M9 vs. Nikon D700

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

I don't need to read articles or look at someone's samples from a brand-fan magazine, because I shot with an M9 professionally for a week, along with my 5DII and 1DSIII. The M9 is an excellent performer, and for the great majority of uses (as long as the ISO was below 640) and there wasn't too much synthetic black fabric under harsh tungsten light, there would be little advantage to the IQ superiority of the Canons, however I've been trying to be as charitable as possible by describing it as "significant". I disdain the use of expressions such as "blows away" because I realise "them are fighting words" on such a brand-specific forum as this.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jamie Roberts]

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.

 

Your 5d2 has nothing but resolution on a D700, sorry (and the D700 has significantly higher DR at higher ISOs than the Canon). The D700 is next-gen compared with a 5d, which still has only a 12bpp AD converter (unlike the D700 & D3).

 

A 1ds2 (?) has considerably less DR and colour depth (I know; I shot a 1ds2 for years) and is more along the lines of a 5d in terms of IQ

 

I'd personally take my M8 over that in terms of IQ--not resolution (oh wait a sec, I did I don't miss my 1ds2 at all. Nor my 5d, come to that, which--in all fairness--doesn't make them bad or anything. Just not quite as spectacular as you make them out to be...)

 

So saying the M9 and the D700 are very close means that--resolution aside--the M9 is head to head with a 5d2 or 1ds3 for absolute IQ under certain ISOs, along with the DMR, D3s and other higher bit depth cameras (like the D700 and D3, D3x etc...)

 

BTW--all those cameras lose DR and colour fidelity as the ISO climbs, and while the M9s doesn't climb as high in absolute terms, it seems to hold more DR as it goes up. We'll see. In any case, though I love my D3, ISO 2500 is all I push it to...and the newer cameras look downright dumb IMO at "ISO 120000" or whatever it is. What good is noiselessness if the colours look painted on?

 

BTW--if you think the 5d2 "blows away" the M9 please just say it. I suspect it will under some circumstances, but not others, and that's ok. They're different tools. Having said that, though you used the M9 professionally for a week (and I haven't used one at all) I hardly think a week is sufficient to understand--let alone optimize--the results you will get.

 

Your Mileage Varies, Obviously.

[jlancasterd]

I don't need to read articles or look at someone's samples from a brand-fan magazine, because I shot with an M9 professionally for a week, along with my 5DII and 1DSIII. The M9 is an excellent performer, and for the great majority of uses (as long as the ISO was below 640) and there wasn't too much synthetic black fabric under harsh tungsten light, there would be little advantage to the IQ superiority of the Canons, however I've been trying to be as charitable as possible by describing it as "significant". I disdain the use of expressions such as "blows away" because I realise "them are fighting words" on such a brand-specific forum as this.

 

So your views aren't based on what might be termed a scientific test then...

 

I don't own a Canon (I decided to buy a D700 instead of a 5DII because of the superior reputation of Nikon lenses) but I have had an M9 since 15 September and am getting extremely good results from it - especially in situations where the more aggressive noise suppression of Nikon and Canon DSLRs would be inappropriate. The results of the tests in Leica Fotographie don't really surprise me, and I don't believe they have been skewed in any way.

 

It really is a question of 'horses for courses'

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

 

A 1ds2 (?) has considerably less DR and colour depth (I know; I shot a 1ds2 for years) and is more along the lines of a 5d in terms of IQ

 

I'd personally take my M8 over that in terms of IQ--not resolution (oh wait a sec, I did I don't miss my 1ds2 at all. Nor my 5d, come to that, which--in all fairness--doesn't make them bad or anything. Just not quite as spectacular as you make them out to be...)

 

I think we're talking at cross purposes. The MarkII I was referring to was the 5D Mark II. My 1DS is a Mark III. Those two eclipse the M8 and M9 quite noticeably, on resolution, high-ISO noise, and lack of IR sensitivity (including the M9), and to a lesser degree on DR.

