Second camera - Nikon D810 or Canon Mark3?

[ECohen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm going to have to disagree with you about that. I've shot four different brands of cameras in the past 2.5 years. Almost exclusively, RAW and a considerable amount of the time calibrated against a color checker passport. There is a little bit of magic there which creates the "Leica Look". I've been trying to figure out what it is since I got the T, my first Leica. Is it just post processing or is it something a bit deeper? 

• I'm going to start out by agreeing that a notable portion of the effect is in the lenses. Whatever parameters either reported like MTF or unspecified like the way that coatings affect microcontrast, that is part of the look.
• Another portion of the look is the camera and how it operates and how that inclines a photographer toward a particular style. For example, I ran into a friend on the Death Valley dunes a couple of days ago. I had my M and he had a Nikon with a big telezoom. My shots were kind of street style people interacting with the dunes. Several of his shots really had a "through the lens" look they were tiny excerpts of this vast panorama. I wouldn't have seen the shot he took because the only way to see the world that way is by looking through what amounts to a telescope.
• A camera also interacts with its environment in a particular way and that shows up in the images it creates. Taking it to a hyperbolic extreme, you have very little street shooting done with view cameras. Being able to take a camera some where and interact with the environment successfully is part of the process of getting the shot. A more subtle effect might show up in how often the people in the image show signs of interacting with the camera. Overall that is probably part of the Leica look.
• There is also the bias that we as photographers bring to our photography. We Leica shooters are probably a bit more educated on photo lit than average shooters and to some extent or another we are probably all aspiring to make our stuff look like whatever masters we respect and since a notable number of those people used Leicas and how it operates affects photography that bias is reinforcing. This also includes the idea of humanistic photography that runs deeply in the Leica branch of photography.

Even subtracting those probably bigger things I believe that there is a little bit of Leica Look left beyond those elements. My current thinking as it relates to digital cameras is that the Leica look also includes:

• Precision design and accuracy. I also have an Olympus camera and I once met a guy who had made a tool with carefully designed flashing LEDs which allowed you to see how your camera operated. The Olympus was interesting, it wasn't always smack on with shutter speed. It kind of wobbled around a bit and after taking dozens of shots we started seeing that there was a little bit of bias. It would systematically stretch or shrink the shutter speed a bit but not so much that it would be to the next number. For example in low light 1/250s might really be 1/200s and in bright light it might be 1/280s. The guy who made the tool said that he'd seen this before but never quite so strongly. We also expected that they were doing the same thing with ISO and he'd observed that with a different tool. The Leica was pretty darn precise and accurate.
• In the quest for numbers to be put in marketing materials, I think that the engineers working on most other brands push their underlying technology pretty hard. Leica doesn't seem to do that. They tend to be more conservative. This isn't just how high can we push the ISO. It is much more subtle things like given that a chip can be operated within this range for some parameter, you'll lose linearity if you're at the extremes. I can''t put my finger on why I feel this but I have worked along with electrical engineers for years and there is feeling that you get when working with electronics operating in their optimal zone vs in their full range. It is the sound difference between an audiophile's stereo and a cheap stereo. The Leica seems to have that that "we only operate our amplifiers (and other electronics) in their linear range" feel. Maybe summing it up as "conservative electronic design".
• I don't know how they do this when we are working with RAW files but every camera brand seems to have some thin layer of characteristic filtering for noise. It is probably built into the electronics and the code that reads and interprets the data from the sensor before writing it into the RAW file. The sensor noise patterning from the Leica is different and more "film like" than any other brand that I have experience with.
• The optical response of the Bayer filtering and other sensor filters also seem to be a factor. We all know about the IR sensitivity problems with the M8. The actual color in the Bayer filters have slightly different band passes. I'm pretty sure that this contributes to the varying looks between cameras. Some of this can be removed by careful color calibration but I'm not sure all of it is and I haven't figured out why or how that is yet. Yes most of this can be changed in post but there is definitely a characteristic to the defaults that give us photographers a base from which we begin our post processing. My current best guess is that there are some implicit inferences being made when trying to detangle information jumbled together by the sensor filters and the broadly sensitive sensor. Could these variations be hiding in the space between the color reference card's patches?

