Thinking of swapping one of my M8s for a DSLR

[hdrmd]

Buy the D3. The M8 and the D3 are a great combination if you can afford two systems. The M8 is great and more importantly it is fun to use. The D3 is simply remarkably at high ISOs, and the Nikon flash is in a class by itself. DR

[Tina Manley]

I went the other way and gave up the DSLR (Canon 5D and 1DsII) for another M8. I'm getting Visoflex stuff to bridge the gap until the R10 comes out. I wasn't using the Canons since I got the first M8, anyway.

Tina
Tina Manley- powered by SmugMug

[benroy]

Tina Manley's Honduran photos are wonderful!

[Tina Manley]

Thank you, Benroy I'm headed back to Honduras next month with two M8's.

Tina
Tina Manley- powered by SmugMug

[DaveEP]

Thanks for the feedback. I have been giving this a lot of thought, and here is why I am unhappy with the M8 as my only (or main) camera, and why I also want to keep one....

Unhappy because of:
1) Poor Framing - yes it gets better with practice with any given lens over a given distance, but it's still not good.
2) Poor low light capability - I often need to shoot at ISO 800 and above, and it's not what the M8 is good at.
3) Primes don't always give me the options I need (unless I carry them ALL with me which defeats the purpose of a small system). There are many times when I need to maximize the number of pixels in a shot, but can't use my feet to zoom (i.e. walking on water is not yet one of my talents ) I end up taking multiple shots with a longer lens and trying to stitch them together. Some times it's fun, other times it's a major PITA !
4) Flash is not really an M8 strong point (and I knew this when I bought it)

What I really like about the M8
1) Size & Weight of Body + 1 or 2 lenses
2) No one bothers you on the street
3) Infra Red capable
4) Quality of the primes - when output size is not so important and I have room to crop.

So, I am thinking of perhaps selling one of my M8s, my 135 APO, 90/2, 50/2, Tri-Elmar, and either the 35/2 or the 28/2.8, keeping just one M8, either the 28 or 35, the 75/2 and the CV 15. Then buying a D300 and adding a 3 zoom set (wide, normal, telephoto) and a Macro, and perhaps a 50/1.8 too.

I have considered the D3 (I am really impressed by it's low light stuff) =, but it's a bit big for traveling around (which is why I dumped the Canon 1 Series in the first place).

So, am I crazy? What am I missing here?

[vieri]

Originally Posted by DaveEP

So, I am thinking of perhaps selling one of my M8s, my 135 APO, 90/2, 50/2, Tri-Elmar, and either the 35/2 or the 28/2.8, keeping just one M8, either the 28 or 35, the 75/2 and the CV 15. Then buying a D300 and adding a 3 zoom set (wide, normal, telephoto) and a Macro, and perhaps a 50/1.8 too.

I have considered the D3 (I am really impressed by it's low light stuff) =, but it's a bit big for traveling around (which is why I dumped the Canon 1 Series in the first place).

So, am I crazy? What am I missing here?

Sounds very reasonable to me - I think you aren't missing much, but in the end you are the one that knows your needing enjoy the D300, it's a very fine camera and it will be more fun to use than you probably think.

[Jamie Roberts]

As for the low-light stuff, well, crummy light is crummy light, whether there's a lot of it or a little of it. The Leica fast glass gives a different look in lower light than other lenses... but often you need to make more / better light anyway.

There just isn't a comparison between a good zoom shot at f2.8 or 3.2 and very high ISO or the Nocti shot at 1.2, and the M8 is fine to 1250, IMO. After that, the current round of Canons and Nikons eat it up, but honestly, unless you're shooting Canon's fastest glass (or some of Nikons older fast glass) you need the higher ISO speeds just to compensate for the slower glass!

But I guess it all depends on how you shoot and what sort of look you want. Like Tina, I'm itching to swap my remaining Canon dSLR for another M digital. But for exact framing (every now and then I need that) and needing autofocus in some situations, I'd only use an M.

