jaapv Posted August 3, 2008 Share #61 Posted August 3, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't quite understand that we are giving justice to Nikon for charging $500 for some memory increase, while at the same time we are cursing Leica for asking E1200 to replace sapphire glass and a new shutter mechanism.QUOTE] speaking only for myself: Nikon's upgrade is increasing the utility of a camera in an area where it is already competitive. (hence theupgrade will not be universally attractive) Leica's upgrade is fixing problems with the original design. (hence most M8 owners would like the new 'features' but might gag on the cost) My first dslr came with a cover for the lcd so the expensive lcd was protected at the cost of a few cents (or 100 Yen for a replacement cover) my second dslr came with a hardened lcd screen. My M8 screen was scratched within a few weeks of me getting it. Then there is the issue of Leica spending he last few decades telling us how the whisper quiet shutter of the M cameras is a major Leica advantage and part of the M DNA, except they launch the M8 with a shutter that is lauder than a good few slrs (subjectively to my ears). I didnt notice anyone moaning about the D3 buffer till now, but there has been lots of moans about M8 screen and shutter noise. That surely is the difference... Speaking for myself - the chrome on my cameras is getting scuffed- but the LCDs are still unmarked - but then I do not wear diamond rings And Leica has already sent me a number of free LCD protectors whenever they got the cameras in for various reasons - I never used them. And the shutters have become progressively more silent with extended use, to a point where I decided that the upgrade is a waste of money for me. The main point of this Nikon upgrade, imo. is that they seem to have left the time-honoured digital rhythm of bringing out new models whenever some aspect could be "improved". To me it signifies that the core aspect of digital cameras,the sensor, in Nikon's opinion, has reached a stable level. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 3, 2008 Posted August 3, 2008 Hi jaapv, Take a look here A sense of purpose by Nikon. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
offshore Posted August 3, 2008 Share #62 Posted August 3, 2008 Well, OK. Try putting your Canon DX lenses on their full frame cameras and let me know what happens. I thought it was quite innovative on the part of Nikon to add DX to the full frame bodies. What in heavens name lens mounts has to do with Nikon v Canon is smoke and mirrors Internet bullshit and you know it. It seems you have a bug in your ass about Nikon - that's OK too - I applaud and support you on that point. Canon is great kit enjoy it. My personal preferences aside we should applaud innovation, such as the ability to use DX designed lenses on an FX body - imagine the howl if Leica is the least bit innovative with the M9. One more point - cut the lecture crap... I don't need to be lectured by you or anyone else. These forums apparently are wide-open discussion. Don't lecture. Best Regards. Terry First off Terry I wasn't lecturing you so back off with the hostility. If you can't handle a discussion that doesn't go your way then stay out of the fire. As for having a bug up my ass about Nikon you couldn't be more wrong. I'm in retail photography sales and have been for 16 years. I can't afford to be prejudicial about one camera company or another. I was also a Nikon shooter for 33 years and since I was one of the many who supported the company I've a right to my opinion. My preference for my gear are suited to my needs and I don't push my needs off on other people when they buy. I'm personally glad that Nikon has reached a point in their development to be competitive with Nikon because it makes for a healthier market. Where I have a problem is in the throw away society we have developed into where obsolescence is so rapid that consumers feel they need to keep up and replace perfectly good cameras with the latest incarnation. Think for a moment in a world of rapidly dwindling resources if consumers told Nikon, Canon et al to make an upgradable camera instead of a replaceable camera, then no one would have to worry about DX lenses or non DX lenses. Don't give orders Terry it doesn't work with me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrycioni Posted August 3, 2008 Share #63 Posted August 3, 2008 Where I have a problem is in the throw away society we have developed into where obsolescence is so rapid that consumers feel they need to keep up and replace perfectly good cameras with the latest incarnation. Think for a moment in a world of rapidly dwindling resources if consumers told Nikon, Canon et al to make an upgradable camera instead of a replaceable camera, then no one would have to worry about DX lenses or non DX lenses. Don't give orders Terry it doesn't work with me. Great lecture... Not much works with you by the sounds of things... Shrug! Whatever! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 3, 2008 Share #64 Posted August 3, 2008 According to Chasseur d'Images # 290, 300 & 302: Hi LCT, Decibels are one piece of the picture but pitch and duration are important too. The M8 shutter is lower pitched than that of many DSLRs (making it less noticeable to the subjects I tested with) but of longer duration (making it more noticeable in some surroundings). The problem with trying to define this with one kind of number measurement (as CDI did) is that it oversimplifies the differences. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 3, 2008 Share #65 Posted August 3, 2008 Why are so many people talking about the Nikons becoming obsolete? A camera will only become obsolete for those who have to have the newest products every time they get released. The D3 is an unbelievable camera if you don't mind its weight and will remain a great camera for many years to come. The M8 however desperately needs an upgrade. A good friend of mine is a professional photographer who shoots celebrity portraits. He is still working with a Canon 1Ds. He skipped the upgrade to the MarkII and he admired the low noise of my 5d when I owned it. When the MarkIII came out, he told me what a fantastic camera that is and that he would finally upgrade. That was five months ago. He is still taking fantastic portraits of some of our biggest celebrities, still with his Canon 1Ds. He says that the camera is simply good enough for what he does and he just cannot justify not using it anymore. So much for cameras becoming obsolete. Amen. I wrote about just this topic (with similar examples) last month. The D3 will very likely be an excellent professional camera five years from now and I probably would not hesitate to use one in 2013 for various kinds of shoots. Some digital cameras resist obsolescence quite well. The 1Ds, released in 2002, is at the top of that list, IMO. Cheers, Sean Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted August 3, 2008 Share #66 Posted August 3, 2008 Speaking for myself - the chrome on my cameras is getting scuffed- but the LCDs are still unmarked - but then I do not wear diamond rings And Leica has already sent me a number of free LCD protectors whenever they got the cameras in for various reasons - I never used them. And the shutters have become progressively more silent with extended use, to a point where I decided that the upgrade is a waste of money for me. The main point of this Nikon upgrade, imo. is that they seem to have left the time-honoured digital rhythm of bringing out new models whenever some aspect could be "improved". To me it signifies that the core aspect of digital cameras,the sensor, in Nikon's opinion, has reached a stable level. Like Sein says, it's not just the level of the noise Jaap. If you take a look at that pdf of Leica's, they manage to reduce vibrations, and you shoot a lot handheld, low light scenes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted August 3, 2008 Share #67 Posted August 3, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi LCT, Decibels are one piece of the picture but pitch and duration are important too. The M8 shutter is lower pitched than that of many DSLRs (making it less noticeable to the subjects I tested with) but of longer duration (making it more noticeable in some surroundings). The problem with trying to define this with one kind of number measurement (as CDI did) is that it oversimplifies the differences. Cheers, Sean Indeed - the length of the noise with the re-cocking and all, especially, is what makes the M8 quite less unobtrusive than it could (and should) be. Amen. I wrote about just this topic (with similar examples) last month. The D3 will very likely be an excellent professional camera five years from now and I probably would not hesitate to use one in 2013 for various kinds of shoots. Some digital cameras resist obsolescence quite well. The 1Ds, released in 2002, is at the top of that list, IMO. Cheers, Sean Definitely. Many people still use the 1Ds and the D2x to make great images, and many will use the D3 as long as it will suit their purpose and as long as it will work and being serviced. I know I will. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 3, 2008 Share #68 Posted August 3, 2008 ...Decibels are one piece of the picture but pitch and duration are important too. The M8 shutter is lower pitched than that of many DSLRs (making it less noticeable to the subjects I tested with) but of longer duration (making it more noticeable in some surroundings). The problem with trying to define this with one kind of number measurement (as CDI did) is that it oversimplifies the differences... Hi Sean, Chasseur d'Images did measure all this actually. I'm not allowed to display their pitch curbs here but that of the M8 does not look that good i'm afraid. As for duration it is shorter than 300 ms with most DSLRs but significantly longer with the M8 (450 ms). (same sources as above) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 3, 2008 Share #69 Posted August 3, 2008 LCT, I have no wish to