Jump to content

An M - or keep the M9 and buy a Nikon Df?


orla

Recommended Posts

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

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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

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

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

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

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

Guest malland
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

..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

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

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

Guest Gilgamesh

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

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...