Any M8 users with Nikon D3 or d300 experience?

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

To be sure, I would never work like that in the real world. However, when we present each other our test results, if the files are too processed there is just no way to be sure that what you are seeing is a fair comparison. That is why I asked for unprocessed images. I can sharpen myself. And yes, blurring and then sharpening will lose detail, giving Canon and Nikon cameras an inherent disadvantage against cameras like the M8 without an AA filter. I don't know why Canon and Nikon don't catch onto this. I suppose they are more concerned about pleasing people who don't want to deal with moiré in post.

[Advertisement]

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

[marknorton]

I think it stands to reason that the resolution of the D3 is going to be less than the M8 - leaving aside the characteristics of the low-pass filter, the lower pixel density sets a Nyquist sampling limit which will cap the resolution.

 

I don't think pixel peeping is helpful here and I'm more than happy with A2 prints from each camera. If the Leica does provide higher resolution, the D3 makes up for it by bringing other attributes to the party. The two cameras complement each other perfectly and if there's an FF M9 coming and/or a higher resolution D3, that will only be good news.

[tom0511]

..... 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.

 

Terry,

In which regard would you suggest that the 14-24 outperforms the wate besides having f2.8 and offering a bigger range?

Is this based on your own experience? I am not doubting the 14-24 quality but I just have so far good experience with the WATE and so far havent found anything about it where I would lust for improvement.

Regards, Tom

[gmaurizio]

With all due respect, I think this thread is traction on mud. No single image can prove or disprove a subjective lens+camera evaluation. Neither the M8 nor the D3 are studio cameras or technical cameras. They have been conceived for journalism and street photography (and sports, in the case of the D3). They are the finest tools from each manufacturer right now. And some lenses are indeed very good.

My only point is that opinions should be based either on verifiable facts, like Bjorn did with the DOF issue regarding FX vs DX, or based on the experience several years of experience in the field can give you. The cameras are different beasts, as has already being pointed out, but in a way they 'compete' for a share of your wallet. If you want to spend $20,000 in equipment, and you have no history or legacy to go through, where should you invest? That is the relevant question here.

My comment was more oriented to say that, in my opinion, the Leica M8 is better suited for a relaxed and careful approach to picture taking. The D3 will serve best those who think and move fast with quickly changing ambient and lighting conditions. Other photogs will like more Canon and Leica, or whatever.

Just Leica is not the 'only' or 'best' game in town. Forgiving Leica for the problems it is having in the customer service and product quality areas is not a good idea. And if Nikon can produce an outstanding lens in the 14-24mm F2.8 range for less than $2,000, then Leica can do better and not charge the ridiculous amount of money they are asking now for a WATE. And do not let me go to discuss the Noctilux, almost $6,000 and still with focus issues in many samples.

Carsten, I am sorry but I will not post samples to start a discussion or be trashed because the conditions are not ideal for both images. You can find plenty of samples in many websites. These are just my opinions, for what they are worth.

And finally, I would never, ever, compare raw pictures out of the camera without processing. That is, at best, silly. Raw pictures must be developed and tuned to your liking, adding sharpness, contrast, color balance and whatever is needed. If you are a balanced pro, you will do whatever is needed to make both images look good enough for you. Of course, that might take a 4hrs workflow or a 15min workflow. And that cost must be factored into the equation as well.

The point of view of amateurs, and I mean no disrespect, since I become an amateur when taking pictures of our 6-month old daugther, or our dog, or my personal art portfolio, and that of pros must be different, because money, workflow and time MUST enter into the equation. That said, amateurs take many times much better pictures than pros. Pros just have more business savvy to get paid for it.

[terrycioni]

Terry,

In which regard would you suggest that the 14-24 outperforms the wate besides having f2.8 and offering a bigger range?

Is this based on your own experience? I am not doubting the 14-24 quality but I just have so far good experience with the WATE and so far havent found anything about it where I would lust for improvement.

Regards, Tom

 

Tom,

 

Where did I say anything about 'outperform'. Those sir are your words not mine.

 

I do have both and in fact I have the so called MATE as well as the WATE. Indeed I even have the dual Hexanon. Indeed the Nikkor holds it's own in every respect, does it outpeform - yes in some ways and some ways not, size being one of them. It is all highly subjective.

