Ben Z
Mentor
It probably won't wash with Benbut 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....
It definitely does wash with me Jaap. Telling someone "I like dark chocolate better than milk chocolate" is perfectly legitimate. Telling them "you'll like milk chocolate until you try dark chocolate" is presumptuous...yes, even if the person saying it reviews chocolate for a living
For the record I didn't ever say I don't like the M9 better than the M8. I only said that I don't like it so much better that I can't stomach using my M8 until I can get an M9 for a few grand less. I'm willing to admit I'm less of a photographer with monetary concerns than a cheapskate who happens to take pictures
arnulf
Registered User
I know you didn't. What you did do is claiming you hadn't read the reviews documenting the differences between the M8 and M9 and asked for links. I thought that was kind of a strange thing to say.
arnulf
Registered User
But never mind, Ben. I think I get your point. It's valid enough and I respect your view.
Neare
Well-known
rugyboogie, try before you buy. RF's aren't for everyone and whilst Leica lenses are superior to many others, the amount of nitpicking digital files can go through in photoshop and the like for sharpening, contrast, colour etc. the difference may not be worth 7k to a person (for the body alone ).
A Leica won't make you take better pictures.
I think you need to really find out if how Rangefinders handle suits your photography style before the lifesaving's are spent.
Though if you do like it, by all means, spend away.
).A Leica won't make you take better pictures.
I think you need to really find out if how Rangefinders handle suits your photography style before the lifesaving's are spent.
Though if you do like it, by all means, spend away.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Well I think these are the reasons. The fact is though for me they are not quite enough to make me part with £5,000 for an M9. It was my intention to do this after selling my M8, but i have never really missed it. For less money a D700 (and Leica M7) gives me a lot more. Each of course to their own. I have to say Im surprised but honestly am not desperate for an M9. I think the other deterrent is the lack of availability of a demo model. Who know2s I might feel differently if I had spent a couple of days using an M9.It probably won't wash with Ben
Best wishes
Richard
atlcruiser
Part Yeti
I was in much the same situation using a canon P+S for work and I needed to step it up a few notches!
I bought Leica film bodies and invested in lenses in a rather short period of time. The return to film brought me "back in the fold" of real photography and has allows me to get much more out of my M8.
If you have the time my suggesstion would be to get an M6 and start buying lenses. Find a good place to develop and scan your stuff and spend a few months playing with film then jump into the digital M world.
The M9 is the way to go if you have the $$$$. The M8 is great for what it is and is a steal right now.
I bought Leica film bodies and invested in lenses in a rather short period of time. The return to film brought me "back in the fold" of real photography and has allows me to get much more out of my M8.
If you have the time my suggesstion would be to get an M6 and start buying lenses. Find a good place to develop and scan your stuff and spend a few months playing with film then jump into the digital M world.
The M9 is the way to go if you have the $$$$. The M8 is great for what it is and is a steal right now.
Ben Z
Mentor
Read again, that isn't what I said. What I said was I haven't read any reviews which stated that the M9's image quality is vastly, or even remarkably superior to that of the M8, as Mr. Hicks implied, and asked him for links to reviews that said so. I'm aware and appreciative of the salient differences between the two cameras, not only from reviews and spec sheets, but from having shot them both alongside one another for the better part of a day.
Ben Z
Mentor
Well I spent most of a day using an M9 and, like you, surprised myself not being desperate for one. The reason was that I don't consider getting rid of the crop factor and IR filters worth selling the M8 for half what I paid and then adding to that again what I originally spent for the M8. Only an increase in image quality that reaches out and slaps me in the face would make me want to spend that kind of money, and the M9 just didn't do that.
I also think that a bigger problem than lack of demo units is the lack of availability of units to purchase. If I did want to buy an M9 I wouldn't want to hear excuses why the continuing delay after nearly a year since introduction.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Ben,
(1) Not all reviews are on the internet, which is why I did not reply at first. The BJP review, for example, said exactly the same as I do, that the M9 is much more 'film like' with the clear implication of very significantly higher quality. Any 'evidence' except original prints or large, high-quality photomechanical repro will be submerged in the reproduction process in any on-line or printed review. That's why I say you have to take a certain amount on trust from any reviewer, generally relying more on what they say than on what they can show in reproduction. Most honest reviewers make this clear in their reviews. Also, believe it or not, I don't bookmark every review I read.
(2) Yes, you've shot both for the better part of a day. I've shot both for the better part of a year, with a very wide variety of lenses. I still use both. The M8 is, as I have said, an excellent camera. But as I have also said (and as many have said here), the M9 is even better.
Whether the improvement is important enough to you to "consider getting rid of the crop factor and IR filters worth selling the M8 for half what I paid and then adding to that again what I originally spent for the M8" is, as you have repeatedly made clear, a personal decision. So is your perception of whether the M9 delivers a big enough increase in image quality to slap you in the face.
The truth remains that most of the people who have used both are sufficiently impressed to say the same as I did: that the M8 is great until you try an M9, which is even better. You can dismiss that as a subjective judgement to your heart's content; you can dispute the meaning or value of 'even better'. But your doggedness in defending your view leads me to suspect that you are probably not all that willing to change your opinion now.
Cheers,
R.
Ben Z
Mentor
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear Ben
I take your point about availability to purchase however it would take me a little while to raise the cash and by then the M9 in theory would be available! However hearing that the image quality is not substantially better than an M8 does concern me as the D700 certainly improved considerably on the M8 for my requirements. I dont want to set up another pantomime about Leica vs DSLR's. I will simply wait to evaluate an M9 against my existing equipment if they ever become available enough to provide dealers with a demonstrator M9. The only review that seriously matters to me is the one performed by me for the type of pitures that I like to take.
