Before I buy an M9, one question

[rory_rege]

<p>Under my current workflow, I photograph with film, make rough scans and rough Photoshop prints of my negatives, and then cull ruthlessly. The negatives that survive are turned over to a printer with whom I have a good working relationship, who takes it from there from scanning to printing.<br>

<br /> While I remain committed to this workflow for 6x7 and 4x5 negatives, I am seriously thinking of retiring my M3, in favour of an M9, for 35mm photography. Depending on how the M9 handles low ambient light, about which there appears to be lots of debate, I may continue to use the M3 when I need a high ISO or want the look of a push. Apart from that possible situation, my intention would be to go with the M9 exclusively.<br /> <br /> It appears that my dealer will have some M9s by the middle of October. I suspect that it would be a good idea to express my interest (as in, make a commitment to him) sooner rather than later. Before I make the jump, I am interested in comments that people might have on one question.<br /> <br /> For those who have used an M film camera and are now using an M8, what <em>if anything</em> do you <em>miss</em> , in relation to <em>how an image looks in a print</em> , from when you used film? I would appreciate it if people who choose to respond would say whether they are talking about colour images or black and white images.<br /> <br /> I realize that one response to this question is to suggest that I look at some M8 prints myself. While there are many upsides to where I live, access to M8 prints is not one of them. I hope to be able to have a look at some when I am in a much larger city next month, where I would also be getting the M9, but if I can get some input now from M8 users it would be most helpful.<br /> <br /> Thanks very much.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>My M8 has to date not allowed me the quality of B&W print that I have obtained with my M film camera or medium format cameras. The difference is subtle, but I expect that this may be due to several possible things:</p>

<p>1. My inability to do B&W conversion well (this would likely happen whether I was using an M8 or another digital camera);<br>

2. The particular qualities of B&W film and photographic papers, compared to digital capture and printing; In my case this is skewed as I have always liked the use of filters and semi-infra red film qualities; <br>

3. The inability of digital print output to equal (or, pehaps more correctly stated, to do the same as) darkroom printing;<br>

4. The M8 (perhaps less so on the M9, we will have to wait to see tests of the colour mapping from it) gives colours that are slightly exaggerated (and a few quirks without IR cut filtering), but then again, if you use colour film (positive or negative) you are aware of the variation of color rendition in film photography. I like the M8 colour response.</p>

<p>My opinion is admittedly quite subjective. Can you not rent the M9 before buying? Your opinion will be the most important one and taking a chance on a $7000 camera body is not to be taken lightly.</p>

[james_trory]

<p>Before you start getting carried away with looking at M8 prints, you should first remember that the M9 is very different even from the M8.2. What I know of the M8.2 is that it is much closer in functionality to the M9 than the original M8 was. You should read some previews for the M9 at places like dpreview.com, they explain in great detail the limitations of the M8 and the improvements and fixes Leica have made in the release of the M9.</p>

<p>Of course this isn't helpful to know when you want to see the results of the M9, not the M8, but I don't know what you can do about that right now, short of convincing Leica to let you test one. My suggestion would be, if you're happy with the M3 to keep using it and wait a little bit after the M9 has been released, so that you can get accurate feedback from people who have actually used it. $7,000 is a lot of money for a camera no one has shot with.</p>

[rory_rege]

<p>Hi, <br /> James, I appreciate the advice, but I would like to keep this on track. I'm reading the reviews, I know what the technical differences are between the M8, M8.2 and M9 and I am comfortable with the price. I also have a very good relationship with my dealer, and he will have his own views - pretty staight up if our history is any judge - when I discuss this with him.<br>

<br /> I tried deliberately to narrow this discussion to one question, and while I realize that there is a subjective element to the responses, I am keenly interested in them.<br>

<br /> Thanks Arthur for your comments. Much appreciated.</p>

[j.w.]

<p>Rory, it might help us in keeping the discussion "on track" if you were more specific about what your working methods are like with film cameras. Do you shoot a mix of color and B/W, or just color only? Slide or print film?</p>

<p>If working in B/W, do you do custom processing of your B/W film? Most everyone who gets involved with B/W film processing will develop some preferred methods involving developer choice, dilution, agitation technique, calibrated exposure index, etc. All of these choices will have a profound effect on your decision-making process vis-a-vis the M9. As will your choice of printing methods (silver gelatin vs ink or dye in the case of B/W); and these printing methods in turn will effect how your film was exposed and developed.</p>

<p>We simply need more information in order to help you.</p>

<p>~Joe</p>

[ron_breeze2]

