Any M8 users with Nikon D3 or d300 experience?

[teehas53]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'll skip the already-well-said explanations of the differences between RF and SLR workflow, weight, bulk, etc. and get back to back to Tom's original question about image quality comparisons.

 

With great glass, the D3 is outstanding! The D300 is not quite as good, but is very close behind. Nothing lacking from either camera in comparison to M8 files. Possibly some subjective differences in the drawing of various lenses, but nothing the cameras themselves are responsible for. Of course, to make any Leica comparison meaningful, you have to put the best lenses on the Nikons. "Kit" zooms will not cut it...

 

At ISO speeds above 400 (M8 "320") there is simply no comparison. The D3 is the new benchmark for high ISO performance. It even beats the Canon 5D (the previous champ) by a hair. This may seem unimportant to some people ("I don't need to shoot in low light... ") but having the capability of ISO 800 as a "standard" speed without quality compromises means higher shutter speeds across the board. That's almost always an advantage for any type of shooting situation.

 

My personal preference is the D3 with Zeiss ZF glass, in particular the 35/2, 50/2 Macro, 85/1.4 and 100/2 Macro. These are just outstanding performers in every measure! I do agree with the comments that the new Nikon zooms are extremely good too. Amazing, actually, at how far they have come in just a few years.

 

And I also have to agree with the previous statement that Nikon's menu-driven settings for older non-CPU lenses are exactly what Leica should be doing with the M8. I accept that there are more corrections applied by the M8 firmware, but that's really moot - those settings are already in the firmware, to be triggered by the coding sensors. The real point is, menu selectable settings for "legacy" glass is a good thing. Attention Solms: it CAN be done, and your customers want it and will use it!

 

T

[KM-25]

I have and use the M8, D3 and D300. Since image quality is much more to me than just what is contained on the sensor, I have to say that all three can be the same, then very different at the same time.

 

But to put it in terms of the sensor only, I have to put it this way. The M8 is sharper out of camera than the D3 or D300, but it is also more prone to strange artifacts and blobbing of fine details than either of the Nikons. At ISO 320 and lower, the M8 puts out such a wonderful press-ready file, it is hard to beat and is truly what defines this camera in terms of image quality. But above ISO 320, the D300 beats the pants off of it and the D3 is simply from another world.

 

I use the Carl Zeiss 35/2 ZF and 85 1.4 ZF on the D3 along with an old 28/2 AIS and 50 1.2 AIS and it is simply shocking what can be done with these combos in low light. If I want to really go nuts, I use a special high contrast setting in black and white only at ISO 10,000 and above for an incredible low light "T-Max 25,600" effect that knocks off at least a stop of apparent noise.

 

While none of these cameras are the same, they give me options and provide important backups even if not interchangeable in terms of glass.

 

The M8 is no low light champ, but the D3 ain't your momma's walk around either, so I choose accordingly.

 

And by the way Neil, that 14-24 is huge and the front element is rather exposed, but unless you are Chip Simmons, it is not for people photography. For example, I have and use the 17-35 for PJ or all-around wide work. But for exacting ultra-wide shots like aerials or tripod bound landscapes or interiors that optically leave *ANY* lens maker's lens in the dust, the 14-24 will not be beat, especially when paired with a sensor that will honestly push it's optical limits, like say, 30++ MP.

[Advertisement]

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

[KM-25]

It even beats the Canon 5D (the previous champ) by a hair.

T

 

I found in ACR / LR it beat it by around a stop. However in using NX ( as painfully bugged out and slow as it is ) it is more like two stops.

 

I actually did a low light advertising job at a restaurant with the D3 using the CZ 35/2, CZ 85/1.4 and 50 1.2 AIS @ 3,200. In some images that were genuinely low light when souped in NX, there was less noise than the 5D at ISO 800! In one shot, I was seeing the dust on spiderwebs on a lamp that was over 15 feet away with the 50mm at F/2, ISO 3200....truly insane new levels of available light photography.

 

I think as RAW processors emerge with better handling of D3 files, we are going to see that benchmark get better and better for at least the foreseeable future.

[DonWeston]

And I also have to agree with the previous statement that Nikon's menu-driven settings for older non-CPU lenses are exactly what Leica should be doing with the M8. I accept that there are more corrections applied by the M8 firmware, but that's really moot - those settings are already in the firmware, to be triggered by the coding sensors. The real point is, menu selectable settings for "legacy" glass is a good thing. Attention Solms: it CAN be done, and your customers want it and will use it!

 

T

 

Boy what a simple and great convenience that would be vs. the coding stuff.. but would Leica do that? and thus allow other non Leica lenses to be used so easily. I know the purists would say my ZM 21mm is not the same as the Leica but for most of us, it would be a workable cheap alternative.

[chris_livsey]

I The real point is, menu selectable settings for "legacy" glass is a good thing. Attention Solms: it CAN be done, and your customers want it and will use it!

 

T

 

Well I would. My 50 lux is 1968. They can't/won't code it. If I could select 50 lux manually - job done. If they don't trust us to use the menu properly why do they put selectable shutter speeds on that dial instead of just A ?

[neils]

KM-25

 

I had a 17-35 for about 6 months I used it on my D2HS. It is a very good lens. I had only great images from it. It was just the size that bothered me and the impression I felt that it bothered subjects which are most of the time people. In the end I sold it. I have no doubt the new zooms are great.

 

I'd like to try some Zeiss glass. Low light wide open focus on a D3 is possible and repeatably accurate with MF?

 

I'd really like some AFS fast primes and I don't care if they are 1.4 or not. I figure an F2 28/25/35 or some such would be smaller, cheaper, and easier to design a superb optic around. The hi iso is so good why not. Oh marketing would say it had to be 1.4 as well as the Canon competition. Even so it would be all we need.

 

Oh no this is turning into a Nikon thread. I shoot Leica, I shoot Leica. Really I do 36 shots at a time.

 

Neil

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... My 50 lux is 1968. They can't/won't code it. If I could select 50 lux manually - job done. ...

 

Chris--

Do you have image problems with the lens that you feel coding could help? Do you feel that the problems you have would be improved by specifying it so generally? That is, do you want various lines like "50/1.4 I," "50/1.4 II"? Or would you want a generic "50/1.4" instead? Would you find the menu overwhelming if it had a different line for each lens they've made? What if they gave you a generic "50/1.4" and it turned out not to be tuned exactly to your lens?

 

I'm not knocking your preference, but I wonder if you've thought through what the possibilities are. Yes, I know Nikon has done it, but they're not faced with the same problems as the M8 in this regard.

 

I don't understand the phrasing "can't/won't code it." You can see by looking why it can't be coded. Remember, the coding was originally not intended to compensate for IR effects. Does your 50/1.4 vignette so badly without coding that you feel it could be helped with a firmware entry? Or is the built-in default correction greater than you want, causing the images to be darker at center than at edges?

 

I've got the same lens and a 28/2.8 of about the same vintage that also can't be coded. So far, I don't have enough experience with the lenses to feel that coding would offer a big improvement.

 

Personally, I'm glad so many lenses can be used on the M8, coded or not.

 

--HC

[KM-25]

The 17-35 or any of the new zooms are not what I would use for candid people stuff if I were to want to use my Nikons for that. The 28mm 2.0 AIS is outstanding on the D3 and D300. It is a bit bigger than a 50 Lux. The 50 1.2 AIS on the D3 is really, really good. Of course the Carl Zeiss stuff is awesome, but is bigger in build. All of it is super easy to focus on the D3.

