A Kind of Agony

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Doug, the picture of the dik-dik above is not meant as a definitive test for deciding between two different cameras and lenses, but is merely meant as an indication of what one can do with a D300 and the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR lens, which in my opinion is spectacular.

 

It is taken under the typical conditions of shooting in a Namibian game park, where one is has to shoot from a vehicle that is limited to staying on the road or track; it is taken handheld at ISO 800, f/2.8, 1/200sec, at 200mm (EFOV 300mm). At least you're not arguing that one can only see the quality or depth of a Leica film shot by looking at a silver print. Maybe I'm incompetent but the prints from made on my Epson 9800 using ImagePrint are better than my silver prints ever were.

 

Here is another picture taken some ten days ago in the Etosha Natonal Park in Namibia of a kudu: it is roughly a 60% crop, also handheld, taken at ISO 800 at f/5 at 200mm (EFOV 300mm). Considering that this one was shot at 1/125sec it is, to me, a reasonably good indication, but not a demonstration, of the effectiveness of the VR (vibration reduction) system of this lens:

 

 

 

 

Again, I would not decide on the D300 versus the D3 on the basis of these pictures. I posted them only to suggest that if the original poster wanted to go digital, he might want to consider the D300 rather than the D3, which would also depend on what type of photography he is interested in. I never made any comments or cast any aspersions on the DMR, as I have never used one.

 

I also wrote that, for my photography, I prefer the smaller sensor of the D300 to the full-frame sensor of the D3 because of the greater DOF, but this issue, which I consider interesting, has not been picked up by anybody in the subsequent discussions, which has been limited to the virtues of film and silver prints. Perhaps I should add that I like expressive prints, whether silver of digital, and have never wanted to impose my views and preferences on anyone.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos & Video from Mitch Alland

[wildlightphoto]

Mitch, my experience comparing prints is much like yours: the prints I'm able to make digitally (whether of film or digital camera origin) are far better than the prints I was making via an enlarger... though this might say something about my darkroom skills Also thanks for the name of the little antelope (dik-dik). I apologize if my post appeared to question your abilities, or that you were pushing the D300 in particular.

 

From what I've been reading (no personal experience) the 70-200 G VR is a good match for the D300, not so for the D3 because this lens' corner performance is quite poor on the larger sensor.

 

Just to further confuse the original poster, there are other ways to get technically good photos in weak light other than with VR or IS. This photo was made at ISO 400 with a -1 stop exposure compensation (effectively ISO 800) with a 560mm lens at 1/125 sec, cropped from horizontal:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/50138-western-bluebird.html

 

The trick is a shoulder stock & monopod. Not as convenient as VR from within a vehicle but it can be a useful technique for making an expressive photo in weak light.

[phovsho]

I have only read your original post, and not the 3 pages of responses. I have M film cameras and an M8. I have had other digital SLRs. Like you, curiously perhaps, I work in Hanoi, Viet Nam, on a part time basis. My home, however, is New Zealand.

 

I have debated film versus digital and Leica versus Nikon. I would never sell my M film cameras, at least not all of them. However, I have determined not to buy any more M-film cameras.

 

I love the M8, and have never had a problem with it. Most of what gets reported here about the M8 is biased towards negative experiences, and many of the criticisms of the camera aren't well founded IMHO - from a serious amateur perspective anyway. The last two trips I have made to Hanoi I have taken my M8 and one lens. Last trip I determned to pack both film and digital bodies, but in the end elected to take only the M8. It has performed flawlessly.

 

If you like M film cameras, for size, feel, optics etc, and want to go digital I would suggest an M8.

 

Not sure if your budget will stretch to that.

 

See you in Hanoi!

 

Murray

[Guest malland]

Mitch, my experience comparing prints is much like yours: the prints I'm able to make digitally (whether of film or digital camera origin) are far better than the prints I was making via an enlarger... though this might say something about my darkroom skills...I apologize if my post appeared to question your abilities, or that you were pushing the D300 in particular.

 

From what I've been reading (no personal experience) the 70-200 G VR is a good match for the D300, not so for the D3 because this lens' corner performance is quite poor on the larger sensor...

Hey, Doug: my abilities need questioning so don't hesitate in doing so...

