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

[ptomsu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 24-70? Good god man, that lens is a pig with short focus throw, I don't care how sharp it is, I will never own 24mm 2.8 lens the size of a motar round.

 

Try comparing to a more reasonable lens like the Nikon 85 F/2 to be nearly direct in comparison to the Zeiss 50 on the M8.

 

You have to look at pragmatics here, the 24-70 is no walk around lens and the Zeiss 50 is no weekend wedding warrior zoom.

 

Comparing the two just to get the same 66mm is not really a fair way to do that in terms of weight.

 

What do you think - how big and heavy would a Leica 24-70/2.8 be

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Obviously few have owned a Leica R 35-70 2.8 . I have and besides being amazing it is amazingly big too. Goes with the turf. Fast and zoom are big just that simple. Some of you need to go look at some Hassy H lenses better yet use them, you will know what big is than. Simple optic facts you want a fast lens it will be a bigger lens than a slower one. Like taxes and death this is a guarantee. No getting around it, you not only pay more for it you also will have a heavier and bulkier lens. I don't care what brand you buy that is just the way it is and the DSLR lenses usually have AF motors built in them.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

What do you think - how big and heavy would a Leica 24-70/2.8 be

Well, the 28-70/3.5-4.5 weighs 489 grams, so that one would be at least 1 kg.

[jaapv]

Jaap,

 

The D3/D700 sensor has BIG PIXELS. Something close to 9 microns, as I remember, as compared to the M8's 6.8 microns. That means a significantly cleaner signal from the sensor before any processing happens.

 

I could be wrong. Perhaps some of the forum techies could straighten us out.

 

Basically that is true. Large pixels= low noise. But I can imagine the howls of outrage if Leica would produce a 12 Mp full frame M9. Let's stick to realities. Most high-end cameras are fairly similar in pixel size.

[Kent10D]

Basically that is true. Large pixels= low noise. But I can imagine the howls of outrage if Leica would produce a 12 Mp full frame M9. Let's stick to realities. Most high-end cameras are fairly similar in pixel size.

 

This is reality: 6.8 microns vs. 8.45 microns.

That's about a 25% difference in size, which leads to a heaven-knows-what difference in noise (I have no idea what performance difference that makes ).

 

Or am I missing something?

[jaapv]

Let's wait and see what Leica comes up with in the next Photokina but one The Canon 1D now. That one had lovely big pixels:) And a lousy high-ISO noise...

[sdai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pixel size doesn't necessarily tell you the whole story.

 

For example, the Canon G9 has a smaller pixel (1.9µm) than the Panasonic LX2 (2 µm), the Sony W300's pixel pitch is even smaller at 1.8 µm, but both the G9's and W300's noise performance are much better than the LX2's.

 

It's really a matter who does it, and how they do it.

[sdai]

The Canon 1D now. That one had lovely big pixels:) And a lousy high-ISO noise...

 

That's a good one, Jaap ... consider the classic 1D's age.

 

But again, take a look at Kodak's medium format sensors, their pixels are huge ... but they can't shoot above ISO800.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Simon who cares it is what happens below 800 you just can't touch with anything in 35mm. And I MEAN anything. LOL

 

Talking to a Phase One owner. Serious I have the P25 Plus back which is a Kodak sensor with 9 microns and honestly this thing just screams detail but this is a completely different animal from the Leica, Nikon and Canon offerings. My limit is ISO 800 and it is pretty clean on the noise front actually better than the M8 at ISO 640 but again that is where it ends for color work. I can maybe squeeze 1600 on a good day but it will be rare just like the M8. But we are still talking CCD sensors from Leica and Phase and the max is right in this area on noise . To get to the high ISO 1600 for Phase P30 Plus back , Phase uses micro lenses which in effect will act like AA filters to cut moire on the P30 plus but that is a 6.8 micron sensor. Right now for high ISO stuff there is nothing better than Nikon with the D3 and D700 in my mind. canon is right up there but I still think Nikon has the edge in this area. Myself I am damn happy with a clean ISO 800 so my need is less for the higher ISO stuff. But if you need it today the only real player is Nikon right now. Canon may just sneak something in at Photokinia and that may change but Leica has a long way to go to get to those ISO levels. I say for Leica get a extremely clean ISO 1250 and call it a day. But it better be a clean 1250.

