Any M8 users with Nikon D3 or d300 experience?

[ptomsu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On occasion I have to use the Nikkor 12-24. There are no other options. Period. End of story. It has nothing to do with the quality or lack of creativity in the photographer.

 

Also for you, pleas see my previous reply to Gus. But what did you do a few months ago, whn this lens was not available?

 

I guess you also had to do your job, just a bit different.

[Advertisement]

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

[woodyspedden]

Fantastic ... Well Done ... More food for thought.

Regards ... Jim.

 

Wow the color balance is really different between the two cameras. Which one is more accurate only you can say. Did you white balance in PP? Use AWB? I also have both the M8 and the D300 and have not noticed such differences in color. If anything I think the Nikon files tend towards a brownish palette straight our of the camera using AWB.

 

Anyway, just noticed the differences and was hoping to get some information

 

Woody

[gmaurizio]

Gus,

 

I do and did not want to shoot anybody here, and of course also not you. So if I misunderstood something I apologize!

 

You should understand that while I am liking Leica's and the optics, I also have Nikon and Olympus. And I know that the new 14-24 is a marvelous lens and I also do not understand (already sicne years), why Leica cannot make a similar lens for an attractive price (maybe a bit higher because of pure production numbers). You could also take the old 2,8/28-70 from Nikon, which is at least as good as the 28-90 from Leica (I know that some will kill me now) but I know what I am speaking of, I own both lenses.

 

And also Olympus is making exceptional lenses, in this range the 7-14, which is second to no Leica lens, I dare to say not even a prime.

 

So I am completely behind this, the thing which got me wrong was that it seemed for me you were saying you cannot do your job without such a lens like the new 14-24. Because this cannot be true. It might ease your job significantly, without any doubt, but there is always (well most times at least) a workaround. Which of course might not be appropriate if you need to be fast and easy.

 

Hope this clarifies and again I did NOT want to offend you or the job you are doing in any way.

 

And thanks for sharing your opinion here with us about this great new tools. I myself am considering to buy the D3 and the 14-24.

 

Dear Dr., please do not mind me calling you Doc. I guess we are all coming down to terms with the speed by which internet events occur. Of course I 'had to" do my job with whatever was/is/will be available! My point is more out of some frustration with Leica prices, and a performance I quite do not see at the same level as the price differential.

I also have Olympus and love some of the lenses, completely agree there.

My point is that the new offerings from Nikon and Canon (I still give a lot of credit to Canon, since they do produce some very good cameras and lenses) are changing the play-field.

Leica must try harder, and the 'baby steps' they are taking with the new summarits are indeed welcome. As Leica users, and I am 'heavily invested now in Leica, and Leica-compatible (if we might call ZM and CV lenses as such) glass, we need to praise Leica for what it is doing right, but ask for more. I mean more performance, more speed and agility in customer service, less problems with the cameras, better firmware, and lower price for lenses.

Some people are one-brand-only consumers, fine for them. But those of us who take the wallet into consideration, cannot disregards the competing offers, and should not do so. When I received from NPS the D3, and used the 17-35mm F2.8 and my 15-year old 28-70mm, my jaw dropped. Are the images RAZOR sharp? Maybe not, but when you print them, they look very, very good. Now, the 14-24mm and 24-70mm are nothing short of fantastic.

Of course I understand you did not try to offend me, and excuse me for being sarcastic. In order for this thread and forum to become useful, we need to share our experiences and points of view, be them scientific or qualitative.

And as a closing note, we can not and should not left the raw developer software out of the equation. Comparing unprocessed raw files is not the intelligent thing to do. And for the D3, the only good pieces of sw up to now are Capture NX, raw developer and C1 4.0. The rest suck.

All the best!

[ddp]

Also for you, pleas see my previous reply to Gus. But what did you do a few months ago, whn this lens was not available?

 

I guess you also had to do your job, just a bit different.

