Swap Nikon D3 for M8?

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My best wildlife shots come at 200mm or less, so I really don't understand this whole "better reach for wildlife" thing.

 

If you really want to, you can certainly spend your whole life judging others by your experience, without thinking about what different experiences they have.

[dpattinson]

I saw some shots off a D3 last night - and it looked better at 6400 than my M8 at 640, so if low light is in any way interesting - I'd stick with the D3... made me want to cry

[Advertisement]

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

[gwelland]

 

Funny thing, I have the 200-400 too and when I shoot wildlife, I end up getting my best and most salable shots when they are not boring dead center of the frame mug shots of animals that you often see posted all over the net. My best wildlife shots come at 200mm or less, so I really don't understand this whole "better reach for wildlife" thing.

 

 

Hmm, I shall now forever refer to you as the "wolf or bear whisperer" because I can't get wild shots worth squat without at least 400mm and preferably 600mm and ideally with even more. I'm afraid my lack of Special Forces sniper training means that I'm somewhat further away from the real wildlife even in friendly places like Yellowstone.

 

I find that I'm shooting with the 200-400 with the 1.4 or 1.7 converter on now where before obviously I wouldn't need to bother with the D2X (or a D300). No complaints - just a fact of life and a fair trade off until I can rustle up the funds for a 600VR. (Hmm, sell one of the M8's, the Nocti and the WATE and I'm almost there ...).

 

Ok, to be fair, you don't need the super lenses if you're shooting animal environmental shots - and I guess that's your point. I agree that there are a lot of eyeball/nostril shots out there that look initially impressive but normally don't tell much of a story beyond 'look how long my lens is'. :-)

 

Horses for courses as we say. When I'm traveling nothing beats the simplicity and exquisite character of the Leica and a couple of lenses.

[Ecaton]

I would never switch my M8 for a D3 and vice versa the D3 (which I ordered) for a M8.

 

These are 2 complementary systems. The question could be switch a R9/DMR against a D3, but otherwise I would try to own both - M8 and D3.

 

A D300 is a crop camera, I do not like crop and would never go back to this if I had the choice.

 

 

My M8 is a crop camera as well...........

[billh]

If I had to make a choice between the M8 and D3 because I could only have one or the other, the D3 would win for me. It all depends on what you are doing with the camera. I took the M8 with me here, but did not use it because of the high ISO quality of the D3 (all are at ISO5000 and 6400),

 

http://homepage.mac.com/billh96007/PianoCraft/PhotoAlbum267.html

 

And this is the sort of thing you cannot do with an M8,

 

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

 

http://homepage.mac.com/billh96007/Trial-Web/PhotoAlbum272.html

 

The M8 is small and lightweight, and if the shutter fix proves to really be quiet, it will increase its appeal - although I resent having to pay another $1800 to make the M8 perform like my previous film Ms. You might want to rent one and try it for a bit.

[glenerrolrd]

I'm another one of M8 / D3 crowd and as described by others, the two systems are complementary. I used to shoot a pair of D2X's and can certainly understand the desire to keep the D300 for the extra reach (albeit crop) with longer lenses.

 

The discussions here about M8 & D3 image quality being comparable are obviously being posted by people who don't have D3's! My experience with the D3 with the latest 14-24, 24-70 lenses, plus 70-200 VR & 200-400 VR's is that the camera is simply outstanding and possesses an ability to capture low light images in a way that my M8 & Leica glass just simply cannot compare. In available light the M8 is excellent so long as you're shooting ISO 320/640 but beyond that I find the noise objectionable not just when pixel-peeping but also in large prints. This is the area where the D3 simply leaves the M8 in the dust. The new glass is every but as sharp as my 28 & 75 Summicrons. My 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 can actually be focussed accurately and front/back focus are simply not issues at all. I wish I could say that about my Noctilux and two M8 bodies that either front or back focus ...

 

However, as wonderful as the D3 is, the M8 is fantastic for street/walk about photography when you don't want to drag around the bulk of the DSLR. Whilst I don't subscribe to back-ache issues of others, I don't under-estimate the size and bulk of the D3 and zoom. I managed to break the lens hood on my 14-24 within a week due to the size of the lens/body combination going through a doorway (super glue and gaffer tape are wonderful things at times though!).