 

But I will still stick to my 28 Cron and 50 Lux for true candid work. I don't think it is the actual size of Leica that makes it less obvious, but the R/F aspect in which you are not hiding behind the VF as much. Many people have commented that my Leica rigs are "Old" or look like toys.....I like it that way..:-)

 

 

KM-25

 

I had a 17-35 for about 6 months I used it on my D2HS. It is a very good lens. I had only great images from it. It was just the size that bothered me and the impression I felt that it bothered subjects which are most of the time people. In the end I sold it. I have no doubt the new zooms are great.

 

I'd like to try some Zeiss glass. Low light wide open focus on a D3 is possible and repeatably accurate with MF?

 

I'd really like some AFS fast primes and I don't care if they are 1.4 or not. I figure an F2 28/25/35 or some such would be smaller, cheaper, and easier to design a superb optic around. The hi iso is so good why not. Oh marketing would say it had to be 1.4 as well as the Canon competition. Even so it would be all we need.

 

Oh no this is turning into a Nikon thread. I shoot Leica, I shoot Leica. Really I do 36 shots at a time.

 

Neil

[monza]

I just finished taking some shots at ISO 3200 with my D300 and I'm extremely impressed. It does indeed beat the pants off the M8 at high ISO.

 

 

50/1.4 AIS at f/4, 1/30s, ISO 3200, hand held.

 

Question: for those of you who have both D3 and D300, what do you think about the size of the D3?

[scjohn]

Three pages on this thread already but I had to comment. The D3 is amazing: faster, better white balance, sharp, easy, smart. Still, I took some "senior photos" of a 17 year old girl. I used the D3 with the Nikon 85 1.4 and the M8 with a 50 Nocti. I was amazed by the D3 but she picked the m8 shots hands down. The machines live in different worlds.. I am lucky to be able to travel between both.

[ptomsu]

Three pages on this thread already but I had to comment. The D3 is amazing: faster, better white balance, sharp, easy, smart. Still, I took some "senior photos" of a 17 year old girl. I used the D3 with the Nikon 85 1.4 and the M8 with a 50 Nocti. I was amazed by the D3 but she picked the m8 shots hands down. The machines live in different worlds.. I am lucky to be able to travel between both.

 

Well,

 

I think this is what happens. I also have this experience from the Nocti and I can compare to Nikon and Olympus. Nocti (if somehow done right) always will win in the final result. Not so perfect in detail, but awesome as a whole :-)))

[tom0511]

Can those who use the d3 and d300 comment a bit on the difference between those 2 cameras. Some say the d300 up to lets say 400 ISO is about the same IQ if not a little sharper, others say its a big difference. Some say its just 1 stop ISO advantage.

What do you experience??

 

And those who have used a d200 and now use a d300 - do you feel the AA-filter has become weaker or do you feel it is about the same??

 

I have just got a d300, it will replace my d200 and eventually my d2x as well.

I am not sure uf I might add a d3 one day. This depends on how good I get along with the d300. I was torn between the d3 and d300 but decided I would not get along with just the d3 but might get along wiwth just the d300 (of course I will keep my M8-stuff).

 

Reasons for me to go for d300 vs d3 first was

a) and most important size and also less obstusive if you shoot people; its not only the camera but also the lenses: the 12-24 is much smaller than the 14-24, 17-55 smaller than 24-70, 50/1.4 smaller than 85/1.4 (I know the 85 has nicer bokeh)

I also have some dx lenses which I can use plus my tele have more reach

c) I like the wider spread AF points of the d300

d) sensor cleaning is a nice to have

e) maybe not proffesional but I like the built in flash with is allways with you

 

From the first few d300 shots my feeling is that the files are nice but regarding sharpness and microdetail not on the same level as the M8 files.

However I want to make some orints and look and prints and not judge on 100%screen viewing.

 

Cheers, Tom

[marknorton]

I haven't done a detailed comparison in size because I was never in the market for a D300 but I have the feeling that if you like to use a grip for vertical shooting, there's little to choose between them.