Of course it also depends on what you shoot, but I find it odd you should say primes don't give you the range you need! You don't need to take all of them with you; surely a 21 / 28 / 50 is a nice kit and the equivalent (with your feet) of many a zoom.

On a wedding day, I usually use 21 / 28 / 90 + nocti for later on the M8. I don't use the 35 or 75 as much as I would if this were a full-frame M, though I love both those lenses.

Ideally, I'd have one M shooting 21 / 28 / nocti and another with 24 / 35 / 75 as its kit. (But I won't buy another M8 till they fix the green streak thing). I'll be overjoyed when they make this thing full-frame, though.

[charlesphoto99]

Well, I have to respectfully disagree with the above. Sometimes there's little light yet one wants to still shoot with reasonable f stops and shutter speeds. Not everyone owns (or wants to own) a Noctilux. I'll take a D3 any day over that chunk. Here's a shot with a $200 Nikon 24 f/2.8 AFD. ISO 1600 at 1/60th at f4.8. I literally had no more room to back up in this room. Something to be said for full frame. The D3 also handled the dynamic range of this shot admirably. The M8 might have done a bit better in the shadows but would have made a mess of those window highlights. This has no noise reduction on it btw and si straight from LR. Give me a while in PS and I could really make it sing.

Keep in mind Dave that the Nikon 14-24 zoom and 24-70 zoom even on a D300 wipe out that portability and incognito factor. The 14-24 esp has a 2001 HAL like quality about it. One reason I'm sticking with primes (may pick up a 24-70 for comercial purposes). Personally I'm really glad i took the plunge and went for the D3 (from a D200). For travel though the M8 is great but the D3 is great for getting the job done. If you like to shoot wide then get the full frame.

[Kittyphoto]

Originally Posted by Jamie Roberts

As for the low-light stuff, well, crummy light is crummy light, whether there's a lot of it or a little of it. The Leica fast glass gives a different look in lower light than other lenses... but often you need to make more / better light anyway.

I agree with James that M8 and D3 looks different. Especially low light situation. While I love D3 with new nano coating lens. New nano lens give incredible color and contrast. But it looks too perfect and I feel it is too flat for my taste. I feel M8 is more like medium format look. I think it depends on personal taste.

kitty

[Jamie Roberts]

Originally Posted by charlesphoto99

{Snipped} The M8 might have done a bit better in the shadows but would have made a mess of those window highlights. This has no noise reduction on it btw and si straight from LR. Give me a while in PS and I could really make it sing.{snipped}

Sure--however you get the shot is great. But in my opinion you could have made this shot sing more with flash anway. I personally couldn't care less about the window highlights, though if I wanted to preserve them, the flash on the subject would have done a better job of that, too.

And we're nowhere near Noctilux territory here anyway. The 21 Elmarit on the M8 would have done the same job--or very close--at ISO 1250 and with a little bit of bounced flash the results would have been even better. The tighter crop would have made a better story, too.

Crummy light is crummy light. Often very low light is crummy light. I fight against that way more often than low ISO. YMMV

[DaveEP]

Originally Posted by Jamie Roberts

As for the low-light stuff, well, crummy light is crummy light, whether there's a lot of it or a little of it. The Leica fast glass gives a different look in lower light than other lenses... but often you need to make more / better light anyway.

I agree, and so you need 'good' flash, which is not the M8's strong point (yes it can do it but if I have to carry a decent flash - my bag just got bigger too).

Originally Posted by Jamie Roberts

There just isn't a comparison between a good zoom shot at f2.8 or 3.2 and very high ISO or the Nocti shot at 1.2, and the M8 is fine to 1250, IMO. After that, the current round of Canons and Nikons eat it up, but honestly, unless you're shooting Canon's fastest glass (or some of Nikons older fast glass) you need the higher ISO speeds just to compensate for the slower glass!

Except I just don't want a Nocti, and some times I don't have room for a 50mm, I need much wider (i.e. inside).

Originally Posted by Jamie Roberts

But I guess it all depends on how you shoot and what sort of look you want. Like Tina, I'm itching to swap my remaining Canon dSLR for another M digital. But for exact framing (every now and then I need that) and needing autofocus in some situations, I'd only use an M.