 

On enlarger prints: for very large prints like 100x150cm (40x60 inches), which I sometimes make, digital prints are usually better because of the dispersion of light from an enlarger at the lens to paper distance necessary for such large prints.

 

On the corner sharpness of the 70-200 G VR in a full frame context, can you give me the reference where you've read this. I bought the lens after reading Thom Hogan's review, but he wrote it a few years ago and obviously only tested it on a DX-sensor camera. BTW, do you know anything about the 200-400mm f/4G VR AF-S lens?

 

I see that the shot you linked was taken with the Leitz 560mm lens. I have the 400mm f/6.8 lens, which came with a crude F-mount converter. I've only used it with the Visoflex but will have to try it on the D300. The push-pull focusing in very fast and the lens came with a shoulder stock.

 

Finally, some people may be interested in reasons for getting the D300 rather than the full-frame D3. Here are a couple of articles by Thom Hogan that touch on this, although they were written just after the two cameras came out and before he had a chance to test them:

 

D3 or D300? by Thom Hogan

 

Comments on the Nikon D3 introduction by Thom Hogan

 

...and here is his D300 review as well as the review of the 70-200 f/2.8 lens:

 

Nikon D300 Review by Thom Hogan

 

70-200mm AF-S VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos & Video from Mitch Alland

[wildlightphoto]

On the corner sharpness of the 70-200 G VR in a full frame context, can you give me the reference where you've read this.

 

Somewhat disappointed with 70-200mm VR - Photo.net Nikon Forum

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR has very soft corners - Photo.net Nikon Forum

 

 

Finally, some people may be interested in reasons for getting the D300 rather than the full-frame D3. Here are a couple of articles by Thom Hogan that touch on this, although they were written just after the two cameras came out and before he had a chance to test them:

 

D3 or D300? by Thom Hogan

 

Comments on the Nikon D3 introduction by Thom Hogan

 

...and here is his D300 review as well as the review of the 70-200 f/2.8 lens:

 

Nikon D300 Review by Thom Hogan

 

70-200mm AF-S VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos & Video from Mitch Alland

 

I must say that the hardware choices we have now present a bewildering array of goodies. To the extent that they allow us to make pictures that were previously more difficult or impossible, this can only be a good thing for us!

[devils-advocate]

Hey Original Poster, I feel your agony.

 

I love my Leica Ms. They are a tacticle pleasure and analog bliss. They also gather a lot of dust because of the simple realities that digital make image capture so much simpler. The immediacy of digital is just immense fun.

 

My suggestion to you would be to keep the Lieca and lenses and buy a 'simple' dslr. Sadly, there really is no such thing (as an aside, one of the main things that keeps drawing me back to my film cameras is their simplicity -- if Nikon released a FM-2D, I would buy one immediately!.

 

But I digress. Get an reduced-frame dslr for around $1K. Look at the pentax cameras. Their lenses are the closest to the original mechanical ethos. Then get a lens and play. See if you like it. Perhaps equally importantly, see if you like the potential pain involved in getting decent prints!! Digital makes it easy to get the good image in, and hard to get it out, kind of the opposite of film.

 

Get Lightroom (the 2.0Beta), a decent printer and a low-end monitor calibrator. And see if you like it. It can work beautifully, but the frustrations can drive you back into the darkroom quite quickly.

 

If you find you really like the digital aspects of digital, then get an M8.....they are getting cheaper all the time.

 

...but keep that MP and the lenses. Not selling mine is one of the best purchasing/selling choices I ever made in camera gear!

 

Cheers,

 

- n.

 

ps. The D3 is phenomenal, and I understand your seduction. It has taken image quality to a whole new level. It is, however, just way too g-damn big.

[andalus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey Original Poster, I feel your agony.

 

I love my Leica Ms. They are a tacticle pleasure and analog bliss. They also gather a lot of dust because of the simple realities that digital make image capture so much simpler. The immediacy of digital is just immense fun.

 

My suggestion to you would be to keep the Lieca and lenses and buy a 'simple' dslr. Sadly, there really is no such thing (as an aside, one of the main things that keeps drawing me back to my film cameras is their simplicity -- if Nikon released a FM-2D, I would buy one immediately!.