 

So long as you don't expect the same phenomenal low light, noise performance, accurate white balance, almost flawless metering and auto-ISO freedom of the D3, the M8 will not disappoint I love my M8's and Leica glass so don't get me wrong but it will be a compromise between size/weight and utility. They produce first rate results but it's a tough comparison with the D3. YMMV

Coming from an M user I would be interested in how you like the 200-400....I also have the other 3 zooms and a D3. I am getting used to it this weekend . A real bomb but once you start shooting you forget the size . I am considering the 200-400 but imagine its best used with a monopod...my other option would be the 300 2.8 and a 1.4x extender?

[elviskennedy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 distinct platforms that work well together. Think of them separately and buy glass separately and you'll be very happy. Rationalize one for the other and you'll never be happy.

Wag

 

Wag:

 

Truer words were never spoken. Right on, brother!

 

Elvis

[gmaurizio]

Coming from an M user I would be interested in how you like the 200-400....I also have the other 3 zooms and a D3. I am getting used to it this weekend . A real bomb but once you start shooting you forget the size . I am considering the 200-400 but imagine its best used with a monopod...my other option would be the 300 2.8 and a 1.4x extender?

 

If you do not mind my advise, go for the 200mm F2.0 VR plus TC14E and TC 20E. That makes it a fantastic 280mm F2.8 (VR) and a 400 F4.0 (VR) even better!

[innerimager]

If you do not mind my advise, go for the 200mm F2.0 VR plus TC14E and TC 20E. That makes it a fantastic 280mm F2.8 (VR) and a 400 F4.0 (VR) even better!

I agree. I sold my 200-400, a great lens for sure, to help fund my Leica system. But a major reason I could let it go is that the 200/2.0 VR does so well with the TC-20E. They seem like soulmates, in that I find the 20E degrades other lenses too much for my taste, but not so the 200/2.0. Perhaps it's just that that 200 starts at such a high level. But my tests showed the 200+TC 2.0 not only optically matched the 200-400 at 4.0, but focused quicker.

[billh]

I agree. I sold my 200-400, a great lens for sure, to help fund my Leica system. But a major reason I could let it go is that the 200/2.0 VR does so well with the TC-20E. They seem like soulmates, in that I find the 20E degrades other lenses too much for my taste, but not so the 200/2.0. Perhaps it's just that that 200 starts at such a high level. But my tests showed the 200+TC 2.0 not only optically matched the 200-400 at 4.0, but focused quicker.

 

That is very interesting. Do you have any examples we can see from the 200 f2.0 and the 200-400? I plan to try the 200 f2.0, 300 f2.8 and 200-400, with 1.4x and 1.7x. The range of the zoom seems perfect, but I am not sure how the image quality compares to the primes. The 200 f2.0 seems a good choice because I use the Leica 180 f2.0 on my 1Ds2, and love the images from it. I have been using my 1Ds2, and 300 f2.8IS with 1.4x for bird photos, and I am not sure whether to get a 500mm for the Canon, or for the D3.

[gwelland]

Coming from an M user I would be interested in how you like the 200-400....I also have the other 3 zooms and a D3. I am getting used to it this weekend . A real bomb but once you start shooting you forget the size . I am considering the 200-400 but imagine its best used with a monopod...my other option would be the 300 2.8 and a 1.4x extender?

 

Well, coming from an M ... its big, huge, heavy but oh so sharp and responsive.

 

When I bought mine the 200/2 VR wasn't an option which I must admit does sound interesting with 1.4/1.7/2.0 extenders if you don't want the zoom. It'll be cheaper, smaller & lighter too. 200-400 can be used handheld if necessary but I have to shoot across my left arm - it's definitely happiest on a tripod with wimberly sidekick or on a monopod. I found that the RRS replacement foot aids with rigidity of the mount and general tripod handling too.