be contrary but these figures mean very little without knowing the frequency at which the decibel figures were measured. If they were all measured at the same reference frequency then they would be comparable but it would still not indicate the loudness of the sound. For example, the RZ67, say, might be particularly loud in the band of frequencies between 900 to 1,100 Hz but the E3, say, might be particularly loud in the 8,000 to 8,200 Hz band but if the decibel figure is measured at, say, 5,000 Hz both cameras will appear similarly quiet according to the measurements but in reality they might both appear quite loud to listeners. Also in case anyone's not familiar with the workings of dBs, a 10 dB acoustic difference represents a doubling of the sound intensity (some would say twice as loud) at that frequency. However loudness is a subjective measurement because the same sound intensity may not be perceived as having the same loudness by two different people at the same distance from the source. It is interesting that many people seem more tolerant to louder sounds at lower frequencies so we'd need to factor that into the debate too since many dSLRs seem to have a higher-pitched sound. Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 3, 2008 Share #70 Posted August 3, 2008 Also in case anyone's not familiar with the workings of dBs, a 10 dB acoustic difference represents a doubling of the sound intensity (some would say twice as loud) I thought it was 3 dB that was a doubling of the intensity. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasl.se Posted August 3, 2008 Share #71 Posted August 3, 2008 I thought it was 3 dB that was a doubling of the intensity. It's 10dB; 3 is the difference between one and two speakers. Physics teach insisted there's not much reason to get two speakers: just look at the levels. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 3, 2008 Share #72 Posted August 3, 2008 ...I have no wish to be contrary but these figures mean very little without knowing the frequency at which the decibel figures were measured... Hi Pete i'm no techie at all i'm afraid and i don't try to sell you Chasseur d'Images either (not my favourite mag BTW). Just sharing what i read there in response to Diogenis' and Sean's posts above. In practice, we have all compared the M8 shutter noise to that of our DSLRs (or DRFs) i guess so we are all perfectly aware of its cons and pros, if any, from this viewpoint. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 3, 2008 Share #73 Posted August 3, 2008 I thought it was 3 dB that was a doubling of the intensity. Steve, 3 dB doubles power, 6 dB doubles voltage and 10 dB doubles loudness. I believe it's to do with the inverse-square law that says that loudness decreases by 4-fold for each doubling of distance from the source. (Voltage is 6 dB because it is 20 log Vout/Vin, whereas power is 10 log Vout/Vin - hence it's double. I'm starting to sound like a techie now - d'oh! ) Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 3, 2008 Share #74 Posted August 3, 2008 Pete, thanks for the correction. It's been a long time since A level Physics. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 3, 2008 Share #75 Posted August 3, 2008 Hi Pete i'm no techie at all i'm afraid and i don't try to sell you Chasseur d'Images either ... No problem, LCT, I'm just trying to squirt a little 'reality sauce' on the hamburger of continual debate about the M8's sound. Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 3, 2008 Share #76 Posted August 3, 2008 Pete, thanks for the correction. It's been a long time since A level Physics. Me too and, ahem, t'interweb is a wonderful resource. Pete. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted August 3, 2008 Share #77 Posted August 3, 2008 Great lecture... Not much works with you by the sounds of things... Shrug! Whatever! You gotta have ears before you can hear. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted August 4, 2008 Share #78 Posted August 4, 2008 Hi Sean, Chasseur d'Images did measure all this actually. I'm not allowed to display their pitch curbs here but that of the M8 does not look that good i'm afraid. As for duration it is shorter than 300 ms with most DSLRs but significantly longer with the M8 (450 ms). (same sources as above) Duration affects speed, not noise level or vibrations. Here is what's important for taking shots : http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_3638.pdf Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted August 4, 2008 Share #79 Posted August 4, 2008 Duration affects speed, not noise level or vibrations. Here is what's important for taking shots : http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_3638.pdf Those are pitch curbs. The one from Chasseur d'Images loooks like the first one in your link more or less. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted August 4, 2008 Share #80 Posted August 4, 2008 What do you mean by that? Sorry, I lost you... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.