 

So saying the M9 and the D700 are very close means that--resolution aside--the M9 is head to head with a 5d2 or 1ds3 for absolute IQ under certain ISOs

 

I understand what it means, and I disagree with it. My 5D2 and 1ds3 outperform the M9 at all ISOs, but at the lower ones it's strictly because of greater resolution, whilst at higher ISOs it's mostly a matter of the M9 inheriting the inherently noisier sensor of its predecessor. Now that Leica has surmounted the issues relating to short-exit pupil lenses on a full frame chip, I trust their next incremental improvements will be the complete elimination of IR sensitivity, and bringing noise standards closer to the current state of the art. I expect at least one of those to happen by Photokina 2010 if not sooner.

 

 

Having said that, though you used the M9 professionally for a week (and I haven't used one at all) I hardly think a week is sufficient to understand--let alone optimize--the results you will get.

 

Perhaps, but I believe there's a limit as to how much farther ahead of an M8 such "optimisation" will be able to put an M9, given that the chip is almost the same. A week was enough to see that the M9 hadn't improved enough upon the M8 in enough ways to warrant the cash outlay. Simply having a 24x36 chip isn't sufficient for me. I've worked an M8, and before that a 1D, alongside "full frame" Canons long enough to know that a 1.3 crop factor is not a hindrance. One more stop of noise reduction isn't sufficient either, not when I've got 2-3 stops in my Canons. And a week was more than enough time to see that M9 actually takes several backward steps from the M8 (omission of the top display, omission of the sapphire glass, reversion to shrunken framelines).

[jaapv]

I'm starting to be a bit puzzled why you are posting so extensively in a Leica forum when your don't seem to own a Leica, don't want one and don't like them.

[charlesphoto99]

Jeez, who really gives a sh*t which camera out resolves which, yadda yadda yadda???

 

I have photographs hanging in museums shot with Tri-X and TMAX 3200 and a Nikon FM2.

 

It's really about the pleasure and methods of shooting. If you can't or don't want to afford an M9 then shoot with something else that works for you. It is what it is. My Nikon D3 with a 14-24 is unlike any other camera out there. Same can be said for my Hasselblad SWC, or Rolleiflex 2.8F, or my M8 with the 28 cron. People really need to get over this trainspotting (pixel peeping) and just get down to taking some decent photos instead. I've seen kids out there with Canon 10/20D's that could wipe the ass of just about everyone on this forum with the pics they take.

 

Once again for good measure: it's not about the camera!

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

{snipped}

 

Perhaps, but I believe there's a limit as to how much farther ahead of an M8 such "optimisation" will be able to put an M9, given that the chip is almost the same. A week was enough to see that the M9 hadn't improved enough upon the M8 in enough ways to warrant the cash outlay. Simply having a 24x36 chip isn't sufficient for me. I've worked an M8, and before that a 1D, alongside "full frame" Canons long enough to know that a 1.3 crop factor is not a hindrance. One more stop of noise reduction isn't sufficient either, not when I've got 2-3 stops in my Canons. And a week was more than enough time to see that M9 actually takes several backward steps from the M8 (omission of the top display, omission of the sapphire glass, reversion to shrunken framelines).

 

Well, we'll agree to disagree on these things. I've used a 5d2 professionally for over a week , and do use a D3 (for over a year now), and I still prefer the colour I get from a CCD (the DMR in particular, but even the M8 at 640 and under).

 

Of course, this will depend entirely on what and how you process images.

 

FWIW, I'm not at all sure that the M9 sensor is simply the M8 sensor made full frame or even "almost the same." In other words, I don't give your "given" at all, though to be honest I don't know. I'm just seeing different things in the RAW files I've seen so far.

 

So I'm sure it's an evolution, but saying Kodak has "evolved" their estimable colour science and pro level sensors is nothing to dismiss IMO, even given the noise reduction strides Canon and Nikon have made.

 

Also, for me, the 1.3 crop *is* a hindrance, especially when I want to use the wide primes that Leica makes (and which have zero equivalence from Canon, IMO). When I get an M9, I will likely keep my M8 for a backup, however.