I have two other ideas but I am not sure that they actually apply to the Leica: representational gamut and dynamic range. I don't think that Leica does anything special here.

 

 

Ok I see your point and do agree with you...heck its why I shoot with Leica.

 

But you could also say there is a Nikon Look or a Sigma Look  a Hasselblad/ Imacon Look, etc etc ...couldn't you? ......all cameras have their own distinct look? 

I too happened to love the Leica look. And I do agree with all your statements. But your statements put a lot of the "Look" on the photographer and so do I. 

 

In the hands of someone who just wants a camera ...say the average cell phone camera user.........is there a Leica look in his hands? .....I don't think so....but I could be wrong

Edited March 25, 2016 by ECohen

[LocalHero1953]

Not only. I have tried SL for maybe 3-4 hours, not enough time for sure, but:

1. Lack of  AF lenses 

2. EVF - yes, it's way better than EVF2 and Lecia Q EVF, but still I feel the "movie style picture there"

3. Bulky, it's like a brick in my hands - maybe I need more time to find right grip 

4. It's priced like Nikon D5 or Canon DX Mark2, no? 

1. Agreed

2. Personal preference, so I can't argue.

3. Heavier than a Nikon D810 or Canon 5diii? But it does have sharper edges and a less "organic" shape.

4. This from somebody who already has a M240 and M9 ?  No Leica makes sense from a financial POV.

[Advertisement]

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

[EdwardM]

Right, I understand that price argument doesn't work when we are talking about Leica. But, what I'm trying to avoid is to Canibilize further Leica purchases by DSLR purchase.

We all waiting for new M this year, so, if I buy SL and 24/90 then if I even start to talk about new M, my wife most probably will call 911...

[bencoyote]

In the hands of someone who just wants a camera ...say the average cell phone camera user.........is there a Leica look in his hands? .....I don't think so....but I could be wrong

 

I understand what you are saying and by and large I generally agree that we photographers create the Leica look. However, this is a very small point of minor disagreement but I would say that in the hands of the average cell phone camera user there is a certain degree of "Leica Look", I would say "yes". I think that it takes an expert with a lot of post processing skill to completely wipe away whatever artifacts of the camera brand and model exist in the resulting images. A novice on the other hand would be more inclined to the defaults right up through the post processing stage carrying through more of the camera designer's intent into the final result.

 

I would say that it is somewhat arguable but I assert that the more cameras are targeted at the everyman vs. the expert the more artistic choices are embedded in the camera and the firmware rather than being artistic choices intentionally made by the photographer. My iphone camera app automatically picks focus point, exposure settings, whether to HDR, flash, sharpening, vibrance... My M basically says, "you might want to consider exposing more/less, and I think the color of white is about here." Then when I bring it into LR it does practically nothing just adds a tiny bit of sharpening 25 IIRC and provides a default color profile. Everything else is left up to you, the photographer.

 

In reality, I can't just hand anyone my Leica M and have them take a picture that will turn out and have that Leica look. They start trying to turn the aperture to zoom in or something and hand me some totally out of focus mess. The Leica T on the other hand, I can put it on P mode and sometimes people will get a decent shot that has that look.

[tobey bilek]

800 series Nikon is top notch.   Not leica colors, but nice.   Mount Leica R lenses and it gets better, but not the same.   The advantage of DSLR is you can adjust output.  Nikon Picture control offers advantages and you can make custom ones.   Canon has various nice color modes.

[LocalHero1953]

We all waiting for new M this year, so, if I buy SL and 24/90 then if I even start to talk about new M, my wife most probably will call 911...

Sounds like a bargain - let her have the Porsche 911, while you have the SL and new M 

[ECohen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear friends, My main gear is M240 and M9. Both for joy. I'm thinking about FF DSLR. 

What woud be your recommendation based on my prefeference for Leica Look. I know that no Nikon nor Canon will never substitute the Leica, but which camera ( actually colors and lens rendering) could be close to Lecia Look. 

So, I can't decide between Nikon D810 and Canon Mark3. 

 

P.S. One of the most reputable Leica ambassador and great photographer already did his recommendation. I will tell what he said after your comments! 