 

What is tiring to me is this constant - Leica lenses are better than anything else, perhaps they are, but my simple minded response to that is they had better be a lot better. Have you noticed we Leica camera users spend a great deal of time TESTING lenses. In the field most often it those tests mean nothing.

 

OH, just a small point. I don't have IR filters on my NIKKOR lenses. Alas I do have them on all my Leica lenses. I don't have my older Nikkors coded but they do work nicely on the D3/D300, but I do have my Leica lenses coded so they will optimize the IQ on the M8.

 

Let me end my involvement with this discussion. It is getting to be counter productive.

 

I want to concluded with I love my M8(s) with a passion.

 

Best. Terry.

[ptomsu]

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.

 

Carsten,

 

sorry to have to say it this way - after following this discussion throughout the thread:

 

You are arguing by comparing apples and oranges and you are intermixing very different things - this is far from any somehow deep or well thought approach.

 

Just be assured that the D3 with the 14-24 can produce this quality of images you doubt and if you really want to proof for yourself: go and buy (or rent) a D3 plus 14-24, you might have a dealer who hands that to you for some test shots and then you can do this time consuming comparison yourself.

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

{snipped}

What is tiring to me is this constant - Leica lenses are better than anything else, perhaps they are, but my simple minded response to that is they had better be a lot better. {snipped}.

 

Terry--just a couple of points, because mostly I agree with you: for the money, Leica lenses should be a lot better, and not just on test charts. Sometimes, of course, they are, but it also depends on how you shoot and under what conditions. It also depends on what you mean by "better"...

 

But in particular, Carsten is completely correct when he talks about how optically disappointing the Canon L 14mm prime is, version 1 or the new version 2, and how strange it is to be held up as any point of comparison.

 

FWIW, I've seen Canon-compatible Sigmas with better overall performance than that thing, so talking about being "much better for the money"--well, let's just say that while the 15R Leica costs the world, it is really also worlds apart and that much better if you need it. (Personally a used 19 Elmarit fits the performance bill for me without the expense of the 15).

 

I don't see a fast wide solution for the M8 at all, which is disappointing.

 

Secondly, Carsten is completely correct about the lack of AA filter being a design point, otherwise they would have put on the DMR.

 

As for moire, well every digital camera I've ever owned is susceptible to moire. My 5d and 1ds2 produce it all the time on fabrics, and while the M8 / DMR may be worse, in practice I fix all the files about equally.

 

So I don't believe the D3 is immune to moire at all, AA filter or not.

 

I'm also looking to ditch my Canon stuff for a D3 for three reasons: better high ISO performance, exceptionally good wide zooms (Canon, IMO, has nothing here at all) and--the only pro camera I know of with this--Auto ISO shift for heaven's sake.

 

That one feature--Auto ISO--will save me precious time when I'm shooting. I know it sounds ridiculous, but there are times (mostly when AF is a blessing too) where you just shouldn't worry about ISO speed (like running from the inside of a dark church to the outside!).

 

On the other hand, I won't be able to use an 80R lux on the Nikon....(but I hear the 85 1.4 Nikon is very, very good too).

[ptomsu]

On the other hand, I won't be able to use an 80R lux on the Nikon....(but I hear the 85 1.4 Nikon is very, very good too).

 

The 1,4/85 is indeed VERY good, maybe not the boukeh of Leica, but actually this is one of my preferred lenses.

[neils]

Jamie

 

I used the Auto ISO the other day sort of on a lark. Silly thing works. I knew in this case I'd be way up in the ISO's anyway. Turns out the ISO varied between @2000-3200. I had to do some available low light headshots. I wanted to be at 2.8 and no slower than 160th. I used the 85 1.8 and the 105 micro.

 

I don't know if I'd want it to vary between 200 and 6400 but maybe a smaller range. Anyway Auto ISO always seemed a really "amateur" thing to want. Turns out the images are so good at the hi ISOs that it is a real and usable feature.

 

I sent Woody some D3 NEFs and jpgs. One was ISO 12,800. He loved it. The whole idea that I can shoot up there and get a more than usable image (use NX for conversion) is really kind of crazy. But I'll take it.

