Any M8 users with Nikon D3 or d300 experience?

[terrycioni]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have all three.

 

As has been articulated by other posters here - they are completely different cameras and I for one celebrate the difference - viva la difference/differance.

 

No doubt the D3 is a hefty professional caliber camera meant for extreme conditions and heavy use, and has many useful features, accessories, and a very good pro flash system built-in.

 

The D3 is capable of amazing high ISO output, and it supports many excellent older manual focus Nikkor lenses, some of them legendary. An excellent DSLR. It comes with a 3" thick manual that is required reading.

 

The same can be said of the D300, although it is smaller than the D3 but then again it is not full frame. The D300 shutter noise is close when compared to the M8 and there is no question the D300 is better at high ISO, WB, and no IR filters are required (cheap shot, I admit it).

 

That all said, the M8 image captures have a magic (what the hell does that mean) all of there own, it is not just the glass (which in my opinion is a highly over rated discussion point), that so called magic is there when I use Zeiss and CV lenses. It is an easy camera to shoot with - keeping in mind it is a manual focus rangefinder.

 

There has always been room for both RF and SLR cameras in many peoples kit bag - Leica built some very good SLR bodies right along side of their M cameras. I don't believe it should be a matter of one or the other - both have their respective roles. I have many a good friend who shoot DSLR but keep an M8 or RD-1 handy for those situations where the DSLR will not do the job and vice versa.

 

It is just a little difficult to shoot an NFL game @ 6400 ISO continuously transmitting images back to a photo editor in the press box who is editing and sending them to the wire service with your trusty M8. With a D3 equipped with WT-4 and whatever favorite long focal length lens you might chose - this would be all about getting the best shots and not about much else.

 

I love the M8.

 

Best Regards and Happy New Year

[arthury]

I got my hands on my D3 a couple of weeks ago. As a D2X user, most of the look & feel of the D3 is pretty similar to the D2X, except the sensor performance and how images looked like when older lenses were mounted onto the D3. And, there're some down side in terms of AF.

 

Sensor performance has exceeded my expectations in terms of higher ISO images and AWB is better than the D2X even for night time shots.

 

I used to hate my Nikkor 35mm/2D and the 50mm/1.4D because they produced really soft images when shot wide open on my D2X. Some how, I think the pixel density and how the eXspeed processor crunched the data, images look a lot better than they are from the D2X and the F5 when I use my older lenses on the D3.

 

Backfocus issue:

The 45% tilted test revealed the lens focus is backfocus and further tests on the other lenses showed all my lenses to have some degree of backfocus. So, the AF-tuning was used to correct these problem but I am still surprised by this QC issue in their flagship product.

 

AF tests:

I recorded 10+ test sessions using my Nikkor 200mm/2VR and my dog as the subject to test the AF system. The main tests are designed to test the AF-C feature when the subject is approaching the camera directly. Most the time, my dog was just trotting (not even running) directly at me. I tried different AF configs (9pt, 21pt, 51pt and 3D). 9pt is the best but, still I am getting better results from the D2X with the same lens in the same scenario. I am still trying out other configs but so far, I am not impressed yet with a continuously moving subject and the D3's AF system.

For details, please read this thread:

Nikon Forum: Best performing D3 config for AF-C - photo.net

 

Cheers,

Arthur

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest leicawanabe]

Had two M8's Now I have my MP's and a D3 with the 14-24. Incredible glass is all I can say. I use to have the Zeiss 15 on the M8 and I can honestly say the nikon 14-24 is pretty damn close. Check these images out ... D3 and Zeiss 100 Macro - NikonCameraUser Makes me think the 90 on the M8 was just too much to deal with in terms of focusing. Looks like my next lens will be the Zeiss 100 ZF.

[tom0511]

I own all 3 of the cameras in question. It has been an expensive Fall!

 

Image Quality is similar between the 3 cameras.

 

The thing is, each camera has different purposes. I like to shoot Wildlife, and that requires a Zoom. There is nothing that beats the D3 with my Nikon 600mm AFS II for shooting birds, and eagles, and Bears.

 

On the other hand.... there is nothing that beats the Leica for people, street, travel and more.

