michael friedberg Posted February 17, 2008 Share #1 Posted February 17, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) As I was googling this morning I came across “Imaging Insider” http://www.imaginginsider.com/?p=69471 which referenced a blog by a photographer Mark Alberhasky. Alberhasky did a non-scientific test of a comparison single shot a Nikon D3 DSLR and the Leica M8. For the Leica he used a 35mm f2 Summicron and the Nikon D3 with a 24-70 f2.8 lens. You can get to the test via the following link or from the Imaging Insider link above: CLASH OF THE TITANS: NIKON D3 VS LEICA M8 He apologises to Leicaphiles for the fact that the Leica "lost" the test. But frankly this appears to me to be lens testing at its absolute worst. I can't tell whether there was a lens problem or what, but my Leica images don't look anywhere near what Alberhasky shows. It's easy to be defensive of the M8 (or hypercritical as we sometimes are) but I think this Blog entry illustrates the problem with amateur Internet "journalism". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Hi michael friedberg, Take a look here Alberhasky "test" of M8 vs. Nikon D3. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
vanhulsenbeek Posted February 17, 2008 Share #2 Posted February 17, 2008 The word unscientific indeed applies. And IMHO it looks if he did not realize the M8 is not autofocus. And that's about all in words this test deserves. Let's close this thread! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danyves Posted February 17, 2008 Share #3 Posted February 17, 2008 The focus on the Leica picture is on the shoulder, while the Nikon one is effectively on face, nose or eyes. Writing is on the poor side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdrmd Posted February 17, 2008 Share #4 Posted February 17, 2008 Good Grief. There are areas in which Nikon is strong and areas where Leica is weak, but this test is silly. DR Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted February 17, 2008 Share #5 Posted February 17, 2008 Man I better ditch my M8 for a D3. "Better Files". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted February 17, 2008 Share #6 Posted February 17, 2008 He also states that they were shot at SIMILAR ISO but does not state what that ISO IS. To me it looks like the ISO was up around 1250 and although I do use that ISO on the M8 from time to time and find it OK we all know it is not the best camera for that ISO and from what I've heard and read the D3 is a great high ISO camera. This guy is a fool and thinks he is putting something over on whoever reads his little blog. Although the D3 has many good qualities and features I'll be sticking to my M8's. In fact I'm in the proccess of selling ALL my Nikon gear, except the SB 800 as It works on the M8 OK, because in the year+ I've had a M8 I haven't taken the D200 out of the house. And No I don't want another behemoth camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmaurizio Posted February 17, 2008 Share #7 Posted February 17, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Shootist, what Nikon gear do you have left? Care to send me a pm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted February 17, 2008 Share #8 Posted February 17, 2008 Shootist, what Nikon gear do you have left? Care to send me a pm? PM sent I see you're in Miami so just disregard the last part of the PM. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenerrolrd Posted February 17, 2008 Share #9 Posted February 17, 2008 Wow That is an amazing weak test. I have a brand new D3 with the 24-70/2.8 as well as several M8s. I purchased the D3 because I like to shoot sports and that sure is difficult with any rangefinder. I also missed the auto flash capabilities for mixed lighting ..yes you can do all that with an M8 but its not easy. With that said I have found nothing about the D3 that blows away the M8 ...except for the higher ISO ranges. The 24-70 is a fine lens but not in the same league as the newest Leica s..which many feel are sharp beyond their needs anyway. I am shooting a few thousand images in all types of lighting that can be compared to my Leica images .... I am not sure I am describing this correctly but the leica files have much better "tone separation" and luminousity..giving them a brilliance not matched by the Nikon. You can see this is a heart beat in images of the ocean . The Nikon files are amazingly sharp ....super detail in say a beach scene but the color isn t as good. I am sure I will learn to process the .NIF files to much better results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted February 17, 2008 Share #10 Posted February 17, 2008 Shootist, What setting do you use on the SB 800 when you use it on the M8? I have one but have not tried it yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted February 17, 2008 Share #11 Posted February 17, 2008 lol clearly a nikon fanboy desperately trying to justify his latest purachses I mean what complete tool has a 'Nikon" logo on the bottom of their portfolio. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gIzzE Posted February 17, 2008 Share #12 Posted February 17, 2008 Is his wife Dennis Pennis?? Dennis Pennis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodda Posted May 3, 2008 Share #13 Posted May 3, 2008 This is a comparision I did. The distant from the subject was the same and I tried to focus on the same thing. Anybody know of a scientific comparision As I cannot believe the difference being a die hard Leica Fan. Both are with Raw and using Lightroom. Is Mr Reid going to do something. I did however notice that the M8 gave a better white balance out of the camera. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/45640-alberhasky-test-of-m8-vs-nikon-d3/?do=findComment&comment=550690'>More sharing options...
peterv Posted May 3, 2008 Share #14 Posted May 3, 2008 That does it! Woodda and this blog guy convinced me with their brilliant tests. It's obvious I've blind all along. I'm going to throw my M8 in the trash. Can't sell such a bad camera to some poor person who has not been enlightened be these tests. Thanks for posting this! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodda Posted May 3, 2008 Share #15 Posted May 3, 2008 Not so hasty. I still love the M8 and am a Leica Fan. On a serious note would it be better to sell M8 now or wait until Photokina. It so Beautiful but not sure I can tie that much money up.. O what pains. Maybe the D300 will be Ok as a stop gap . Please not roasting comments please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted May 3, 2008 Share #16 Posted May 3, 2008 Hi Woodda, I am surprised that the M8 shot gave such a centred histogram as it appears to have been taken at -1 EV? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodda Posted May 3, 2008 Share #17 Posted May 3, 2008 I would be more than happy to email DNG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodda Posted May 3, 2008 Share #18 Posted May 3, 2008 Intesting. I have converted Raw using Capture one and it is much better. Would be nice if somebody did a scientifc compare though. Lecai is to the left Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/45640-alberhasky-test-of-m8-vs-nikon-d3/?do=findComment&comment=550749'>More sharing options...
SJP Posted May 3, 2008 Share #19 Posted May 3, 2008 Interestingly the Leica file is sharper and contrastier (yes I mean the grainy fuzzy one on the right - just step back from the screen and stop pixel peeping). So if we forget the noise which is a minor issue what are we actually trying to prove? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert4321 Posted May 3, 2008 Share #20 Posted May 3, 2008 Intesting. I have converted Raw using Capture one and it is much better. Would be nice if somebody did a scientifc compare though. Lecai is to the left I did notice myself that the M8 RAW file looks like sh_t in ACR, but after process it into JPEG, they are beautiful. ACR may have short coming in the preview for M8's DNG. Can you comparing the JPEGs? Evan the M8 file is more noisy, but the D3 file seems too digital (too clean & plastic looking) to me from what I can make of in this small web sample. I have decided long ago stop spending extra money in the M8 or Leica system as it has too many disadvantages for my work. Don't get me wrong, I still love the M8 and will still use it. I sold my 1D2, bounch of L Zooms, Contax ND plus all my Contax 645 lenses to fund a new D3 system. I am keeping my 5D for the 16-35 II, 85L and 70-200/2.8IS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.