Anyone using a D3 and a M9?

[Pedro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a D3 with Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8 + Nikkor 60mm f2.8 + Zeiss 35mm f2. Great set.

 

Previously I had an M8 which I sold mainly because of multiple focus problems with 35mm f2 and 90mm f2 (both were sent back to the factory for realignment with the M8 body).

 

Now I am really tempted to get back to Leica with the M9 (fact is the D3 is SUPER but I still miss the M8).

 

Question is - does anyone use a M9 and a D3? If yes, how do you compare your results?

 

I'm not so interested about the range finder experience vs a bulky DSLR (that I already acknowledge). My main concern is about results e.g. for street and family photography.

 

I would guess the D3 sensor to perform better but Leica lenses would compensate in sharpness and contrast.

 

Anyhow, I know its a hod comparison of apples and oranges but still I believe its interesting to have a comparison from real life usage.

 

Thanks, Pedro

pedro's Photos

[Advertisement]

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

[arthury]

If you are planning to dump the D3 for the M9, I bet you will regret it after the initial euphoria is over. If you are planning to add the M9 to your tool set, then it is different story.

 

They are different tools for different usage. That you already know.

 

On a pure technical comparison view point, a larger sensor will give you more info to print larger.

 

On the other hand, the excellent AF subsystem of the D3 is a pleasure to use when photographing family/reportage/sports type of work. The Dynamic AF with 51 focal point is a total clockwork when it comes to fast moving subjects in sports. Yes, Leica aficionados will tell you that focal distance can be preset by an educated guess and compensated further by stopping down. And that Henri Cartier-Bresson did it, so you can do it, too. May be these people need to try that method with little kids and shooting them close at the widest aperture. Let's see and compare the success rates in that situation.

 

The 1,005-pixel RGB exposure sensor is significantly more sophisticated than the M9 AWB and exposure sensor. There's no comparison when it comes to technological advances here.

[glenerrolrd]

I have an used both systems for different subjects. However looking at the 3 lenses you have...I could guess that you enjoy travel,landscape etc. If your longest lens is a 60mm on FF you aren t doing too many portraits ,shooting sports etc. Your lenses aren t particularly fast so my guess is that you are a "fair weather" photography . All three lenses are known for superb IQ so that must be important.

 

With that context ...you will enjoy the M9 . In this case the IQ will be better especially if you can shoot at normal(optimum ISOs). Try a 35 summicron asph on an M9 and you will not go back.

 

You will lose out on the ultra wide end of the 14-24/2.8 which is in its own league for wide zooms. If you enjoy Zeiss the 21/2.8 is excellent as is the 18/4 . The 21/2.8asph is my favorite for the type of work you seem to be doing. You will not have the same ease of use in the macro area and only one choice (that I know of with the Leica M 90/4) .

 

If you shoot a lot of flash stick with the D3.

 

If you are new to rangefinders make sure you can get comfortable with the rangefinder. You can still get an M8 loaner to practice with from some dealers . Some of my friends had to go back to the DSLR because their eyes weren t up to the challenge.

[Paulus]

I have a D3 with Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8 + Nikkor 60mm f2.8 + Zeiss 35mm f2. Great set.

 

Previously I had an M8 which I sold mainly because of multiple focus problems with 35mm f2 and 90mm f2 (both were sent back to the factory for realignment with the M8 body).

 

Now I am really tempted to get back to Leica with the M9 (fact is the D3 is SUPER but I still miss the M8).

 

Question is - does anyone use a M9 and a D3? If yes, how do you compare your results?

 

I'm not so interested about the range finder experience vs a bulky DSLR (that I already acknowledge). My main concern is about results e.g. for street and family photography.

 

I would guess the D3 sensor to perform better but Leica lenses would compensate in sharpness and contrast.

 

Anyhow, I know its a hod comparison of apples and oranges but still I believe its interesting to have a comparison from real life usage.

 

Thanks, Pedro

pedro's Photos

 

I think it's not a question of better. On iso 320 the M8 even makes comparebly beautiful pictures, but for the higher iso I prefer my Nikon D700.

If the iso 1250 on Leica M9 is as good as the D3/D700 than it's a real winner!

[Paulus]

I have a D3 with Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8 + Nikkor 60mm f2.8 + Zeiss 35mm f2. Great set.

 

Previously I had an M8 which I sold mainly because of multiple focus problems with 35mm f2 and 90mm f2 (both were sent back to the factory for realignment with the M8 body).

 

Now I am really tempted to get back to Leica with the M9 (fact is the D3 is SUPER but I still miss the M8).

 

Question is - does anyone use a M9 and a D3? If yes, how do you compare your results?

 

I'm not so interested about the range finder experience vs a bulky DSLR (that I already acknowledge). My main concern is about results e.g. for street and family photography.