 

The D300 does not compete with the two cameras mentioned, and I own it as we did a How To DVD on it, as we will for the D3.

 

You never really stated why you wanted to know?

 

DBK

 

I was interested because I was thinking to sell my d2x and d200 and replace them by either a d3 or d300.

I really like avialable light and also I do sometimes shoot in situations where AF would make sense.

I have to admit that over the last year I have used the M8 much more because out of the box I find it gives me more natural, "clear", film like images.

Now the d2x gives great resolution but when I need he AF I usually also need higher ISO and its not great colors and noise at higher iso.

The d200 is really a fine and compact combo with the 18-200 for example, but I find one can see the stronger AA filter, also I feel its somewhat less responsive than the d2x.

So I tend for the d300, still compact, I could use the dx lenses I own, high ISO should be better than the d200 and improved AFand maybe d2x-like resolution.

First I was close to order a D3. But I like outdoor sports (xc--ski, paragliding, hiking in the mountains) and I am a bit afraif of the size of the D3. On the other side my 85/1.4 and 28/1.4 would just wonderfully fit the d3. But then again for portrait prime images in this range I would probably still rather take the M8 and a 50 or 75.

So I am still undecided between the d300 and the d3 and also about the fact if people think the IQ they deliever can touch that of the M8.

Thanks a lot for all the feedback so far.

[neils]

I've had my D3 for 1 month. That's as long as anybody since they came out 1 month ago today. At this point I don't think anyone has it all figured out.

 

My M8 experience is limited to the week I had a rental unit, my M experience goes back. I've owned and shot M's for 28yrs.

 

No point in comparing size and weight and perception between a D3 and an M8. I will say that my Domke 803 satchel will hold a D3 body (lens off though) and 2-3 primes. Same for the M8 except the lens is mounted.

 

My digital Nikon experience started 2 yrs ago (Nikon film experience since '76) with a D70. Latest bodies have been a much loved D2HS and a recent D200 bought for shooting a cookbook. I thought I needed a larger file for the book as it was being written/designed and shot all at the same time. Bigger files came me more flexibility.

 

There seem to be many D200 owners here. Right off the bat I'd say though I haven't shot one that a D300 is an improved D200. Duh big news right? Better/different AF and better HI-ISO performance. Other changes but nothing as extreme as comparing a D3 to a D2X/S

 

A D3 is not a FF D2X. It really is different and the files don't look the same. A D3 is a D3. The new and maybe not always better AF will take some time to adjust. The old system just plain kicked butt as far as I'm concerned. How many people had AF trouble with the D2X in the first month? Read old forums. There were lots of complaints.

 

The look of a D3 is unlike the previous cameras. I would compare it more to a D2HS look than a D200 look. Files are smooth, large, very good DR, open shadows and maybe on first opening not what a D200/2X is expecting. Maybe at first glance disappointing? Alot depends on if you open a file in NX or ACR or whatever. In NX every camera setting appears on the opened RAW file. So comparing a D3 file in NX vs ACR is a complete waste of time till you tweek ACR to your liking. ACR defaults are pretty poor IMO. There is something about a D200 file opened in NX that has a "snap" I was looking for in the D3 file. It wasn't there, yet. It may never look the same and why should it. But it will look very very good.

 

You can't use USM like you did with the D200. You use much more. 250, .5, 0 looks great in CS3 and USM. More sharpening and very small radius seems to be the way to go. What I would do with the M8 files I have is about a 1/3 as much USM. A D3 file that needs more USM looks like an M8 file out of the camera w/o any USM.

 

Going from a D200 to a D300 you will see imrovements. From a D2 anything to a D3 you will say to yourself "oh boy have I got stuff to learn". There really is a different look. It is kind of like changing film formats. Things get smoother but loose an edge or acutance that a smaller format may have had and yet when you get into the files there is so much more there than you first thought.

 

As for results? Here's one example. I shot friends over dinner at Thanksgiving with the M8. Low light, tungston WB ISO 640 (some 1250) and mostly a 75 'lux. Almost the same crowd over Xmas with the D3 at ISO 3200.

