The Dreaded M8 & D700 ... um ... "Thing"!

[Kent10D]

This is not a "test" guys! It's just a, you know, "thing" where I took equivalent shots with the M8 and Nikon D700 with the following conditions:

* Leica M8
Lens: Zeiss Planar 50 mm f/2 (35 mm equivalent = 66.5 mm)
Exposure: 1/250 sec. f/8. ISO 160

* Nikon D700
Lens: AF-S Nikkor 24-70 mm f/2.8 G ED (@ 66 mm)
Exposure: 1/250 sec. f/10. ISO 200

Lighting was a pair of monoblock strobes, metered with a Sekonic L-758D.
Both files imported directly into Adobe Lightroom with only WB matching. No other adjustments (not even straightening).

Note 1: Keep in mind that fact that the Zeiss has a maximum aperture of f/2 compared to the f/2.8 of the Nikkor.

Note 2: Images chosen for equivalent histograms. Specular highlights on watch, pens, and blue vase.

Note 3: Focus is on the snap button on the bag pocket flap nearest to the center of the image.

I know these small jpegs really aren't much use. I'll try to make full-size tiffs available on my website a bit later.

Honestly the only serious difference I can see at first glance is a difference in contrast, which is most likely a lens issue.

The top photo is the M8, the second is the D700.
So go ahead, tear me apart ... see if I care.

[ljclark]

Nice shots...Decent results...A comparison, if not an actual test.

Now...

Excuse me if I'm a little dense, but is there some purpose to some of these M8 v D700 threads? On one hand we have a DRF with a smaller-than-35FF sensor. And on the other we have this 35FF DSLR. And...

But if this is a worthwhile road to travel, then where are the studio M8 v D700 comparison shots at different ISOs. Isn't that where some of the angst/debate is focused?

[Kent10D]

I'm still looking for significant differences in the base files.

Here are a couple of 100% crops, exported from Lightroom with a jpeg "Quality" setting of 80: M8 first and then D700.

I'm beginning to think the truly significant differences are auto focus, zoom, high-ISO capability, and about a kilogram.

[Kent10D]

Originally Posted by ljclark

Nice shots...Decent results...A comparison, if not an actual test.

Now...

Excuse me if I'm a little dense, but is there some purpose to some of these M8 v D700 threads? On one hand we have a DRF with a smaller-than-35FF sensor. And on the other we have this 35FF DSLR. And...

But if this is a worthwhile road to travel, then where are the studio M8 v D700 comparison shots at different ISOs. Isn't that where some of the angst/debate is focused?

Purpose? It hasn't been done yet!
Somebody had to do it. I thought I'd be the sucker this time.

It's too hot to go outside, I have a new D700 I wanted to play with ... you know.

But yes, obviously the big issue is high ISO. Don't want to go there though, because I already know where that road leads.

[Singlemalt]

They both look pretty good to me. Differences are there - but im not sure what you are trying to achieve with the comparison. The lenses AND body are different. I presume it is just for fun.

Is the lining of the billingham more green or grey? - because on my monitor the d700 has a green lining to the bag.

Cheers,
SM.

[Kent10D]

Originally Posted by Singlemalt

Is the lining of the billingham more green or grey? - because on my monitor the d700 has a green lining to the bag.

Good observation!

The lining of the bag is dark green. The D700 seems to have nailed that color a bit better than the M8.

[jrc]

Did you have a cut filter on the Zeiss?

JC

[Kent10D]

Originally Posted by jrc

Did you have a cut filter on the Zeiss?

Yes, the Planar is fitted with a B+W UV/IR filter. But the color of the bag lining does suggest a bit of IR contamination, doesn't it.

Another good observation.

[KM-25]

Originally Posted by Kent10D

Here are a couple of 100% crops, exported from Lightroom with a jpeg "Quality" setting of 80: M8 first and then D700.

I get about 10% more fine detail out of NX2 conversions than with the ACR / LR processing engine at low ISO's. At high ISO's it is simply no contest, NX2 wipes the floor with anything else.

The main reason I would choose the M8 over the D700 is size and weight.

The M8 with the 35mm equivalent 28mm Summicron tips the scales at just 1.8 lbs while the D700 and Carl Zeiss 35/2 are 3.4 pounds.

I have been using my D700 lately with either the Zeiss 35/2 or 50 1.2 AIS to check out as a street or documentary camera. When one sees either camera from a distance of say, 10-20 feet, the D700 looks only a bit bigger than the M8. It is only when you are less than 10 feet does the D700 start to appear considerably larger than the M8 when held up to the face.