 

I'm actually referencing a different lens - a DX Nikkor 12-24 made for the cropped sensor, but it's similar focal length. And as others have done - I had a 14mm option available to me for film & full frame and used it when needed. It's not an everday lens, but it's another tool in my arsenal. When I am faced with a situation that requires thinking outside the box - I do it. It's my job to get the shot - whether it's with Nikon DSLR gear, or Leica M stuff. Most of my work is corporate / healthcare based and I am usually aware ahead of time what parameters I am shooting under. Sometimes I know well ahead of time that I need the 12-24. Being that I did not always have access to this lens since Nikon began making DSLR's - I used a 14mm and dealt with tight spaces accordingly.

[ptomsu]

Gus,

 

I would really love if you call me Peter

 

I actually can only back your comment with regards to RAW developers. Shooting almost all the time in RAW I am most time using LR 1.3, since I found it the most versatile all-in-one SW solution for me with decent quality for lot of camera brands and RAW formats.

 

But it sucks with the RAW files of the E-3, colors, noise at high ISO etc. Especially the noise issue is really bad with LR and the E-3 RAW's. We al know the limitations of a small sensor of FT and with that in mind Olympus have really done a great job in eliminating noise significantly in the E-3. But if you use Master2 for developing these RAW files, the output is just WOW in terms of IQ.

 

What Olympus does here is marvelous - BUT the only drawback is, that Master2 (as well as Studio2) are both SOOOOO SLOOOOW

 

If we could get either a lightning fast Oly SW or the same quality in LR as Oly can produce, then the E-3 would be one of the real best tools for digital photography today.

 

Why not be able to get this small step

[scott kirkpatrick]

If we could get either a lightning fast Oly SW or the same quality in LR as Oly can produce, then the E-3 would be one of the real best tools for digital photography today.

 

 

Try COne 4.0

 

scott

[gmaurizio]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Peter, I second Scott's recommendation. C1 4.0 seems much better and a good choice for D3, Oly and M8.

[ptomsu]

Just tried C1 4.0 and there is still a ig difference in IQ against Master2.

 

My subjective rating for Oly E-3 RAWs would be:

 

1) Master 2 - 95%

2) C1 4.0 - 80%

3) LR 1.3 - 65%

 

I heard that Oly is working on this - hoe they are fast.

 

Thanks anyway for the hint

[M_Driscoll]

I think it's 'apples and oranges'. I have a Leica M8, a Leica M7, an Olympus E3, a Nikon D300, and a Nikon D3 on order. Each one has its weaknesses and strengths.

 

The M8's smaller, less obtrusive, with incredible glass, and forces/allows you to get 'closer' to your subject. Less overt technology. Elmarit-M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH at ISO 320, 1/125 s and Noctilux-M, 50mm f/1.0 at ISO 640, 1/200s:

 

 

 

The D300 is a technological marvel. ISO 1600 looks great; if, you've got the right settings/exposure. The high end Nikon glass is incredible (but also large and heavy). The Nikon's for the 'zooms', like the 14-24mm f/4, autofocus, and the high ISO resolution. Nikon also has some unique fast 'prime' lenses. The AF-S VR Nikkor 200mm f/2 G IF-ED, that I just picked up, rivals the noctilux in the character of the image (but, it's the size of a pony keg!). AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 ED at ISO 800, 1/125 at f/5.6:

 

 

The Olympus E3 slots in between. It's very fast, weatherproof (pouring down rain - leave the Leica at home weather), the zoom lenses are half the size of the Nikon lenses and appear to be very good. The 4/3 system has a 2x's sensor factor; so you get 400mm equivalent with the new ED 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 SWD zoom. The E3 also has in-body image stabilization and sensor cleaning technology. Zuiko Digital ED 12-60 mm f/2.8-4.0 SWD at ISO 1600, 1/25 s. at f/4:

 

 

I'm looking forward to getting a D3 and not just visiting one at the camera store. Don't ask me which one of my cameras I like the most. Although, I'm probably most comfortable with the experience of using the Leica. But, that may be because I'm not as facile with the DSLR's technology. I have fun no matter which camera bag I grab.

 

Happy New Year everyone.

 

Zenfolio | Matt Driscoll

[ptomsu]

Matt,

 

I very much can confirm your observations.

