markowich Posted November 1, 2009 Share #41 Posted November 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) "It's modern" is the argument proffered when there is no relevant argument to be found. I use the tools that suit me best, and I do not give a damn if they were invented yesterday, or during the Iron Age (just try improving on a hand axe). Anachronistic? Yes, and proudly, when rationality becomes out of date. And superior? Yes, with a long-throw tele. I never had much use for them. Otherwise, the RF is both faster and more precise. Check your technique. The old man who was 18 when the M3 was launched i am always willing and trying to learn. thanks for the good advice after all. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 Hi markowich, Take a look here M9 vs. Nikon D700. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ulrikft Posted November 1, 2009 Share #42 Posted November 1, 2009 I have side-by-side samples of the d700 and M9 done while testing iso 400 and up between the two, and a few low iso landscapes/cityscapes done side by side, shoot me a pm if that is interesting! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkolewe Posted November 1, 2009 Share #43 Posted November 1, 2009 I've been using Nikon for years: FM, D70, D200, D700. The D700 is without a doubt the best DSLR I have ever used (note that I haven't used the D3x or the new Canons). The image quality with good glass is superb, and the high-ISO performance is uncanny. But... Not long after I got an M6 a few months ago I heard myself saying, "now what I really want is an M with the D700 sensor in it." Three things happened. Along with the D700, I'd been using a Canon G10 as a carry-around camera (the best camera in the world is the one you have with you). I found myself leaving the G10 behind and carrying the M6 with a 35mm Zeiss Biogon instead. Sold the G10. I was mainly shooting TriX with the M6, but realized that colour was my thing; I started having what I called "colour weekends" where I'd use the D700 rather than the M6. And then, after one hike taking pictures of graffiti along a railroad right-of-way with D700, 24-70, and 70-300 in 28 degree August sun, I was sitting in the pub thinking, hmmm, I'm lugging how many kilos of glass and silicon around with me? A couple of weeks later the M9 was introduced. I hadn't picked up the D700 since that hike, but I'd shot many many rolls of (now) colour film, which I was scanning and postprocessing. I read the preliminary reviews of the M9. I read Sean Reid's detailed review. I calculated the cost of film and processing. I sold the D700. (Keeping most of the glass since I'm thinking, hmm, D700x... though it may wind up on eBay soon as well.) I've bought two more lenses for the M6 (a Summicron 50mm and a 90mm Elmarit). And I'm waiting for the M9 to be in stock. That's the long story. Short story: The D700 is a superb camera, but it's an SLR, and it's big and heavy. As has been said repeatedly it can do things that are difficult to do with the M (long telephoto, macro, fast action, low light) but you pay for that in size and weight. (I think that if you look at the specs for the S2 it's actually smaller and light then the D700. Certainly than the D3x.) Image quality is probably slightly better with the M9 though I can only comment based on the few DNG's I've downloaded, but I think that if you compare prints made from the two you won't see much difference. The Harley/pickup comparison is apt. Ralph Kolewe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted November 1, 2009 Share #44 Posted November 1, 2009 After I said 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. , then you said: 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. In English please? And most importantly, when you use a M and when you use a SLR, you are two different people.No I'm not. You see differently, you think differently, you react differently, you ACT differently. No, I don't. I've read that poetry before though 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'? Read what I wrote again. I most certainly did not mean that or imply that in any way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 1, 2009 Share #45 Posted November 1, 2009 In English please? Made perfect sense to me. Some people own item A, some people own item B, some people own A _and_ B. Each have their own reason for owning what they do. Hope that helps Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted November 1, 2009 Share #46 Posted November 1, 2009 The way Sam talks about you, I feel like I know you...you sure know how to keep a dealer happy:D More seriously, having seen some of your work, you do seem to get the most out of your gear...including the wedding shot posted. Regarding Sony, do you know if they have any tilt-shift lenses, or the capability to use other brands? (Use of tilt-shift lenses is another reason for some to add a dslr to an M system...especially for older folks like me no longer willing to deal with heavy LF gear.) Jeff Hi Jeff, No, there aren't any modern T/S lenses from Sony ... even thought it is basically a Minolta take over and lots of new stuff has been designed for the A series cameras, there are holes in the system. For that stuff both Nikon and Canon have wonderful options. I use a tech camera with a Medium Format back and digital view camera lenses for that kind of work, so it isn't a requirement of my 35mm DSLR system. -Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted November 1, 2009 Share #47 Posted November 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Made perfect sense to me. Some people own item A, some people own item B, some people own A _and_ B. Each have their own reason for owning what they do. Hope that helps His original assertion was: 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. My counterassertion was that whilst it was valid to say that and just be done with it, back in the film era when IQ was not governed by the camera body; now, with digital, IQ is quite governed by the camera body, therefore comparing IQ between very dissimilar cameras is not as preposterous as his statement presents. Or do you disagree with that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 1, 2009 Share #48 Posted November 1, 2009 ...now, with digital, IQ is quite governed by the camera body, therefore comparing IQ between very dissimilar cameras is not as preposterous as his statement presents. Or do you disagree with that? I