P.P.S. Sorry of the this topic placed in wrong place in the forum. 

Regards, Ed 

 

 

 

So Ed, what did your ...."most reputable Leica ambassador and great photographer" recommend?

Did we all guess correctly  ?

Edited March 27, 2016 by ECohen

[EdwardM]

So Ed, what did your ...."most reputable Leica ambassador and great photographer" recommend?

Did we all guess correctly  ?

His Answers was - Leica M240:) seriously, between these two cameras (Canon MarkIII and Nikon D810) he had adviced NIKON D810

[Jeff S]

FWIW, the Canon Mark IV should be right around the corner.  Each person has his/her own feelings about Canon vs Nikon...  I've used both in the film world.  In the digital world, given my needs and preferences, Canon suits best.   But that's a personal thing.

 

I'm currently considering the 5DSR (rumors are that it will be updated after Mark IV release) for larger landscape prints to supplement work I more typically do with the M.  I considered the SL, but still prefer an optical VF (although the EVF has some advantages)....and the price difference, with lenses, would be 3x more than a similar Canon outfit (camera and 3 L zoom AF lenses ranging from 16mm-300mm....roughly $8k for Canon vs $25k for Leica....assuming there is a wide angle SL zoom on the way). 

 

These and many other cameras are fully capable of great pics, depending on the user.  A lot comes down to personal style, needs and preferences.  Always tradeoffs.

 

Jeff

[EdwardM]

Bought D810 + 24-70 2.8 VR yesterday. Spend with camera 24 hours and just returned it thank to great Nikon customer service in Russia.

1. While camera body is very ergonomically well build, I feel unconvincing pain in right hand with its heavy 24-70 zoom. In terms of weight balance between camera and lens there is huge difference and lack of balance.

2. Menu is ubelivevable - most uncomfortable menu I have ever seen. Millions of pages and lack of fast access to needed features.

3. 36 mp is great for landscapes and studio work with tripod but not for street and travel photography.

4. 24-70 2.8 VR lens is bigger, heavier and less sharp compared to Canon 24-70 version 2. The lens hood is too big.

5. RAW files - 60-70 mb each

 

Maybe I will change my mind later, but currently I'm happy with my Leica M and M lenses.

Thank you my friends for your input.

[ECohen]

Bought D810 + 24-70 2.8 VR yesterday. Spend with camera 24 hours and just returned it thank to great Nikon customer service in Russia.

1. While camera body is very ergonomically well build, I feel unconvincing pain in right hand with its heavy 24-70 zoom. In terms of weight balance between camera and lens there is huge difference and lack of balance.

2. Menu is ubelivevable - most uncomfortable menu I have ever seen. Millions of pages and lack of fast access to needed features.

3. 36 mp is great for landscapes and studio work with tripod but not for street and travel photography.

4. 24-70 2.8 VR lens is bigger, heavier and less sharp compared to Canon 24-70 version 2. The lens hood is too big.

5. RAW files - 60-70 mb each

 

Maybe I will change my mind later, but currently I'm happy with my Leica M and M lenses.

Thank you my friends for your input.

 

 

 

I own a Nikon 610 .....24~70 and 70~ 200 and a flash...and bunch of other lenses 

I only use this kit when I must have: auto focus, long zoom or fill in flash 

 

I HATE  THIS CAMERA!!! Its heavy, has a crapy menu  and is generally no fun to use or carry

 

I think long and hard as to how I can make the M work for what I want to shoot, before choosing Nikon.... I use the Leica for almost everything

......you made the right choice.  You wont find a better compromise when it comes to the joy of photography

 

 

The M its not great for everything...live with it .......and enjoy taking pictures 

[EdwardM]

Worth to mention that second edition of 24-70 with VR is much bigger and heavier than first one.

I don't understand why Nukon put there VR given its 2.8.

I feel now much happier when my 5.2k USD just refunded in my card:)

[Jeff S]

The Canon 24-70 f2.8 L (version 2) is almost a couple of inches shorter and about a half pound lighter (and one of their best lenses).....and the camera menu/ergonomics are one of key reasons I prefer it to the competition.    

