markowich Posted November 2, 2009 Share #61 Posted November 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. exactly my position. still, i am waiting for the M10 with CMOS and focus confirmation. to whisk the RF concept out of the dark ages...---))) peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 2, 2009 Posted November 2, 2009 Hi markowich, Take a look here M9 vs. Nikon D700. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tom0511 Posted November 2, 2009 Share #62 Posted November 2, 2009 exactly my position. still, i am waiting for the M10 with CMOS and focus confirmation. to whisk the RF concept out of the dark ages...---)))peter please not cmos and no need for focus cofirmation. I think "optical focus confirmation with eyes" works better any ways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted November 2, 2009 Share #63 Posted November 2, 2009 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. How very sensible. This is exactly my position. Is it too rational for this forum? The old man from the Age of Film It should be the starting point for this forum...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted November 2, 2009 Share #64 Posted November 2, 2009 I think the lens still has a part to play, don't you? Yes of course, which is why, if you'll go back to my original post, I allowed the slr and lens in my hypothetical example to be Leica. Put a late 90 Elmarit-M on an M9 and a late 90 Elmarit-R (same optical formulae) via an adaptor on a Canon 1DSIII and I suggest there is more to compare than simply the ergonomics of an SLR vs a rangefinder. Comparing IQ would be quite valid. Now then, do the same comparison except substitute an M6 and a Canon 1V, load them both with Kodachrome 25, and then I agree it's down to SLR vs rangefinder aka apples and oranges. My personal opinion is that the body still has a part to play - for me at least. I agree and never once asserted that it did not. Lars implied that the body plays the entire, or at least the major part, which I strongly disagree with, and I suspect that as a photographer, you do also. 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. Not at all. Having both myself, the IQ of the two are comparable, well, at least until ISO 640 (800 on the 5D). Therefore it does come down to the SLR-vs-rangefinder question as long as the ISO is in that range or below. However I do not feel the same way in re the M8 and 5DII or 1DSIII, whose IQ I find significantly ahead of the M8 (and M9 that I used extensively for the better part of a week). In that case even if the M8/M9 suited the task and my taste much better, if IQ was critical to the end result photograph I would default to the Canon despite it being an SLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 3, 2009 Share #65 Posted November 3, 2009 {snipped} However I do not feel the same way in re the M8 and 5DII or 1DSIII, whose IQ I find significantly ahead of the M8 (and M9 that I used extensively for the better part of a week). In that case even if the M8/M9 suited the task and my taste much better, if IQ was critical to the end result photograph I would default to the Canon despite it being an SLR. Final IQ though, comes down to so many different variables (and not the least the skill of the photographer through the print process) that while I'd agree with you in higher ISO terms (which is not to be underestimated) I'm not sure I'd fully agree in print terms from shots at lower ISOs. Yes, the most recent SLRs from Canon and Nikon have higher bit AD processors that are making them better than they were; no, they haven't caught up to my DMR at lower ISOs, though the Canons have made the most progress. The M8--which I've shot now for 3 years--IMO is in-between (and should be given its age). Still, measuring the minor IQ differences against portability (and notwithstanding the ISO limit), the M8 often wins the day and that's the camera I use. It'll be interesting to compare the m9 against the D3. I think I know what the tradeoffs will be, but it will still be fascinating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 3, 2009 Share #66 Posted November 3, 2009 no need for focus cofirmation. I think "optical focus confirmation with eyes" works better any ways. I'm not so sure about that. Not everybody has 20-20 vision. I have been saying for a long time that that would be a real enhancement. It need not come from the sensor. An addition to the current RF mechanism would do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted November 3, 2009 Share #67 Posted November 3, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here's my story: 1. I had a Canon 5D 2. Bought the M8, liked the results, sold the 5D 3. Multiple problems with focus accuracy having to send lens back to Leica. Sold the M8. 4. Bought a Nikon D3 - still happy with it. Super high quality camera - does everything right. Still miss the M8 a lot. Most of my best images were made with it and, as an object, it is beautiful. 5. Decided to give Leica a second chance and bought an M7 - bingo! Works perfectly. 