M8 or D3

M

mervynyan

Mervyn Yan
Local time
9:10 PM
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
684
I really think I need a FF dSLR, D3 seems about in the right price range. But I am very tempted with M8. They are about the same price. what do you think?:bang:
 
A Ferrari or a Hummer?...

Every depend on what do you need it for. I think you have the answer for your own question. ;)
 
I decided I'd go for a FF Nikon. My Leicas will remain my film bodies. Besides, there are things I can do with an SLR that a rangefinder cannot do, like extreme close ups... such as this one.

attachment.php


I admit it's not a great shot technically, but it's a close-up nonetheless, and I won't invest on the gear to turn my M8 into an SLR to do these things when I already have that kind of glass.
 

Attachments

  • CR-07-Butterfly-INBIO.jpg
    CR-07-Butterfly-INBIO.jpg
    49.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Two different cameras. I use my M8 for professional work that requires digital turnaround time. I use my M7 for personal projects. I use a Pentax K10D for studio work and product shots and a K1000 for fun.

I am a bit upset that my $700 1.5x DSLR takes cleaner high ISO shots than my $5000 1.3x digital rangefinder. Leica needs to get on the ball with, if not a full frame sensor, then at least a higher performing one. The Kodak sensor is great, and the noise at up to 640 ISO is a lot reminiscent of film grain. But at 1250 and 2500, it's terrible.
 
RObert Budding said:
D3 - have you seen the ISO 6400 sample images?
Click to expand...

Have you carried one around your neck all day while exploring a city?

The real question is what format do you want to shoot, what ergonomics do you need, and how big do you want your camera to be? Personally I find the M8 to be on the outside of what is acceptable (to me) size wise and find myself reaching for the P&S more often then not. I cannot imagine carrying a huge and heavy DSLR but that's just me.

As to image quality both will exceed all but the best (famous?) photographers abilities from a purely clinical perspective; the real IQ question? Which camera's ergonomics and user interface will inspire / enable you to shoot your best.

OTOH, these guys seem happy so YPMV
 

Attachments

  • P1011244.jpg
    P1011244.jpg
    45 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
The weight issue of an M8 vs DSLR is mitigated by the fact that high end cameras like the D300 are not as heavy as Nikon or Canon's FF DSLR. Coupled with a single zoom and much higher ISO capability it winds up being a lighter outfit than an M8 and 3 or 4 lenses not to mention the greater capability. The M8 wins only if you consider it's whisper quiet shutter but then again there are plenty of high end non SLR digital cameras that are this quiet as well.
 
It isn't as much the weight as the volume. My 20D with a couple zoom lenses requires a bag twice the size of my M8 outfit. At a restaurant I can take the lens off my M8 and put it in one coat pocket and the capped body in the other, where as the 20D has to sit in my lap.
 
I have an M8, also first in line for a D3 / D300 at a large West coast dealer.

They are different rigs for sure. But what do I know, I am a working guy.

It depends on your shooting style and needs for the day.
 
I haven't looked too closely at digital cameras , but aren't there compact high end P&S digital with similar or better specs than an M8 that take up the same or less volume? The Leica may take faster lenses, but it's relatively low usable ISO pretty much requires a faster lens for low light work. Hopefully, if Leica can stay profitable, they may come out with an M9 that address concerns of reliablity and competative technology in a couple of years.
 
Last edited:
awilder said:
I haven't looked too closely at digital cameras , but aren't there compact high end P&S digital with similar or better specs than an M8 that take up the same or less volume? The Leica may take faster lenses, but it's relatively low usable ISO pretty much reqires a faster lens for low light work. Hopefully, if Leica can stay profitable, they may come out with an M9 that address concerns of reliablity and competative technology in a couple of years.
Click to expand...

I go back to my earlier point. You have to see for yourself. It does not sound as though you have used an M8. Even its most strident defenders could not describe it as having a "Whisper quiet" shutter. The SLR vs M8 debate crops up about every 2 or three months. If you want a rangefinder that accepts leica lenses there is only one in production. If you want to use an SLR the choices are plenty. It really should not be such a difficult choice.

Best wishes

Richard
 
D3, for sure. The M8 doesn't do anything the M7 can't, and its image performance is--entirely unlike the D3--underwhelming. Nikon lenses are nothing particularly exciting, but they are in no way bad.
 
This is a little OT

but those in the states if you want to see something interesting watch the world series, the photographers boxes in Fenway are right infront of the box seats, and when they show any closeup of the 3rd baseman or on deck hitter you can see the cameras being used in the background

The D3 is definitely being used, I know one of the Globe Staff Photographers Barry Chin has been using a D3 steadily (look for his recent ALCS and WS pictures), and there was another photographer that I didn't recognize using a D3 on a monopod and then a Canon with a 70-200IS lens

I don't know if Jim Davis (also Globe photographer) is using a D3 or not

During game 6 of the ALCS at one point there was three photographers using the D3 in a row (you can tell my height of the viewfinder and of course the FX badge) on the third base line.... Anyways my point is you can see the camera is currently getting use and you can find the images if you follow baseball
 
Last edited:
SolaresLarrave said:
I decided I'd go for a FF Nikon. My Leicas will remain my film bodies. Besides, there are things I can do with an SLR that a rangefinder cannot do, like extreme close ups...

...
Click to expand...

My POV too. I'd rather have the FF DSLR and specifically the D3. I'm holding out/saving up for the D3. I loving shooting film too, and there's no better way to shoot 35mm film than with an RF.

:)
 
I understand the tug . . . I have an M8 -- don't let the catastrophists fool you. The image quality is great. But when I see those D3 high-ISO files, my palms start to itch. It really looks like it will be a winner for Nikon. Here's my practical advice: buy what you already have the lenses to use. Then save for the other -- they really are very different beasts. I figure at US $5K, it would take me about three years to save the cash for a D3, during which time the high ISO performance may have trickled down to other Nikon models and/or the street price of the D3 will have slipped a little and/or there may be used ones on the marked and/or Nikon itself may have superseded the D3 with the D4.

Ben Marks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom