swamiji Posted September 30, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) then you might as well use jpgs. i have the strong feeling that your workflow needs refinement.p Certainly NOT. The quality difference between DNG and jpg's is quite apparent... It's just that I don't process what I don't need to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 30, 2009 Posted September 30, 2009 Hi swamiji, Take a look here Anyone using a D3 and a M9?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
markowich Posted September 30, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 30, 2009 Certainly NOT. The quality difference between DNG and jpg's is quite apparent... It's just that I don't process what I don't need to. DNG in what raw converter? which profil? even if you do not do PP your RAW converter will. p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted September 30, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 30, 2009 DNG in what raw converter? which profil? even if you do not do PP your RAW converter will. p Raw converter.... Ah... Yes... I remember those... In the dark ages.. When DNG was not a native format.... and now your going to speak in terms of color space... like jpg's sRGB... or Adobe color space... Well I guess jpg's and dng get converted to apples color space... and then to canons color space when printed... But the color I get viewing raw images on my screen, is the same as the print... and strangely close to the LCD on the back of the camera... I have used PhotoShop, Light Room, Capture One. If I make any adjustments I use Aperture, or Capture One... My images stay in dng format... Now days I take the stance, that the little converting the better... If I print from preview... thats best... the more processing the flatter the image, the more sharpening it needs... At that point I have failed the picture... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted October 1, 2009 Share #24 Posted October 1, 2009 Raw converter.... Ah... Yes... I remember those... In the dark ages.. When DNG was not a native format.... and now your going to speak in terms of color space... like jpg's sRGB... or Adobe color space... Well I guess jpg's and dng get converted to apples color space... and then to canons color space when printed... But the color I get viewing raw images on my screen, is the same as the print... and strangely close to the LCD on the back of the camera... I have used PhotoShop, Light Room, Capture One. If I make any adjustments I use Aperture, or Capture One... My images stay in dng format... Now days I take the stance, that the little converting the better... If I print from preview... thats best... the more processing the flatter the image, the more sharpening it needs... At that point I have failed the picture... so how did you calibrate the LCD screen on the back of your camera? peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 1, 2009 Share #25 Posted October 1, 2009 Not going to get into this much except to say something simple: at low ISOs the M8 and D3 I use are both great cameras. At high ISOs, the D3 kills the M8 for noise, though to be fair the M8 is metering light almost a full stop faster than my D3 (YMMV). So the only usable choice I have for handheld photography in very low light is the D3. It's a great camera. However, above ISO 1250, the D3 begins to lose DR and certainly the colour sensitivity of the sensor changes in some weird way. Skin tones, in particular, are much better on the M8 than the D3. I don't know why--it could be some latent IR issue with the D3, or the inherent colour of the glass, but I have to work the D3 files a lot more in post to get printable skin values than the M8. Part of me suspects that Nikon is dumping, somehow, blue channel information, but since RAW files are monochromatic, I'm not sure how they could do that. In any case, skin seems overly cyan and yellow. Very odd, and different from the Canon stuff too. We'll see how the M9 does in this regard once I actually get one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted October 1, 2009 Share #26 Posted October 1, 2009 so how did you calibrate the LCD screen on the back of your camera?peter Good question... Thats what I meant by strangely... I didn't... I just lucked out... Oh... by the way, I use the profile for Ilford Glossy on the canon 9500 for proofing... It was funny, I could not get anything to match... In fact I was about to purchase a color munki, and go Pantone for color management, when I bumped into Ilford.. It had never occured to me that the paper (and it's profile) would make so much difference. Now everything works... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted October 1, 2009 Share #27 Posted October 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not going to get into this much except to say something simple: at low ISOs the M8 and D3 I use are both great cameras. At high ISOs, the D3 kills the M8 for noise, though to be fair the M8 is metering light almost a full stop faster than my D3 (YMMV). So the only usable choice I have for handheld photography in very low light is the D3. It's a great camera. However, above ISO 1250, the D3 begins to lose DR and certainly the colour sensitivity of the sensor changes in some weird way. Skin tones, in particular, are much better on the M8 than the D3. I don't know why--it could be some latent IR issue with the D3, or the inherent colour of the glass, but I have to work the D3 files a lot more in post to get printable skin values than the M8. Part of me suspects that Nikon is dumping, somehow, blue channel information, but since RAW files are monochromatic, I'm not sure how they could do that. In any case, skin seems overly cyan and yellow. Very odd, and different from the Canon stuff too. We'll see how the M9 does in this regard once I actually get one jamie, which RAW converter do you use for NEF files? in my experience NC gives far better flexibility and results (after PP) than C1. p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