 

The bottom line for any of this stuff is there just tools find the one that fits you the best and not worry about what the other guy's are doing. By the time you blink your eyes something new will be out. you simply can't worry about what Nikon and Canon are doing if your a Leica shooter . Time better spent getting Leica to build the products we need and let them know what you want next. But I will say this , Nikon is player and the OEM's better keep a eye on them in there rear view mirror if there not in front of them already. This stuff is the good news the bad news is if you can't afford it. But some of the new stuff today is damn good. That is the bottom line and whichever direction you take you not leaving much behind. The grass is not always greener out there . Leica builds nice lenses don't forget that, the body could use some work but it still will produce some of the best 35mm files in the business.

[sdai]

Simon who cares it is what happens below 800 you just can't touch with anything in 35mm. And I MEAN anything. LOL

 

Can't say that I'll disagree with you, Guy, everything is a compromise ... while the D3 offers the class leading noise performance till THIS month, its resolution at lower ASA settings leaves a lot to be desired. LOL

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Yes from what I have seen the M8 still has the low ISO advantage than the D3 sensor will take over above the 320 mark. Seriously everything is a compromise between M8, DSLR and MF there will always be something that is not perfect. RF is tough to focus for some , easy for others . Frame lines leave a lot to be desired with RF. DSLR' s, big , heavy and usually sport AA filters and good lenses but not the best. MF image is everything but getting there is not a cake walk and Lower ISO's is the rule. DOF is a lot thinner. So what do folks do . My advice , find something comfortable and something you enjoy . For the hobbyist this is king because if your not enjoying it than it will sit and do nothing. For Pro's we just have to deal with anything we have to deal with and smile doing it. But these wars between systems are really silly in my view. I love the Leica's and they certainly are fun and produce nice images but there expensive too. DSLR"s are built like toy's but there very versatile and the best overall over the RF and MF as far as functionality and use. But to me a bit boring. I guess i like the challenge of RF and MF myself. I like to work at shooting, DSLR's life is just to easy. ROTFLMAO but hey that's me.

[sdai]

I guess i like the challenge of RF and MF myself. I like to work at shooting, DSLR's life is just to easy. ROTFLMAO but hey that's me.

 

Well, nothing is more challenging than these forums, I personally find it more interesting to waste my time on these chatters than actually putting these gears to use. LOL

 

You'd still remember the days when on FM we all rushed out to buy these 500mm or 600mm black or white guns just to take a shot of the birds in the backyard, put everything under the magnifier and traded our gears among each other.

[KM-25]

while the D3 offers the class leading noise performance till THIS month, its resolution at lower ASA settings leaves a lot to be desired. LOL

 

Well that's odd..? Did you look at the 100% crops of the FX sensor versus the M8? Pretty much a dead even heat I would say, and that is low ISO. And that is my experience too. I also get a much better file out of NX than other raw soupers.

 

Maybe you need to change your workflow to get the most out of your D3...?

[sdai]

Well that's odd..? Did you look at the 100% crops of the FX sensor versus the M8? Pretty much a dead even heat I would say, and that is low ISO. And that is my experience too. I also get a much better file out of NX than other raw soupers.

 

I've never compared the D3 to a M8 ... it's your axe to grind with Guy. LOL

 

Cheers!

[Guest guy_mancuso]

It's almost a coin flip. The Leica does look better at the lower ISO but it is really close. To me Leica has more punch in all the area's . Color, saturation and depth but a lot of that can be in the raw processing too. But I hate NX even though it maybe better on Nikon files it is just a software package i cannot warm up too. Many like it but the flow just sucks for me.

[sdai]

It's almost a coin flip.

 

Well, a coin flip could mean black and white, dead or alive ...

 

To be honest, I can hardly give NX ang thumb up too ... it takes so much resource and is dreadfully slow, plus Nikon is charging 110 dollars for the NX2 upgrade? they are probably the only one out in the wild doing so.

[terrycioni]

Guy,

 

You might try using C1 Pro on the NEF files. I read this else where from a very respected European Nikon Shooter and gave it a try. I leave you to judge the results.

 

I might add and have said this before IMO the M8 produces excellent files and with Leica lenses no matter the age - those files are up to the current standards. High ISO remains an issue for some and rightly so. Back to C1, I find the processing engine better than most of the others, but Lightroom 2.0 is so chock full of coool features Of course this all just me!