 

The D3 crushed the M8 for keepers. Focus and sharpness were the reason. I could shoot absurdly clean AND detailed ISO 3200 images with the D3. D3 at 3200 beats an M8 at 640. The AF is better than me period despite decades with an M. When the M was sharp it was very very good. I just didn't nail it as often. The shots that are bad with the D3 aren't focus issues, the subject blinked or just looked bad. What is not an advantage to higher shutter speeds and a little more DOF to get a shot?

 

On the other hand M8 files are so nice, so clean. Like a veil has been lifted. The AA filter on the D3 is strong. Turn off all USM in NX and the image is softer than any other Nikon body I've had. USM can't make up for a strong AA filter. The AA filter may be part of the lost 'snap" to a D3 file that hasn't been treated well yet.

 

No point arguing Leica glass vs Nikon. I like primes for the most part. Nikon is behind in good primes. Can I focus a Zeiss well enough in low light? No clue. I can't stand those huge zooms. To everyday people a large lens means telephoto. There you are in tight with a 2.8 wide zoom, HUGE doomed front element and they are sure you are shooting them and only them. I'll take the slightly lower quality of a 35/2 or a 24/28 along with the 85 1.8. Small (D3 standards) kit that will do alot. For whatever reason these primes make a better image on the FF sensor than they did on a DX sensor.

 

In print? M8 prints look great and I sometimes add grain in AS to scuff them up a bit. D3? They look great and I sometimes add grain to scuff them up a bit. Difference here is I add grain sometime to a D3 shot from an ISO 3200 file.

 

If I had to guess I'd say 80% of the shots I've taken with the D3 have been at ISO 1600-6400. That is where I shoot. I think the M8 at low ISO is a closer look to MF film than the D3. I think you will always be able to tell an M8 shot from a D3 shot.

 

As all the others have said the cameras are extremely different. They are both great great cameras.

 

Last night we had some people over and I put up 2 easels with prints, B&W and color from the D3, M8. All the prints on the wall are from scanned TX and Epson 2200 output using the BO (black ink only) method. People respond to images and not all the stuff we respond to here.

 

I had $5k in December to buy another camera AND I had my wifes blessing. Next time all those stars align I'll get an M8.

 

Neil

[woodyspedden]

I was interested because I was thinking to sell my d2x and d200 and replace them by either a d3 or d300.

I really like avialable light and also I do sometimes shoot in situations where AF would make sense.

I have to admit that over the last year I have used the M8 much more because out of the box I find it gives me more natural, "clear", film like images.

Now the d2x gives great resolution but when I need he AF I usually also need higher ISO and its not great colors and noise at higher iso.

The d200 is really a fine and compact combo with the 18-200 for example, but I find one can see the stronger AA filter, also I feel its somewhat less responsive than the d2x.

So I tend for the d300, still compact, I could use the dx lenses I own, high ISO should be better than the d200 and improved AFand maybe d2x-like resolution.

First I was close to order a D3. But I like outdoor sports (xc--ski, paragliding, hiking in the mountains) and I am a bit afraif of the size of the D3. On the other side my 85/1.4 and 28/1.4 would just wonderfully fit the d3. But then again for portrait prime images in this range I would probably still rather take the M8 and a 50 or 75.

So I am still undecided between the d300 and the d3 and also about the fact if people think the IQ they deliever can touch that of the M8.

Thanks a lot for all the feedback so far.

 

Of course you can use the DX lenses on the D3 as well! It will automatically switch to the DX mode and gray mask the portion of the finder not being used. Pretty neat

 

woody

[delander †]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pleased you are enjoying your new Nikon D3 Neil, but having had my M8 for just over 9 months and hardly having used my excellent Canon 5D in that time I dont feel that I will be upgrading my DSLR any time soon.

 

Much rather spend that money on an M9 assuming it is just like the M8 with FF (or near), 15mp, 1 stop better in low light and improved DR, no AA of course and CCD sensor.

 

Jeff

[ptomsu]

I am sure that the AF issues of the D3 (and D300) are only something to care for limited time. It is either wrong operation by the user or maybe a FW update is required (as usual).

