Jump to content

Any M8 users with Nikon D3 or d300 experience?


tom0511

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tom

 

We are in alignment. The 14-24 is a marvelous lens albeit kind of scary if you are at the other end looking back.

 

For anything other than people shooting, there is no issue with the size of the lens. i have never had a landscape complain about the size of the lens looking back. If you are a people shooter you should be looking at an M8 with a 28 cron or 35 lux to be sure.

 

Horses for courses as they say

 

Woody Spedden

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 235
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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

Drat, Woody, you spoiled my riposte!

 

 

 

I was just going to say: "What isn't?"

 

 

--HC

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

If you are using the extra grip with the D300 then the much better choice is the D3. I feel it is more compact and much more solid than this extra grip. Even if you compare the D3 with the E-3 plus extra grip, the D3 is a clear winner from size, durability, feel and ergonomics.

 

Having owned a D2X for years I actually fell in love with that design and this is the reson why I will get a D3 instead of the D300. For compactness I have my E-3 without grip plus the big advantage of built in IS working also with WA Zooms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom

 

We are in alignment. The 14-24 is a marvelous lens albeit kind of scary if you are at the other end looking back.

 

For anything other than people shooting, there is no issue with the size of the lens. i have never had a landscape complain about the size of the lens looking back. If you are a people shooter you should be looking at an M8 with a 28 cron or 35 lux to be sure.

 

Horses for courses as they say

 

Woody Spedden

 

Woody, you dont scare the landscape but as I said before I like bringing my camera on mountains and during xc-ski or when I fo paragliding and there the weight and bulk od a d2/d3 camera + such a heavy lens is indeed an issue. And mostly during those times spending outside in the nature I do see the most beautiful situations, landscapes and light.

For example I bring my 18-200 much more often than the 17-55 and the 70-200VR.

And then, as long as you dont miss anything in the images you get with the "cheaper" lens you ask yourself why not use it more often.

 

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are using the extra grip with the D300 then the much better choice is the D3. I feel it is more compact and much more solid than this extra grip. Even if you compare the D3 with the E-3 plus extra grip, the D3 is a clear winner from size, durability, feel and ergonomics.

 

Having owned a D2X for years I actually fell in love with that design and this is the reson why I will get a D3 instead of the D300. For compactness I have my E-3 without grip plus the big advantage of built in IS working also with WA Zooms.

 

Peter,

this is a way to go and I once had an E1 and liked it pretty much. However today I think its enough for me to "mess" around with lenses from 2 brands (Leica and Nikon)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Peter,

this is a way to go and I once had an E1 and liked it pretty much. However today I think its enough for me to "mess" around with lenses from 2 brands (Leica and Nikon)

 

Thomas,

 

that might become my final solution as well, issue is I really love that Olympus stuff, but maybe end of the day it will become to complex for me and I will stay with M and Nikon :D:o

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is of any use to anyone, but I decided to pit a variety of Leica lenses (on the M8) against a variety of Nikon Lenses (on the D300)

 

cpk : photos : Leica & Nikon- powered by SmugMug

 

Nikon WB set to sunny, Leica WB set to overcast

Nikon processed in Capture NX

Leica processed in Capture One Pro

Moderate sharpening / all noise reduction turned off.

 

Smugmug allows 100% versions of all pics to be downloaded. All other info in exif data

 

Leica fit Lenses:

15mm Voigtlander (coded)

21mm Zeiss f2.8 (coded)

28mm f2.0 ASPH

35mm f1.4 ASPH

 

Nikon fit lenses:

12-24mm f4

17mm-55mm f2.8

24mm f2.8 AIS (Manual focus)

50mm f1.4D

[sadly, did not have nikon 14-24mm to hand]

 

Also, iso tests for both cameras here:

cpk : photos : M8 & D300 iso tests- powered by SmugMug

*Capture One not great for high ISO Leica files, so have added ACR (a) with no noise reduction and (B) ACR with 25 color noise reduction

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Hi Arthur,

 

Can you post some photos or a link that will show the problems you are having? I tried a D2h out of curiosity to see if the AF tracking was better than my Canon 1D2 and 1Ds2, and it was much worse. I don’t know for sure how the D2H AF system compares to the D2x, but when I tried the D300, the AF tracking was so much better than my Canons that I ordered a D3. I think the D3 tracking AF is as much better than the Canons as the high ISO images are from the D3. I almost never get an oof focus shot with the D3, and I am using old slow lenses, an 80-200 f2.8 and a 300 f4.0, both pre af-s lenses. The examples here are representative of the thousands I have taken with the D3 since it arrived Dec 21st,

 

http://homepage.mac.com/billh96007/Trial-Web/PhotoAlbum265.html

 

It does not matter how fast the dog is running (and they are very fast indeed), or where his/her face is located in the viewfinder. I always try to be on the dogs level, not standing looking down on them, and I mostly use dynamic AF with 51 points, and have the camera set to fire only when the shot is in focus. I start (if possible) with the shutter release half way down to activate the AF, and place the lighted center red AF square on the dog’s face. If you are going this and getting poor results, it may be worth sending the camera back to Nikon to be checked. Is there another one near you that you can rent or borrow to try?

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who own both - how would you say do they compare in IQ?

How easy do you get good, natural tones with the D3?

I am also interested in experiences with the d300.

Thanks for any info.

Tom

 

The D3 and the M8 are amazing cameras indeed. Lenses like the Nikon 17-35mm, 50mm F1.2 AIS, 24-70mm AFS, 35mm F2 AF, 28mm F2 AIS, 200mm F2 VR AFS and 135mm F2 DC are just magic. Images are sharp, beautiful and the old lenses are back.

The D3 is suited for frantic action, hundreds of shots both subject and photog moving, low light and sports. It is faster than your thoughts, so you'd better have experience to make the best out of it.

The M8 allows a more calm and intelligent approach, because it slows you down. You need to breathe with your subject and the perfect picture comes.

Some people are able to make the best of both, other will be better suited by one or the other, thus some comments and posts so far.

IQ is about the same, provided you use the best raw developers, so far the NX for the D3 and C1 for M8. Both can produce stunning 20x30 inches prints. Some Nikon lenses are better, in my opinion, than their Leica counterparts. The 14-24mm is the best lens in that focal length ever tested by me, and FAST!

Of course, the D3 is bulky and heavy. No arguing there.

I find that the D3+50mm F1.2 AIS puts the M8 and Noctilux to shame (I own all of them). The D3, when in DX mode, gives you an extra 1.5x to the focal length, although the resolution goes down to 5MP. The files are very sharp.

 

For a pro, with money on the table, I would say investing $10K in Nikon is a better ROI than doing so in Leica. You get a D3, 14-24mm AFS 2.8, 24-70mm AFS 2.8, 135mm F2.0 DC, 50mm F1.2 AIS, a nice flash SB-800, a 50mm F1.4 AF and some 6 16GB cards. The same money barely gets you an M8 plus a WATE or a Nocti, or a 50mm F1.4 and a 28mm F2.8.

 

My 2¢

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carsten, while this is highly subjective, I find the following:

Nikon 14-24mm F2.8. Bests Leica 24mm and every other Zeiss or CV lens, when used with the D3. Image quality of this combination bests even Canon 14mm L. It trumps also the WATE.

Nikon 17-35mm F2.8. While a notch below the WATE at F4, when shot at F5.6 the difference is in favor of the Nikon. Of course, it has F2.8, amazingly sharp with little vignetting. At 35mm it rivals the non-asph Leica.

Nikon 50mm F1.2 AIS. This is a tough cookie. It is between the summi and the nocti. In my opinion, while not as sharp as the summi at f1.4, it is better from F2.0 and up. While the nocti has a certain feeling, people will be hard pressed to tell the difference, FOV notwhitstanding.

Nikon 135mm F2 DC. There is little to be said here, it is the best lens in this focal length period.

The Leica 28mm F2.8 asph is on the same level as the Nikon AIS F2.8 F2.0 or F2.8. I rather use the Nikons for a better bokeh (of course, highly subjective).

The comparison may be unfair, since the M8 is 1.33 and the D3 is FX 1.0 (multipliers).

And last, no moire for patterned fabrics. This might be due to AA filters, but nevertheless it must be mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While you are certainly right about moire, this is part of the price of the extra sharpness gained by having no AA filter, as you point out. This has nothing to do with lenses.

 

I don't know many of the lenses you mention, but I seriously question your judgement of the first one. The WATE is a great lens, and the 14L was never very good, so if you are ranking them in the opposite order, I think that there was something wrong with that WATE or the camera it was tested on. I would love to see some results with the 14-24. I have heard very good things about it, but question how the results could be better than M8+WATE in the end, due to the AA filter in the D3. Do you care to post the test results, unmanipulated raw, which led you to this conclusion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

While you are certainly right about moire, this is part of the price of the extra sharpness gained by having no AA filter, as you point out. This has nothing to do with lenses.

 

I don't know many of the lenses you mention, but I seriously question your judgement of the first one. The WATE is a great lens, and the 14L was never very good, so if you are ranking them in the opposite order, I think that there was something wrong with that WATE or the camera it was tested on. I would love to see some results with the 14-24. I have heard very good things about it, but question how the results could be better than M8+WATE in the end, due to the AA filter in the D3. Do you care to post the test results, unmanipulated raw, which led you to this conclusion?

 

Carsten, if I may....

 

Your comments - speaking of question judgment are equally judgmental.

 

Leica lens are not perfect or without question simply the very best in photography. Perhaps this is the reasoning used for the over spending it takes to own Leica lenses. Even Leica has recognzied this, thus the Summarit line of lenses.

 

I MY OPINION (for whatever that is worth) I would argue Leica optics are the most expensive and least bang for the buck spent. The WATE is a good example of that premise. In many ways the M8 does a very good job of negating the optical quality of some Leica lenses and in many other ways making some Leica lenses look better than they did on film Ms. I believe digital changes the playing field when it comes to optics, but then that is just an opinion on my part.

 

There is an active member of this very forum who reviews lens and often finds little difference with equivalent focal length lenses from Leica, Zeiss, and CV. One would have to assume that manufactures such as Nikon, Canon, and Olympus know how to build quality optics, as difficult as that maybe for some Leica optic users to accept. In the case of Nikon's recent release of the 14-24 F2.8, 24-70 F2.8 they are both state of the art zoom lenses - and combined cost less than half that of the WATE. There are many reason why the M8 and WATE might be a better choice in many situations but optical quality isn't one of them - in my judgment.

 

Best Regards. Terry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread stimulated me to run some quick comparisons with the M8 and the D300. At ISO1600, it is no contest - the D300 runs circles around the M8 at ISO1250. What I did find out that was interesting is that my 'normal' lens on the M8 is the 35 Lux ASPH - just absolutely nothing wrong with this lens at all, IMO. When I put the 28/1/4 Nikkor ASPH on the D300, it gives approximately the same field of view, and I think it may be sharper at any given f-stop than the summilux-35. I have to say this surprised me. Of course, that lens is no longer made, and now has Leica-like prices, so it is apples-to-apples in terms of price too!

 

The point being that for a walk around, low light camera, the D300 has the M8 beat in terms of image noise (and shutter noise, IMO), plus with the 28/1.4, a really good autofocus. What it does not have is the sleeker, smaller body form and rangefinder viewing.

 

The other interesting thing is that the new Nikon Capture NX processing package seems to really optimize the Nikon raw files. It has all the charm of the new Capture One 4 - i.e. Weird interface, bizarre non-standard methods for specifying things like unsharp masking value, and other clunky user interface features. It also is slower than anything I have ever used. However, it does produce some pretty nice files, and at least doesn't deposit file-guano on your disk every time you navigate to a folder with image files in it, as Capture One does.

 

One other thing that Nikon offers that neither Leica nor Canon offer at the same level of sophistication is electronic flash integration. Two SB-800 flashes and you have a very sophisticated lighting setup that can be controlled directly from behind the camera. This may or may not be important to some people, but it is a nice thing to have available.

 

We have an embarrassment of riches now in the digital camera world. It really boils down to a personal decision about the style in which you like to shoot, and then picking the appropriate camera for that style.

 

 

I am curious which Nikon lenses you feel are better than their Leica counter-parts, and which lenses you consider to be the counter-parts?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry, you don't need to tell me this; I don't believe that all Leica lenses are better than all other lenses or any such nonsense. As Clay says, there are lenses which are better than the 35 Lux ASPH in terms of sharpness, and so on. I happen to like the look of the 35 Lux ASPH, but that is my opinion.

 

However, when someone says that a lens is better than the WATE, and is "even" better than the 14L, then my warning bells go off, because the 14L is not a particularly great lens compared to the WATE, and presumably also compared to the new Nikon 14-24. I would like to see the results which led to this conclusion, and this pecking order, to be honest, because without proof, I don't believe it. I also find it odd that the M8 without AA filter and the D3 with a strong AA filter can yield results in this order. If the D3 results are indeed sharper, then the two files were not processed equally...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry, you don't need to tell me this; I don't believe that all Leica lenses are better than all other lenses or any such nonsense. As Clay says, there are lenses which are better than the 35 Lux ASPH in terms of sharpness, and so on. I happen to like the look of the 35 Lux ASPH, but that is my opinion.

 

However, when someone says that a lens is better than the WATE, and is "even" better than the 14L, then my warning bells go off, because the 14L is not a particularly great lens compared to the WATE, and presumably also compared to the new Nikon 14-24. I would like to see the results which led to this conclusion, and this pecking order, to be honest, because without proof, I don't believe it. I also find it odd that the M8 without AA filter and the D3 with a strong AA filter can yield results in this order. If the D3 results are indeed sharper, then the two files were not processed equally...

 

Carsten,

 

At the risk of debating with you - which I am not want to do. Let me say this, what I find odd is that you would want to compare the M8 with the D3 - they are different birds. AA filters are on sensors for a reason and I believe if Leica could have they would have put a proper AA filter on the M8. If you are want to believe the Leica marketing hype about why they didn't put a proper AA filter on the M8 in the first place that is your choice, let us see what they do with the M9 should that ever appear.

 

AA filters aside the M8 is a first attempt at a digital rangefinder - version 1.0 if you like - as they say - it is what it is.

 

The D3 does not require IR filters which in and of themselves can and do affect sharpness and quality of Leica lenses. As an aside I find it amazing we have to put a filter on a 5000$ lenses to get best results, and frankly I am relieved that the processing of the D3 files does not require the same level of intensity the M8 files require.

 

The D3 unlike the M8 does not suffer the same moire issues the M8 suffers and can bite you.

 

If this sounds like a D3 promotion it is not, I want to stress - I own two M8 and love them with a passion warts and all.

 

Cheers. Terry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I would love to own a D3 myself.

 

I don't believe that Leica couldn't find a way to put an AA filter on the M8: they also didn't put one on the DMR, where there is much more room for such things. Also just look at the compliments M8 owners in general make about the sharpness of the M8 images, which often put them in competition with cameras with more resolution. For example, my 5D didn't get much more resolution out of its 13MP sensor than the M8. Finally, medium-format backs also don't use AA filters, and I believe that this was Leica's model, and the reason that they went this way is simply that you can either deal with moiré in software when it happens, or you can soften all your images. You will never get as much sharpness by post-sharpening as you get by never blurring in the first place. I am confident that the R10 and M9 will follow this path.

 

I also intensely dislike the IR filters, but this is surely a single-generation problem. I hope that when Leica develops a more effective, just as thin, IR filter for the M9 and R10, that they also offer a service to update the M8. I think this is a distinct possibility, given the general anger and loss of face that this issue has caused.

 

To get back to the actual issue, I would like to see proof that the D3+14-24 without sharpening can compete in sharpness with the M8+WATE. I don't believe it without first seeing proof, to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nikon makes excellent glass and a total bargain compared to Leica. One of my favorites is a little old 50 f1.8 AIS that I picked up for $49!

 

What drew me to the M was mostly its portability - the ability to put six (fast) lenses in a small bag and go is unrivaled. But if it wasnt for the fact that I bought all my lenses used pre-M8 there is no way I could/would pay current prices compared to what Nikon/Canon has to offer. Aside from the bulk the D3 seems like a close to perfect tool. I really wish the same could be said of the M8. If any one thing more accurate framelines would bring it closer to a pro working tool. I still mostly revert back to my D200 for that and look forward to a 300 or 3 in my future.

 

BTW the new 14mm mk II is supposed to be a top class stunning lens. When it comes to wide the WATE at f4 and $5500 seems like a real non- starter for most no matter how good the quality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone compare an unsharpened D3 file to an unsharpened M8 file? You know what you will see already don't you?

 

I can look at both files here but not of the same image. No contest to the M8. Now process both files to optimize the image and then compare. That's what we do right? Optimize and print.

 

D3 files are the softest files when all USM is turned off of the D70, D2H, D2HS and D200 I've owned and used.. All of those camera provide a sharper RAW file than the D3 when USM is off.

 

This may stretch this thread a bit but does anyone besides me feel that lens reviews on cameras where the image is intentionally blurred before is is captured is absurd? The worlds best optics are blurred, then a convertor/soft/firmware does all the math that makes up the image is converted into an image again. Then we sharpen the image to try to get it all back again. It just seems silly. Can a RAW convertor invent micro contrast and ultra small details and nuances? Some are better than others right? My favorites are reviews of lenses on another make body with an adapter and who knows who's convertor.

 

M8's are the closest to a "real" image being captured than every Nikon and I'll bet every Canon. Agree?

 

D3 files need NX, M8's seem to need C1. What do Canons need. I don't know as I don't use them.

 

I'm just saying that at some point all the optical talk is really RAW convertor talk. Where would my 35mm ashp 'lux be through the AA filter of the D3.

 

I'm going to add that I'm amazed that we do get the detail that we do after all this blurry mess.

 

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...