 

Neil

[ptomsu]

While I know for sure that ISO change with a D3 is just pressing 2 buttons and I can do this in 1-2 seconds blind, I am sure that the useable higher ISO range available in today's cameras is a great thing and so Auto ISO may become a real feature we get used to in the future, as was auto exposure and auto focus in the past.

 

But just keep in mind .- some photographic dinosaurs like me are still able to change ISO settings at the speed of light

[dmcclean]

I have always had both Leica and Nikon systems, from F5's through to D1x to D2x and now the D3. I bought an M8 in November and tried to love it - its ok but not a patch on how I feel about my M6 and M7. I received my D3 in December and instantly fell in love - its quite simply the best digital camera out there at the moment - the unbelievable high iso capabilities, the usability of the camera, the sharp as a tack new lenses (14-24 and 24-70 just as good as Leica - I've compared both) make it a no brainer for my style of work (Weddings, portraits and commercial work) In fact, I like it so much I've sold the M8 to buy another D3 - its that good! I still have my film leica's and my noctilux which I wont ever sell but use them less and less and just for holidays, fun etc.

I think Leica have some serious catching up to do in the digital world and until the fullframe

M9 (?) comes out I wont be going back.

[Fotomiguel]

10 days with my nikon D300. It works very good. The one thing that my M8 is now envying from the D300 is a good cleaning sensor system in the camera. Suprinsingly is working very well. I thought is was just marketing, but no single spot of dust in my D300 after ten days. Look at the sky. No single spot of dust.

Zenfolio | Miguel Massanet Amer | Recent Pictures

I don't know if it's just luck and my d300 sensor will be dirty in a while. Let's see.

Thinking in my M8, I'm really very happy with it. Many people ask for many new features for the future M9. If I were Leica, I would improve a bit the camera, perhaps a bit more of resolution, a smaller size and weight (like a M6) and a good cleaning sensor system ( what a dream). I would keep the camera and his concept like the M8, because I feel very good with it.

95% of my shots are M8 and 5% are D300. I'm very happy with both and I find them complementary. When I use my M8, I feel in heaven.

Cheers

[tom0511]

First of all, since I started the thread, I want to thank for all the feedback.

I am also sorry it went in a direction where we would discuss if one is better than the other.

Several times I have tried to compare lenses, cameras etc. and nearly each time it gave me some hints but not more.

Just too many factors involved -> was the exposure exactly the same? what about raw conversion? how much sharpening? was the focus totally accurate and the same? (IMO very often overseen), then we compare often at one f-stop, and one distance, in one light situation, etc. etc.

 

So what counts maybe more is when you use the stuff-how many images do you get where you feel: "thats what I was after", and how many images do you get where you think "could be sharper, looks a little bit muddy/dull", or the worst for me "looks un-natural and "digital" "

All I feel is that with the M8 I like a lot what I get, besides sometimes I feel skin tones are still a little tricky, specially the transition between reds, pinks and yellowish skin.

I also "feel" even with sharpening the d200 does deliver fine images but never showed as clear and crisp and natural images as my M8.

The d2x I felt shows all the detail - but to my taste noisy at higher ISO and tricky to get the greens natural looking.

The d300 I got mayself I have not yet enough experience but looks pretty good so far.

The d3 still sounds very intruiging to me and I might not be able to resist, just because I like responsiveness and I dont like flash.

The d3 could be perfect as long as I dont need low weight.

I am also convinced that the dmr delievers great low ISO IQ, better than that of any other digital SLR (besides MF) IMO - but I think if you use M8 the alternative system should have AF. Thats why I am selling my Leica R-stuff.

 

Regarding lenses. Even if there are very fine lenses from Nikon and Canon, I think no other brand besides Leica offers such a wide range of very very good primes. They offer very good wides, fast lenses, normal lenses, macro, portrait lenses, teles, all great.

 

They have a great wate, 21,24,28,35,50,75,90,135 in the M-line.

 

If we look at price we also should look at a) production numbers and size of the lenses

 

I would think its much harder to pack all thatin such a small lens like the wate compared to the 14-24/2.8.

 

Canon IMO has a great 35/1.4, 85/1.2 and 135/2.0 and very nice tele.