think the lens still has a part to play, don't you? My personal opinion is that the body still has a part to play - for me at least. I had a Canon 5D and a Leica M8. I sold the 5D after not using it for over two years, I much prefer to use a rangefinder - as I did when I was shooting film - probably for reasons you would dismiss as being irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted November 1, 2009 Share #49 Posted November 1, 2009 i am always willing and trying to learn. thanks for the good advice after all.peter forgot to say, if you checked and improved your AF technique it might really improve your photography. give it a try.... peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 1, 2009 Share #50 Posted November 1, 2009 forgot to say, if you checked and improved your AF technique it might really improve your photography. give it a try... I did for 10+ years with no avail so far. I must be a poor photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted November 1, 2009 Share #51 Posted November 1, 2009 "It's modern" is the argument proffered when there is no relevant argument to be found. I use the tools that suit me best, and I do not give a damn if they were invented yesterday, or during the Iron Age (just try improving on a hand axe). Anachronistic? Yes, and proudly, when rationality becomes out of date. And superior? Yes, with a long-throw tele. I never had much use for them. Otherwise, the RF is both faster and more precise. Check your technique. The old man who was 18 when the M3 was launched I'm pretty sure I'm I can AF faster than you can MF with my D700 and HSM/AF-S glass in 9 of 10 cases. If you mean "I don't have to focus, beacause i prefocus/zonefocus/hyperfocal".. well, you can do that on AF-lenses too you know.. RF/SLR-manual focus has advantages, speed is not one of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 1, 2009 Share #52 Posted November 1, 2009 If you mean "I don't have to focus, beacause i prefocus/zonefocus/hyperfocal".. well, you can do that on AF-lenses too you know How many AF lenses have DOF markings? Isn't that a prerequisite to zone/hyperfocal focussing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 2, 2009 Share #53 Posted November 2, 2009 ...snip... i must admit that i am sort of disappointed by the 24mm lux, which has far too much CA wide open (yes, even when processed in C1).p And, don't forget the WATE... you don't like the WATE either. Come to think of it, you don't really like the M8 or M9 that much either. Oh well, cast another lure in the Leica forum... maybe you can get a nibble. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted November 2, 2009 Share #54 Posted November 2, 2009 How many AF lenses have DOF markings? Isn't that a prerequisite to zone/hyperfocal focussing? Just checked my day-to-day bag, both my AF-lenses have DOF markings. So i still think I would win the speed contest.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brt3 Posted November 2, 2009 Share #55 Posted November 2, 2009 Just checked my day-to-day bag, both my AF-lenses have DOF markings. So i still think I would win the speed contest.. Sounds as though it's going to be cameras at ten paces, at dawn... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted November 2, 2009 Share #56 Posted November 2, 2009 Sounds as though it's going to be cameras at ten paces, at dawn... Hahaha, indeed! I'm not knocking MF, most of my lenses are MF slr-lenses. And I love using them, I just don't think speed is their main advantage. When i have sport shoots, I don't bring my 180 2.8 ED AI-S, but my 70-200 2.8.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted November 2, 2009 Share #57 Posted November 2, 2009 And, don't forget the WATE... you don't like the WATE either. Come to think of it, you don't really like the M8 or M9 that much either. Oh well, cast another lure in the Leica forum... maybe you can get a nibble. i like photography, cameras are just tools. except leicas of course. they are special by decree. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted November 2, 2009 Share #58 Posted November 2, 2009 Until yesterday I believe the M9 with the thin(or non existant) AA-filter + Leica glass would mean a better image quality than Nikon or Canon. But using both a M9 and a d3x with good glass side by side makes be believe that these 2 cameras are very close in what they deliever. Maybe the d3x with a little more balanced color (the M9 sometimes brings some colors slightly strong staturated). For me both are so good that I do not have to wonder about IQ (I am talking about detail, noise, dynamic range, color) but just about which concept Ido like better. Rangefinder for less obstrusive photography, with less weight and fast primes. DLSR when AF is needed or longer tele lenses or very accurate framing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 2, 2009 Share #59 Posted November 2, 2009 i like photography, cameras are just tools. except leicas of course. they are special by decree.peter Leica cameras -- or in this case, M cameras -- too are just tools. But a craftsman is apt to have pretty strong opinions and preferences about what tools he uses. It is the Sunday tinker who accepts whatever the gas station chain throws at him, and who declares (often in an aggressively defensive mode) that they are all the same. I confess to holding, or to having held, pretty strong opinions about various tools: Hiking boots, backpacks, screwdrivers, revolvers, lead type, rifles, digital type, pre-press software -- and, yes, cameras. Call me an elitist, if you like. But I have never espoused equipment accessible only to the few rich, or to those of noble birth, or whatever -- just to those who have the desire to know, and to be skilled. And that desire is the birthright of every human being. Pardon my English. The old man from the Age of Film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 2, 2009 Share #60 Posted November 2, 2009 For me both [a M9 and a d3x] are so good that I do not have to wonder about IQ (I am talking about detail, noise, dynamic range, color) but just about which concept I do like better. Rangefinder for less obtrusive photography, with less weight and fast primes. DLSR when AF is needed or longer tele lenses or very accurate framing. How very sensible. This is exactly my position. Is it too rational for this forum? The old man from the Age of Film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.