 

As for the comparison between the 12-24 and 14-24, there's also the matter of the 14-24 being a whole stop faster; as we know from the Distagon/WATE comparison, that extra stop adds size and weight. It's also much wider: the 12-24 is, in FF terms, an 18-36 and I'd much rather use my 17-35 on the D3 than my 12-24 DX on, say, a D2X. It's a stop faster too.

 

Lots of people will rationalise their choice between one camera and the other and I certainly accept the M8 is probably ahead in image quality when noise and mis-focus don't get in the way. OTOH, if you like to shoot JPEGs - and I find PP a chore - the images straight out of the D3 are rather better than the M8s.

[chris_livsey]

Chris--

Do you have image problems with the lens that you feel coding could help?

 

--HC

 

I want the best quality out of my kit. If, and that is if because without coding to compare we can't say how different the result would be, my lens was coded I would hope to see better results. as Leica don't disclose exactly what they tweak in coding, other than vignetting, and I have not seen any lens test comparison I don't know, but the quest for perfection demands I try.

 

Chris--

 

I don't understand the phrasing "can't/won't code it."

 

--HC

 

OK want the long version ? Leica don't offer coding because they can't- maybe not at the generic price, maybe not enough perceived demand at a price they could do it at, maybe they haven't the skills left in house,eg noctilux production, remember though few problems can't be solved if you throw enough money at them BUT Leica isn't awash with that asset. They just plain won't go the extra mile to do it for economic reasons - probably. I can understand all that but then offer menu coding. Again without knowing how lens specific, down to changes in composition over the years making a difference, the firmware is it may have to be very specific or could be general.

 

Chris--

 

I've got the same lens and a 28/2.8 of about the same vintage that also can't be coded. So far, I don't have enough experience with the lenses to feel that coding would offer a big improvement.

 

Personally, I'm glad so many lenses can be used on the M8, coded or not.

 

--HC

 

I would refer you to this post :

(permalink)

 

Noctilux vignetting - Any Barton

 

 

Now your significant maybe different to mine and I know it's a different lens but that looks like an improvement by coding that I would want if I had a noctilux.

 

I absolutely agree about using legacy glass I wouldn't have bought the M8 without that. The question is can Leica help us to get the best out of that glass by offering software coding if they are not offering ,do you like that phrasing better ? , hardware coding ?

[tom0511]

I haven't done a detailed comparison in size because I was never in the market for a D300 but I have the feeling that if you like to use a grip for vertical shooting, there's little to choose between them.

 

As for the comparison between the 12-24 and 14-24, there's also the matter of the 14-24 being a whole stop faster; as we know from the Distagon/WATE comparison, that extra stop adds size and weight. It's also much wider: the 12-24 is, in FF terms, an 18-36 and I'd much rather use my 17-35 on the D3 than my 12-24 DX on, say, a D2X. It's a stop faster too.

 

Lots of people will rationalise their choice between one camera and the other and I certainly accept the M8 is probably ahead in image quality when noise and mis-focus don't get in the way. OTOH, if you like to shoot JPEGs - and I find PP a chore - the images straight out of the D3 are rather better than the M8s.

 

Mark,

for sure is the 14-24 a stop faster and also ff. I have no doubt that for low light the D3+14-24 has clear advantages compared to a d300+ 12-24.

Depends for what you need it and how you use it.

For example I like outdoor Sports and bringing my camera when doing such things like hiking, XC-skying, paragliding. There f4 is totally fine and a D3+14-24 would be too bulky and heavy.

Now if I was a photographer who visits an outdoors sports event and comes with his rangerover the d3+14-24 would certainly prefered-you could probably shoot the sportsguys in the dusk because you have 1 stop advantage from D3 and one from the lens.

Now if you switch to tele things change: The dx would give you a speed advantage since you could use a 200/2.0 instead of a 300/2.8 and get the same FOV.

Now I find fast lenses more important in the 35mm and up range-there I need it for subject isolation or to avoid blur from shake. Both is not so critical for wideangles.