[innerimager]

That is very interesting. Do you have any examples we can see from the 200 f2.0 and the 200-400? I plan to try the 200 f2.0, 300 f2.8 and 200-400, with 1.4x and 1.7x. The range of the zoom seems perfect, but I am not sure how the image quality compares to the primes. The 200 f2.0 seems a good choice because I use the Leica 180 f2.0 on my 1Ds2, and love the images from it. I have been using my 1Ds2, and 300 f2.8IS with 1.4x for bird photos, and I am not sure whether to get a 500mm for the Canon, or for the D3.

I don't have any direct comparisons, but here are 3 shots in sequence of a dog running directly at me, a good test for AF tracking and speed, as well as sharpness, with the 200 + TC 20 at f4 using a D2H.

 

Here's a link to a full resolution example of the combo focused on the roof of the buildings at 5.6.best....Peter

400mm5.6web.jpg photo - halperin photos at pbase.com

[chris_livsey]

I find it curious that the talk on this forum often turns to discussion of alternatives or additions to the M8 whilst on the film forum,where the choice of hardware is even greater ( meaning in range ) this rarely happens.

I admit BTW I am looking at a swop of the 'blad system for the D3 (to add of course to the M8) making me just as guilty

[larryk34]

Yes. If your D3 overlaps with your D300 and you prefer the latter, then trade in the D3 for a Leica M8. That way you'll have two, quite different but complementary cameras. No one would advise this easily to someone who has never tried a rangefinder camera in the past. But since you're quite familiar with the M3 and already like it, it's easy to predict you'll love the M8. Use your old lenses and search hard and far for the one new Leica M lens that would meet your landscape needs the best and buy it. Some of the newer lenses are good corner to corner, which seem to be a plus for landscape photography.

[hdrmd]

It is a bit of a stretch to compare a rangefinder camera with a camera that has autofocus, is full frame, uses long lenses, and has very good high ISO capabilities. I use the M8 any time I can, but sometimes it needs experience with the rangefinder and its limitations. I still like to use the M8 more than other camera, but I am not selling the EOS IIIDS or the 500 mm F4 anytime soon.

[photophile]

re 200-400 VR... I bought mine as a wildlife lens for alaska ( also took my m6 and my 21). on a d200 body with tripod - it FAR exceeded my expectations. shots from boats were tack sharp, land based better yet. used the 1.4 on it with no noticable lag in af capture. only downside is weight. would buy it again in a heartbeat. by the way.. it was that or the m8. I never looked back. best. ch

[tom0511]

I have both the D3 and the M8 and I would not trade one for the other. They are different tools for different jobs. If I could have only one, it would be the D3.

 

I'm a full frame convert and it's strange how a cropped camera is accepted as a disadvantage at the wide end but seen as an advantage at the long end by making a lens appear longer than it is; I can achieve the same angle of view by cropping the FF images down to 1.5; of course, I then only have 5MP but since the D3 has at least 3 stops noise advantage over a D2X, those 5MP may well be cleaner with lower noise and less camera shake. Which do you prefer? 12 noisy, smudged MP or 5 clean sharp ones?

QUOTE]

 

Up to 1600 ISO the D300 is not bad at all regarding noise. I prefer 12MP clean and sharp vs 5MP clean and sharp.

I first went with the D300 and the longer I use it the more I am not sure if I really need the D3.

If you shoot low light there are 2 factors to keep in mind:

1) if you shoot fast lenses wide open on the D3 you get quit some vignetting - not so with the D300

2) if you want a little bit DOF (which is often the case for me) the smaller sensor with a shorter focal length will get you more DOF at the same f-stop. I often like to use f2.0 or f2.8 for portraits and people in low light. I would need to use f4.0 to get the same DOF on full frame and whoosh-the noise advantage is gine allready.

 

Of course for those times when there is not enough light for f2.0 or f2.8 and shallow DOF is ok (or even wanted), I am sure the D3 can do things no other camera would do.

 

Regarding M8 and D300 - I find they go along pretty good. The D300 has a clear advantage at higher ISO. I use the M8 up to 640 but dont like the results at higher ISOs (except for B&W). The D300 I feel compfortable up to 1600 ISO at least, and use auto iso all the time. Grat feature.