While there will always be room for a digital M in my toolbox, the D700 is going to make it harder to choose it since it is SO darn good.

[terencechong]

the font and wordings of the newspaper in the photo taken with the m8 seems to be crisper than in the nikon's... (1st impression)... you're right... lens contrast...

t

[andybarton]

I too am at a loss to understand why the D700 is seen as an alternative to an M8.

Why not do comparison shots with the new Sony SLR, or the new Canon, or the new Pentax, or the new...?

Have you tried putting threads like this on the Nikonians forum?

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by andybarton

I too am at a loss to understand why the D700 is seen as an alternative to an M8.

New kid on the block syndrome. It was Canon's last year, this year it's Nikons, next year it'll be something else. If someone brought out a rangefinder camera that used M lenses I'd be interested. Until then...

What the shots do show IMHO is that the talk the other day of the M8 being obsolete were just hot air.

[hamey]

The differance is nothing to worry about.

And the winner is...?

The one that has the huge lens invintry, a name that is most trusted and respected by professionals, It's cheaper and better value for your money, and probably more reliable, it's manufactured by a Company that offers it's customers several Digital models to cater for all ages and societies ......need I say more.

So thank goodness I havn't been converted to Electronic imaging, as I still love my Leica film cameras.

Ken.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by hamey

And the winner is...?

The one you prefer to use. Best not to make generalisations.

[Kent10D]

Originally Posted by andybarton

I too am at a loss to understand why the D700 is seen as an alternative to an M8.

I don't think it is, Andy. It's a completely different camera. I just wanted so see how they compared at low ISO.

Originally Posted by andybarton

Why not do comparison shots with the new Canon, or the new Pentax, or the new....?

Because I don't have the new Sony SLR, or the new Canon, or the new Pentax, or the new.... I have a D700.

Originally Posted by andybarton

Have you tried putting threads like this on the Nikonians forum?

Of course not. Nikonians aren't as insecure as Leiconians ... OK, just kidding about that.

I was fully prepared to receive a raft of sh*t about this post, but I am a little surprised that the first solid blow came from a mod.
No harm done though!

[Kent10D]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

What the shots do show IMHO is that the talk the other day of the M8 being obsolete were just hot air.

Thank you steve, that was my conclusion as well.

The M8, even with it's older sensor, doesn't give an inch to the D700 within it's optimum ISO range. Above that is a different story. But it (the M8) is so much lighter and more compact!

[andybarton]

Originally Posted by Kent10D

I was fully prepared to receive a raft of sh*t a but this post, but I am a little surprised that the first solid blow came from a mod.
No harm done though!

Not a blow - just a statement. They are two completely different types of camera.

[zernikepolynom]

Good morning,

in my view the 'quality' discussion is overrated. I like to have large prints done occasionally, if I'm honest, the 6MP D70 from 2004 was already and is still good enough (although I am enticed by the D700, which offers a very nice package in a not-so-large body). In my perception the M8 is better compared to the D70, but there are not worlds in between. I have the feeling imaging quality is going to a saturation now (there might be some improvements in dynamic range and high ISO).

The difference seems to be personal preference rather, I'll probably stick to a RF for my main camera and a DSLR as a backup...

Stefan

[pgk]

Ummmm. BOTH appear to show up as 'good' cameras, but the results of this 'not a test', as with all tests (or otherwise) simply tell a very small portion of the whole story - hence I suppose why its 'not a test'.

I've said it before, and no doubt will again, that in addition to my Leica ragefinders I use Canon, this is because I use the 24mm f/1.4L lens a LOT, and since no other manufacturer makes one (which stops any comparison tests) I use Canon FF dSLRs. You can apply this to the Leica M8 too, if you want. Glad to see the D700 is good, now if Nikon or Leica would consider producing a 24/1.4 or equivalent .......

[overgaardcom]

Thanks. It's interesting to see where Nikon (and the D700) are, in terms of color definition, compared to Leica M8 as a non-Leica dSLR can bee an choice as an extra camera.

Or a new route if the R10 doesn't show. Canon has the possibility of taking R glass, but Nikon seem more a real camera and with nicer files.

It would be fantastic with some outdoor light and/or some skin tones as that is really what it's about for both of these cameras. In my opinion.

That said, I don't see why one would buy a D700 when the D3 is only a little more expensive.