orla Posted November 9, 2013 Share #1 Posted November 9, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, it feels like time to turn to the M-community for some advice, once again. My minds are now about selling my M9 for an upgrade to an M. OR would it be a better choice to keep the M9 and use the money to buy an Nikon Df? My arguments for the latter is that I am an old Nikon fan - still use my film F2 from the seventies, and have a set of classic lenses. And that the M9 feels iconic and will continue to deliver those fantastic photos, whatever technology steps will be taken years ahead. The Df in turn, gives another and completing photo experience, I think. BUT the M-track is also very tempting! So please, your arguments for each choice will be very appreciated! /Ö Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 9, 2013 Posted November 9, 2013 Hi orla, Take a look here An M - or keep the M9 and buy a Nikon Df?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted November 9, 2013 Share #2 Posted November 9, 2013 You can use your vintage Nikon lenses on the M. It should give an exceedingly nice result. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyalf Posted November 9, 2013 Share #3 Posted November 9, 2013 Pro for bying a Df: Its a DSLR Con for bying a Df: Its a DSLR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 9, 2013 Share #4 Posted November 9, 2013 Nothing beats a good DSLR for SLR lenses in my opinion but you have a Nikon body already i guess so why do you think the DF will make better pics? I would think twice if you have manual Nikkors as the DF cannot fit split image or microprism focus screens AFAIK. Otherwise the M240 is the best rangefinder ever made compared to all 0.72x and 0.68x Leicas but it is not mature enough to be used intensively in LV/EVF mode IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannybuoy Posted November 9, 2013 Share #5 Posted November 9, 2013 Apparently Nikon shares have taken a hit due to poor Df preorders. You make your mind up why. I'd say it's not pure photography at all. But pure marketing guff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted November 9, 2013 Share #6 Posted November 9, 2013 The whole industry is pretty much all marketing guff. Why not just keep the M9 and enjoy that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendanD Posted November 9, 2013 Share #7 Posted November 9, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) why not wait and see how the Df performs and handles? A digital body for the MF Nikkors would be tempting I can see, but no harm it waiting on the M to check the Df out properly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGodParticle/Hari Posted November 10, 2013 Share #8 Posted November 10, 2013 Well, it feels like time to turn to the M-community for some advice, once again. My minds are now about selling my M9 for an upgrade to an M. OR would it be a better choice to keep the M9 and use the money to buy an Nikon Df? My arguments for the latter is that I am an old Nikon fan - still use my film F2 from the seventies, and have a set of classic lenses. And that the M9 feels iconic and will continue to deliver those fantastic photos, whatever technology steps will be taken years ahead. The Df in turn, gives another and completing photo experience, I think. BUT the M-track is also very tempting! So please, your arguments for each choice will be very appreciated! /Ö Try the a7/a7r when it starts shipping and see if it fulfills your needs and wants? It will take your Leica lenses as well as your Nikon lenses. Good companion / backup to your M9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted November 10, 2013 Share #9 Posted November 10, 2013 The M9 is beautifully simple, unless the M is used just as an M9 it adds complexity, the Nikon Df is trying to be all things to all people and I would try it first before committing... it's digital side may just get in the way of it's analog side and vice versa. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggriswold Posted November 10, 2013 Share #10 Posted November 10, 2013 Some of the old ai vintage Nikon lenses don't perform well in the digital realm. Unpredictable to say.... I have a 35mm f2 that was great with film and is not good with digital, others shine. I would try to shoot some tests with any full frame Nikon first. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 10, 2013 Share #11 Posted November 10, 2013 The DF is not the first Nikon dSLR to fit vintage Nikkor lenses by far but it can do auto-diaphragm at least contrary to mirrorless cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamriman Posted November 10, 2013 Share #12 Posted November 10, 2013 Now what you really want to do is sell the M9, get an M and still buy the Df. I mean it's perfect you have all those Nikon lenses as an excuse to get one. Atleast that's the way I think. :^) I sold my beautiful M9-P in favor of the M. I just got off Lightroom tweaking its pics for the first time. It's just an awesome camera despite all it's shortcomings. I have no regrets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sisoje Posted November 10, 2013 Share #13 Posted November 10, 2013 Stay still! Don't do anything! Maybe Canon will announce something even "better"? This is another one of those posts.... Yaaaaaaawn... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted November 10, 2013 Share #14 Posted November 10, 2013 Spend the money on a trip and go shoot pictures with the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest malland Posted November 10, 2013 Share #15 Posted November 10, 2013 Well, it feels like time to turn to the M-community for some advice, once again. My minds are now about selling my M9 for an upgrade to an M. OR would it be a better choice to keep the M9 and use the money to buy an Nikon Df?...orla, it seems to me that when you don't need to do anything the best thing is not to fall victim to advertising and consumerism. The situation would be different if, for example, you were going on an African safari and need a camera with long telephoto lenses. However, you haven't indicated that you're burning to take some type of pictures that you cannot achieve with the M9. Therefore, if I were you, I would simply continue shooting with the M9. My own view is that the M9 has a unique color rendition and quality that is not equalled by the M240, so that I don't view buying the latter camera as "an upgrade," as you put it. Granted that the M240 has "better" image quality at high-ISO. However, there are two threads on LUF that describe a technique for the M9 of "Shooting at ISO640 and pushing in LR4/LR5" that, considering the M9 color rendition, in my view is also better than that of the M240. In summary, I agree entirely with the "... Yaaaaaaawn..." reaction of post #13. —Mitch/Bangkok Tristes Tropiques [WIP] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
orla Posted November 10, 2013 Author Share #16 Posted November 10, 2013 ..thanks a lot for all your comments! As a few of you have said: I will take it easy and wait and see what kind of qualities the Df really have. But sharing technology with the D4 and with a quite attracting price tag it shouldn´t be to bad, I guess? And it was also interesting to hear that some of the old Nikon lenses don't perform well with digital tech. /Ö Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzX Posted November 10, 2013 Share #17 Posted November 10, 2013 If you are satisfied with the M 9 keep it,The M is excellent, but in terms of quality of pictures up to IS0 1000 I see no difference.(I had a M 9 and now a M), For higher ISOs the M ist better and it is much better for people with problems with the eyes and those who need very exact field of view and of picture i.e. for architecture etc. or want to make real macros with it (with an adapted Leica R macro lens). And by the way it is more silent than th M 9, which might be a point for some. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted November 10, 2013 Share #18 Posted November 10, 2013 Many old Nikkors do not work as well on digital as on film . The corners go bad with the wides, soft and vignette. Example 18, 24, 20. I have tried a boatload and they are all the same. There is a reason why nikon replaced them. Teles have CA issues which are software correctable. 28 2.8 with CRC is a gem. 35 2.8 AiS works well. 50 1.8 Ais is good Focus is poor without a split image or high contrast screen. You just can not concentrate on the subject while watching a green dot in the corner. I have no issues with the camera if modern G lenses are used other than it is expensive and has no advantage over say a D800 except to use old lenses , a feature I consider of marginal value , The M9 does wonderful pics, and the lenses are better. Df will be an orphan bust you can not sell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gilgamesh Posted November 10, 2013 Share #19 Posted November 10, 2013 Being a 16MP file size, the old lenses won't be too much of an issue. Or will they? I suspect that they'll be quite soft by today G standard. What are your criteria? An F and a M experience are not the same. I have both, and have a loathe / love relationship with my dysfunctional M240. The D800 never misses and beat. Far superior manufacturing & quality control, upper management, customer servicing. Just image: the sh@£$ storm over the M240 (shall I mention the S2 and the joke M8?) directed at a Nikon or Canon product? No, nor I. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted November 10, 2013 Share #20 Posted November 10, 2013 The "joke M8" was and still is a fantastic camera. The IR issue was a big deal, but Leica handled that one well selling me a Noctilux for $2,700. It seems though that the M240 has more IR pollution issues than the M9 again from some examples out there. I look at the M9 as a second generation product. I wish they had refined it more with the M9P (better frame lines, quieter shutter, better LCD.) This would definitely be doable. The M240 is a first generation product as far as the CMOS sensor goes. I really think that the old upgrade program was a great idea, and I wish Leica had kept it. Any generational upgrade would still cost as much as a new Sony camera, but I'm fine with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.