M8 owner: M9 or D3 (D3x?) with 17-30mm 2.8?

E

eleskin

Well-known
Local time
7:59 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,080
View My Gallery
I have the M8 with 20 years of Leica lenses I have been collecting. Another pro friend of mine thinks the M9 would be a waste of money for me. He suggested a D3 series with the Nikon pro wide zoom 17mm-30mm f2.8 and keeping the M stuff for fun or spare. I have all of the good lenses, used including the Noctilux f1.0. So what would all of you do? The M9 is not cheap. I am holding out till after taxes next year. I have been an M user since 1991, only drifting to an slr once with the Pentax 645N. Convince me why I should buy the M9 or why I should buy the Nikon.
 
I can't help you. I paid for the M9 already. Just waiting for it to be sent to me. Sometime in the 2nd week of January. And I'm still thinking about getting a Nikon D3s or D700. Both have their advantages.

I currently own an M8 and an Olympus e-620 as my SLR. I use my M8 for 95% of my work. But a good SLR comes in handy every so often. Hence the reason I splurged on the M9 and cheaped out on an SLR. But I'm realizing the limitations of the 4/3rds format. And that's the only reason I'm considering the Nikon full frame bodies.

If you already own and use the M8. And are familiar with it and already have a slew of lenses. I say stick with what you know.
 
I´m with Vic! If I had the money, I´d get the M9 and, if possible, the much smaller D700 with a couple of MF and/or AF prime lenses on the tele side. Ideal combo - advantages of both worlds, minimum weight. A Katz Eye screen for the D700. 🙂
 
I would rather stick with what I know and love anyway

I would rather stick with what I know and love anyway

All of this is me asking fundemental questions before I spend 7k. I hate bells and whistles and multiple menues. I prefer dials and do not like where the Japanese have taken their designs. Why they did not make a digital Nikon F3 is beyond me. I use wide lenses most of the time, and really love the 15mm Super Wide Heliar. I know all the arguements as to why the nonretrofocus designs are superior in wide angle lens designs. I went through this when I bought the M8. My fellow pro friend thought I was crazy when I sank $4,700 into the M8. 40,000 exposures later I can say the M8 paid for itself many many times over. I am sure if I buy the M9, in a few years, and 40,000 exposures later I will say the same thing. I just go through this ritual with my friend when anything new comes out. I am sure he will say I am crazy (I can't believe you spent 7k on that thing) all over again. When I look at my lens lineup, even at 7k, the M9 may be cheaper than the Nikon if I want the same capabilities (I have the 15mm Voigtlander,new, 28mm Elmarit, 35mm Summicron, 50mm Summicron, 50mm Noctilux from 1998, 90mm Tele Elmarit Compact mint, 135mm Elmarit with eyes, and the 280mm Telyt, Visoflex 2, and 3).
 
D700 and M9 sounds very logical

D700 and M9 sounds very logical

I would say the D700 would be hard to beat in combination with the M9. I will seriously think of this as a kit for all of my needs and my M8 could be a backup. I would be tempted to get the 17mm-35mm 2.8 zoom and another to cover the longer but not extreme focal lengths.
 
Eleskin,

I don't understand your question... you say..

>> I have been an M user since 1991, only drifting to an slr once with the Pentax 645N<<

So if I understand you right, you already know M in and out, up and down. you can shoot tack sharp correctly exposed pictures in your sleep.?

AND you say you drifted "once" to a Pentax 645, (which is a lovely camera BTW). yet you appear to say you kind of stuck to M..

So if what you are saying is in fact the truth..(and why would it not be) the you would be somewhat daft to need convincing that the M9 is the next digital step for you. 😀

Now if you put the above aside and simply feel you are in the mode to try something new and different, hey there is nothing wrong with the D700, its a seriously nice piece of camera and I know a bucket full of great serious shooters who will tell you how competent the D700 is.

For my money, I got the M9 and can just say it is everything the M8 "should" have been from day one, its a fully digital M. I have not seen any owner go into shock and hate that camera yet. (though Im sure it will come eventually) Ive got a M8 also, and don't regret getting it, it got me shooting digital M before teh M9 came out, and Im loving the pictures it made for me. The M8 is sticking around as a backup until I breakdown and get a spare M9 - which is likely to be quite some while ha ha.

Bo

www.bophoto.typepad.com
 
I am in your same boat. M8 with many lenses and a lot of Nikon glass. I bought a D700 as it does stuff I can't do with the M8. The low light strength and AF are a godsend when you need it. I also have the EP-1, G1 and GF1. They are fun but offer little that the M8 and D700 don't cover - other than portability.

The D700 with my 135mm f/2 is hard to beat. The zooms are great for weddings and parties. Again, the AF and low light truly are exemplary. A funny aside though is I started doing reverse calculations when I moved back to FF digital. I started to think and see in 1.3 crop vision.
 
If you already have the glass and the coin go for the M9, especially as you seem not enamored with SLRs. If the M8 does all you want then the M9 should have that in *****s and give it to you in FF. You can always get a DSLR later if yo need it. The reasons not to buy an M9 that I can think of are valid only for me and from the sound of it you definitely don't think like me. If you went with a DSLR you might not be satisfied considering your ties to RFs.