6. Am I going to sell the D3? No way, its perfect! In fact, probably will buy the D3s. 7. Am I going to sell the M7? Eventually, but only if it is to try an MP. I have found out it's difficult to use always a heavy / bulky DSLR or fall back to a point-and-shoot (I also have a nice SIGMA DP2). 8. Am I going to buy the M9? No - already have too many new cameras, but probably will not resist an M9.2 or M10. Bottom line is: 1. Its difficult to use only one system and be totally happy with it. I know I missed the M8 until I bought the M7 and I am sure it would be a mistake to trade the D3 for a M9. 2. I also found out that the look and feel of a Leica M it is difficult to replace. I tried a classic Nikon FM3a - chrome metal, all mechanical - that works and looks beautifully but for me does not replace the experience of using an M. 3. I believe there is a special Leica image quality - some of it explained by lens quality (my D3 with Zeiss lenses gets similar results) but mostly resulting from the usage process leading to more / better photo opportunities in an urban / social environment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted November 3, 2009 Share #68 Posted November 3, 2009 Leica's are in my blood (in fact I have a Leica logo tattoo on my forearm) and I look forward to getting the M9 to replace my M8u. But I do own and use a Nikon D3. Actually wish I had a D700 as the D3 is just too big for casual use. Used the D3 on a job last night that the Leica would have really lagged behind on doing a feature on a heavy metal band (not my cup of tea but it pays). The 14-24 and TTL flash were invaluable. So it all comes down to what, when, and where you shoot. And what you are comfortable with. If I'd never shot rangefinders before I think it would be best to try out an M6 first. They are quite reasonable on the used market and one could expect to sell it for what they paid for it. Used lenses always retain their value (or go up) and one can use it on the M9 if they like the rf experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drteitelbaum Posted November 4, 2009 Share #69 Posted November 4, 2009 I have an M8, M9, and a D700. The biggest difference between the M9 and the D700 is not the technical aspects of the image. The difference is in the kind of pictures you take by virtue of using a rangefinder rather than an SLR to frame, a smaller/lighter camera, usually faster lenses, etc. The most distinguishing characteristic is the picture itself, not the image quality per se. I can look through my old photos and know which camera I used by virtue of the way I framed the picture, the bokeh, the mood I captured, etc. I just think this question while intelligent and well-intended, misses the point. There is room to have both cameras. They do different things. It's like asking whether a Ferrari or a Rolls is a better made car. The answer is that it depends upon whether you are driving to dinner with your wife and another couple, or you are driving with your girlfriend up the coast for an afternoon rendez-vous.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted November 4, 2009 Share #70 Posted November 4, 2009 I have an M8, M9, and a D700.The biggest difference between the M9 and the D700 is not the technical aspects of the image. Although I've never used a D700 I would not disagree, as I have used a Canon 5D with the same size/resolution. I can't make the same statement in comparison with a 5DII, which has almost double the resolution. Th IQ, even at lower ISOs, of my MarkII is significantly better than that of my M8, which is only slightly behind the M9 in only one parameter, that being a paltry 1-stop improvement in high- ISO noise characteristic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 4, 2009 Share #71 Posted November 4, 2009 That is not the conclusion of the LFI head-to-head test M9-5DII, which finds the M9 the winner in most respects. Not that these comparisons between a DSLR and an RF make much sense. As long as the sensors produce images in the same IQ range, the decisive factor is the difference in camera concept. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 4, 2009 Share #72 Posted November 4, 2009 The biggest difference between the M9 and the D700 is not the technical aspects of the image. The difference is in the kind of pictures you take by virtue of using a rangefinder rather than an SLR to frame, a smaller/lighter camera, usually faster lenses, etc. The most distinguishing characteristic is the picture itself, not the image quality per se. I can look through my old photos and know which camera I used by virtue of the way I framed the picture, the bokeh, the mood I captured, etc. I agree completely. The choice depends on the kinds of pictures you want to take, and on how you want to take them. And the kinds and the how in turn does depend quite a bit on what kind of person you are. Do not try to compare incommensurables. The old man who was born in the same year as the 35mm SLR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 4, 2009 Share #73 Posted November 4, 2009 I have an M8, M9, and a D700.snip... It's like asking whether a Ferrari or a Rolls is a better made car. The answer is that it depends upon whether you are driving to dinner with your wife and another couple, or you are driving with your girlfriend up the coast for an afternoon rendez-vous.... Please tell me the M9 is the sexy Ferrari and the DSLR is the big Rolls. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brt3 Posted November 4, 2009 Share #74 Posted November 4, 2009 ...It's like asking whether a Ferrari or a Rolls is a better made car. The answer is that it depends upon whether you are driving to dinner with your wife and another couple, or you are driving with your girlfriend up the coast for an afternoon rendez-vous.... Wish we could all be so lucky as to have both a wife AND a girlfriend... Seriously, though -- you hit the nail on the dead. Choose the right tool for the job; sometimes you need a scalpel and sometimes a sledge... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted November 4, 2009 Share #75 Posted November 4, 2009 I have an M8, M9, and a D700... ..... It's like asking whether a Ferrari or a Rolls is a better made car. The answer is that it depends upon whether you are driving to dinner with your wife and another couple, or you are driving with your girlfriend up the coast for an afternoon rendez-vous.... That's why I posted here several innocent pics of my daughters and wife... girlfriend's pic are in a Nikon forum... :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted November 4, 2009 Share #76 Posted November 4, 2009 That is not the conclusion of the LFI head-to-head test M9-5DII, which finds the M9 the winner in most respects. Well, golly! LEICA Fotografie Intl concludes the M9 wins over the Canon. Who'da thunk it? LOL! Not that these comparisons between a DSLR and an RF make much sense. As long as the sensors produce images in the same IQ range, the decisive factor is the difference in camera concept. Agreed. But the sensor in 5DII/1DSIII produce images noticeably ahead of the M9. That isn't to say that in most cases it isn't a waste because either camera is more than capable of providing enough file size for the job requirements. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdtrick Posted November 4, 2009 Share #77 Posted November 4, 2009 Ok, the D700 has awesome high ISO performance 6400 WoW!. 9 frames per second with the grip. Great back panel display and awesome battery life. Nikon has a great lineup of lenses both old and new. So why did I trade it to help finance my M9 venture??? Apples and Oranges... I do not even consider them to be the same tool. I kept my D300 because I thought the DX would be better for the long lenses. I am having second thoughts about the DX vs FF for long lenses but that is another forum. I bought the M9 kit because I wanted something small, light and would let me (force me to) take my time and work on composition and other creative concepts of photography. I am really enjoying the M9 but I still have my Nikon DSLR when needed. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brt3 Posted November 4, 2009 Share #78 Posted November 4, 2009 ... I kept my D300 because I thought the DX would be better for the long lenses. I bought the M9 kit because I wanted something small, light and would let me (force me to) take my time and work on composition and other creative concepts of photography. I am really enjoying the M9 but I still have my Nikon DSLR when needed. I have a D300, D700, and D3 -- along with 10-12 Nikkor lenses that have been acquired over 30-odd years of shooting with Nikons. There are situations where the Nikon is perfect -- shooting old Ferraris flying through the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca, for example. For most of my other artistic photography, I'm just finding the Nikon setup to be too large and heavy, and I am missing some of the simplicity that was there when I first began. So, I've decided to keep the D700 and sell the D3 and D300. I'm also going to cut the lens count down to 4 (or so) -- probably keep my best macro lens, the 70-210, and one or two others. When my Steel Gray M9 arrives I'll try to post a test; what I'd like to do is compare the M9 with my M-Hexanon 50/1.2 to the D700 with Nikkor 50/1.2. Not an all-Nikon vs all-Leica comparison, I know, but it will be interesting to see the differences... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlancasterd Posted November 4, 2009 Share #79 Posted November 4, 2009 Well, golly! LEICA Fotografie Intl concludes the M9 wins over the Canon. Who'da thunk it? LOL! Have you read the article and looked at the samples? I have, and I found the comparison to be very fairly done - for instance they used a Leica lens on the Canon to reduce the number of variables. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 4, 2009 Share #80 Posted November 4, 2009 ...Th IQ, even at lower ISOs, of my MarkII is significantly better than that of my M8... Matter of taste. I did not upgrade from the 5D as i don't like the 5D2's IQ personally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.