 

So all in all, it comes down to how you use and process the cameras. For you, the value is not there; for me, the only reason to buy a 5d2 is to use the 80 R Lux on it...

[brt3]

Once again for good measure: it's not about the camera!

Well said, and amply illustrated by your beautiful portfolio of work...

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

 

Once again for good measure: it's not about the camera!

 

Of course you're completely correct. A great shot is a great shot. Cellphone-cam or Arca-Swiss; it doesn't matter in a lot of very significant ways.

 

But given we're talking ergonomics, lenses and photographic potential, it's a useful conversation. Also, given that a lot of people own D700s / D3s, it's a useful point of comparison for discussing colour, noise, and so on.

 

In the final analysis, though, you're totally right.

[ericperlberg]

Jeez, who really gives a sh*t which camera out resolves which, yadda yadda yadda???

 

I have photographs hanging in museums shot with Tri-X and TMAX 3200 and a Nikon FM2.

 

It's really about the pleasure and methods of shooting. If you can't or don't want to afford an M9 then shoot with something else that works for you. It is what it is. My Nikon D3 with a 14-24 is unlike any other camera out there. Same can be said for my Hasselblad SWC, or Rolleiflex 2.8F, or my M8 with the 28 cron. People really need to get over this trainspotting (pixel peeping) and just get down to taking some decent photos instead. I've seen kids out there with Canon 10/20D's that could wipe the ass of just about everyone on this forum with the pics they take.

 

Once again for good measure: it's not about the camera!

 

+1

 

I can understand the pressure on certain types of photographers like high end fashion and product and certain kinds of fine art photographers producing extremely large prints for art galleries to worry about the last iota of resolution and tonality and DR and they should be shooting medium or large format cameras which really do begin to show significant quality improvements over their 35mm breathern. But IMO anyone interested in high quality 35mm photography these tiny differences in resolution and DR and tonality between the best 35mm cameras pale in significance to the quality and uniqueness of one's artistic vision. When I go to show my work to a gallery or competition they don't say, gee, that yellow isn't as saturated as the yellow from a Canon xxx or Nikon yyy, they say, hmmm interesting work or this work s*cks or somewhere in between.

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

I'm starting to be a bit puzzled why you are posting so extensively in a Leica forum when your don't seem to own a Leica, don't want one and don't like them.

 

I apologise if you weren't speaking to me. If you were, I think I've mentioned elsewhere that I own (and use professionally, almost daily) 2 M8s (upgraded with shutter, framelines, and sapphire) and an M8.2. I used Leica film cameras for twenty some years prior.

[jaapv]

In that case I stand humbly corrected. I was under the impression you had shed all your Leica gear.

[KM-25]

Jeez, who really gives a sh*t which camera out resolves which, yadda yadda yadda???

 

I have photographs hanging in museums shot with Tri-X and TMAX 3200 and a Nikon FM2.

 

It's really about the pleasure and methods of shooting. If you can't or don't want to afford an M9 then shoot with something else that works for you. It is what it is. My Nikon D3 with a 14-24 is unlike any other camera out there. Same can be said for my Hasselblad SWC, or Rolleiflex 2.8F, or my M8 with the 28 cron. People really need to get over this trainspotting (pixel peeping) and just get down to taking some decent photos instead. I've seen kids out there with Canon 10/20D's that could wipe the ass of just about everyone on this forum with the pics they take.

 

Once again for good measure: it's not about the camera!

 

Wow, it's been at least a few weeks since I have been on here. I have made a few new images on Kodachrome since then, seen people in person, been cold, wet, bled, scared, happy, sad...

 

And that is life, which goes on with or without the *K*I*N*G* of digital cameras ever being crowned. But what you have said Charles, what I have just said, it is simply never going to resonate with some on here, because they are addicted to the internet, and it shows.

 

Just checking, saying hi and kindly bowing out...

[Jamie Roberts]

{Snipped}

Just checking, saying hi and kindly bowing out...