haroldp Posted October 3, 2009 Share #28 Posted October 3, 2009 I have been following this thread and think the following points are relevant: 1- The appropriate Nikon competitor to the M9 based on resolution and price is the D3x, ( or D700x when it shows up ) not the D3, which is a fast PJ camera. 2- Choosing between them based on IQ when each are properly used with appropriate lenses and technique is a waste of time. IQ will be so close, and in each case different rather than better or worse. It is true that different techniques will be used to optimize IQ in each. 3- The choice should be based on other factors such as: Favoring the M9 one half the size, and weight. RF cameras let you 'see' differently than SLR's Fast (f1.4) primes that really are meant to be used at F1.4 No finder blackout Quieter and no mirror slap More accurate focus with 50mm or below lenses More Discreet in appearance Favoring the DSLR Exact Framing No parallax issues. (zuxtaposition of fore and background object in landscapes etc.) No auxiliary finder for wides Long fast telephoto's Autofocus (priceless for fast moving sports and wildlife) High frame rates Image Stabilization Zoom lenses Based on the type of photography you do, these are some the paramount factors. Many, myself included use both types for different circumstances. Regards ... Harold Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share #29 Posted October 5, 2009 Harold, Thanks for your input. 1. As I mentioned on the initial post I already have a D3 - that's why, for me, that is the comparison camera. 2. I am mostly interested in comparing IQ because, as stated in the initial post, I used to have an M8 and therefore I am aware of the handling \ experience \ convenience differences. I totally understand the D3 is better for high speed sports and the Leica is better for discreet street shooting. From my M8 vs D3 experience my overall impression is that the D3 creates much clear files, with significative less noise particularly at higher ISO but also much softer (less sharp) than the Leica photos even with top-pro lenses Nikkor & Zeiss. Going back to my photo database I have many photos taken with the M8 that have strong contrast and sharpness (and something else I cannot put a finger on) resulting in stunning images I'm not sure could be produced even with post production over a D3 photo. My impression is that Leica M glass + the small distance between lens and sensor really make a difference. So, for me, makes sense to compare IQ, particularly because the difference is not coming only from the sensor and (I think) cannot be created with post production. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimmel Posted October 5, 2009 Share #30 Posted October 5, 2009 Have D3 and M8 -- I occasionally review my tagged favorites from the prior year without looking at which camera I used for the shots (particularly for events where I used both cameras), and I tend to pick out the Leica pictures as most making me stop to take a few more seconds to look at. I just find them more appealing image quality-wise. However, when looking at D3 shots done with primes instead of zooms, the differences diminish. So I think, for me, the difference is more related to lens quality and depth of field (my primes are faster than my zooms). However, I use my D3 more with zooms (sports, places where I can't move around as much but my subjects do), so I find that the D3/M8 pair are complimentary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share #31 Posted October 5, 2009 So I think, for me, the difference is more related to lens quality and depth of field (my primes are faster than my zooms). Probably your are right. Which prime lens are you using on the D3 - delivering top results? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skimmel Posted October 5, 2009 Share #32 Posted October 5, 2009 Probably your are right. Which prime lens are you using on the D3 - delivering top results? Thanks. The 180/2.8 and 105/2.8 VR I find to be outstanding lenses. I've also rented the Zeiss 35/2.0 and 100/2.0 lenses which are just superb. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeMyers Posted October 6, 2009 Share #33 Posted October 6, 2009 I've got a D2x, and then added a D3 for the high-speed sports capability. I've got several zoom lenses for it, and buried away in a box, lots of prime lenses from way back when. Then I got the M8.2, with some 50 year old Leica lenses, and added some Voigtlander lenses. I think there's a big difference in the best image I'm capable of getting from either camera, with those from the Leica being much better (at least if I do everything perfectly). The D3 is great for what I bought it for, but I'm much more pleased with the capability of the Leica. I'm not sure if this is because the M8 is "better" than the D3, or my prime lenses for the M8 are better than the zoom lenses I have for the D3. (On the other hand, the D3 is far, FAR more sophisticated than the M8. Exposure, flash, focusing... the D3 is always faster and more accurate, and it's great to use ISO speeds higher than I ever dreamed of in the past, and still get nice clean images. I don't think you can compare the D3 to the M8 any more than you can compare a sports car to a truck. They serve different purposes.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted October 6, 2009 Share #34 Posted October 6, 2009 So I think, for me, the difference is more related to lens quality and depth of field (my primes are faster than my zooms). I agree. After only shooting Nikon DSLRs, my experience with the M8 and M7 and leica lenses changed my photography so that when I use my D3 it is almost always with excellent prime lenses, the Nikon 28/1.4 and the Zeiss 35/2 and 50/2. I had used the Nikon 28-70/2.8 to cover this range, and it was quite good, but the IQ of the primes (especially the Zeiss) is better and they are faster lenses. The only zoom I use now is the 70-200 VR, and this D3 set is great for low light high Iso shooting. But when Iso 160-640 will do (and 1250 in a pinch) and I don't need the reach of the 70-200, I always shoot the Leicas and prefer the IQ as well as the shooting experience. The two kits certainly compliment each other and cover all my shooting needs. best....Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.