Of course it also depends on what you shoot, but I find it odd you should say primes don't give you the range you need! You don't need to take all of them with you; surely a 21 / 28 / 50 is a nice kit and the equivalent (with your feet) of many a zoom.

Oh, if it were that simple I would be such a happy camper. But alas no. I do a lot of maritime shooting (some Navy but usually merchant shipping) and for some reason they put these things in water, and put the bit I get to stand on to take the shot at some other pre-defined distance away, often with only 10-15 feet of foot zoom available even then. Alas I have not yet learned to walk on water.

If I only had (say) the 28,50,75 with me, I would almost always need something longer or wider. If I had the 75/90/135 with me I may be tempted to use one of those and stitch shots together, but it's a PITA. For this stuff, I really do think a zoom comes in to it's own.

For the street, the M8 + 28 or 35 is perfect for me.

Originally Posted by Jamie Roberts

On a wedding day, I usually use 21 / 28 / 90 + nocti for later on the M8. I don't use the 35 or 75 as much as I would if this were a full-frame M, though I love both those lenses.

Ideally, I'd have one M shooting 21 / 28 / nocti and another with 24 / 35 / 75 as its kit. (But I won't buy another M8 till they fix the green streak thing). I'll be overjoyed when they make this thing full-frame, though.

Ah, the luxury of being able to zoom with your feet

One other thing I have realised is that often the graphics guy just wants the correctly framed shot with as many pixels as possible (within reason) so he can get to his 300ppi, and does not really care that the shot is extra sharp rather than just in focus (i.e. as long as it's good-enough), and he doesn't care at all about that nice Leica signature look. In fact, he sometimes actually dislikes it!

[Jamie Roberts]

Originally Posted by DaveEP

{snipped}Oh, if it were that simple I would be such a happy camper. But alas no. I do a lot of maritime shooting (some Navy but usually merchant shipping) and for some reason they put these things in water, and put the bit I get to stand on to take the shot at some other pre-defined distance away, often with only 10-15 feet of foot zoom available even then. Alas I have not yet learned to walk on water.
{snipped}

LOL!!

Well, this is why one size doesn't fit all. I can't believe you're NOT shooting with a zoom given these conditions. But for people shooting--not from boat to boat--I don't find primes limiting.

As for focus, well, the Nocti isn't the only signature lens in the bag. Personally, I prefer the contrast, distortion and colour characteristics of Leica wides too, though I can fix other lenses in post. I'd rather not, though, and that's just me.

So why don't you have a D3 and one of those stellar Nikon wide zooms already!? The only thing Leica is going to have for you is the fabled upcoming R, and it may not fit the bill anyway.

[james_h]

Why not try to hire a D3 and see what you think ??

Assuming that's possible of course....

[charlesphoto99]

Originally Posted by Jamie Roberts

Sure--however you get the shot is great. But in my opinion you could have made this shot sing more with flash anway. I personally couldn't care less about the window highlights, though if I wanted to preserve them, the flash on the subject would have done a better job of that, too.

And we're nowhere near Noctilux territory here anyway. The 21 Elmarit on the M8 would have done the same job--or very close--at ISO 1250 and with a little bit of bounced flash the results would have been even better. The tighter crop would have made a better story, too.

Crummy light is crummy light. Often very low light is crummy light. I fight against that way more often than low ISO. YMMV

Yes, I agree with all of those are possible scenarios. This was one of those jobs though where things just happened and happened really really fast. It was a real madhouse. By the time I dialed in my flash properly this scene would have been over and done with. As it is this isn't a shot I would use on my portfolio, etc - I have much better. And with a little dodging and burning, maybe even cropping it would be much better.

This was my true first day shooting with the D3 (on location in the Dominican Republic) and I'd yet to dial it in as I'd just received it a few days before this job. I shot more than 800 pics that day. Honestly, compared to the M8, it was a joy. Instant start ups, instant previews, big beautiful screen to show the AD even in bright daylight, the matrix metering was spot on about 90% of the time. I used less than half my battery power, even with lots of chimping.