 

BTW, I am seeing similar problems with my new E-3. Well the manual is not as thick as the D3 one, but there are so many options and configurations, that it takes a while to get through all the possibilities and also to find out if not some settings harm other configurations :-)

 

Although I find their AF, which they claim is the fastest today, very good, it really sucks under available light. I owned a D2X for 2 years and never had any AF issues under low light. So maybe all these attempts for faster and more reliable AF end up somewhere in more complex SW and then al these vendors just need to start shipping their cameras before they (hopefully) can get things right.

 

I am anyway very pleased to hear all these good things about the D3, because I kept all my Nikkor glass and plan to step back into this system again, as soon as the children's diseases have been cured or if there is a higher resolution version of this camera coming - please note that I do NOT want by any means to start the pixel debate again in this thread, but:

 

I am pretty sure we will see a few more FF DSLRs during 2008, all in the range between 12 - 20 MP. Canon is expected to launch their 5D successor in the next weeks which is rumored to have around 16MP and Sony should bring their FF Alpha, which is rumored to have around 20MP. So I would assume Nikon to have to follow this train in order to keep their current momentum going.

[neils]

It isn't often I have $5K to spend on a camera with full knowlage and support of the spouse if you now what I mean;-) I feel that for me and what I do the D3 is at this time a better way to get what I need and use all my lenses from 20-300mm. I will get an M8, or M9 as I can't get around the wonderful size and feel of using an M.

 

Neil

[delander †]

It isn't often I have $5K to spend on a camera with full knowlage and support of the spouse if you now what I mean;-) I feel that for me and what I do the D3 is at this time a better way to get what I need and use all my lenses from 20-300mm. I will get an M8, or M9 as I can't get around the wonderful size and feel of using an M.

 

Neil

 

I fully understand that Neil, but I seem to have been infected by an M8 disease LOL. I have some big heavy telephotos to go with my 5D. They are huge bricks and I often cant be bothered with them. And I have lost interest in the type of photos they can produce. Nowadays I seem to be quite content to work more slowly, take less images, consider composition and lighting etc etc.

 

Jeff

[scott kirkpatrick]

I'm finding some real value in the E-3, for which I had their best mid-price lenses (11-22/2.8 and 50/2 macro, plus 50-200/2.8) already sitting waiting. But it complements the M8, it does not replace it. The E-3 has a rather light AA filter, but its 10 MP are not as crisp as the M8's with no AA filter. With the 50/2 it is a pretty handy combination for sports shooting and for bar shots with bokeh. While it feels like a miniature speed graphic, nothing subtle, firing away with it is fun. AF is great if you turn off most of the options and leave one bare center spot active, not the region around that spot and definitely not all the spots -- that sort of option you have to read the manual for. With the Olympus zooms, its a big camera like any other. Image quality is still a win for the Leica partly from the total absence of AA and partly because the best Leica lenses (not the CVs, and I don't have any Zeisses) are distinctly more flare-free in high backlight high detail tests. But unless you really groove on microdetail, I can't see that the difference ends up that significant.

 

So the net is that the most precise comparison, M8 with Summicron APO-ASPH 75/2.0 vs E-3 with ZD 50/2.0 is a win for the M8 on ultimate quality, but the E-3 wins on speed of shooting under fast changing conditions. For the 11-22 ZD, it will be tough to unseat the Elmarit 24/2.8, but for very tight quarters (family "event shooting") it may be more useful than the CV21/4.0 which I use on the M8. The E-3 with the 50-200 has no M8 equivalent for critter chasing and sports. And the perfectly nice 14-54 ZD zoom will stay in the basement with its E-1.

 

Some recent E-3 shots are in my pbase gallery under "E-3 samples" or near the bottom of other galleries.

 

scott

[ptomsu]

Scott,

 

I do agree with your findings on the E-3 and its quality. It is really very close to M8 and sometimes I would say even better. Anyway I would suggest you try the new 12-60, I love this lens. It is the best standard zoom I ever owned and it is pretty flare free as well.

 

2 shots from this noon to demonstrate its capabilities on the E-3. There was really bright light and the sun was very low. No flare. I am extremely pleased :-))

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!

