M9 vs. Nikon D700

[MVMP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been following this forum for a few weeks and have learned a lot about the new M9 (thanks to all). But, I'm curious to know how the M9 compares to the D700. I know it's apples to oranges in terms of pixel count, ergonomics, shooting style, etc., but I'd like to know how the end-results (images) look compared side by side. I know the D3x might be a better contender, but I'm not willing to tote something that big around town.

From reading the various threads, it would seem that some of the contributors here are fortunate enough to own both cameras. May I please ask someone to post side-by-side images for review? Nothing too technical or rigorous in terms of technique (Erwin Putts you don't need to be), rather I'm just curious how the each compare in terms of dynamic range, tonal quality, iso, etc. I'm not a pixel peeper per-se, but am more interested in how the full-size images look at "normal" viewing distances (web page images, or printing at 300 dpi are all I'm interested in).

I'd greatly appreciate your efforts - I am planning on purchasing both in the near future (I currently own lenses from each system), but can't decide which to go with first... I'm really an all-manual sort of person (Leica all the way), but lately have grown accustom to auto-focus (it gets less objectionable the more you use it, and I seem to miss fewer shots). In a perfect world you'd want both cameras, each for what they're best at. But, I can't afford both right away, and I'm wondering how much I'd lose in terms of image quality if I go with Nikon for now...

Finally, I've read many opinions about the merits of each - what I'm really looking for here is some examples to see. I'm probably not the only one out there contemplating this decision, and your efforts would be useful to many of us still sitting on the fence. Thanks in advance,

MVMP

[lars_bergquist]

Comparing a M to any SLR is somewhat like comparing a Harley Davidson to a pickup truck. Different kinds of people use them in different ways for different purposes. Apples and oranges are more similar.

 

The old man from the Age of the M3

[giordano]

They're both excellent picture-taking machines with very different capabilities.

 

The Nikon is much more versatile (autofocus, matrix and "spot" metering, fps, fisheyes, zooms, tilt/shift, long focus lenses, micro, macro, remote control, a degree of weatherproofing, etc. etc.) and if you need any of those features it wins on image quality because the Leica can't deliver at all.

 

But within the Leica's more limited scope I'd back it for image quality if only because of the extra pixels and lack of AA filter. Yes, Leica lenses are exceptionally good, but so are some Nikkors, and the Nikon-mount Zeiss lenses even the balance.

[Ario Arioldi]

Comparing a M to any SLR is somewhat like comparing a Harley Davidson to a pickup truck. Different kinds of people use them in different ways for different purposes. Apples and oranges are more similar.

 

The old man from the Age of the M3

Not necessarely "different kind of people", I know many happy users of both SRL and M, in different ways and for different purposes, of course.

Cheers,

Ario

[adan]

I don't have a D700, but my camera salesman has one personally. I'll see if I can work up a "shootout" with him.

 

Mostly I tend to fall into the same camp as the two posts above. Gross image quality differences (color, contrast, whatever) are just way down on my list of what matters most in a camera, behind ergonomics, shooting style and that other stuff.

 

Put another way, if the M9 had the sensor and lenses of a D700, I wouldn't care, I'd just use it - and if Leica made an SLR otherwise identical to the M9 (sensor, etc) I wouldn't be interested (except for those specific things that any SLR can do and most rangefinders can't).

[gwelland]

I guess I fall into the category of someone who shoots with all of the cameras you list including the D700 & D3x. I don't have any experience with the M9 so far as I only picked mine up today but I have been using M8/M8u/M8.2 for several years with some of the best Leica glass. Ditto for the Nikons with both Nikkor lenses and also Zeiss ZF.

 

As mentioned already, the problem with a direct comparison is that they don't really compare like for like. I use the D700 as a lighter/faster camera than the D3x and only with the sharpest Nikon glass. However, I very seldom use it as just a walkabout travel camera which is what I use the Leica's for.

 

In general the biggest differences in handling are pretty obvious between the D700 and the comparatively diminutive M8/9. The M's are a lot less conspicuous in use on the street than the D700 or pretty much any DSLR. The M's are simply a lot more portable and discreet.

 

The viewfinder is hugely different since the D700 has a much smaller FoV than the rangefinder. They just don't compare in terms of brightness and clarity as the rangefinder obviously is showing you the entire view in front of you vs. the relative tunnel view through the lens with the DSLR.

 

The biggest difference in terms of image quality is actually not really with image capture but with image processing in my experience. Leica M raw files are pretty much post-process ready without the need for extra capture sharpening from the raw converter. By contrast the D700 (and to a lesser degree D3x) raw files need a LOT more post-processing to produce comparable results. Simply put, I find that Leica images require very minimal processing at all other than your creative input.

 

When it comes to prints, that's a bit tougher because a skilled PS or Lightroom operator will be able to produce final prints that look pretty much identical. Straight from the camera the M files are sharp, generally colour balance is spot on subject to some white balance adjustment plus the micro-contrast of the images has a certain 3D pop compared to a straight processed Nikon NEF. However, I know I can match the Leica look with some extra work with the Nikon files but it is extra work.

 

If you want to shoot sports, animals, macro, wildlife in general plus have a camera that has ultimate flexibility then you aren't going to be favoring an M8/M9. (I know it CAN be done but it's a triumph of skill and accessories over basic RF design). If you want an ideal travel/social camera outfit then the M will be a better fit and a joy to use.

[marknorton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All depends on how you evaluate IQ of course, but if it's resolution, I'd rank them D3, M8, D3x, M9. If it's noise, I'd rank them M8, M9, D3x, D3. Then you factor in other more subjective elements such as colour and, currently, I would say the M9 is not (yet) up to the D3x. If it's processing speed, I'd rank them M9, M8, D3x, D3.

 

Nikon cameras tend to be better behaved than Leicas. Do they hang up? Rarely in my experience. Do we get red banding and overblown reds on a D3x as we do on an M9, of course we don't. Do we get IR contamination on a D3 as we do on an M8, of course we don't. Does a Nikon's paint wear off when you so much as look at it? Of course it doesn't.

 

The great benefit Leica cameras bring to the party is the ability to wear M glass. There isn't a bad Leica lens made, though from their negligent QC, you might conclude they are trying hard. Nikon lenses don't reach the same quality levels so you have to pick and choose carefully with just a handful of lenses able to bring out the best of the camera. The move to FX has sent a couple of previously highly regarded lenses on DX to the Naughty Corner.

 

You can of course fit R glass and Zeiss ZF but you lose automation (big time in the case of the R glass) which might be the reason you're using Nikon in the first place.

[markowich]

i have an m9 with 5 leica lenses, a d700 and a d3x with almost all the high quality nikons. it is true that the leica files have slightly more microcontrast 'out of the box' but the NEFs look also very good when opened in C1. typically i use very little sharpening for both types of files. the belief that nikon NEFs are soft out of the camera is certainly true when you open them in NX2, but even with all sharpening turned off i find that C1 does an excellent job on DNGs and NEFs. hard to distinguish between the M9 DNGs and the D3x NEFs.

for me the big distinguisher is the weight factor. if the weight of both systems was about equal (which it can't be of course) i would not bother with leica. but as it is now i take the leica more and more often.

p

[jerryharwood]

mark, I hundred percent agree with your summation; I have Nikon, leica and hasselblad. Your assessment

is spot on. The nikons and the Blad do not shed paint, or stop working; I have had leicas since 1953, and all the nikons since 1979. They work, as do the blads, as and when. The M series prior to the digitals are the same, just different horses for different jobs. The leica lenses are renowned but so are the Zeiss, and the better Nikons. I do not use the leica digitals for when a job is of the" better not miss' variety.

[gwelland]

i have an m9 with 5 leica lenses, a d700 and a d3x with almost all the high quality nikons. it is true that the leica files have slightly more microcontrast 'out of the box' but the NEFs look also very good when opened in C1. typically i use very little sharpening for both types of files. the belief that nikon NEFs are soft out of the camera is certainly true when you open them in NX2, but even with all sharpening turned off i find that C1 does an excellent job on DNGs and NEFs. hard to distinguish between the M9 DNGs and the D3x NEFs.

 

I'd go along with this. I may have over emphasized the raw sharpness thing with NEFs - they really just take a little more pre-sharpening and contrast/clarity adjustment. The D3x requires less of this than D700 images in my experience too.

[Nikkor AIS]

Iv got a D3 and the Canon 5D2 and about 20 Nikkor's from 8mm 2.8 -800mm 5.6 . Mostly Nikkor AIS glass including a 300 2.0 IF ED AIS a Noct and even a couple of new lenses like the 45 2.8 ED Tilt shift and the 14-24 2.8 ED AF. After hearing about the M9 a month ago I picked up a M3 and a 35 1.4 summilux:D and a 15 Voitlander. Thinking it would hold me over until I could get a M9:rolleyes:. Since that time no matter what combination of Digital bodies and glass I have with me the leica has been a constant companion. I dont know how the M9 compares but the the range finder design has given me much joy in it's use. The results of my lowly two lens combo have been very nice indeed. If Im having a hard day, just holding the camera and raising it to the eye make's me feel better. Lecia M's are cheap mental health.

I agree with those that say post processing will make you god one way or the other:p. I just getting up to speed in light room thanks to a good buddy of mine, and it is humbling to see how much more I can get out of my RAW NEF than I could before.

But these range finders M3/ and Im sure the M9 are just such a joy to carry/handle use. When I want to go quite and discrete the Lecia is the winner hands down over the a pro DSLR. I plan on getting two more lens for the M system and the M9 when it becomes available as my light discrete go anywhere kit.

 

Gregory

[bybrett]

All depends on how you evaluate IQ of course, but if it's resolution, I'd rank them D3, M8, D3x, M9. If it's noise, I'd rank them M8, M9, D3x, D3. Then you factor in other more subjective elements such as colour and, currently, I would say the M9 is not (yet) up to the D3x. If it's processing speed, I'd rank them M9, M8, D3x, D3.

 

Very simple and very clever I will bookmark this.

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

Comparing a M to any SLR is somewhat like comparing a Harley Davidson to a pickup truck. Different kinds of people use them in different ways for different purposes. Apples and oranges are more similar.

 

The old man from the Age of the M3

 

I respectfully suggest that your assertion is flawed on the basis of your admission to being an "old man from the Age of the M3". In the film age, if you loaded a rangefinder and an SLR (let's say both Leica, to take the "Leica glass is the best" snobbery out of the equation) with the same film and developed it the same, you got equivalent IQ. Then you were left comparing the cameras according to their functions, and you would be correct.

 

However, in the age of today, the digital age, IQ is a camera function. Most photographers I know want similar if not equal IQ regardless of what camera they shoot. Therefore it becomes an important issue to discerning photographers when, eg., the M9 might suit their shooting style better for low-light subjects, but the high-ISO noise is far below what a dslr can do.

[Philippe Vandendriessche]

I respectfully suggest that your assertion is flawed on the basis of your admission to being an "old man from the Age of the M3". In the film age, if you loaded a rangefinder and an SLR (let's say both Leica, to take the "Leica glass is the best" snobbery out of the equation) with the same film and developed it the same, you got equivalent IQ. Then you were left comparing the cameras according to their functions, and you would be correct.

 

However, in the age of today, the digital age, IQ is a camera function. Most photographers I know want similar if not equal IQ regardless of what camera they shoot. Therefore it becomes an important issue to discerning photographers when, eg., the M9 might suit their shooting style better for low-light subjects, but the high-ISO noise is far below what a dslr can do.

Don't forget to consider Emotional Intelligence (the photographer) vs IQ of the camera!

 

Sensitivity vs ISO!

 

TIME REPORTS: UNDERSTANDING PSYCHOLOGY

 

;-)

[MVMP]

Thanks to all for your thoughtful replies.

 

But, I'd really like to see the results for myself. If Andy, Graham, Markovich (and anyone else willing) could post a few examples I'd be greatly appreciative... Nothing too fancy, just using lenses to provide comparable fields of view, and iso values that are similar.

 

Again, thanks so much!

 

MVMP

[lars_bergquist]

I respectfully suggest that your assertion is flawed on the basis of your admission to being an "old man from the Age of the M3". In the film age, if you loaded a rangefinder and an SLR (let's say both Leica, to take the "Leica glass is the best" snobbery out of the equation) with the same film and developed it the same, you got equivalent IQ. Then you were left comparing the cameras according to their functions, and you would be correct.

 

However, in the age of today, the digital age, IQ is a camera function. Most photographers I know want similar if not equal IQ regardless of what camera they shoot. Therefore it becomes an important issue to discerning photographers when, eg., the M9 might suit their shooting style better for low-light subjects, but the high-ISO noise is far below what a dslr can do.

People with a H-D and no pickup, people with a pickup and no H-D, and people with both a H-D and a pickup all do exist -- yes, even the last alternative! -- but they are three different kinds of people.

 

And most importantly, when you use a M and when you use a SLR, you are two different people. You see differently, you think differently, you react differently, you ACT differently. I have been both those two people, even though at this time, I am just one of them. The two tools are so fundamentally different that a close comparison is just irrelevant. Just to make myself clear, you are also a different person when you use a view camera. Or a video camera. Or ...

 

And 'IQ' -- do you mean that if I loaded Tri-X (or more probably, old Super-XX at ASA 200) into both a simple roll film box camera with a f:8 meniscus lens, and a M3 with a Summicron, the images from both cameras would have the same 'IQ'? If so, the term is meaningless, because it just means 'film'. So why not say that? And even so, a 6x9cm and a 24x36mm piece of Super-XX would produce very different things.

 

The literal-minded old man

[biglouis]

I decided back in August that I had to satisfy my untested desire for a D700 by renting one from Calumet for a weekend. For £120 you can do the same and then determine for yourself how it performs.

 

Head to head I found that my M8 and 28/2.8 Elmarit ASPH delivered far better microcontrast at the pixel level than the D700 with the Nikkor 24/2.8. With the Nikkor 50/1.4 and spot metering on the D700 it was a different matter and the results were pretty much indistinguishable.

 

Bottom line, Leica glass and not the camera, imho makes a difference but I also suspect that in 99.9% of uses you'd never know the difference. Horses for courses, I prefer my cameras small, lightweight and discrete.

 

LouisB

[markowich]

I decided back in August that I had to satisfy my untested desire for a D700 by renting one from Calumet for a weekend. For £120 you can do the same and then determine for yourself how it performs.

 

Head to head I found that my M8 and 28/2.8 Elmarit ASPH delivered far better microcontrast at the pixel level than the D700 with the Nikkor 24/2.8. With the Nikkor 50/1.4 and spot metering on the D700 it was a different matter and the results were pretty much indistinguishable.

 

Bottom line, Leica glass and not the camera, imho makes a difference but I also suspect that in 99.9% of uses you'd never know the difference. Horses for courses, I prefer my cameras small, lightweight and discrete.

 

LouisB

 

excellent point. the 24mm f2.8 nikon is rather outdated. i hope they will come up with better wide angle primes soon. the 12-24mm nikon is wonderful however. on the D3 it beat the m8 with the WATE.

p

[Rick]

excellent point. the 24mm f2.8 nikon is rather outdated. i hope they will come up with better wide angle primes soon. the 12-24mm nikon is wonderful however. on the D3 it beat the m8 with the WATE.

p

 

Hey, you managed to find a way to work in another slam of the WATE... nice one.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Nicoleica]

I use both a D700 and an M8. in my opinion, both are superb cameras. Using the best glass from Nikon and Leica, they can both give amazing results. But.... I don't see how they can be compared, as they are designed for quite different purpose and method of use. Having said that though, if Leica decided to fit the sensor and electronics from a D700 into an M camera, I would be one happy bunny.