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

Jeff S said:
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 anyday 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
Click to expand...

I second Jeff and love my M8 and Now it is Upgraded to M8.2 and i am happy with just 3 Cron lenses.
 
Getting back to the original question, I noticed a few minor IQ differences when I switched from the M8 to a M9. The color response seems slightly different giving the M9 a slight edge but the M8 files look slightly sharper. Making this comparison is like splitting hairs. In day to day use, there is very little difference between the two cameras. In fact, the M8 was an absolutely stellar camera. I wish I could have afforded to keep mine but the M9 was such a stretch financially that it had to go. No regrets but anyone looking for a great camera on a "budget" should consider a good used M8.

Tom
 
I loved my M8.2.... great image quality because it uses the lenses sweet spot (the middle of the lense). With that said, my M9 gets used the most because of the FF... IQ is very, very, very close between the two.... that is all I can say really.
 
The conclusion to draw from this and countless other threads and photos is that the IQ isn't that different (Tom sums up the differences the best). Get the M9 if you need to print really large, or if you need FF. FF seems to be about the most convincing argument in favor of the M9.

Hey Jeff, thanks for speaking up!
 
I only found this thread because my M8.2 has the dreaded coffee stain and it looks like I have to make the choice as to whether I should use the upgrade path through Solms. Love the M8.2 and have resisted the temptation up to now to upgrade mainly due to being used to the crop view through my lenses (and yes I know I could crop the full frame images to suit). As I do crop I am however tempted by the greater resolution of the FF. At any rate with the admittedly cosmetic stain I do have a choice to make.

Late to the party I may be, but from a relatively innocent OP question it does astound me how a thread can fall to such depths.

Cheers and chill everyone (and please resist the temptation to flame me - I'm not that defensive/fragile/bothered).

James
 
Coffee Stain

Coffee Stain

My M8.2 also just got the "coffee stain". What is the protocol from Leica on this? Are they still offering some sort of replacement / upgrade program? I'm not the original owner but do have the original purchase receipt. K
 
AFAIK Leica used to offer upgrades to M9 or M9-P bodies under the following conditions:
Within 2 years (warranty period): free of charge
Within 3 years: 1500 EUR (M9) or 1920 EUR (M9-P)
Within 4 years: 2000 EUR (M9) or 2420 EUR (M9-P)
Within 5 years: 2500 EUR (M9) or 2920 EUR (M9-P)
Within 6 years: 3000 EUR (M9) or 3420 EUR (M9-P)
See: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...st-bought-m8-2-coffe-stain-2.html#post2223419
 
Thanks LCT - I have seen those numbers elsewhere and hopefully they are somewhere near the mark (although maybe against the M-E). One of the reasons I got the M8.2 was for the sapphire screen and unfortunately unless they are able to find a M9-P from somewhere I will lose out. Other than that I can only hope that they recognize that M8.2 resale prices are higher than M8's and are willing to offer m a little more.....

Either way I still take a hit - this will cost me and I will be without a rangefinder for a period of time. The stain may be cosmetic but it will affect the resale value (or make it more difficult to sell perhaps) - I was really happy with the M8.2 as well!

When I got the camera I had to send it off to Solms for a sensor pixel remap(?) and I have to say the service and communication was excellent. They turned it round in less than two weeks just before Christmas.

James
 
I'm not here to fan the flames between which has better IQ, the M8 or 9.
Two weeks ago I bought an M8.2 in good shape with just a little brassing for character. I held my breath with all the known issues with Leica no longer supporting that model. I decided it would quench my GAS for a digital M for awhile.
Anyway, as to image quality, I've noticed that with certain grays, notably my Mazda MX5, the image comes out blue. I've used coded and non-coded lens, with and without ir cut filters, auto white balance and wb taken with an expo disk. Still comes out blue. Am I missing something or am I destined to deal with this in pp?
Thanks in advance for any help.
 
Better high ISO, full frame, no IR filters and being able to manually select lens I think thats enough to warrant the upgrade.
 
