (M8.2), I didn't have to put up with all the teething problems of the M8, unlike what some M9 users have had to endure along the way, e.g., red edge, purple fringe, card issues, sensor crack issues, buffer issues with huge files, etc. I expect all this to be sorted out, and none was a real influence on my purchase decision, but you did say the M9 was substantially better in every way. Please spare me.
Jeff
I own 2 M8.2s and would have owned 2 M9s instead (cost is not an issue), but after trying the M9 and making prints for 14x18 (framed) size, there was no justification for moving to the M9. I don't print super big, don't shoot super wide, nor at high ISO (400 ASA worked fine for me for a few decades).
Given my workflow, I find that there are far more differences in print quality by what happens down the chain after the files come from the camera (once starting with either the M8 or M9)...everything from software to papers to custom profiles to printer to inks...and all the myriad judgments and settings along the way.
I recently hung an exhibit of color and b/w prints for a gallery at a major TV network studio, where there is a 3 year wait list for shows. The building manager and many staff told me it was the nicest show they had seen in years. All prints were made using the M8.2 (except one scan from an M6 neg).
I suppose my show would have been 'substantially' better in 'every way' if I had only had the common sense to use an M9.
Oh, and not that it makes any difference in the print quality, but I'll take the following features of my camera any day compared to the M9: the 2m frame lines are the best I've used on any M... ever (and this has real effect on my picture taking); I much prefer having a top display; and I get chrome and sapphire screen without having to pay anything extra. In addition, for the same FOV, I prefer using my 50 Summilux asph and the 50 frame lines any day compared to using my 75 Summicron asph... never liked those 75 lines on any M.
Plus, with a second generation camera (M8.2), I didn't have to put up with all the teething problems of the M8, unlike what some M9 users have had to endure along the way, e.g., red edge, purple fringe, card issues, sensor crack issues, buffer issues with huge files, etc. I expect all this to be sorted out, and none was a real influence on my purchase decision, but you did say the M9 was substantially better in every way. Please spare me.
Jeff