Nikon has the 28/1.4 and 85/1.4. And the good zooms. Maybe also the 200/2.0VR

 

Cheers, Tom

[chris_livsey]

This has been a most interesting thread. I have NEVER owned an AF camera. I was so nearly persuaded, as I can see obvious situations where I would wish it, that the D3 was moving to a buying decision. What with Noctilux lenses being offered at £2500 on e-bay it begins to look a bargain. In my pursuit of more information, one my vices, I unfortunately found this post on a Nikonian forum on the AF.

Quote:

Since you have moving subjects, you will need to be in a dynamic area AF mode (p 76 of the manual). Since you are trying to keep focus on the eye, I would set the camera to AF-S single servo mode (p 74). This will use only a single AF point and assumes you are able to keep that AF point on the eye. If you can't do that, then you'll have to go to AF-C mode in which case I would suggest you set a3 Dynamic AF Area to 9 point mode (p 306 of the manual). The fewer AF points involved, the faster the camera will operate. I would also turn a4 Focus Tracking with Lock-On to off (p 308) -- you are not going to have the subject dodging behind objects so as long as this is off, the system will track very rapidly. Leaving a4 on will cause a delay in shifting focus.

I prefer to decouple AF from the shutter release button, so I set a5: AF Activation to AF-On only (p 308). This way AF is always under my control -- turn it on when I need it, off when I don't want it to change. a10 Vertical AF-ON button is set to Same as AF-ON (p 312).

END QUOTE

 

Now I find turning the focus ring on a leica lens does the job most of the time Can I ask D3 users if the start up time to first shot is,as reported, under 1 sec what use is that if it takes all that to put the thing in the right set of settings to focus; not looking at exposure ?

 

This helpful user has posted an Excel spreadsheet of settings which has not really clarified the issue.

 

.Mac - iDisk

 

 

Be honest, and I really would like a new toy, how long before I could make the thing work ?

[RSL]

This has been a most interesting thread. I have NEVER owned an AF camera. I was so nearly persuaded, as I can see obvious situations where I would wish it, that the D3 was moving to a buying decision. What with Noctilux lenses being offered at £2500 on e-bay it begins to look a bargain. In my pursuit of more information, one my vices, I unfortunately found this post on a Nikonian forum on the AF.

Quote:

Since you have moving subjects, you will need to be in a dynamic area AF mode (p 76 of the manual). Since you are trying to keep focus on the eye, I would set the camera to AF-S single servo mode (p 74). This will use only a single AF point and assumes you are able to keep that AF point on the eye. If you can't do that, then you'll have to go to AF-C mode in which case I would suggest you set a3 Dynamic AF Area to 9 point mode (p 306 of the manual). The fewer AF points involved, the faster the camera will operate. I would also turn a4 Focus Tracking with Lock-On to off (p 308) -- you are not going to have the subject dodging behind objects so as long as this is off, the system will track very rapidly. Leaving a4 on will cause a delay in shifting focus.

I prefer to decouple AF from the shutter release button, so I set a5: AF Activation to AF-On only (p 308). This way AF is always under my control -- turn it on when I need it, off when I don't want it to change. a10 Vertical AF-ON button is set to Same as AF-ON (p 312).

END QUOTE

 

Now I find turning the focus ring on a leica lens does the job most of the time Can I ask D3 users if the start up time to first shot is,as reported, under 1 sec what use is that if it takes all that to put the thing in the right set of settings to focus; not looking at exposure ?

 

This helpful user has posted an Excel spreadsheet of settings which has not really clarified the issue.

 

.Mac - iDisk

 

 

Be honest, and I really would like a new toy, how long before I could make the thing work ?

 

Chris,

 

Actually you'd be able to make the thing work by taking it out of the box, charging a battery, putting the battery in the camera, putting a lens on the camera, turning it on, and banging away. Most of us never need to worry about the kind of finer points this guy is getting into. What he's talking about is a special situation, and whether or not you'd need to go to the trouble he's suggesting is debatable. At least the camera has the ability to handle situations like that and it'll let you be as picky as you want to be when you do handle them.

 

The downside is that it's a heavy and possibly over-complicated camera but on the upside: (1) it doesn't need IR filters on its lenses, (2) it doesn't ever refuse to stop firing the shutter even when you've turned it off, (3) it doesn't ever lock up unexpectedly, (4) you don't have to keep taking the battery out or letting the camera sit for a couple of days with the battery on so that everything runs down before you can shoot another picture, (5) it has an astonishing ISO range, (6) if you decide to shoot .jpegs, its auto color balance is usually right on the button, and (7) it's really well sealed against the weather.

