Jump to content

D 700 with R lenses versus DMR


mitchell

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I have.

 

I have used my 28 Elmarit-R and my 60 Macro-Elmarit-R on both.

 

The D700 is the camera that Leica should have made. At the same price. The image quality is at least as good as the DMR, BUT, you have to use Leica lenses to get it. Nikkors don't do it.

 

You can tell the improvement in quality of a Leica lens over a Nikkor one on the LCD on the back of the camera, let alone on a Mac screen, or in print.

 

The D700 is a bargain. Do yourself a favour and buy one, and as many Leitax mounts as you need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've come very close to buying several of the Leitax flanges.

 

Do you find MF/ME cumbersome? It obviously doesn't work for, say, sports photography. What kind of subjects or uses are you using these for? It is verrrrry tempting.

 

I have.

 

I have used my 28 Elmarit-R and my 60 Macro-Elmarit-R on both.

 

The D700 is the camera that Leica should have made. At the same price. The image quality is at least as good as the DMR, BUT, you have to use Leica lenses to get it. Nikkors don't do it.

 

You can tell the improvement in quality of a Leica lens over a Nikkor one on the LCD on the back of the camera, let alone on a Mac screen, or in print.

 

The D700 is a bargain. Do yourself a favour and buy one, and as many Leitax mounts as you need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an interesting statement as it comes from you. Could you explain further how (or which parameters you judge it from).

 

Thorsten

 

As you know, I was a big fan of the DMR whilst it was in my possession.

 

But, it's very interesting now, having used a modern, full frame digital SLR, with the same lenses as I used with both film and the DMR on the R8.

 

In my experience, the Nikon files just don't need anything like as much PP as the Leica ones. The Auto white balance of the Nikon is superb.

 

I have been doing some work on my DMR files taken in Scotland this morning. While I can produce a decent image from them, there is a lot of work involved. Many of them, when viewed as thumbnails in Bridge, have a yellowish/nicotine caste to them, which is removable and treatable, but more work than a clean image to start with. It might be something to do with the ACR or C1 settings, but I don't know.

 

The Nikon files are sharp, clean and to all intents and purposes, noise-free. Especially at the ISO ratings that I use.

 

It would have been very interesting to use both cameras, back to back, but unfortunately, that's not possible of course.

 

It's a shame that one has to Leitax the mounts with the Nikon, but I am a very happy camper with mine.

 

Now, I know that you, Doug and Conrad, do fantastic work with the DMR - much better than I could ever achieve - but if you get the opportunity, you may be surprised where Nikon currently are.

 

Sorry!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have.

 

The D700 is the camera that Leica should have made. At the same price. The image quality is at least as good as the DMR, BUT, you have to use Leica lenses to get it. Nikkors don't do it.

You can tell the improvement in quality of a Leica lens over a Nikkor one on the LCD on the back of the camera, let alone on a Mac screen, or in print.

 

I'm crushed. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I compared the DMR against the D3x and the (Sony) A900 thoroughly (albeit not scientifically) earlier this year and preferred the DMR to both. The DMR was slightly sharper than the Nikon and the Sony at the pixel level but had (of course) a lot fewer pixels. Where the DMR had a decisive lead was in its reproduction of color, which looked a lot more natural.

 

My comparison was only in the ISO 100 - 400 range as I have no use for faster speeds. YMMV

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately Nikon appears to be an option only for non-zoom lenses :(

 

Yep, but in the case of Pros, some they still prefer to use prime lenses only, and not only for studio works.

Yesterday I was shooting at the Milan Fashion Week, a photographer who was there beside me (he's actually a friend of mine), was shooting at the show with just a D700 and Leica-R glasses on it...

Ok, we were the freak bunch of the group, since I was shooting with my M8 and the 50lux asph.:eek:

Andy's right IMO, the Digital R (the evolution of the DMR) was, and still will be, a big sin for many Pros, let apart the big bunch of amateurs with leica glasses.. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I compared the DMR against the D3x and the (Sony) A900 thoroughly (albeit not scientifically) earlier this year and preferred the DMR to both. The DMR was slightly sharper than the Nikon and the Sony at the pixel level but had (of course) a lot fewer pixels. Where the DMR had a decisive lead was in its reproduction of color, which looked a lot more natural.

 

My comparison was only in the ISO 100 - 400 range as I have no use for faster speeds. YMMV

 

Hi,

 

I am interested in your comments on the use of R lenses with the Sony A900. I have the DMR and I agree the colour rendition is very special. But I am interested in using a ff dslr such as the A900 with my R lenses. Did you have the opportunity to compare A2 and A1 prints from both the DMR and A900? I am interested to know if there will be any visible differences at these prints sizes.

 

Thanks,

 

N.S. NG

 

Zenfolio | N.S. Ng

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a D3 (so same as D700) and a DMR.

 

At low ISOs the DMR color still blows away the D3 with FlexColor and C1. Can't speak for LR/ACR because I don't like them yet :)

 

In fact, for skin tones, the DMR just can't be beat. I actually find the exact opposite of Andy: the D3 requires quite a bit more post to tame it, and while I use it all the time as an AF solution, it took 6 months to figure out how to maintain good skin tones.

 

Once the ISO gets raised, of course the D3 is king for noise. But skin tones are progressively harder to nail--there's some weirdness going on there with the color channels, especially under difficult light.

 

The DR goes down as well with the Nikon,but of course, you're shooting at ISO 6400, which is not possible with a DMR :) And handling with the Nikons (like AWB, battery life, ergonomics, metering, etc..) is just a dream come true--no two ways about that.

 

But at ISO 800 and lower the d700 / d3 doesn't have a patch on the DMR for colour, and IMO it's not just the lenses :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was so concerned (rightly) about the expense of the replacement M camera (M9) that in late August I decided to follow Andy's lead and I rented a D700 for a weekend from Calumet. I shot all weekend against my M8.

 

Now the interesting thing is that my M8 with my 28/2.8 out resolved distant objects over the D700 and the Nikkor 24/2.8. I was actually quite staggered at how much more contrast and detail was captured by the M8. Well done Leica!

 

However, on mounting the Nikkor 50/1.4 the playing ground levelled out substantially. I got some very good photographs out of the 50/1.4 between f2 and f4. Lovely detail and bokeh, especially of flower shots. What I particularly enjoyed was being able to use proper spot metering again, which in shooting flowers had a dramatic impact on correct exposure.

 

The D700 is marvellously ergonomic. I've always found the M8 to be a bit odd in handling but I was surprised at how comfortable it was to walk around hand holding the D700 than my M8. It just felt right.

 

As Andy states and it is my experience as well, to get the best out of the D700 you need very good optics. I'm still humming and haahing about a D700 but if I do get one I'd almost certainly start with just the 50/1.4 to take maximum advantage of autofocus but then introduce, say a 28 Elmarit as Andy has. The main reason being that for landscape photography (my interest) the number of times I move the focus ring from infinity or f8 is quite small, so a manual lens is not such a bind.

 

I've always thought that Leica has basically missed a major market opportunity, unlike Zeiss, by not selling their lenses with Nikon and Canon mounts. With the ridiculous pricing of the M9 they really should be asking themselves why they are even in the body market when if they introduced just 3 basic primes tomorrow in Nikon and Canon mounts they would find both arms and their legs being bitten off.

 

Louis

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've always thought that Leica has basically missed a major market opportunity, unlike Zeiss, by not selling their lenses with Nikon and Canon mounts.

 

They can't for copyright reasons. The Japanese don't share the copyright on their mounts beyond Japan.

 

Zeiss are owned by the Japanese and are therefore immune from this restriction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Bernd Banken

Andy,

 

what kind of RAW developer do you use? There is no choice, it should be NX2 because the hidden secrets of Nikon files are visible with NX2 and not so much with LR or Aperture.

 

Bernd

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...