 

Reason I am currently not having a Nikon DSLR (but kept all my Nikon glass) is becuse I do no longer want to fool around with a crop camera which I have done now for many years (10D, D1, D100, D2X, DMR). I would like to get what the glass was really designed for. So I was pretty unhappy when the D3 came as their 1st FF but with "only" 12MP. I myself do not ned these really great High ISO quality, but rather would have preferred some more MP like at least 18-20 for their 1st FF. Well Nikon decided different, I am sure this is mostly due to some real life requirements of their customers for this flagship, which I guess are mainly Pro's. But I am keeping the Nikon glass (all FF capable) and wait for their next FF model with higher resolution.

 

I am happilyusing my M8 and have almost all new lenses for the M, so I have a great Leica solution. But also here waiting for the FF M9

 

I sold my DMR and R9, IQ was brilliant, but as I said I do no longer want to fool around with Crop DSLRs (enough that my M8 is still crop). Waiting for the new R10 though and if this becomes what I am expecting, then I will jump in.

 

The E-3 for me is a FF DSLR because it was from the beginning designed as FF. ANd I love this camera and the glass available for it (Olympus and Leica). My finding of IQ for all these systems is the following ranking:

 

M8, DMR 95%

E-3 90%

Nikon 85%

 

This takes of course into account my preferences and these are not just good IQ at high ISO, but also color, contrast, details, etc. - as I said my individual ranking.

 

So I see currently the E-3 as great complementary DSLR for the M8, and I am waiting what I will do in FF (Kleinbild) DSLR - Leica (what I hope will be what I want and for a somehow acceptable price) or Nikon (D3 follow up model).

 

Meanwhile I am very happy with E-3 and M8.

[tom0511]

....The E-3 for me is a FF DSLR because it was from the beginning designed as FF. ANd I love this camera and the glass available for it (Olympus and Leica). My finding of IQ for all these systems is the following ranking:

 

 

This I dont understand. IMO the E-3 is as much a "crop" camera as any camera else.

Nikon and Canon offer zoom lenses which fit dx. The only thing one could miss are some more primes, but then again Oly doesnt offer those either.

[woodyspedden]

When it comes to great Nikon glass do not forget the venerable 28 1.4, Expensive and hard to find but one of the best from any glass maker. YMMV

 

Woody

[ptomsu]

Great Woody

 

This is one of the lenses I would love to own, but it is not available and hard to get

[ptomsu]

This I dont understand. IMO the E-3 is as much a "crop" camera as any camera else.

Nikon and Canon offer zoom lenses which fit dx. The only thing one could miss are some more primes, but then again Oly doesnt offer those either.

 

Ft is Full Frame Four Third - period. It was never meant to be larger.

 

So all the lenses are designed for (Full Frame) FT, there is no crop version.

 

This is why I say it's FF.

 

Of course compared to FF Kleinbild it is only half the size. so if you are using R lenses on Ft they are a crop of 2.

 

But this is not the way I see it.

[tom0511]

When it comes to great Nikon glass do not forget the venerable 28 1.4, Expensive and hard to find but one of the best from any glass maker. YMMV

 

Woody

 

I agree, 28/1.4 and 85/1.4 are great lenses.

[KM-25]

Well, if this is the only work you can make money of I would really start thinking to change something. And BTW, what did you do before such lenses were available? Or FF DSLRs?

 

Some like you just do not want to start using their brain. Good for you that you an kill everything by just using latest technology .....

 

Well, doc.......it is like this.

 

I don't need a 14-24 just like I don't really need the 10 camera bodies, 22 lenses, two battery powered 1200 watt strobes, Kenyon KS-6 gryo-stabilizer or any other special goody I have. In fact, I could get a away with a lot less. Couple of bodies, 3-5 lenses, a strobe maybe. I have a good imagination that I am paid well to use, so in all reality, I really don't need much.

 

But that imagination.....when it gets going, it likes to not be bound by the specs of my gear, so I have only the best money can buy and I have a lot of it.

 

When I look at a lens, the optical quality comes first, the actual focal length and even the maximum aperture are second.

 

The Nikon 14-24 is sharper than most lenses on the market, regardless of focal length, format or maker.