<p>Hi Rory<br>

I use an original M8 that has been upgraded with the new shutter, the reason I mention it is I had to do some adjustments to my exposures when it came back from Leica and can't prove it but it appeared there was also a different sensor in it. I shoot primarily b&w IR and some color and do my own printing on a Canon i9500 pro printer. I shot film for 40 some years and frankly would never go back to it. The single most comments that I get about my images are that they have a wonderful tonal range and a lot of detail in shadow areas without blown out highlights. I use the M8 almost exclusively at ISO 160 preferring to put it on a tripod if I can't hand hold it at that ISO/SS combination. I did show one of my prints shot at ISO 1250 to a pro photographer friend of mine, who shoots nothing but 4X5 film, and he asked me if I had switched to a 4X5. I'm not interested in the M9 yet because it has a IR blocking filter and for me is not as versatile as the M8 which can shoot color, b&w, color IR and b&w IR. The FF issue is one you will have to decide on as it does not matter to me. Best!Ron</p>

[rory_rege]

<p>Thanks Ron.<br>

Joe, I'm asking for responses to a particular question, from people who have worked with both film and digital Ms, from their perspective, with as much detail as they choose to relate.<br>

I think that I can figure out how to interpret the responses. I certainly understand what Arthur and Ron have said.<br>

Thanks.</p>

[bms]

<p>My experience is limited (had an M4 for a year and an M8 for a few months) but I would say it is hard to compare. I use both mediums for different situations. But have mostly skipped the scanning part for film and print in the darkroom. Generally, though I would say, the look is just different. However, I am much better with a computer than in the darkroom, so take my opinion with a grain if salt.</p>

[michael s.]

<p>While I cannot respond based upon personal experience, I can refer you to a <em>lengthy thread </em> about large M8<em> </em> prints on another forum in which the original poster is a professional printer named David Adamson.</p>

<p>The discussion is found here:<br>

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints.html</p>

<p>When you begin to get a feel for the length and breadth of that thread, you won't thank me. :-)</p>

<p>To begin to have a sense of Adamson's <em>bona fides</em> , you might want to take a look at his website:</p>

<p>http://adamsongallery.jimdo.com/</p>

<p> </p>

[rory_rege]

<p>Thanks Michael,<br>

That is an informative thread - long, yes, but worth slogging through it :)</p>

[james_trory]

<p>The answers that you're apparently more satisfied with seem fairly obvious to me. I guess I just don't understand what you're asking then. Of course there are advantages and disadvantages to going digital and they are all pretty obvious. Nothing that anyone has said so far is revolutionary and can't be applied to ANY discussion about the differences between film and digital, such as b&w conversion, paper types and printing etc. That's not specific to Leica. The only thing that can be said really about the M8 which might be of interest and is perhaps unique to that camera is that the images are often very saturated, perhaps too much so.</p>

<p>As for my M8/M9 comments, all I'm saying is that they are two very different cameras technologically speaking and will produce different results, which you should consider particularly if you are going to judge the printed look of the M9 by viewing M8 prints. I think that's dangerous honestly. They're not the same camera, and it would be a shame if you chose not to buy an M9 because you didn't like how a very different camera looked on paper.</p>

[rory_rege]

<p>I am not only satisfied with the answers that I have gotten, I am grateful for them.</p>

[nee_sung]

<p>I do hope that, although you cull them ruthlessly, you do keep all your negatives?</p>

[rory_rege]

<p>Hi Nee Sung,<br>

Nope, I throw almost all of them away. It's a great feeling, like burning all your notes at the end of the schoolyear :)</p>

[ron_breeze2]

<p>Rory you might want to join Leica User Forum there's a little less snobbery there and a lot more useful information from members. </p>

[l_dasousa]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm asking for responses to a particular question, from people who have worked with both film and digital Ms, from their perspective,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I bought a secondhand M8.2 after 2 years of reluctance. I decided against a secondhand M8 (original) because it was 1. Louder, 2. Inaccurate framelines, 3. Plastic LCD cover, 4. Bad history of problems esp. with the shutter. Compare with my M6 the M8.2 is very familiar to use, except the peculiar differences because it is digital (card vs film, battery, electric advance, LCD etc.). The need of IR filters is stupid as was always, but it is better I think than the M9 where there is less magenta but still some, and no option to have the firmware fix the cyan corners if you will choose to use an IR filter. Plus the M9 has again the inaccurate framelines of the original M8, and again the plastic LCD cover. The cropping has no effect because a lens can be found to effect focal lengths down to 15mm (that would be the 12mm from Cosina) and the M8.2 does not have a dim tunnelled viewfinder like crop-dSLRs. <br /> From performing standpoints, the M8.2 has less noise-grain @ 1250 than any film+developer I have tryed, and I have tryed many many. However it has much greater noise-grain than even the cheapest Canon Rebel. The M9 is better but according all the testers, by only one stop. That Rebel is better the M8.2 by almost to three stops. But I should relate that I do all my black+white with a Focomat and Leitz lens. When I have scanned my negs on a Nikon 5000 scanner, the difference is even much more in favour of the M8.2. I hope this is of some usefulness to you Rege.</p>

<p> </p>

[rory_rege]

<p>Thanks L. DaSousa, your comments are indeed of assistance.<br>

Ron, the upside is that I got some helpful responses from you and others.</p>