The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Available fund for M9 or 50mm lux ASPH ?

MCTuomey

New member
The resolution of the M9 is 29% greater than the M8's, using the formula square root of the difference in sensor size (in megapixels).

On topic: I bought an M9 (after owning a couple of M8's) before I began to move into Leica lenses from the ZM's. I suggest to buy what makes sense to buy first. Glass, if you think the 50 asph is for you. M9, if you think you'll benefit from its improvements over the M8 more than you'll enjoy the 50 asph. Looking back, I think I'd actually buy the lens first because the 50 asph is really really good for much of what I shoot, which includes dark clubs etc.

I have made a few prints of equal size and dpi from both cameras (up to 16x20), of the same scenes shot under similar light with the same lens. The differences are much less than I expected. Slightly better micro detail and native color from the M8, slightly better shadow detail and tonal range from the M9, but nothing that set me confident that I'd done well to sell my M8 and buy the M9 on the strength of imaging potential alone.

There are reasons to buy an M9, like manual lens correction and full frame benefits, but I don't think image quality is one of them, unless you make really large prints or shoot above iso 1,000 a lot of the time.
 

douglasf13

New member
That's interesting. Anything that I've read, from forum members to DXO Mark, says that M9 has about a stop advantage over the M8 in noise at all ISOs, when output to the same size. I wonder if the raw converter has something to do with it?
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Tell me more, please!!:confused:
The new M-E model is an M9 minus the USB port (never used it) and minus the viewfinder frameline manual selector lever (perhaps I've used it two or three times, to figure out whether the 35mm frame lines are a better fit than the 50mm frame lines for my 40mm lenses ... the 35s are better for my eyesight).

The M-E is available in a bluish "anthracite" gray color with silver control trim. The M9 was available in black or steel gray. Mine is black, which I prefer, but frankly once I saw a good photo of the M-E, I was impressed that it looked very nice.

If you want an M9, buy one now, new, while there are still a few available in the distribution channel, or look for one used whenever. If you want a new M9, within a short period of time you'll want to buy an M-E because it is all that will be available new.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Hello Godfrey.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Much appreciated sir.

I was, however, interested in the comments made by two responders that the M9 is a 'slightly better' camera than the M-E. I wanted to know how and why?

Then there was a comment to the effect that the M-E has slightly ' less features'. Which ones? ( You did point them out ).

Would it be reasonable, then, to suggest that a M9-P is a better camera than the M9. And that the M9 has ' slightly less features'?

I could be wrong here, but to the best of my knowledge the M-E is no less a camera than the M9/P. Different cosmetics (minus the usb port, and the manual frameline selector ). And a big plus is the warranty. Besides the fact that the M9/P will no more be produced after the M becomes available.

I would hazard a guess and say that an M-E would not in anyway reduce my photo making ability/inabilty ( crap as it is ) because the M-E lacks certain functionality available in the M9/P.

But then again, some would maintain that an M-E is just a wannabe Leica!
Not the ' real' thing.




The new M-E model is an M9 minus the USB port (never used it) and minus the viewfinder frameline manual selector lever (perhaps I've used it two or three times, to figure out whether the 35mm frame lines are a better fit than the 50mm frame lines for my 40mm lenses ... the 35s are better for my eyesight).

The M-E is available in a bluish "anthracite" gray color with silver control trim. The M9 was available in black or steel gray. Mine is black, which I prefer, but frankly once I saw a good photo of the M-E, I was impressed that it looked very nice.

If you want an M9, buy one now, new, while there are still a few available in the distribution channel, or look for one used whenever. If you want a new M9, within a short period of time you'll want to buy an M-E because it is all that will be available new.
 

wattsy

Well-known member
and they apparently went a little too thin. There shouldn't be a difference in sharpness from this, at least at the center of the frame, especially if you're putting an IR filter on the front of the lens, anyways.
There is a sharpness difference though. Not an important one but it is there (and that is with a lens IR filter in place).


Interesting about the different color filters. I've been under the impression that the M8 and M9 have the same color filter type. Are there any links that discuss this?
It was well reported at the time of the M9 launch and I think it is referenced in the 'Cuba' brochure that accompanied the launch. I'll check to see if I can link to something.
 

wattsy

Well-known member
Interesting about the different color filters.
Douglas, a quick bit of research throws up this reference at dpreview:

"A stop improvement in noise (ISO 1250 M9 = ISO 640 M8) - this comes from a range of significant re-engineering efforts - the sensor is effectively a scaled up version of that found in the M8 (the photosite architecture and pitch remain the same) but it has a different CFA dye to improve red sensitivity, the output stage has been improved, the signal paths have been shortened (new PCB design), two processors are now used for improved JPEG quality (and speed) and the firmware was written from scratch with improved noise reduction."

I'm pretty sure it was referenced in the brochure and it was certainly commented on at the time by pundits and reviewers.
 

wattsy

Well-known member
There are reasons to buy an M9, like manual lens correction and full frame benefits, but I don't think image quality is one of them, unless you make really large prints or shoot above iso 1,000 a lot of the time.
Yes. I often ask myself how much have I really gained in recent years by going from M8 to M9 but there are certainly features of the M9 that I would definitely miss if I went back to the M8. The full frame for sure and, for me, the 'soft' release mode is a major difference – almost worth the price of admission in itself.
 

Double Negative

Not Available
Rayyan - As Godfrey pointed out, the "less features" on the M-E over the M9 are the USB port and frame preview lever.

As for the M9, it's clearly a better camera in general than the M8. Not just in imaging (save for perhaps the sharpness Wattsy and I were discussing) but especially in overall ergonomics. The M9 is more refined. But that doesn't mean the M8 stinks in any way. It's still a great camera. One just needs to pay heed to the "quirks" - such as the UV/IR filters.
 

douglasf13

New member
Douglas, a quick bit of research throws up this reference at dpreview:

"A stop improvement in noise (ISO 1250 M9 = ISO 640 M8) - this comes from a range of significant re-engineering efforts - the sensor is effectively a scaled up version of that found in the M8 (the photosite architecture and pitch remain the same) but it has a different CFA dye to improve red sensitivity, the output stage has been improved, the signal paths have been shortened (new PCB design), two processors are now used for improved JPEG quality (and speed) and the firmware was written from scratch with improved noise reduction."

I'm pretty sure it was referenced in the brochure and it was certainly commented on at the time by pundits and reviewers.
Thanks!
 
Top