My dealer has always had an M8 demonstrator. It helped me greatly in my decision to buy an M8. Why no M9's? Perhaps Leica think it may actually reduce sales. Its an interesting thought.
Best wishes
Richard
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Richard,
Exactly. Anything else is merely an indicator that it may be worth pursuing such a test yourself.
But a more rational (not to say charitable) interpretation of the paucity of demonstrators is that as long as you have a waiting list for the camera, it makes limited sense to add to that list and frustrate existing orders.
Cheers,
R.
_mark__
Well-known
Get the M9, the images I have seen look consistently wonderful, very film-like rendering with the top lenses. I had the 8.2 then a D700, I thought the 8.2 was garbage, the D700 better, now I'm back with film.
Jeff S
Well-known
We've had "even better" choices all along, and there've virtually always been costs of one sort or another in consequence. I have medium format RF and SLR cameras that are "better" than smaller gear in some respects but there is that bulk/weight and/or cost to bear. It has to come down to the individual's personal benefit analysis... and this too can change for differing jobs.
A few weeks ago I had a brief opportunity to use a Leica S2; the files are 7512x4992 pixels... that's even better than an M9, but there are the costs: Not an RF, larger/heavier, processed 16-bit TIFFs are 220Mb each, and for its price you could buy three M9s plus a nice lens. Is it still better? Yes for some!
A few weeks ago I had a brief opportunity to use a Leica S2; the files are 7512x4992 pixels... that's even better than an M9, but there are the costs: Not an RF, larger/heavier, processed 16-bit TIFFs are 220Mb each, and for its price you could buy three M9s plus a nice lens. Is it still better? Yes for some!
Richard Marks
Rexel
Hi Roger
Yes I realise that it may be unfair to reserve cameras for demonstrators when there is a waiting list and a supply of people prepared to order without even trying one. And clearly market forces prevail. It is still not a good situation. There is no way I would ever spend £5,000 without a proper test drive myself. One may argue that there is the option to return in 10 days in disatisfied, but no comfort if one has sold a lot of equipment to fund it. A good demo has been possible for all my other photographic purchases. I suspect I might end up being disappointed. However given the limited options for testing one then I suppose all one has is other peoples opinions and of course images on the web. I have been a bit underwhelmed with most of these images. But its notoriously difficult to show small improvements in posts. I suspect well healed enthusiasts might not always be the best of photographers too. But I think the real problem is for monochrome people shots my M7 workflow makes me happy. I have a good darkroom set up and everything works as it should. If its colour film then I am generally shooting landscapes, dont care about discretion and the lenses for D700 (like the awesome rectilinear 14-24) plus the ability to use graduated filters is a considerable advantage.
Best wishes
Richard
InkWalk
Newbie
M9 is definitely better because the "full frame" ccd, other than this, those upgrades are not important at all. However, it is way too expensive so far.
In my opinion, to buy a used M8/M8.2 in working condition will be a good choice. You can use it to practice and wait for second-hand M9 when M9.2 or M10 whatever announced. Most lens which work on M8 can be used on M9 as well.
In my opinion, to buy a used M8/M8.2 in working condition will be a good choice. You can use it to practice and wait for second-hand M9 when M9.2 or M10 whatever announced. Most lens which work on M8 can be used on M9 as well.
ramosa
B&W
i also recommend that you go for a M8/M8.2--and use the rest on leica lenses. i tend to recommend that people purchase their end-point lenses (i.e., the lenses they really want someday) now, instead of buying cheaper ones now and then selling the cheaper ones (and taking a loss) so they can eventually buy the end-point ones. (of course, current money can limit this approach ... )
I got to play with an M9 and Noctilux yesterday. No doubt in my mind that it is a second-generaltion Leica Digital, and the design shows. Aside from the obvious Full-frame vs Crop factor: the IR problem is solved and you just throw any filter onto the lens and use it. It does go through batteries faster, easy to understand as the camera has to read out, process, and store more pixels. Price of admission. Carry three batteries instead of two.
Am I going to run out and buy one? Not yet, but I will be. I'll happily use my M8, I've collected IR filters for all of my lenses. Bought most used, as low as $5 and not more than $50 for new.
If I had the money sitting in the checking account, looking at a $2500 M8 with warranty or a new $7000 M9- both staring at me, wanting to be bought... Only you can answer that question for yourself. I will say this- the M9 is worth it.
And- the M9 worked just fine after getting splashed full force at a pool party. My friend uses his to get pictures that he wants, and got some good close-ups of the splash-fights.
Am I going to run out and buy one? Not yet, but I will be. I'll happily use my M8, I've collected IR filters for all of my lenses. Bought most used, as low as $5 and not more than $50 for new.
If I had the money sitting in the checking account, looking at a $2500 M8 with warranty or a new $7000 M9- both staring at me, wanting to be bought... Only you can answer that question for yourself. I will say this- the M9 is worth it.
And- the M9 worked just fine after getting splashed full force at a pool party. My friend uses his to get pictures that he wants, and got some good close-ups of the splash-fights.
Last edited:
Ben Z
Mentor
I agree 110% with that. Even though some "experienced, professional" reviewers believe they're better qualified and we should defer to their opinions...as would, I'll wager, the publications (hoping to sell advertising space to the manufacturers) who pay them
. I don't think it's that complicated. Leica doesn't supply demos to their dealers, the dealers have to buy them...and not much incentive for them to do that when they have people lined up with deposits in hand ready to buy sight-unseen and arrival-date-unknown.
Last edited: