Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kent10D

The Dreaded M8 & D700 ... um ... "Thing"!

Recommended Posts

And about $2,000.

 

Yes and the Nikon, any Nikon, is not the camera I like to do photography with.

If it was I wouldn't of sold my D200 and all my top of the line Nikon glass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comparison test you made and results. Although Andy claims that those are two completely different cameras and this is true the result is important. I also did compare M8 with my D3 in order to see if M8 can deliver the same stunning results and in which circumstances. The result is that I take 75 % of my shots with my M8. High ISO I do with D3 and Zeiss and sports with D3 and Nikon tele lenses.

Whenever new camera is out we will see such comparisons and according to my opinion it is good that this appears on Leica forum.

Sigma DP-1 and canon were also compared here.

 

Regards from Moscow,

 

Jaka Skorjanc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

The M8, even with it's older sensor, doesn't give an inch to the D700 within it's optimum ISO range.

 

...

 

 

Thank you for the comparison - interesting that nobody notice what strikes me as the most interesting detail here: the D700 with a zoom (new generation, of course) is as sharp as the Leica w/o AA filter and the ZM Planar which is considered as one of the sharpest 50 mm.

 

Lens design has gone a long way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At f8-10 almost any lens should perform very well. It would be more interesting to see the shot repeated wide open.

 

Ah, yes. That's true. But with the the D700's sensor you can shoot at f/8 in most low light situations. You don't have to shoot wide open unless you're in a coal mine with the lights off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, yes. That's true. But with the the D700's sensor you can shoot at f/8 in most low light situations.

 

But who would want to?

 

Confession. Once upon a time I used to take a Pentax ME Super on holiday to Greece or Turkey with a 28-200 zoom, and shoot almost everything with a polarizing filter at f8. I also used to produce boring photographs. No change there some might say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am constantly amused by the notion that some people have about photographic technique – a notion which reveals itself in an insatiable craving for sharpness of images. Is this the passion of an obsession? Or do these people hope, by this trompe l’oeil technique, to get to closer grips with reality? In either case, they are just as far away from the real problem as those of that other generation which used to endow all its photographic anecdotes with an intentional unsharpness such as was deemed to be “artistic.” -- HCB*

 

*Henri Cartier-Bresson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a comment on what we're seeing: I'm not sure there's much difference in contrast (though one might expect more contrast from a Zeiss prime). Nor is it clear that the Zeiss lens has missed on the bag-liner color.

 

Isn't it simply that the Nikon image is lighter? What would happen if you match the black points, white points, & a neutral gray spot (perhaps the watch face)?

 

Overall, this DOES look like an interesting 'test' to me, showing - as was mentioned above - that M8 is still in the running for high image quality.

 

Mostly I agree with Russ &HCB, & this is just about the only kind of 'pixel peeping' that interests me: checking once in a while to be sure we haven't fallen seriously behind the pack in IQ. It's clear that we haven't, & my Leica preference isn't only a matter of familiarity & portability.

 

Kirk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But who would want to?

 

Confession. Once upon a time I used to take a Pentax ME Super on holiday to Greece or Turkey with a 28-200 zoom, and shoot almost everything with a polarizing filter at f8. I also used to produce boring photographs. No change there some might say.

 

Sorry to hear that, Steve. Actually, anyone can shoot boring pictures with any camera at any aperture. "Boring" comes from the photographer, not the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Boring" comes from the photographer, not the camera.

 

Indeed it does, and in my case if came from me deciding that shooting everything at f8 was a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I'll just say it: for any real-life photography the difference in image quality is negligible. At higher ISOs however, the D3 leaves the M8 in the dust!!! Please, please,please, give me a sensor upgrade for the M8, so I can shoot at ISO 1250 with my Noctilux and get good color pictures. Save yourselves the time responding with examples of color images taken at ISO 1250. Because in any situation that you actually need ISO 1250 (dim artificial light), the M8 is inadequate. And again, I ONLY use the M8 and I shoot a lot. The only answer I expect from this post is an answer from Leica in the form of a sensor upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only answer I expect from this post is an answer from Leica in the form of a sensor upgrade.

 

Oh dear, I fear you will be disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed it does, and in my case if came from me deciding that shooting everything at f8 was a good idea.

 

You're right. That was a bad decision. Just because you can doesn't men you should, but "can" is a very wonderful word in a lot of situations. "Can't" can put you out of business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a shot from back in 2000 made with a 3 megapixel Casio. It cranks up to 13 x 19 nicely. The 13 x 19 certainly wouldn't satisfy anyone who's life is peeping pixels with a loupe, but it very much satisfies the people who buy copies out of a local gallery. (As usual, the image I see on my screen when I preview this isn't nearly as bright as the actual print or the image on my screen in Photoshop. But it gives you the idea.)

 

If you're doing landscape, then you (usually) need exceptional sharpness, but, of course, you're working with an 8 x 10 Linhof and slow film, which will give you kind of sharpness.

 

If you're doing product photography or (certain kinds of) advertising photography you need sharpness, but of course you're working with at least a medium format camera -- either with film or with a high-res digital back.

 

If you're doing just about anything else you need enough sharpness, but you don't need more than enough sharpness. The M8, the D700, the D3, and just about any digital point-and-shoot built in the past six years will give you what you need. ISO and noise are the real limiting factors unless you're always shooting outdoors in sunlight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about it... when I understand the technical data correctly, it should be possible to use the D700 in a similar way to a Rangefinder. The lenses for the smaller DX sensor can be used, meaning there should be some marking in the viewfinder to limit the field of view. One would actually have a larger field of view than the exposure frame...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not a "test" guys! It's just a, you know, "thing" where I took equivalent shots with the M8 and Nikon D700 with the following conditions:

 

* Leica M8

Lens: Zeiss Planar 50 mm f/2 (35 mm equivalent = 66.5 mm)

Exposure: 1/250 sec. f/8. ISO 160

 

* Nikon D700

Lens: AF-S Nikkor 24-70 mm f/2.8 G ED (@ 66 mm)

Exposure: 1/250 sec. f/10. ISO 200

 

Lighting was a pair of monoblock strobes, metered with a Sekonic L-758D.

Both files imported directly into Adobe Lightroom with only WB matching. No other adjustments (not even straightening).

 

Note 1: Keep in mind that fact that the Zeiss has a maximum aperture of f/2 compared to the f/2.8 of the Nikkor.

 

Note 2: Images chosen for equivalent histograms. Specular highlights on watch, pens, and blue vase.

 

Note 3: Focus is on the snap button on the bag pocket flap nearest to the center of the image.

 

I know these small jpegs really aren't much use. I'll try to make full-size tiffs available on my website a bit later.

 

Honestly the only serious difference I can see at first glance is a difference in contrast, which is most likely a lens issue.

 

The top photo is the M8, the second is the D700.

So go ahead, tear me apart ... see if I care.

 

Interesting comparison and I would like to see similar done with the Leitz 50 mm F2 Summicron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At higher ISOs however, the D3 leaves the M8 in the dust!!! Please, please,please, give me a sensor upgrade for the M8, so I can shoot at ISO 1250 with my Noctilux and get good color pictures.

 

I suppose. But you couldn't do the equivalent with a D3 and one of Nikon's pro-line f2.8 zooms, which are supposedly about as sharp as their primes. That is, if you assume that the M8 is pretty good to ISO 800, and then give yourself the extra 3 stops provided by the Nocti, that's about the same shooting the Nikon at ISO 6400 with a 2.8, an the image quality, at that point, isn't so great. Not that I don't agree with your basic idea -- the D3 sensor in an M9 would blow everything else away, given the available Leica lenses...

 

JC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...