KevinA Posted March 28, 2007 Share #1 Â Posted March 28, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just curious, the D3 is it a success, in sales as a camera etc. On paper it looks like a good idea, I saw one in a shop and was a bit surprised at the size of it and high cost of it. I also think that a lot of stuff I'm seeing with the M8 would be just as good with a "lesser" camera. I don't see the M8 being used for a lot of commercial work that DSLRs often suite better.For street work where the moment is more important than technical quality is a D3 just as good? I know there are people that will want the ultimate quality a Leica lensed M will give, at 10x12inches would you tell them apart? I'm not in the market for either it's just wondering on my part, I did have the M8 on my radar but the moire kills it for me, my work finds it very easily. Anyone shoot both M8 and D3 ? Â Kevin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 28, 2007 Posted March 28, 2007 Hi KevinA, Take a look here D3 verdict ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
zapp Posted March 28, 2007 Share #2 Â Posted March 28, 2007 Just curious, the D3 is it a success, in sales as a camera etc. On paper it looks like a good idea, I saw one in a shop and was a bit surprised at the size of it and high cost of it. I also think that a lot of stuff I'm seeing with the M8 would be just as good with a "lesser" camera. I don't see the M8 being used for a lot of commercial work that DSLRs often suite better.For street work where the moment is more important than technical quality is a D3 just as good? I know there are people that will want the ultimate quality a Leica lensed M will give, at 10x12inches would you tell them apart? I'm not in the market for either it's just wondering on my part, I did have the M8 on my radar but the moire kills it for me, my work finds it very easily.Anyone shoot both M8 and D3 ? Â Kevin. The D3 is not really a Leica only product (it is a Panasonic offspring) and if you are after the Leica lenses they fit any 4/3 camera. Look at the best 4/3 camera for you and put any glass you want of the 4/3 system infront. The D3 will not reach the quality of the M8 sensor. Some of the nex Olympus may do that and the new professional Olympus should match the sensor of the M8 - to be tested/reviewed in the near future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dist Posted March 28, 2007 Share #3 Â Posted March 28, 2007 Well frankly I don't know about M8 quality but what I can say is that D3 is good enough for me - here's an example I took yesterday inside Aachen Cathedral (no tripods allowed, this one is @ ISO 800, 1/6th sec exposure, f5.6, Zuiko 11-22 @ 11 mm, so not even with OIS). Since some posts on this forum want to make you believe the D3 is useless above ISO 200 I cropped the central part of the image upon which, I suppose, the AF homed in). While not tack sharp (who would expect it to be, given the circumstances...), still enough resolution and contrast to figure out the painting on it. BTW, yes, the main shot is deliberately off center (simply because one of the four wings extending from the central octagon is scaffolded for renovation works). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 28, 2007 Share #4 Â Posted March 28, 2007 Indeed the D3 is a great camera, and I am seriously considering one to add to my stable for quick and easy tele work. But the difference to M8 is not so much sharpness, as the handling of shadows, contrast etc. Compare this church shot: cleaner and richer, as it should be as the combo costs double. Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dist Posted March 28, 2007 Share #5 Â Posted March 28, 2007 Compare this church shot: cleaner and richer, as it should be as the combo costs double. Â .. and that's putting it midly (double I mean.... D3 with kit lens and Oly 11-22 sets you back about 3,200 Euros - I doubt you'd get an M8 with WATE for double that amount). Kidding aside, can you add some technical background to your church shot (which, btw, really IS nice)? Any post processing? Mine is a jpeg straight off the camera, no p/p of any kind (except of course downscaling to meet the forum's size requirements). Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 28, 2007 Share #6 Â Posted March 28, 2007 No WATE, just the "el cheapo" Elmar-M 2.8/50, DNG converted in C1LE only resized and sharpened for web in PSE5. Nothing else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dist Posted March 28, 2007 Share #7 Â Posted March 28, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) OK, my WATE remark referred to comparing apples with apples regarding your cost comparison. The Oly 11-22 is 22-44 35mm equivalent, so in order to get a comparable fov on the M8 you'd need the WATE. Regarding technical info I was thinking exposure time and stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 28, 2007 Share #8 Â Posted March 28, 2007 OK, my WATE remark referred to comparing apples with apples regarding your cost comparison. The Oly 11-22 is 22-44 35mm equivalent, so in order to get a comparable fov on the M8 you'd need the WATE.Regarding technical info I was thinking exposure time and stuff. Â The comparable lens would be the ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 7-14mm 1:4.0 with a price tag of over 2000 Euro.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted March 28, 2007 Share #9 Â Posted March 28, 2007 i find that hard to believe jaap, how wide is the WATE ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 28, 2007 Share #10 Â Posted March 28, 2007 The WATE is 20-28 equivalent, the Olympus 14-28. The top range of Olympus for 4/3 is certainly not cheap, and very high quality, and heavy: the longest zoom weighs in at a whopping 3.7 kg's and costs 6700 Euro.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted March 28, 2007 Share #11 Â Posted March 28, 2007 yes the 7-14/4 really has no equal, the 6mm difference is rather a lot of difference to WATE and all ED glass is sealed and this lens is rectilinear to boot. The DoF is 10cm to the stars at the wide end, and still represents a traditional wide at 28mm if a tad slow at F4. And yes, they make you pay for it big time. Â I think the 11-22/2.8-3.5 (22-44 EFL) is a lot closer to WATE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 28, 2007 Share #12 Â Posted March 28, 2007 But not in quality,which is fair, considering the price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted March 28, 2007 Share #13  Posted March 28, 2007 yes thats true the 11-22 isnt pro quality BTW but does a decent job, sharp and distortion free unless you really provoke it  here's a two wheel almost jaguar/velocette via 11-22 of course:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_woods Posted March 28, 2007 Share #14  Posted March 28, 2007 Jaap,  My first post here, having been lurking for a month or so following a recent D-Lux 3 purchase. I also use an E-1 and associated Olympus Zuiko glass. Dreaming, of course, of an M8 and the amazing quality of your image prompted me to post. The shadow quality is simply superb. I can only imagine what the full size image must look like. Whilst I will not be able to afford an M8, images like this will always keep the dream alive. Thanks for posting.  Best wishes  Mike  Indeed the D3 is a great camera, and I am seriously considering one to add to my stable for quick and easy tele work. But the difference to M8 is not so much sharpness, as the handling of shadows, contrast etc. Compare this church shot: cleaner and richer, as it should be as the combo costs double. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 28, 2007 Share #15  Posted March 28, 2007 yes thats truethe 11-22 isnt pro quality BTW but does a decent job, sharp and distortion free unless you really provoke it  here's a two wheel almost jaguar/velocette via 11-22 of course:) Nobody said it was not a very good camera/lens, and your picture proves it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 28, 2007 Share #16  Posted March 28, 2007 Jaap, My first post here, having been lurking for a month or so following a recent D-Lux 3 purchase. I also use an E-1 and associated Olympus Zuiko glass. Dreaming, of course, of an M8 and the amazing quality of your image prompted me to post. The shadow quality is simply superb. I can only imagine what the full size image must look like. Whilst I will not be able to afford an M8, images like this will always keep the dream alive. Thanks for posting.  Best wishes  Mike  Hi Mike, welcome to the forum! My wife is from Bristol, or rather Almondsbury. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 28, 2007 Share #17 Â Posted March 28, 2007 OK, my WATE remark referred to comparing apples with apples regarding your cost comparison. The Oly 11-22 is 22-44 35mm equivalent, so in order to get a comparable fov on the M8 you'd need the WATE.Regarding technical info I was thinking exposure time and stuff. Â You won't believe it, but it is true: ISO 160, f 4.0 1/750th Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.