 

I would guess the D3 sensor to perform better but Leica lenses would compensate in sharpness and contrast.

 

Anyhow, I know its a hod comparison of apples and oranges but still I believe its interesting to have a comparison from real life usage.

 

Thanks, Pedro

pedro's Photos

 

I had multifocus problems with the 2,8 elmarit 90mm. Everything went back to Solms. It was solved, but on the 90mm it hapenned again. I solved it myself by selling the 90mm. I'm still glad i didn't make you choise.

 

So sell the Nikon and buy a M9!

[j_lir]

i have a d3 and a pair of m8's that i shoot with all the time.

i use them for what the other can't do.

 

i generally shoot over 90mm with the d3.

i do have the 14-24 which i use on it as well.

 

this will change whenever my m9 arrives.

 

either way the d3 is strictly for work in my case.

the leica handles all of my personal cravings, and 80% of my work.

the other 20% (flash and telephoto) goes to the d3.

 

overall i'm really far from impressed with the d3 images in comparison the m8. the leica glass is so far superior its almost a joke.

 

i'm aftyer a 180/2 summicron-r, then i'll make some real judgements.

i'm also after a summilux-r 80.

 

anyhow -- hope this helped.

[markowich]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

for street shooting the leica M9 is more fun to use than the D3 and you get fast leica primes from 21 to 90mm, which is not the case on the nikon platform. lens quality notwithstanding the D3 beats the M9 from 800 (or so) iso up and the D3x beats the M9 in all IQ matters hands down.

last week i took the m9 to saudi arabia and did some street shooting. its size certainly helped me to stay out of trouble and IQ at base iso is great. so in an ideal shooting environment (friendly folks around and maybe a sherpa to carry your gear), niikon is the better choice. otherwise it depends....good to have both.

peter

[Chroma project]

Good evening Pedro, I'll try to answer your question with accuracy.

 

For the undescribed enthusiasm but surely familiar to you, I bought the Nikon D3 efter the D200, D2X, D2Xs It was the physical bigger sensor and those deep rich prints from a 14 bit NEFs ensemble with the finest optics man can buy to a Nikon camera is what got my heart melting.

 

I was full of enthusiasm about the optimal quality Zeiss and the brights Nikkor optics had to offer for my Nikon system, like you! i do not care about the weight and size of the Nikon D3 or Hasselblad or what ever camera .. I just wanted the finest optical quality one a camera can offer.

 

I do not care if autofucus or the built-in computer in the Nikon D3 (fact I had Zeiss optics on my D3 says a lot, and an external light meter) I bought the D3 as a normal development after three professional Nikons. I lust after FX Nikon camera ... as simple as it is.

 

to make a long story short, I have purchased a Leica M7 and a Leica M8 + Summicron 35 + Summilux 50 ... Recently a Leica M9.

 

comparison?

 

Leica M9 horsewhip Nikon D3 straight to the ground.

 

 

Focusing M9 with 50 or 35 optics is pleasure for the heart, image quality of Leica M9 just makes me speechless ... it is so beautiful my friend.

 

Nikon D3's photographs seem soulless and pale in comparison with the Leica M9s.

Sharpness and depth is many times better and more beautiful than the Nikon D3s.

 

 

 

you see, photography is not my profession but my heart is in love with photographs.

 

hope I was helpful

[Pedro]

Thank you all for your valuable input.

 

Chroma, your comment is particularly inspirational! Found your Flickr page were you have some beautiful images (both Leica and D3). Still not M9 examples though.

 

Whenever you post M9 output, let us know.

 

Thanks again, Pedro

[AnakChan]

Hi Chroma Project

 

Would you have any samples by any chance, please? I'd love to see esp comparisons.

 

I'm currently a D3 and M7 owner (previously 1Ds & M6) and each has its own place of use depending on what subjects I'm taking, when I'm taking it, or how I feel like taking it. As with everyone else I'm keen on the M9 but in my case, to replace the M7 (I've never owned an APS-C sized digital - DSLR or RF).

 

As I'm happy with the IQ of the D3, I'm looking for something that produces just as good quality but in a compact and discrete body primarily for evening/dinner use; as such my interest in the M9. Unfortunately from specifications and other review/feedback, the lack of AA filter, moire, "noise" at high ISO, and low res LCD has concerned me.

 

However your comments on the D3 comparison has intrigued and reignited the M9 fire in me. If practical day-to-day (or evening to evening in my case) preprocessed IQ is at least equal to the D3 then I can forget about the AA filter/moire issue and can close a blind eye to the low res LCD. I can't afford a $7000 test so depend on feedback/reviews a lot - especially those that compare against other current full frames.