[woodyspedden]

I would love to compare my D300 with a D3 but Nikon has spent all its money on marketing the D3 (I get a brochure in the mail almost every day) so there are no D3's to be had anywhere. If any one has a link to a dealer that actually has one for sale please give me a heads up.

Thanks

 

Woody Spedden

[rwfreund]

I would love to compare my D300 with a D3 but Nikon has spent all its money on marketing the D3 (I get a brochure in the mail almost every day) so there are no D3's to be had anywhere. If any one has a link to a dealer that actually has one for sale please give me a heads up.

Thanks

 

Woody Spedden

 

Hi Woody

Me too! I would love to develop a M8 alternative.

-bob

[Fotomiguel]

I started photography with a nikon F90 and I had some prime nikon lenses resting in a drawer. After buying the M8 and lerning how nice is a RF camera, I was a bit sceptical about buying a new nikon. Finally, I decided to buy the D 300 and use it for macro and telephotography, impossible with my M8. My way to photograph discard the D3. It's too big and too heavy and the crop factor of the D300 1,5x makes my telelenses much better, much cheaper and not so huge and heavy. I walk many miles when photographing and the weight is for me a very important factor. The high iso is not so important for me. With my M8, I use 98% of the shots 160 iso. So After a few days with my D300 I have some amateur conclusions:

-Quality of the files at low iso better with my M8, keeping in mind that my leica lenses are better than my nikon lenses.

-Macro capabilities of the D300 are really impressive.With the Liveview tripod mode you can crop the image 100% in the camera LCD and then focus. Here you have two examples. The second one es 1:1 plus sensor crop factor 1.5x

Zenfolio | Miguel Massanet Amer | Nature

Zenfolio | Miguel Massanet Amer | Nature

 

-Telelens with the D300 is really nice. My nikkor 180mm F2.8 becomes a 270mm F2.8. Very easy to handle and support. Camera and lens just 1700 gr and price 2400 Eu. Not bad just for amateur photography. One example hand held and extremly windy.

Zenfolio | Miguel Massanet Amer | Recent Pictures

 

-Dinamic Range much better in the M8 than the D300. I have not really test it, but this is my first impression.

-How nice is to work with a rangefinder camera. Now I'm used to it and I love it.

After just five days with my D300 I can just say that IQ is good enough but I prefer the M8 files and that every camera has a different purpose and I try to take the advantage of every camera and every situation.

Cheers.

[DonWeston]

I have both an M8 and D300. While you can compare these cameras for IQ, they really are for different things and it truly is like apples and oranges. I carry when the situation optimizes a particular usage each of them in turn. If sports, I shoot with a dslr, and fast primes, travel with family usually both, but if time is an issue, the dslr and 18-200. It is sometimes diffecult to change lenses on the fly with the M8. When circumstances permit, and changing lenses won't be an issue or if I just say I want to schlepp less weight, the M8wins. Many days I just carry the M8 and 40/1.4. That covers useage!

 

Image quality is on a par with each other but with a few caveats, either camera can be at its best or worst in a given situation. IF shooting interiors without flash in mixed lighting, the D300 wins, with flash either, but I get more keepers with the M8. I shoot everything but sports in RAW.

 

RE: Focusing issues with fast lenses. Does anyone really expect to have no misses with a f/1.4 or faster lens, on either camera system? I don't expect this nor do I acheive this with any system. It is a very hard task to AF a 75 of 85 mm f1.4 lens. Add in some minor subject movement or change in relative position and you have a losing situation. I do not care if it is a Canon, Nikon, Leica M or Olympus. I get more consistent results when I can MF with either system. I think any system that can acheive 50% success in this is realistic and acceptable. What fun would it be if it was foolproof! Even if the camera worked perfectly and AF was perfect, DOF at f1.4 is so small anyway on a DX or 1.3x or FF. Sometimes we expect too much, photography has never been better or easier. JMO, Don

[ptomsu]

@ Don

 

well, I never had any issues with perfect AF on my D2X and 1,4/85 under available light.