This is a very interesting thread

it could be made more so by comparing the M8 and M9 to the M240 as well

I've adjusted the original title hoping to get additional M240 comparisons


Stephen
 
I like using the M8 and the M9. I use with the M9 a wide angle lens, which works well with a FF camera. I use with the M8 a 50mm lens to get a short tele for portraits. The set of cameras is great for my needs.
 
For upgrading to M-E see: http://tinyurl.com/p8alm7r

LCT said:
AFAIK Leica used to offer upgrades to M9 or M9-P bodies under the following conditions:
Within 2 years (warranty period): free of charge
Within 3 years: 1500 EUR (M9) or 1920 EUR (M9-P)
Within 4 years: 2000 EUR (M9) or 2420 EUR (M9-P)
Within 5 years: 2500 EUR (M9) or 2920 EUR (M9-P)
Within 6 years: 3000 EUR (M9) or 3420 EUR (M9-P)
See: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...st-bought-m8-2-coffe-stain-2.html#post2223419
Click to expand...
 
CameraQuest said:
This is a very interesting thread

it could be made more so by comparing the M8 and M9 to the M240 as well

I've adjusted the original title hoping to get additional M240 comparisons


Stephen
Click to expand...
Happily.
If you are looking for a dramatic increase in image quality in run-of-the-mill photographic circumstances as some posters here are doing you will be disappointed in the M over the M9 (as with he M9 vs the M8; we are into diminishing returns in digital photography by now) Even the increased noise performance is not very important for standard photography - even an M8 can be teased into good low-light shooting; the M9 more so and the M makes it a bit easier again. I find it of limited relevance.

Having said that I am home today from shooting in harsh tropical light for the last five weeks and the M forges ahead in dynamic range. That makes far more of a difference than a pixel-splitting resolution or acuity variances.
This alone is -to me- more than worth the upgrade.

Added to which the more accurate rangefinder, better framelines, better build quality and superb shutter are not to be discounted either.

Not to mention the EVF, simple as it may be, which allows an enormous versatility by being able to use just about any 135 format lens ever made, as long as it has manual controls.
 
I own a second-hand M8 that works beautifully. I know that if I buy a more expensive gear, I will be a better photographer. SO, I will upgrade to M-240 as soon as I get the money, which may take years and years (by that time there will probably be an M-260 or M-280),:rolleyes:
 
jaapv said:
The framelines on the M8 and M8.2 are not essentially different. RF framelines can only be 100% accurate at one given distance. As the lens is focussed to infinity, they will get too narrow. Experienced users compensate for this. Normally one would expect framelines to be accurate at the shortest focussing distance, to avoid accidentally cut off edges. And that was the way it was on the M8. As the M8 attracted quite a few new users that were not familiar with the phenomena and protested, Leica decided to take a chance and shift the optimum accuracy from 1 m. to 2 m. As this is closer to the usual shooting distance of 3 m. and less pronounced at infinity, the gamble paid off in far less complaints. But the "zoom" effect of the field of view in relationship to the framelines is unaltered. And now the framelines are too wide at closest focussing distance on the M8.2. So on the M9 they reverted to 1 m. And you know what? Nobody even noticed...
Click to expand...

That is a question I have (maybe for another thread): What are the frame lines for? I have never used it, because I never shot film with the M8 or Leica. I always use the card reader. Maybe that is the reason the made the M-E, just for people like me. Why isn't the M-E more popular???
 
Maybe, the owners of an M9 may not see sufficient improvements in the M-E to buy it to replace their M9? I am guessing.
 
Jeff S said:
And if you took the time to 'delve into it,' and really mastered it, you'd find that prints from your M8 would be better than anything you're currently producing with your M9. And if you're not concerned about print quality, then why bother with any of this? Your agreeing with Jaap holds no water if you haven't verified it...in print.

Jeff
Click to expand...

What is the reason that you believe this to be true? I ask the question sincerely only because it make no sense. Not on paper anyway.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top