Erwin, part 6...

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well you can do whatever you want ofcourse, just that the d700 is designed to be used for its auto features. It is also because of these features that it is big and clumsy and heavy. You can do the same and better with a small and less intrusive camera, like the M8/9 and with a lot greater precision, so why bother with the d700? And Puts says exactly this, which is light years away distant from dSLRs

 

I've used Leica Ms for more than 25 years, and over an even longer period I've used everything from slrs to large format. The tools serve different purposes. But, whenever possible, I always use manual mode, since that gives the best control...and the best user experience... IMO, regardless of auto functions.

 

So, perhaps this gentleman feels the same. I prefer RF (classic?) photography, but when the image demands a different tool (telephoto, macro, tilt-shift, etc.), so be it. (I only wish there was an R10.)

 

Jeff

[larryk34]

Always fun to read: ". . . the Leica lens scuderia." Wow. I didn't know my lenses even had scuderia! And his last photo looks like a graph to me.

[larryk34]

Okay, I looked up scuderia with google: scuderia is Italian for "stable." From Wikipedia... Full name Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro Base Maranello, Italy. Scuderia Ferrari is the name for the Gestione Sportiva, the division of the Ferrari automobile company concerned with racing. The racing team has competed in numerous classes of motorsport since its formation in 1929. Currently the team races in Formula One only, under the team name "Scuderia Ferrari". Scuderia Ferrari is statistically the most successful F1 team in history. From now on I'm going to tell my wife to refer to my Leica lens collection as a "stable of lenses," or better yet, my scuderia.

[ulrikft]

Well you can do whatever you want ofcourse, just that the d700 is designed to be used for its auto features. It is also because of these features that it is big and clumsy and heavy. You can do the same and better with a small and less intrusive camera, like the M8/9 and with a lot greater precision, so why bother with the d700? And Puts says exactly this, which is light years away distant from dSLRs

 

Should I use an eventual Leica I get in snapshop mode, beacause it is there? That seems to be the implication of your logic. The d700 is large, and bulky, it is nowhere near clumsy, it has great ergonomics for it's size. If the M9 could give me high iso like the d700, I would already have sold my d700. Right now, I'm more.. sceptical. My perfect rangefinder would have a sony-produced high resolution sensor with live view. Live view must be the most important feature for slr people going to rangefinding. "No macro? well, let me use an adapter, my 100 2.8 macro and live view"... etc. Live view would remove lots of those problems. But it would also upset a lot of those that think that only what the M8, and later the M9 had, is worth having, to keep the leica ethos. It is an useless debate to me..

[carstenw]

Have you compared the D700 and M9 results scaled to the same size? The extra MP of the M9 may well bring it close to the D700 for a given print size.

[ulrikft]

Have you compared the D700 and M9 results scaled to the same size? The extra MP of the M9 may well bring it close to the D700 for a given print size.

 

I have done so, I have even made a few threads about it here. Then people flamed me for comparing the M9 to something as brute and ugly as an slr...

 

here is a link to a center crop, iso 2500, d700 upressed to m9 resolution, part of my short review:

 

http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/668162501_9gq5u-O.jpg

 

another crop from 2500, upressed d700

http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/photos/668162245_TAehs-O.jpg

 

The M9 retains just as much detail as the d700, that much is clear, but it also gets noisier. I would say somewhere close to 0.5-1 stop behind. The shadow noise blocking up is the main problem. I think the color noise is quite easily cleaned up.

 

(all crops are 100% of course).

[noah_addis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The D700 is far from clumsy. In fact it is very nearly a perfect DSLR in my opinion, something close to the Nikon F100 which was, again in my opinion, very close to a perfect film AF SLR.

 

It's larger than the M-series cameras but really not all that much larger as long as you stick to compact prime lenses. It's comfortable to hold and, while it does have a lot of features, if you're familiar with the Nikon system it's logical and easy to figure out. I never looked at the instruction manual.

 

It's also an ideal low-light camera. The M9, while it's much better than the M8, is still not as clean and noiseless at high iso. Personally, I like the look of the M9 files better. But technically there is more noise, you can't argue with that.

 

And the whole time I was shooting with the D700, I never once used any of the auto features. It lived on Manual exposure and I was using zeiss manual focus lenses and a few of my old AIS lenses (28/2.8, 50/1.8, 105/2.5). I used it much in the same way that I use my rangefinders, with the exception of the actual viewing and focusing methods.

 

I think that Leica was smart not to add on extra features like live view, af and a zooming viewfinder. I appreciate the simplicity of the M system and frankly hope Leica doesn't start tacking on extra features. But just because an SLR like the D700 has additional features and capabilities doesn't mean it can't be used in a similar way. Some of the features, like weather sealing, are a huge benefit.

 

For me the decision between the two systems didn't come down to the quality of the lenses, or the build quality, or even overall image quality. I decided to stick with the M system because I like viewing and focusing with a traditional rangefinder.

 

If I primarily shot at ISO 1600 + I'd probably have sacrificed the RF for the better high-iso performance of the D700. However I do the vast majority of my work at ISO 400 and below, and I love the look of the M9 files at those speeds.

[diogenis]

All I am saying is that due to its large size and weight, it is much more difficult to handle when you compare it with a RF.

Obviously it is a very good camera and indeed if you follow the company you will know its core logic with menus and usage, but still that is far from user friendly. I can still remember me, trying to mess with the menu system of a d300 once just to find and enable live view feature on the camera... a whole 15-30 mins later and me and a friend, couldn't find it still.

[carstenw]

The M9 retains just as much detail as the d700, that much is clear, but it also gets noisier. I would say somewhere close to 0.5-1 stop behind. The shadow noise blocking up is the main problem. I think the color noise is quite easily cleaned up.

 

Have you tried applying NoiseWare or similar to the M9 shots? It looks like the M9 shot could lose quite a bit of resolution before getting as soft as the Nikon shot, and so putting this resolution advantage to work at reducing noise might get you so close that it is no longer worth discussing. The advantages of the M9 would then remain, i.e. smaller size, brilliant lenses, high resolution at low ISO, etc.

[ulrikft]

Have you tried applying NoiseWare or similar to the M9 shots? It looks like the M9 shot could lose quite a bit of resolution before getting as soft as the Nikon shot, and so putting this resolution advantage to work at reducing noise might get you so close that it is no longer worth discussing. The advantages of the M9 would then remain, i.e. smaller size, brilliant lenses, high resolution at low ISO, etc.

 

Did some profiled noise ninja noise removals of both shots now, slightly differnet crop as i redid from raw:

 

leica filtered:

 

http://unixgen.com/~thul/review/leica-2500_filtered-crop.jpg

 

nikon filtered:

 

http://unixgen.com/~thul/review/nikon-2500_filtered-crop.jpg

[carstenw]

The Leica shot has a nice look to it, and it is unquestionably sharper (is there room for more noise reduction? The Leica photo is still noticeably sharper...), but if that is the best it gets, then there is no question that the Nikon still looks cleaner in the shadows.

 

What do you need it for? Daytime shooting the in the winter?

[ulrikft]

The Leica shot has a nice look to it, and it is unquestionably sharper (is there room for more noise reduction? The Leica photo is still noticeably sharper...), but if that is the best it gets, then there is no question that the Nikon still looks cleaner in the shadows.

 

What do you need it for? Daytime shooting the in the winter?

 

Well, I can send you the link to my portfolio, but in short: concerts, avilable light portraits, norwegian midday in the winter-light shooting. I have just become so accustomed to not worrying when pushing to 3200 and even 6400 with the d700, sometimes beacause I have to, even at f/1.2 and 1/30, but also beacause I want f/4 to get more in focus. Today, I did a group shot, indoors, avilable light for a client, iso3200, f/4, 1/30 (50mm). I guess I could have tried to push it to 1/15 with a rangefinder, and therefore been able ot use iso1600, but I would prefer not to make such compromices too... Ach well, I'm not done saving for it until february-march anyway, so I have a lot of time to think about it..

 

Iso is my one gripe, but I think I can live with that really, my other gripe is the tiny part of the VF 75mm really is, I think I would have to get a magnifier, but how good are those? how much of the viewfinder can i make the 75mm or 90mm lines cover?

[carstenw]

The Leica 1.25x viewfinder loupe is very good, but it sticks out a bit at the back, and bugs me a bit. I will try to shoot without it when I get my M9 and see how that goes. There is now a 1.4x, by the way. There are also some well respected ones from Asia (and some bad ones too). I forget the best brand right now, but someone will probably post that.

 

To answer your question more directly, if the viewfinder is normally about 24mm, a 1.4x loupe would put it at around 35mm. A 75 would therefore cover about half the frame in each dimension. Don't forget though that the rangefinder gives more focusing accuracy at these focal lengths, especially with the loupe, so you don't need as much as you might expect.

[ulrikft]

The Leica 1.25x viewfinder loupe is very good, but it sticks out a bit at the back, and bugs me a bit. I will try to shoot without it when I get my M9 and see how that goes. There is now a 1.4x, by the way. There are also some well respected ones from Asia (and some bad ones too). I forget the best brand right now, but someone will probably post that.

 

To answer your question more directly, if the viewfinder is normally about 24mm, a 1.4x loupe would put it at around 35mm. A 75 would therefore cover about half the frame in each dimension. Don't forget though that the rangefinder gives more focusing accuracy at these focal lengths, especially with the loupe, so you don't need as much as you might expect.

 

Hmm, it is more about seeing enough that i feel that i can create/compose an image like i want it but that sounds good! If I decide to do the unthinkable, ditch my dslr and get an rf, it will most likely be m9 + 25/4 (cv), 50/1.1 (cv) and 75/2.5 (cv). Hoping that i can use viewfinder edges approx for framing at 25, and magnifier for 50 and 75.

[carstenw]

The 50 should be fine with or without loupe. I am guessing that you will be able to focus accurately without the loupe with the 75. I would recommend trying to get along without the loupe at first, and see how it goes. The loupes are not cheap, and not everyone likes them as much as they thought.

[ulrikft]

Here is a version of leica m9 @ 2500 with very hard noise reduction, over the top maybe, but you see what you can end up with:

 

http://unixgen.com/~thul/review/leica-2500_filtered-hard.jpg

 

(for reference, with standard filter:

 

http://unixgen.com/~thul/review/leica-2500_filtered.jpg

 

and nikon with standard filter:

 

http://unixgen.com/~thul/review/nikon-2500_filtered.jpg )

 

 

Warning, large files!

[carstenw]

Hmm, the noise remains higher, but now there is much smudging and some new artifacts. I guess the M9 will just never do as well as the D700 in 100% crops. Can you see the difference in prints?

[ulrikft]

Hmm, the noise remains higher, but now there is much smudging and some new artifacts. I guess the M9 will just never do as well as the D700 in 100% crops. Can you see the difference in prints?

 

Hey!

 

Printed different samples up to A3+, I did see more detail in the M9 shot, but also more noise. At A3+, iso3200 (pushed 2500) was absolutely usable imo. But what people need/want differs. That said, I love my own shots done with canonet/yashica at 400 iso pushed to 1600 and 3200 in concerts, so noise is not that problematic, as long as it is noise, and not digital artifacts.

 

My main obstacle right now, tbh, is that I have a proposal for an assignment next year that is mainly sports for 4 weeks..

[carstenw]

Use the D700. Perhaps if there is a portrait element to the assignment you could bring along an M too.

 

Do you find the M9 noise to be too digital for your taste, in your tests?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ulrikft]

Use the D700. Perhaps if there is a portrait element to the assignment you could bring along an M too.

 

Do you find the M9 noise to be too digital for your taste, in your tests?

 

Well, I'm a part time student/photographer, I can't afford having a d700 + 70-200, 85 1.4, 58 1.2 etc, so I would have to sell most of my nikon-gear if I wanted to get a M9, so.. a option would be to get a d60 + 35 1.8, 50 1.8 and sigma 70-200 2.8 and use that in parallell with the m9 and 2-3 CV lenses. The assignment is mostly life style/repotage actually, but with some sports elements.

 

I don't think the leica noise is too digital in nature. It is very small grained, and if I cheat by adding grain with AlienSkin or SilverEfEx I would say that you are close to film at iso 400 with the leica at 2500. Not too bad imo.