 

So when I was shooting models tonight having hot cocoa as they watched Winter fireworks in a ski town for an ad and the grand finale was almost too close, that 14-24 came in *very* handy.

 

And when I have to go up in a helicopter on Monday to fly at 16,000 with the door off in sub zero temps to get updated ski area shots, again, the 17-35 will stay home and the 14-24 will come along because of it's optical quality.

 

For most of what I do, I don't *need* a 14-24, but because I have it, I am going to use my imagination to think about what I can do with it.

 

I think that is entirely the point you are missing here Doc.....imagination.

[ptomsu]

@KM-25

 

well I am not missing this point, actually I am also (unfortunately) running always behind the best gear and know this lens and I know it's quality. But I try to force myself to resist at last while and do things with the gear I have and not "need" the new stuff from the very beginning.

 

So my incarnation of imagination needs actually a much higher degree than yours - don't you think? Because I try to achieve great results with existing gear.

 

But finally I may give up and just let myself fall in this new type of imagination opened by new and sexy gear. ut at least I try to resist.

[KM-25]

@KM-25

 

well I am not missing this point, actually I am also (unfortunately) running always behind the best gear and know this lens and I know it's quality. But I try to force myself to resist at last while and do things with the gear I have and not "need" the new stuff from the very beginning.

 

So my incarnation of imagination needs actually a much higher degree than yours - don't you think? Because I try to achieve great results with existing gear.

 

But finally I may give up and just let myself fall in this new type of imagination opened by new and sexy gear. ut at least I try to resist.

 

It would seem that you do miss the point. The point is I am not a Doctor, I am a full time photographer. That means I get to do my craft all day, any day all my life.

 

I did an entire article for a major magazine on immigration with just the M8 and one lens, the 28mm Summicron. That takes imagination and discipline.

 

There are a few people who need the optical quality of the new 14-24. There are also quite a few who would like it, but don't need it.

 

I just did a shoot this morning in which I needed about a 28mm polarized. So I used my 17-35. It was the right tool for the job. In some cases but not all, the 14-24 is the right tool for the job too, but you seem to have this jealous disregard for this particular tool.

 

I have a lot of gear because I want the right tool for the job and there is no one perfect tool for everything.

 

But I also imagine a lot, I day dream of photographs. Then if I really like the idea, I make a note of it and do it. I imagine going out to my favorite Aspen grove tonight and shooting the stars through the high branches at ISO 3200 at 40 seconds ( the star trail limit with a 14mm ) and getting a stunning image. Maybe I will bring some friends along and we will gently light the white Aspen trunks with our headlamps.

 

Imagine that!

 

It's OK if you do not imagine everything I do. My work is born of my long time love of photography and my way of seeing. Some people don't know why you would ever need ISO 6400 *and* a 1.4 lens. Some people will not be able to imagine what my book on the Rockies from the air will be like with aerial images shot in full moon light. Yep, that's right, full moonlight from an airplane. Imagine that....

 

Look, I'm sure you have imagination. But it seems you simply can't *imagine* that others have a need and a use for a lens like the 14-24 Nikkor.

 

That is the only reason I would even consider replying to a thread like this.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[marknorton]

The Olympus E-3 is "Full Frame" only in the sense that the sensor is as large as the lenses designed for the camera can manage, but that, IMHO is too small and imposes a compromise of resolution against sensistivity and noise.

 

The Nilon D3 is Full Frame too, and has a sensor which is 4 times as large as the Olympus. It continues to surprise and delight in equal measure with support for older fast primes and the stunning new zooms, outstanding noise performance and unmatched build integrity. There will be more and better FX cameras in the future but the D3 is doing fine for now.

 

In time, I hope we will have a FF Leica M which will allow us to take full advantage of those image circles we've paid for so expensively and which are currently being wasted outside the borders of the M8 sensor.

[ptomsu]

@KM-25

 

Well then be happy that you have the imagination you describe here.

 

You have read and understood nothing in this thread, because if you would have read carefully you would have noticed that I am not against this lens and I think it is a great lens too. So your imagination here is obviously wrong.

 

Nothing to add - and good luck with your imagination!