Jump to content

M8 D200 shift


aj55

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is interesting. A crop at 150% made with a Nikon 28mm shift.

With the M8 and D200 both at iso 160. The difference is huge IMO.

 

M8:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

D200

 

 

No panorama's made yet!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

x
You are on a hiding to nothing here. The M8 cost is closer to a Nikon D3, so let's see a comparison using that.

I feel it is a bit of a pointless exercise anyway.

 

Well I am on my way to use the shift for panos. I thought it funny it performs so well on my M8 (being a Nikon lens)!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am on my way to use the shift for panos. I thought it funny it performs so well on my M8 (being a Nikon lens)!

I own a D200 and I have never been happy with the images it produces. Nikon Pro lenses are OK, some better then others, but when you put a Nikon lens on a Leica M8 you will get a image that is better then most when using the same lens on a Nikon camera.

 

Nothing new here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in this.

 

They are both 10mp and used the same lens. Is that a difference between sensors, processing or both. Where did all that noise come from on the Nikon example? It cant be that bad surely at iso 160.

 

When half the M8s made seem to be going back to Solms once, twice or even three times it is good to know that the hassle could be worth it.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

D200 body is great. Very quiet shutter. However, the sensor is noisy and the noise reduction used in the camera is very heavy handed and cannot be fully disabled. Turns details to mush.

 

Would still be interested in seeing a full size image of the Nikon shift lens on the M8.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

When half the M8s made seem to be going back to Solms once, twice or even three times it is good to know that the hassle could be worth it.

 

Jeff

 

Hey Jeff - not half! How many have been sold? OK - too many have had problems, but it's not 50%... ;)

 

Best

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK not half - a figure of speech. I have two bodies and they have both been OK but the number of horror stories on this forum makes me think that it is just a matter of time before I suffer the same problems.

 

I wonder about the 'sale of goods' act here in the UK. Bearing in mind the cost of the camera surely even if it breaks down 6 months after purchase, you can insist on a replacement or money back.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things I like about the d200 (or Nikon digital in general) is how much more film like it looks compared to the Canons. I think we see some of that here. I'm wondering if these are form RAW, in-camera jeg, or what. It makes a difference how they were processed. Personally I would want something inbetween the two - the Leica file looks lifeless to me. But I prefer a bit of "tooth" so I rarely shoot at 160.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which RAW convertor is very important. I currently shoot a D2HS and bought a D200 to do a cookbook with. After the book is done the camera will be sold, or the D2HS and maybe both to make room for a D3 I am on the list for.

 

But, I can tell you from experience nothing converts a Nikon RAW (NEF) file as well as Nikon Capture or NX. It is much better than CS2 or LR. At hi-ISO there is no contest, NX wins hands down. And so it may be for the M8 as I read that C1 is the best with those.

 

We don't know what this D200 was processed with but my D200 images don't look like his that's for sure. My D2HS (4meg) file look better than this as would the Pentax K10D I just sold off.

 

I find Nikon files to be kinda "filmy" vs so smooth they look fake. The K10D also made a great file.

 

Neat idea though to use Nikon glass on an M.

 

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those images look to be processed quite differently in terms of exposure and contrast. Also it looks as if the lighting is different on each.

 

I am not sure if this is a very objective demonstration.

Can you provide links to the raw files or at least provide more information about your methodolgy?

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...