 

If it helps, my D3 lens collection - 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8. As for my Leica, 24/2.8(ASPH?), 50/1.4(ASPH?), 90/2.8. Hoping to add the 35/1.4ASPH to the collection. And I tend to shoot candid/street photography with the RF. The DSLR is more for landscape and pre-planned shots.

 

Cheers & TIA

[stevelap]

It really is horses for course isn't it. I have the D3X and M9, both superb examples of their genre, but comparing the two is for the most part pointless. Certainly for out and about incognito street photography, and for travelling with a lightweight kit, the M9 is sublime.

[AnakChan]

It really is horses for course isn't it. I have the D3X and M9, both superb examples of their genre, but comparing the two is for the most part pointless. Certainly for out and about incognito street photography, and for travelling with a lightweight kit, the M9 is sublime.

 

But I'm not asking about comparing functionality or ease of use. As mentioned I've owned/used Leica M6 and M7, and EOS 1Ds and D3 (and I mentioned each has it's own place) - for about 9 yrs.

 

My question was about the result...the IQ - strip away all the housing, the gadgetry...the bottom line for my question is IQ since :-

 

"...image quality of Leica M9 just makes me speechless ... it is so beautiful my friend.

 

Nikon D3's photographs seem soulless and pale in comparison with the Leica M9s.

Sharpness and depth is many times better and more beautiful than the Nikon D3s."

[markowich]

Nikon D3's photographs seem soulless and pale in comparison with the Leica M9s.

Sharpness and depth is many times better and more beautiful than the Nikon D3s."

 

this is a pointless and uninformed comment. digital files have to be PPed, this applies to M9 as well as D3(x) files. when you open D3(x) files in nikon capture they may look pale and have poor contrast, but you have enormous latitude for PPing with them. open M9 and D3(x) files in C1 then both look good due to C1's agressive color profiling, giving you less PP latitude. the same holds for LR.

peter

[AnakChan]

this is a pointless and uninformed comment. digital files have to be PPed, this applies to M9 as well as D3(x) files. when you open D3(x) files in nikon capture they may look pale and have poor contrast, but you have enormous latitude for PPing with them. open M9 and D3(x) files in C1 then both look good due to C1's agressive color profiling, giving you less PP latitude. the same holds for LR.

peter

Thx, therefore am I chasing a false lead then? In case it wasn't clear, that quote came from Chroma (unlike the way you quoted me above). I was asking him for sample photos to justify his statement 'cos if true, then it'll definitely make me sway towards purchasing the M9.

[markowich]

Thx, therefore am I chasing a false lead then? In case it wasn't clear, that quote came from Chroma (unlike the way you quoted me above). I was asking him for sample photos to justify his statement 'cos if true, then it'll definitely make me sway towards purchasing the M9.

 

i understood where it came from, sorry for my unclear quote. the point that i am trying to make is simply that it is meaningless to judge IQ 'as out of the camera' (unless you shoot jpg). as far as i am concerned what counts is what i can get out of a RAW in PP. and there nikon is really hard to beat. M9 shooting is generally more fun, but nikon delivers -in my opinion- still more 'after PP IQ' than leica, even at base iso.

peter

[swamiji]

it is meaningless to judge IQ 'as out of the camera' (unless you shoot jpg).

 

I am not sure that this statement is true. I don't do any PP on my RAW/DNG files, more than I do on my JPEG's. They open as a normal picture, and are printed the same way.

[ccc yyy]

Nikon D3's photographs seem soulless and pale in comparison with the Leica M9s.

if the D3's photos seem "soulless" blame the camera operator

or the photographer ... and not the camera.

 

[markowich]

I am not sure that this statement is true. I don't do any PP on my RAW/DNG files, more than I do on my JPEG's. They open as a normal picture, and are printed the same way.

 

then you might as well use jpgs. i have the strong feeling that your workflow needs refinement.

p

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[carstenw]

Peter, I completely disagree. I used a Canon 5D for nearly a year, and almost 10000 photos, owned several great Leica R lenses which I used with adapter, but although I sometimes got some really good results, I was disappointed more often than not, and this affected my enthusiasm deeply. I had to spend long hours post-processing the photos to get the best results.

 

In complete opposition to this, I find that as often as not, the results from my M8 are near-perfect out of the box and just need a tweak here and there, a few seconds per image. Even on the silly little screen on the back of the camera, I can see when I have a special shot, and the colours and general look often gets positive comments from friends and family. This of course has a positive effect on my enjoyment of the system.

 

The fact that you can get equally good results from two such different systems is almost completely meaningless. With the 5D it was always a struggle, and with the M8 it is very natural. I would never ever go back to using a Canon as my main system, and look forward to getting my M9 very much.

[markowich]

if the D3's photos seem "soulless" blame the camera operator

or the photographer ... and not the camera.

 

 

leica fanboys and religious fanatics have a lot in common. both species are prone to ignore reasoning.

peter