 

But I digress. Get an reduced-frame dslr for around $1K. Look at the pentax cameras. Their lenses are the closest to the original mechanical ethos. Then get a lens and play. See if you like it. Perhaps equally importantly, see if you like the potential pain involved in getting decent prints!! Digital makes it easy to get the good image in, and hard to get it out, kind of the opposite of film.

 

Get Lightroom (the 2.0Beta), a decent printer and a low-end monitor calibrator. And see if you like it. It can work beautifully, but the frustrations can drive you back into the darkroom quite quickly.

 

If you find you really like the digital aspects of digital, then get an M8.....they are getting cheaper all the time.

 

...but keep that MP and the lenses. Not selling mine is one of the best purchasing/selling choices I ever made in camera gear!

 

Cheers,

 

- n.

 

ps. The D3 is phenomenal, and I understand your seduction. It has taken image quality to a whole new level. It is, however, just way too g-damn big.

Much thanks for comments. I am learning a lot reading. I am in agreement. I will NOT sell my MP or lenses! The idea of checking out an inexpensive digital like say the Canon G 9 currently has my attention, Thanks much!

[ron110n]

Here's two snaps I did today on a Canon G9

 

-Ron

 

 

 

Film Rules! =)

[Mark Antony]

Ron I like your style, exactly the correct use for a digicam to document your 'proper photography'

 

To the OP:

Don't sell your film cameras unless you need money to buy food.

I went totally digital in 2003, spent over £7000 on cameras lenses and Mac, two years later I really regretted that decision.

I've started to buy back some of the gear, and set up film kit again.

film is fun, digital is work

[hamey]

To rid of my Leica film cameras is un-thinkable.

I would never spend big magabucks on Digital cameras as they are not worth it.

But I love my Canon G9, AND NEVER LEAVE HOME WITH OUT IT.

So I take both my Leica film camera and G9 to work with me, as the G9 is so campact

it fits neatly in my work bag and shirt pocket.

For the price of ONE Leica M8 I can buy about 14 G9's.

 

I like so many people, don't need large mega prints, I only want to view my

Electronic images on a computer monitor and the G9 fits the bill perfectly.

So don't waste your money on OVER $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ EXPENSIVE DIGICAMS.

Keep your real camera (MP) and shoot slide film for your serious photography and use the G9 for convinience.

It's a great little Digicam, well worth the money.

 

Cheers.

 

Shot with the Canon G9 through a dirty windscreen.

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!

[darkness30]

Once up on a time, I made a big mistake and sold my 80-200 f4.5 Leica zoom. Most people will say it is a Minolta design and inferior to other designs but still, I feel bad that I sold it and images were great compared to D100 images from my Uncles camera. I cant imagine selling my 180 APO elmarit. Selling Leica for something else is a big mistake IMHO.

 

Mehmet

[andalus]

Thanks. This is exactly what I have in mind now. It's crazy, though, here I am thinking maybe I oughta wait for the G10. This is the curse of the digicams. But I will go ahead with the G9... andalus, M Love, Chapel Hill, NC

[Stephan_Chandler]

I think it’s a sacrilege to get rid of film in favor of digital… despite the fact that I like my Canon 20D quite a lot. The sane approach is to learn digital format from scratch in ADDITION to film… I’m sure you will find it fun to learn, but it is still quite a bit different from film. In time you can acquire the best of both worlds… and the two worlds DO coexist. I am sure I’m not the only one who use both extensively; altho, in the final analysis, I like film better. I do not think I would ever go for the M8, however… no need.

[chris_livsey]

I prefer the smaller sensor of the D300 to the full-frame sensor of the D3 because of the greater DOF, but this issue, which I consider interesting, has not been picked up by anybody in the subsequent discussions

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos & Video from Mitch Alland

 

Just to pick up on this, in the digital Medium format world the comparison with the DsIII is the norm. The same arguments apply with the virtue, for many, lying in the shallower depth of field of the MFDB because of the type of work undertaken. This DOF argument is, as you correctly point out, frequently missed in these comparison discussions being relegated to the endless discussions of how to negate the difference to test equally when the difference is what we should be celebrating.