 

Two years on, I feel good about the M8. There are still situations where an SLR (tele, autofocus sports, macro to name a few) is a far better choice and that won't go away anytime soon. Hopefully we will see some innovation from Leica on the SLR front in the not to distant future.

 

Simon... What a great forum thread for you! I agree NX should be free and it is an interesting interface (I hear, written by NIK under contract to Nikon) but I know that from personal experience. NX does come with NIK VIVEZA built-in.

 

At the end of the day I prefer the free offering from Leica C1.

 

Best To All. Terry.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Terry that is all i use is C1 . With the Phase files it is almost a must. The files are amazing out of C1 plus i have lens corrections built into C1 for my Mamiya lenses. 28,35 and 45mm are currently the lenses for corrections . Plus i can use a purple fringing and CA controls on my Mamiya lenses . So for Phase One back owners a huge advantage with C1. Seriously i think C1 is the best out there file wise for the M8 and almost every other camera out there. C1 has been around a long time and these folks actually know what they are doing. Granted it may not have some of the unique controls of LR or Aperture and even NX but I have always found C1 to be very neutral to almost every camera I have used. Not saying others are bad , far from it but C1 to me is the gold standard. LR BTW just sucks on my Phase files, color temp is completely wrong and always a stop darker or more. Just not tuned well for the Phase backs. The M8 does do well in LR but i still think C1 does it a little better with the DR and noise on the M8 files, plus it is warmer and LR with every damn camera i have owned everything is red. Someone at Adobe is red color blind or something. LOL

 

BTW not promoting my site but if folks want to look at some MF images than come visit.

 

Honestly the reason i went Phase is because it is very similar in look to the M8. I am a Kodak sensor fan and going to MF i did not lose any of that nice look we get from the M8 and it's sensor. I do hope in the future Leica does stick with Kodak and there CCD. Not sure how that will work out with the higher ISO stuff and Kodak but hopefully they will find a way. I think Leica would make huge strides in a very clean ISO 1250 and to me that should be there goal on the next M or R for that matter. Keep the AA filter off the sensor and keep it CCD and than they will have a competitive advantage over the CMOS which i am not the biggest fan of but does have the best higher noise levels but not the quality of a CCD. Nothing technical in my statement but my gut feeling after shooting all these various camera's out there.

[ptomsu]

It's almost a coin flip. The Leica does look better at the lower ISO but it is really close. To me Leica has more punch in all the area's . Color, saturation and depth but a lot of that can be in the raw processing too. But I hate NX even though it maybe better on Nikon files it is just a software package i cannot warm up too. Many like it but the flow just sucks for me.

 

Since I am using Aperture2, all is fine! For Leica M8 and for Nikon. I would give it a try!

 

Not for DMR - be aware of that

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[KM-25]

But I hate NX even though it maybe better on Nikon files it is just a software package i cannot warm up too. Many like it but the flow just sucks for me.

 

I practically wrote Nikon hate mails, rants to my Nikon shooting Geographic friend's in the beginning of my use of NX. But out of that came something awesome. I just started using NX and even the viewer as an export utility, a digital "E-6" machine if you will and just nailing the shot in camera as best as I could.

 

What I found my self doing was shooting the FX sensor like chrome and getting exactly that result out of NX. As it now turns out, I spend about 25% of the time I used on the computer getting my files out and without any disclosure of this change in workflow to clients, they are raving about the look I am giving them. Unbelievably sharp and rich files with a killer grain pattern when it does show up. I have a tear sheet of a high end rack piece brochure that is 12x18 in size, it is double truck from the D3 at ISO 1600, night lifestyle in Winter. On the next page is a shot my buddy did of a dining scene with his 1DS-III at ISO 400. Not only can you not tell the difference in sharpness, the punch in mine is noticeably better. It's really kind of surreal, I hardly even use Photoshop anymore.

 

We all use a darn computer for everything these days and quite frankly, it has become the most shallow, self serving and anti-intrepid device man kind could have put between him self and the natural world.

 

I want to spend as little time on it as possible anymore, so the burden of NX has become the best thing that ever happened to my digital workflow.

 

But all of this has got a bit off topic, eh?

 

So back on topic, as good as Nikon's FX is, I won't be getting rid of my M8 any time soon. It does the R/F thing well despite it's flaws and it is lighter overall.

 

I figure people do a lot worse things with 5 grand than buy the first ever digital M and make some great pictures with it.