DSLR's

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with all the good press printed on the D700; I shoot the D3 and love it. I actually posted half a working proof set (straight out of C1--no optimizing whatsoever--M8 and D3 only) from a wedding I shot a couple of weeks ago; you can go see how the D3 (same as D700 for IQ) gets along with the M8 here:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/93121-complete-wedding-proofs-p1-m8-d3.html

 

(scroll down if you want to see a couple of the M8 shots) I shot the M8 wide in relation to the Nikon; at one point the M8 has a 24mm on it and the Nikon a 135.

[Shootist]

Jamie I see your M8 shots are numbered L105xxxx. Does that mean you have shot 50,000+ shots with that one M8?

[Advertisement]

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

[haroldp]

KM-25 - well said and thanks for the assist. My Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is also very sharp at all lengths, and all openings through f11. It fully utilizes the sensor on the D3X.

 

Marty- Do you actually have a D3X and/or 24-70 ?. If you do you should send yours back to Nikon for service.

 

The improved clarity of the D3X (over the D3/D700) is more likely due to a weaker anti-aliasing filter which is enabled by the smaller pixels. While no match for he D3/D700 at high ISO's (>800), the 3X handily beats the M8 in this respect (1600 on the 3X is like 640 on the M8- sort of ). I never even had color film faster that ISO 400.

 

Yes Marty, I regularly print at 24 in wide by however long (36in. to 8 foot panoramas ) on an HP Z3100.

 

Of course the 14-24 is only interesting to those who want wide angle. Thanks for the revelation.

 

I do not know if the Zeiss lenses are sharper than the Nikon, I have never used them, nor frankly felt the need. I like autofocus and my Nikon lenses do the job, and yes I have and use the latest Leica lenses for comparison.

 

I was trying to give useful advice based on my personal experience and only about equipment I actually have and use. I do not feel the need to justify my choices by diminishing other choices, there are many valid paths.

 

I currently use 4 Nikon bodies (D3x,D3,D700,D300), 2 Leica M8 and several Leica film bodies. The lens list is too long to mention, and I have been both professional and amateur / tourist for over 40 years.

 

I am certain that an equivalent Canon array would be equal to the Nikon, but I have not used them. Sony / Zeiss probably the same, I have not used those either.

 

There is no such thing as 'best', I pick the gear based on the mission.

 

For discreet street photography or for available light (nothing matches an asph summilux at f1.4), I select Leica's. When I want fast primes for DOF, I use Leica's because their primes really are sharper wide open.

 

For Action. Sports, Wildlife I will go with Nikon for tele's , Zooms, and autofocus.

 

For Landscape, I previously used Leica's, but switched to Nikon because of the extreme resolution of the 24-70, 14-24 combo on the D3x.

 

A full frame Leica M camera that could fully utilize my wide's and had 18+ mpx would probably bring me back because of the size/weight, and the optical advantages (and smaller size) of non-telecentric wide primes.

 

I hope that the info I provide may occasionaly be useful to some forum members, who should always evaluate their circumstances and needs relative to those of advice givers.

 

Regards ... Harold

[ddp]

The new Nikkor 24-70 2.8 is on a different level than their older fast zooms...and yes, I know it's off topic here. Sorry.

[Jamie Roberts]

Jamie I see your M8 shots are numbered L105xxxx. Does that mean you have shot 50,000+ shots with that one M8?

 

Hi Ed,

 

I've actually never thought about it before in terms of the total, but yes--50K+ over almost three years sounds about right

[scaryink]

OK so how is this thread directly related to M8 discussion more than the puts comparison thread?

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK so how is this thread directly related to M8 discussion more than the puts comparison thread?

 

Um, because it's asking M8 users for their views on dSLRS, and not rehashing the film vs digital debate?

[mhoersch]

OK so how is this thread directly related to M8 discussion more than the puts comparison thread?

 

Oh, oh, be careful! You might attract some of the wrath that's been reserved for the "DEUTSCHE forum police"! (Post #14)

 

Since hundres of Leica employees are waiting ten hours a day for the summer to end so they can at last begin to revolutionize photogaphy with the S2, there doesn't seem to be anything quite worth discussing. Except perhaps the dire question, whether the titanium edition of the DLUX 4 looks better with the original Leica case or with a Luigi one. Oh yes, and DSLRs of Canon and Nikon of course...

[Jeff S]

While biding my time until 9/9/09, I've been casually reviewing the relative merits of Canon vs Nikon as a possible supplement to my M for use of longer focal lengths, and possibly for use of tilt/shift lenses for landscape and outdoor architecture (large format gear sold off). Apart from ergonomic and feature differences, I've concentrated on image quality.

 

As part of my research, I've checked the usual sources, including the sites of oft mentioned favorite reviewers. I emailed one such trusted reviewer for further questions, and learned that Nikon uses a stronger anti-aliasing filter in the D700 compared to the Canon 5D (and likely the 5D Mark ii) or 1DS iii. So, lens differences aside, he says Nikon produces softer, less detailed files.

 

I don't know if this is so, or even if it is, one can tell the difference between Nikon/Canon in real world prints, especially considering other critical variables such as glass used, etc. But, I thought I'd ask if anyone else has experience or viewpoint on the big brand comparison as far as IQ only.

 

Jeff

[Nicoleica]

Hi Jeff,

 

I have a D700, and in my opinion, it gives beautifully sharp results with a good lens.