 

No question, though, that neither is M-like (but certainly more SL-like) .  I trust this wasn't big news.

 

Jeff

Edited March 29, 2016 by Jeff S

[Weltraumpräsident]

Worth to mention that second edition of 24-70 with VR is much bigger and heavier than first one.

I don't understand why Nukon put there VR given its 2.8.

 

Clearly because of the high pixelcount. Without and without using a tripod you will struggle to all the pixels with clean information while still following the 1/mm rule.

[ECohen]

Clearly because of the high pixelcount. Without and without using a tripod you will struggle to all the pixels with clean information while still following the 1/mm rule.

 

 

Whats the 1mm rule........please?

[Luke_Miller]

I believe 1/mm refers to the "rule of thumb" that for handholding the minimum shutter speed should be the reciprocal of the focal length.  For example - for a 50mm lens shutter would be set to 1/50-60 sec.  This rule does not account for the use of stabilized lenses or very high resolution bodies where a higher shutter speed may be needed for crisp images. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by Luke_Miller

[Luke_Miller]

Bought D810 + 24-70 2.8 VR yesterday. Spend with camera 24 hours and just returned it thank to great Nikon customer service in Russia.

1. While camera body is very ergonomically well build, I feel unconvincing pain in right hand with its heavy 24-70 zoom. In terms of weight balance between camera and lens there is huge difference and lack of balance.

2. Menu is ubelivevable - most uncomfortable menu I have ever seen. Millions of pages and lack of fast access to needed features.

3. 36 mp is great for landscapes and studio work with tripod but not for street and travel photography.

4. 24-70 2.8 VR lens is bigger, heavier and less sharp compared to Canon 24-70 version 2. The lens hood is too big.

5. RAW files - 60-70 mb each

 

A D810 and D4 with the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 lenses are my work cameras.  By work I mean shooting for clients and also that it feels like work lugging them around.  Superb results, but not a lot of fun.  When I shoot for me (fun) it is my M240 and Monochrom plus occassionally a Df with a small manual focus prime.

[Paul J]

Leica look is more from the lenses. Take a look at Leica R lenses on Canon.

[tomlianza]

Hi to all, 

 

I have owned leica and Nikon for over 40 years.  When I sent my M9 and a few lenses in for cleaning and adding the digital codes, I bought a fuji x-pro1 with the leica adapter as a secondary body.  My Nikon 800e is a wonderful camera and while it is heavy an interesting thing happened.  The high ISO performance was outstanding, so I sold all the heavy glass and moved to the F/4 series of lenses (except for the 14-24 zoom which is a great lens) .  The newer 24-120 zoom (constant f4) is a great lens as is the 70-200? f4.  If you need a DSLR I would recommend Nikon.  I tried the Fuji x-t1, bought a number of lenses and ended up selling it all.  It was definitely not a traditional DSLR, but it was small and light weight, but in my opinion it did not measure up to the Nikon in any area.  I sold the fuji and bought an M260.  The M feels heavier than the D800e, and I am getting used to it.  I have some leica R APO lenses fitted in Nikon mount and they work beautifully.  They also work well on the Fuji Xpro1 body by the way.  I agree with others that Nikon suffers from "menu-itess" but I just set a few fixed profiles and it works out well.  On the last trip to Death Valley, I took the Fuji, and on an earlier trip I took the M260.  Looking back at the images, I really don't see significant differences at low magnifications.  I am sure that if I really pixel peeked, there would be some issues, but as someone with a degree in Photographic Science, I really just want to take the images, not analyze them..... The Nikon really shines with flash photography and high speed adaptive focus.  If that's what you need, beyond the great low light performance and very high pixel count, then buy one.  But realistically, the M is a great tool.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tobey bilek]

810 is a wonderful camera for bright to medium light.   Putting Leica lenses on does not get the Leica look,  better but not the same.  Use a D750 for low light or D5.

 

Even if you profile the cameras, they do not look the same.  

 

Modern Leica lenses have a quick transition from in to out of focus.   Nikons are much longer.  Karbe likes that look for the 3D pop.  

 

Nikon has curved diaphragm blades on G lenses for better bokeh stopped down.  No difference wide open.