There are some auxiliary shots I took for myself that yes I wish were with the M8. M8 shots do have a different 3D glow about them. A combination of the lenses and the AA-less sensor I guess. They are both great tools for 'my' different purposes. I won't be lugging the D3 around Europe on my holiday for a month this summer, that's for sure!

Oh, and I like crummy light! Why sap all the drama out of everything. For somebody's wedding day a fill flash is a pretty good idea (though Ricci's shots can prove otherwise). Otherwise it's amazing to be able to shoot where one can with the D3 and still get clean crisp shots while retaining the true atmosphere.

[charlesphoto99]

Originally Posted by DaveEP

One other thing I have realised is that often the graphics guy just wants the correctly framed shot with as many pixels as possible (within reason) so he can get to his 300ppi, and does not really care that the shot is extra sharp rather than just in focus (i.e. as long as it's good-enough), and he doesn't care at all about that nice Leica signature look. In fact, he sometimes actually dislikes it!

Oh man, ain't that the truth brother! It's all about getting the shot. Many could care less if it's with a $30K Hasselblad or a $500 Rebel.

In fact there was a NY Times article the other day about Wolfgang Tillmans fashion advertising work. He uses Contax G2's exclusively. Not slouchy cameras by any means, but also not all this hand wringing over needing $5k lenses. Same with Terry Richardson. He's done billboards with Yashica T4s. It's more about showing up and having talent.

[sliversurger]

equipment DOES matter, pending on the what you're shooting. getting the shot is one thing, but getting a GREAT shot is another. why force a D3 to produce M8-like photos and vice versa? in browsing all these different forums over the years, people have been tyring to find the one great camera that does everything. and the great photos will tell you that there just isn't one... never has been and probably never will be. different systems yeilds different looks. as charles said above, some working photogs can afford to use contax's and yashicas because they have a certain look and feel in their vision of the photo.

[leicawanabe]

Got rid of both M8's and now have the D3 and the MP. The MP is the Holy Grail of M's. I can honestly say that I do not mis shooting the M8 especially since the MP is so perfect. On the other hand, my digital world has turned to the D3. It is outfitted with zeiss 35, 50 macro and the 85. Along with the 24-70 and a 200 f2. The 200 f2 afs blows away the 180 f2 Leica i use to have on my R9. It is truly a work of art.The Zeiss 50 macro is probably the best 50 you can get for an SLR. it is unreal. A tad bit slow at f2 but a 10 on contrast, bokeh and sharpness.

No regrets at all.

[DaveEP]

Originally Posted by leicawanabe

Got rid of both M8's and now have the .... [snip]
No regrets at all.

Sounds like I may need to do the same. Sad, but it may need to happen.

So, as soon as I get back from vacation I think I will list some stuff in the B&S area. If any one wants advanced info, let me know. I will be offering

Choice of Black or Chrome M8 with or without grip:
CV 15
CV 35
Leica 28/2.8 (with hood, leather pouch + Box) S/N 37931xx
Leica 35/2 ASPH (with hood leather pouch + box) S/N 39279xx
Leica 50/2 (with hood + box) S/N 31990xx
Leica 75/2 ASPH (6bit coded with leather pouch + box) s/n 39954xx
Leica 90/2 (no pouch or box) s/n 31775xx
Leica 135/3.4 APO (with hood leather pouch + box) s/n 39561xx
Leica Tri-Elmar ASPH 28/35/50 (with leather pouch + box + plus optional hood) s/n 39483xx (Latest E49 design)

[vanhulsenbeek]

Originally Posted by DaveEP

Choice of Black or Chrome M8 with or without grip:
CV 15
CV 35
Leica 28/2.8 (with hood, leather pouch + Box) S/N 37931xx
Leica 35/2 ASPH (with hood leather pouch + box) S/N 39279xx
Leica 50/2 (with hood + box) S/N 31990xx
Leica 75/2 ASPH (6bit coded with leather pouch + box) s/n 39954xx
Leica 90/2 (no pouch or box) s/n 31775xx
Leica 135/3.4