 

I am still tempted by the D3 but for my needs just a D3 would not be enough-I need a smaller alternative. So I first got the smaller alternative and see if I might not get along just with it.

 

I hope to borrow a D3 from a friend when he gots it and make my own findings regarding the handling and IQ D300 vs D3.

For everything where I dont shoot moving subjects, and where I dont need tele or flash I personally am a happy M8 user. Its also the simplicity I really do like and after a lot of focus tests and get lenses serviced I finally seem to have a combo if M8s and lenses which work together pretty accurate.

 

Cheers, Tom

[woodyspedden]

Mark,

for sure is the 14-24 a stop faster and also ff. I have no doubt that for low light the D3+14-24 has clear advantages compared to a d300+ 12-24.

Depends for what you need it and how you use it.

For example I like outdoor Sports and bringing my camera when doing such things like hiking, XC-skying, paragliding. There f4 is totally fine and a D3+14-24 would be too bulky and heavy.

Now if I was a photographer who visits an outdoors sports event and comes with his rangerover the d3+14-24 would certainly prefered-you could probably shoot the sportsguys in the dusk because you have 1 stop advantage from D3 and one from the lens.

Now if you switch to tele things change: The dx would give you a speed advantage since you could use a 200/2.0 instead of a 300/2.8 and get the same FOV.

Now I find fast lenses more important in the 35mm and up range-there I need it for subject isolation or to avoid blur from shake. Both is not so critical for wideangles.

 

I am still tempted by the D3 but for my needs just a D3 would not be enough-I need a smaller alternative. So I first got the smaller alternative and see if I might not get along just with it.

 

I hope to borrow a D3 from a friend when he gots it and make my own findings regarding the handling and IQ D300 vs D3.

For everything where I dont shoot moving subjects, and where I dont need tele or flash I personally am a happy M8 user. Its also the simplicity I really do like and after a lot of focus tests and get lenses serviced I finally seem to have a combo if M8s and lenses which work together pretty accurate.

 

Cheers, Tom

 

tom

 

I own both the Sigma 12-24 (good for full frame) and the new 14-24 and aside from physical size would never prefer the Sigma. And this is one of Sigma's best lenses. The 14-24 is just sensational. I can't imagine how they were able to pull off such sharpness, eveness over the entire field etc in a zoom. Coupled to a D300 or D3 this is a landscape shooters dream. Just MHO and YMMV

 

Woody

[marknorton]

What makes the 14-24 all the more remarkable is that it sells for less than a Leica 35/2 Summicron.

[fotografr]

IAnd by the way Neil, that 14-24 is huge and the front element is rather exposed, but unless you are Chip Simmons, it is not for people photography.

 

I was just talking with someone the other day about how his extreme WA look seems to have fallen out of vogue. I never see anything by him anywhere anymore, but there was a time when his stuff was everywhere.

[doctorb]

Have both D3 and M8. Pick your poison, both are good. Need the D3 to get the image, teles, wides, fast for that never to repeated moment/take no chances. But if u want the better image (sharper, more "pop", leica glow, whatever u call it), then use the M8.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tom0511]

tom

 

I own both the Sigma 12-24 (good for full frame) and the new 14-24 and aside from physical size would never prefer the Sigma. And this is one of Sigma's best lenses. The 14-24 is just sensational. I can't imagine how they were able to pull off such sharpness, eveness over the entire field etc in a zoom. Coupled to a D300 or D3 this is a landscape shooters dream. Just MHO and YMMV

 

Woody

 

Woody,

I was talking about the Nikon 12-24 dx (however I dont know if it is any better than the Sigma. However its not bad.

 

I wonder how the 14-24 on a Nikon sensor would compare to the WAte with the M8 sensor.

 

I handeled the Nik 14-24 at a local store and just was a little scared by the size and weight of the lens.

 

I am convinced that it is a very good lens though.

 

Cheers, Tom