[Jeff S]

Hi Jeff,

 

I have a D700, and in my opinion, it gives beautifully sharp results with a good lens.

 

Thanks, Nicole. I have no doubt, and have heard many make similar comments (including all the reps at my trusted local camera shop that use the D700, and who recommend Nikon over Canon). This is why I posed the question, since frankly I was surprised that the reviewer said the files were softer than Canon's...I never heard that before.

 

I guess it might be difficult to answer my question, since only a reviewer is likely to do side by side tests. Otherwise, people seem to be loyal to one brand or another.

 

Having said that, how do you compare your D700 files/prints (assuming you print) to your M's?

 

Jeff

[Nicoleica]

Hi Jeff,

 

It's such a difficult thing to try and quantify. So much depends upon the lens that you use. In my opinion, a Leica lens will give you a certain look that very few others can come close to.

 

I tend to use my Nikons and my Leicas for different purposes, and so I can't give you a direct comparison between the two. Let's just say that I'm more than pleased with the printed results of both.

 

Regarding the difference between Canon and Nikon though, it's mainly down to personal taste as to which is better. I have used both Canon and Nikon digital cameras. (And film cameras too.) In my opinion, Nikon currently give a more pleasing result, but that is only my opinion, and others will think the opposite.

 

As you say, brand loyalty is very strong in all camps.

 

If I were you, and if I didn't have a large investment in either camp, I would base my choice upon which camera/lens combination feels best in your hands, and gives the most pleasing results to you. If you can't get on with a camera, then you will always be unhappy with it, no matter how sharp the results are.

 

One last thing. I have a few old t2-mount manual focus lenses, and I find it easier to use those on the D700 than I did on a 5D

Edited July 29, 2009 by Nicoleica

[Jeff S]

Thanks, Nicole...I appreciate the follow-up. FWIW, over the last 35+ years I've used all sorts of cameras, and formats...but all in the film world, including M6s and M7s and a couple of R's. And, along the way, some Nikons and Canons. But, the digital realm is relatively new to me, so some of my questions get back to basic issues that I thought I was done with years ago:(

 

The good news is that so far, my M8.2 (and dlux 4) have yielded some terrific prints... and I've been able to add color printing to my b&w arsenal. A part of me says not to introduce any new variables (e.g., dslrs) into the mix, and just keep improving with the tools I have. On the other hand, one can never have enough good tools:)

 

Jeff

[giordano]

Hi Jeff,

 

I have a D700, and in my opinion, it gives beautifully sharp results with a good lens.

 

Me too. I wouldn't have any hesitation in mixing D700 and M8 shots - though they need different treatment and like Nicole I haven't done any side-by-side comparisons.

 

If you're interested there are some D700 pix on my website (link below; then go to Travel and Scotland; other galleries are mostly M8 and D200). It's possible to view full-size jpegs for pixel-peeping. Even my 35-year-old 80-200 zoom does pretty well.

[Jamie Roberts]

Side by side the M8 and D3 shots are very, very complementary; they're both relatively high-bit depth cameras and both deliver very nice files for print. Side by side in an album or on the wall, they both look fabulous.

 

Having said that, I still do more things with the Leica glass than I do with the Nikkor lenses.

 

I just posted a part 2 of typical wedding proofs shot with an M8 and a D3 (which has the same IQ as the D700).

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/93442-complete-wedding-proofs-part-2-m8.html

 

After shooting Canon for years I'm really impressed with the last-gen Nikons; they're wonderful dSLRs.

[Jeff S]

After shooting Canon for years I'm really impressed with the last-gen Nikons; they're wonderful dSLRs.

 

So, Jamie, you don't find any issue with the "trusted reviewer's" comment I received that the D700 has a stronger AA filter and therefore "softer and less detailed files" than the Canon 5D? I certainly don't see any softness whatsoever with your D3 pics...and I agree that they look terrific next to those from the M8 ...on my computer screen, sometimes "richer" looking.

 

Thanks for the comparison images (and to John, too, in above post).

 

Jeff

[shootinglulu]

I recently looked into getting either Canon 5d2 or Nikon d700.

I was very struck by how nice the Nikon felt, just to hold it felt right and very comfortable. It also felt more rugged and well built than the canon.

I wasn't unimpressed by the feel of the canon, it just seemed more lumpen and didn't feel as sexy as the Nikon.

[Jamie Roberts]

So, Jamie, you don't find any issue with the "trusted reviewer's" comment I received that the D700 has a stronger AA filter and therefore "softer and less detailed files" than the Canon 5D?{snipped}

 

 

As a matter of fact, I don't see this at all, though it may be true in absolute terms I guess. I like the D3 much more than my 5d

[Paul_S]

Had my 5D mk2 sitting idle most of the time since I bought it a year ago (using it with TS-E lenses only), while using my M8 exclusively. This all changed last week after I finally acquired a good piece of glass (85mm 1.2 II). Enjoy that combo as much now as the M8. They are different tools and that's OK to me.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Jeff S]

Had my 5D mk2 sitting idle most of the time since I bought it a year ago (using it with TS-E lenses only)

 

Paul, just curious, how do you like using the TS-E lenses with it...and which do you use? Do you use handheld or tripod only?

 

Also, I understand the file sizes of the Mark ii are much bigger than the 5D. Does this present any practical issues?

 

Jeff