[tom0511]

Chris,

I am not a specialist regarding Nikon AF but can tell you without knowing all details I still can manage to change between C and S AF, switch to the middle or to another sensor or to auto and that with this little knowledge its easier to nail focus for me compared to manual focus.

So even if you know only 50% of the functions you should still be able to work with it ok IMO.

Now if you are a pro sports shooter with high speed scenes all the time its maybe easier to take 1 sunday and to understand all available AF-functions.

 

I like manual focus and M8 is still my prefered system for many things, but I think for several things AF really makes sense.

cheers,tom

[terrycioni]

This has been a most interesting thread. I have NEVER owned an AF camera. I was so nearly persuaded, as I can see obvious situations where I would wish it, that the D3 was moving to a buying decision. What with Noctilux lenses being offered at £2500 on e-bay it begins to look a bargain. In my pursuit of more information, one my vices, I unfortunately found this post on a Nikonian forum on the AF.

Quote:

Since you have moving subjects, you will need to be in a dynamic area AF mode (p 76 of the manual). Since you are trying to keep focus on the eye, I would set the camera to AF-S single servo mode (p 74). This will use only a single AF point and assumes you are able to keep that AF point on the eye. If you can't do that, then you'll have to go to AF-C mode in which case I would suggest you set a3 Dynamic AF Area to 9 point mode (p 306 of the manual). The fewer AF points involved, the faster the camera will operate. I would also turn a4 Focus Tracking with Lock-On to off (p 308) -- you are not going to have the subject dodging behind objects so as long as this is off, the system will track very rapidly. Leaving a4 on will cause a delay in shifting focus.

I prefer to decouple AF from the shutter release button, so I set a5: AF Activation to AF-On only (p 308). This way AF is always under my control -- turn it on when I need it, off when I don't want it to change. a10 Vertical AF-ON button is set to Same as AF-ON (p 312).

END QUOTE

 

Now I find turning the focus ring on a leica lens does the job most of the time Can I ask D3 users if the start up time to first shot is,as reported, under 1 sec what use is that if it takes all that to put the thing in the right set of settings to focus; not looking at exposure ?

 

This helpful user has posted an Excel spreadsheet of settings which has not really clarified the issue.

 

.Mac - iDisk

 

 

Be honest, and I really would like a new toy, how long before I could make the thing work ?

 

Travel to Toronto to shoot a Blue Jays baseball game with the D3 in late September. No manual to read on the flight, no advanced information. Arrive in Toronto late Friday evening - get the D3 around 11 pm. Hit the sack - have a quick look at it Saturday morning before heading to the game around 11 am. Put a 600mm lens on the body with tripod make a few minor adjustments - nef in slot 1 jpg slot 2. and shoot the game - I was impressed with the hit rate considering no adjustments was done to the AF system before shooting the game. Now that I own the D3/manual - I would have made a few changes to the AF system which might have improved my in focus rate...but I speculate. The D3 is a pro camera and requires reading at least a few pages of the manual but overall not that difficult.

 

Terry.

[chris_livsey]

Guys, thanks for the input.

 

Russell - yes heavy,especially comparing to M8 for similar IQ, but different beast as we all agree and possibly over complicated as you say but that does give ultimate versatility.(I am still positive ) Good points I can only agree on.

 

 

Tom - Points well made. I think if you were to write down exactly what you change , when and quote page numbers it may well read much as I quoted. Often those intuitive or well rehearsed moves are A4 sheet long when committed to paper. (Part of my job is writing SOPs, standard operating procedures so I well know that fact.

 

Terry- Hand on experience under pressure and it works that's what I wanted/hoped to hear. I am coming up for a Birthday really soon, no milestone (spell check offered mill-stone ) but they should all count on this one way trip. Whilst I don't think I shall mutter "wish I'd bought that D3" on my death bed it's a consideration.

 

Again thanks to all, the news is my nearest dealer has one in stock, is that fate I hear knocking ?

 

ATB

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tom0511]

Anyone here using the Nikon 200/2.0 VR?

Cheers, Tom

[gmaurizio]

Yes Tom, I am using regularly the 200F2VR with the D2X, D2H and now D3. Results are fantastic.