Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/07/31

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] M8, M9, M240, MM shots
From: henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:03:26 -0700
References: <20746436-64E7-4FB2-A26C-49B72CED4D35@archiphoto.com> <51F73498.9080200@sbcglobal.net>

Yes, the M8 does quite well, and with the IR capability it's very versatile 
(if you like that sort of thing). In my opinion the M9 was a rather minor 
upgrade to the M8 as long as you had the wider lenses to compensate for the 
crop. I bought the WATE when Leica had the great deal on them, and so I had 
all I needed. Image quality is still very decent, and more than adequate for 
the Blurb books or 13x19 prints that I've made.

With the lighting variations it's a bit hard to see meaningful differences, 
and the varying sensors with different colour responses compound that. The 
M8 and M9 might have basically the same sensor, but the different methods to 
block UV and IR means that colour responses are hardly the same. Once your 
workflow gets organized though the differences in the dng files hardly 
matters though.

Henning




On 2013-07-29, at 8:35 PM, Bill Larsen <von-ohlen at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Thank you for posting this.  I might be able to keep my promise to wife 
> when I bought the M8 and gave her all of the Canon stuff that it would be 
> the last camera I would need to buy.  (I am just doing happy snaps that 
> will hopefully jog my memory as I get older).
> 
> On 7/29/2013 7:42 PM, Henning Wulff wrote:
>> Here are some shots taken (almost) at the same time with the M8, M9, M240 
>> and M Monochrom. Base ISO, similar angle of view and minimal processing 
>> except for MM, which almost always needs some curve adjustment:
>> 
>> With the M8: 
>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/hwulff/Stuff/Compare/M8.jpg.html
>> and the next three are with the other cameras and labelled as such. They 
>> are posted full size and compressed jpegs at 75%
>> 
>> The next 5 are in _very_ low light; I could see much except a faint glow 
>> in the sky for the last three, and the town lights. Exposure was about 
>> 1/6 sec at ISO 5000 and f/1.
>> 
>> The first picture is with the M240, converted to B&W: 
>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/hwulff/Stuff/Compare/M240+ISO+5000.jpg.html.
>>  The next is with the MM, and the next three are M240 converted, MM and 
>> then MM at ISO 10000. These last three have been boosted 0.5 EV in 
>> Lightroom to bring out a bit more detail in the shadows, but at ISO 10000 
>> there isn't much to be boosted. Thes are also best viewed full size and 
>> are also compressed 75%.
>> 
>> The last three, starting with: 
>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/hwulff/Stuff/Compare/M8_001.jpg.html  
>> are all with the M8. The first in colour with the UV/IR blocking filter, 
>> and the latter two with IR pass filters, the first with the Leica IR 
>> filter and then the very dark B+W 093. The latter filter requires about 1 
>> stop more exposure than the Leica IR filter. Exposure for the latter was 
>> about 1/20 sec at f/8 at ISO 640. These are not posted full size.
>> 
>> Henning Wulff
>> henningw at archiphoto.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 


Henning Wulff
henningw at archiphoto.com






In reply to: Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] M8, M9, M240, MM shots)
Message from von-ohlen at sbcglobal.net (Bill Larsen) ([Leica] M8, M9, M240, MM shots)