 

I am kind of not accepting that a newer AF system in the E-3 which Oly claims is more advanced, does not do a similar good job with a 1,4/25 Leica/Panasonic lens. It has to work with all lenses of all brands at all apertures, this is the claim of FT and the big advantage of FT. But I actually do not know yet whom to blame, Oly or PanaLeica or both :-((

 

If this continues to be bad, then I might go back to Nikon for a D3 with a cheap 1,4/50 AF -I am sure this will do a great job and give the same angle of view than the 25 on a FT camera. Plus it is available for 1/3 of the price as the Leica 25.

[DonWeston]

@PTOMSU - glad you had a good functioning D2X and 85mm. Here in lies a big issue of consistency and sample variation for both cameras and lenses. I guess one could argue that all cameras costing above a certain level, say $1000 should focus perfectly, but alas that is not the case today. I never recalled having any issues either say with my 25 yr old Hassy and lenses, but today things are definitely different esp with AF and dslrs. Not challenging you with your history, but I make large prints, 24x36, and I had plenty of issues with my D2X until I sold it. Many users who do not go that large may not have issues at all, if you shoot for newsprint or web for instance. I also went through 3 5Ds before I got one to focus worth a xxxx. You get the idea, and wide angles with that were generally disgraceful, as were 3 17-40L lenses. Everyone has a different level of acceptable. Generally where I need corner to corner sharpness, the M8 has given me more keepers by far then previous dslrs, but not totally unexpected. Now when I need other things, or when the image does not require that kind of sharpness or more speed, dlsr are useful. JMHO, Don

[ptomsu]

@ Don

 

this sounds like being the truth! But it is disappointing not to be able to ship Top DSLRs today without these issues.

 

I sold my D2X because of another problem, I did not like the RAW (NEF) quality I got out of the box and I tried all possible configurations of that beast, which are many :-) Finally when the D3 was announced I sold it to at least get some money back. And I thought to invest this in an E-3 and some glass as a kind of mid price solution compared to C or N prices of flagship models and then jump on either the R10 or the successor of the D3 (Nikon) with higher resolution. Sorry but C is a no go for me :-)

 

I would expect a FF DSLR to have between 18 - 22 MP, period.

If this is necessary I don`t know, but I want it - period.

Just to have some reserves for large prints - period.

 

This is the reason why I ended up with the E-3 and I am pretty happy in all aspects except with that misfunction of AF and the Leica 1,4/25 under available light. I am even as happy with that system, that I am wondering if I will ever buy a different DSLR system again, as I see the quality of FT already possible with the E-3 and there will be E-4 and E-5 ,.....

 

So maybe the solution is to just use the M8 and my Nocti or the 2/90 ASPH for low light photograhy :-) I have the feeling anyway that both systems (FT with E-3 and M8) do complement each other in a perfect way. Just want to find the limits of the equipment I am using and must admit I am a bit frustrated not being able to use the 1,4/25 for low light on the E-3 the way I wanted to use it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[DonWeston]

@Peter -

I guess we will just have to keep our M8s . I like to use it in conjunction with a dslr anyway. Use the right tool for the right job....old saying here in the states, but still very true. I am currently using a D300 as the dslr and have been pretty happy with that and issue free, thankfully. I consider myself lucky after all the xxxx with D2X and 5Ds. I will look again at the 5D replacement but won't jump as an early adoptee this time. Some of the images I got with the last 5D still show me the ability this camera had and are some of the best images I have ever made both aesthetically and technically.

I would love a ~20Mp camera in the $3k range. You could argue that you do not need that much info most of the time, but if nothing else it gives you more cropping options like I had with my old Hassy. In the end it makes for a easier and more enjoyable result. Planning on going to Portugal this spring and if no Canon update 5D2 is available yet, it will be both the D300/18-200VR and M8 kit. I think they should complement each other well.

Best of luck with your Olympus issue, I hate this part of the digital age, I often question why there are such issues, or why you can not have the best AF or metering system in a $1500+ body, as you could with film bodies. How much could these things cost ultimately, another $200, it would be a small difference in the end, but I guess it is not good business today and that is a whole other topic of discussion...have a good day with good light....Don