atufte Posted March 8, 2007 Share #1 Posted March 8, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Nothing scientific, just a "side by side" of two great camera's... http://www.alexandertufte.com/D200VSM8web/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Hi atufte, Take a look here M8 VS D200 (Side By Side). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
atufte Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share #2 Posted March 8, 2007 By the way, files from both cameras was converted in LR at default setting... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 8, 2007 Share #3 Posted March 8, 2007 I am going to get so flamed here. The Leica cleaned it's clock , sorry Nikon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share #4 Posted March 8, 2007 I am going to get so flamed here. The Leica cleaned it's clock , sorry Nikon Hehe, i totally agree, but still love both camera's, they are two very different animals, and i really need and do use them both... (They have been friends from the start, but D200 is slightly jealous since her sister M8 get's all the walks, hehe....) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 8, 2007 Share #5 Posted March 8, 2007 The D200 is a nice camera and I loved the ergonimics of it as a DSLR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted March 8, 2007 Share #6 Posted March 8, 2007 Hello Alexander, An interesting comparison---the difference in small details is clear. I really like the feature set of the D200 (especially the ability to use great old Nikkors) but I wish it had that FM-2's size, viewfinder and controls! Isn't that the 85 f2 on the FM2? What a great combination, brings back fond memories... Thanks, --clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirvine Posted March 8, 2007 Share #7 Posted March 8, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The close-up of the lens front glass is where you can see the Leica resolving detail in the reflections that the Nikon missed. Could be a focus or DOF issue, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted March 8, 2007 Share #8 Posted March 8, 2007 I am going to get so flamed here. The Leica cleaned it's clock , sorry Nikon Yep it looks like the Leica is on another bus..... the difference is evident, just a stronger image Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted March 8, 2007 Share #9 Posted March 8, 2007 I am going to get so flamed here. The Leica cleaned it's clock , sorry Nikon If you put a prime lens on the Nikon you might get different results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 8, 2007 Share #10 Posted March 8, 2007 Alexander-- Very nice presentation. Curious: Which lens on M8? What aperture? Focused on what? Which lens on D200? What aperture? AF or manual? If the latter, focused on what? (or did I overlook that info?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted March 8, 2007 Share #11 Posted March 8, 2007 If you put a prime lens on the Nikon you might get different results. He used a Prime lens, 50mm f/1.4. Can't get to much more prime then that. I own both a M8 and a D200 and it is hard to look at the D200 images next to the Leica. Of course it has always been this way. I had a Nikromat with good Nikkor glass when I bought my first M3. That was in 1972. I worked in a camera store that had just taken in the M3 and 50 Cron on a trade. I barrowed the M3 with 50 for the weekend. I shot about 3 rolls of film through both over the weekend and developed all on Sunday night. I could beleive my eyes. When I got to work that Monday I bought the Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted March 8, 2007 Share #12 Posted March 8, 2007 Alexander--Very nice presentation. Curious: Which lens on M8? What aperture? Focused on what? Which lens on D200? What aperture? AF or manual? If the latter, focused on what? (or did I overlook that info?) 50 Cron on the M8, 50 f/1.4 on the D200. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted March 8, 2007 Share #13 Posted March 8, 2007 I am going to get so flamed here. The Leica cleaned it's clock , sorry Nikon It's not that the Leica picture is so good,it's rather that the D200 image is fuzzy, as if camera movement had taken place. If my Canons behaved like that, they'd go straight back to the guy who brought them ... This having being said, I've tested a D200 against my 1Ds2. the D200 is a beautiful camera except in low light, where focus error, lens unsharpness and noise demolished the 200D shots completely. I think the D200 makes the prosumers buyers happy, but many of the serious photographers prefer to get Rebels as backups in spite of the cheap plastic body. Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share #14 Posted March 8, 2007 Alexander--Very nice presentation. Curious: Which lens on M8? What aperture? Focused on what? Which lens on D200? What aperture? AF or manual? If the latter, focused on what? (or did I overlook that info?) All the other questions are described on the webpage, except focus point, which was the sync inlet on the Nikon camera... and yes both shots with manual focus, i even made the D200 shot with "focus bracketing" (and AF) just to be shure the focus was correct, and like i thought, it was... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipotto Posted March 8, 2007 Share #15 Posted March 8, 2007 Wow. Excellent presentation Alexander. The M8 resolves so much more in every crop that its shocking. Before I opened the thread, I thought I may have to peep to see which was the M8 shot and then justfiy why I liked that one better. On side-by-side comparisons it can often be hard to tell cameras apart (particuarly with smallish jpegs). After all in a controlled setting you can make many a camera do. It is often your relationship, the way you interact with the camera, that makes one camera preferable to another, not the technical merits. For example a 1ds MKII or a MF Digital Back may provide just as good or better resolution, have better WB etc, but you may get more keepers with your M8, because you enjoy using it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gylee Posted March 8, 2007 Share #16 Posted March 8, 2007 Would a more accurate title for this thread be Summicron vs Nikkor? I doubt much of the difference you are seeing is attributable to the camera and you would be justifiably annoyed if a $250 lens was not comprehensively outperformed by a $1500 lens. That said, the Nikkor is so bad that I wonder if there is something wrong with it. My Canon 50 f1.8 does better than that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted March 8, 2007 Share #17 Posted March 8, 2007 Would a more accurate title for this thread be Summicron vs Nikkor? I doubt much of the difference you are seeing is attributable to the camera and you would be justifiably annoyed if a $250 lens was not comprehensively outperformed by a $1500 lens. That said, the Nikkor is so bad that I wonder if there is something wrong with it. My Canon 50 f1.8 does better than that. I am sorry to say this but it is the sensor in the D200. It has a very heavy AA filter that make every image look fuzzy no matter what lens you use. But you don't get any moire. I know I own a D200 and some of the best Nikon glass you can get. Simply it is not a Leica with Leica glass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
atufte Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share #18 Posted March 9, 2007 Would a more accurate title for this thread be Summicron vs Nikkor? I doubt much of the difference you are seeing is attributable to the camera and you would be justifiably annoyed if a $250 lens was not comprehensively outperformed by a $1500 lens. That said, the Nikkor is so bad that I wonder if there is something wrong with it. My Canon 50 f1.8 does better than that. I promise you nothing is wrong with this lens, i have been using it for years, without any problems... This is a result of outperforming optical quality and the lack of a Anti-aliasing filter on the Leica M8 which is one of the key factors for the very soft (and AA filtered) D200 files, this really shows how much resolution the AA filter actually "destroys" I used this lens with my "late" Kodak SLR'n and it was much sharper (but not leica sharp) with this camera "of course" because, again the lack of an AA filter...so thank you Leica for your decision not to implement an AA filter.... :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuchs Posted March 9, 2007 Share #19 Posted March 9, 2007 Well, it is common knowledge that the 50/1.4 Nikkor is one of the softest lenses in the Nikon inventory. And we already know what a Summicron 50 is capable of. So this may be not a completely fair comparison. OTOH, I think the general D200 image blur is due more to the stronger AA filtration (and perhaps to a thicker IR filter ;-) ) than to the lens. Best Ed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjs Posted March 9, 2007 Share #20 Posted March 9, 2007 These were RAW files converted in Lightroom's default, or in camera jpegs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.