Bob
 
How does the M9 handle the C/V 15mm lens? There are mumblings on forums and User Groups that ultrawide lenses and the M9 may not cooperate. Could be blown out of proportion. Could be real.

I would think that the Nikon 14-24/2.8 & D700 would suit your style better. On the SLR side of things.
 
We cannot take your decisions for you. But reading your post I cannot but help getting the feeling: Chuck your Leica gear for the Nikon - take great photographs and feel unhappy, or get an M9, possibly with a prosumer grade Nikon on the side, take as good photographs and feel happy - A happy photographer takes better shots too....
 
Decision made: New M9 sooner, D700 later (maybe used).

Decision made: New M9 sooner, D700 later (maybe used).

Since I have used Leica with great success for the past 20 years, I see no reason to change now. I have used my M's for everything (social documentary work in the Middle East, Russia, documenting the demise of Bethlehem Steel, 1989-present day, portraits, architecture, etc, you name it. I guess the D-700 would work best for me for my wedding and event work (I still use the old Pentax 645 N with the Sunpack 622 Super). Here, autofocus is great in that I can hold the 622 Super "potato masher" in one hand and use the camera (Pentax) in the other, only using my one finger to operate the camera. This is where the M fails, and where I would use the Nikon, and where the 17mm-35mm makes sense. So there it is. My kit will include all of my beloved Leica glass, an M8,M9, a D700, and the 622 potato masher -studio strobes too).
 
My friend wil at least say I am half crazy!

My friend wil at least say I am half crazy!

The friend of mine that is also a pro will now say I am half crazy, but only after spending more than $10,000 on the M9,D700, and 17-35 zoom! I do have to say though I have a connection with a friend that can get me 40% off the M9, so the hit ($$$) will not be that bad.
 
eleskin said:
When I look at my lens lineup, even at 7k, the M9 may be cheaper than the Nikon if I want the same capabilities (I have the 15mm Voigtlander,new, 28mm Elmarit, 35mm Summicron, 50mm Summicron, 50mm Noctilux from 1998, 90mm Tele Elmarit Compact mint, 135mm Elmarit with eyes, and the 280mm Telyt, Visoflex 2, and 3).
Click to expand...

Right. Since you said you like to shoot wide-angle lenses much of the time, you would probably (like me) be happy to have that 28mm be a 28 again, and so forth. I have a somewhat similar range of lenses (minus the Visoflex stuff). I got fine results from the M8 but will enjoy having more wide-angles to work with.

Whatever you do in the way of an SLR, I would get the M9 if I were you. You didn't say whether you have those wacky UV/IR filters for all your lenses, but you won't need those any more either. (And if not, you can sell them on ebay for good prices.)

Tom
 
Last edited:
What the M8 cannot do for me.

What the M8 cannot do for me.

The M8 cannot give me better performance at ISO 640-1200, nor can it give me more real estate in terms of focal length. Also, having just one digital M and no back up in my situation is just plain nuts. I have had only one digital M due to cost and the view that the M8 replacement would be coming soon (what I felt last year, whew, I am glad I did not buy the M8.2!!! I would have been pissed!!) The M8 will become my backup, and the M9 my primary.
 
If you weren't tempted by a DSLR all the time you've had the M8, why would you be considering it now? If anything, I'd think the ascension of the Leica to full-frame would be even more compelling to stick with what you already like, and buy the M9.

My situation by contrast, is that I always preferred the M camera for travel, and an SLR for everything else, so even though I had an M8, when a refurb 5D came my way I jumped on it. Situations have conspired to curtail my globetrotting, therefore I use my 5D 10 to 1 over the M8, and so buying an M9 isn't on my radar until there are demos at reduced prices.
 
eleskin said:
The M8 cannot give me better performance at ISO 640-1200, nor can it give me more real estate in terms of focal length. Also, having just one digital M and no back up in my situation is just plain nuts. I have had only one digital M due to cost and the view that the M8 replacement would be coming soon (what I felt last year, whew, I am glad I did not buy the M8.2!!! I would have been pissed!!) The M8 will become my backup, and the M9 my primary.
Click to expand...

there you go.

After years with pro dSLR's, I ditched them for a Leica M7 and I never looked back.

Then, when it was launched I bought the M8.

Why ? Because a good camera comes with me, doesnt stay at home.

Sure, a RF cant do everything and that's the reason I bought a SLR now : A Nikon D2h, yap a oldie, but for 250$.... and its mint.

So I can do some dog sports ( hey, I'm no Pro ) and some macro work... and leave everything else for the M8 and my Leica lens, which I know inside out.

You seem in the same boat : I would get a M9, use that M8 as backup and get a D300 or D700 to do somethings that are not M territory, like long zooms or even more than 1600 ISO.

The M8 is far from perfect. The M9 is better but still much less capable than a Nikon D3 for example.

But its heck lot more fun. And that shows in the pictures !
 
Id keep the M8

Id keep the M8

I had an R-D1 and took advantage of the M9 mania to pick up a mint M8. I couldn't be happier, and see no need to upgrade to the M9. My workhorse cameras are the M8 and the D-Lux 4. However, when I really needed a workhorse (e.g. I did one wedding pro bono), I picked up my Nikon D200. Not state of the art, but still does the job.

-john
 
eleskin said:
The M8 cannot give me better performance at ISO 640-1200, nor can it give me more real estate in terms of focal length. Also, having just one digital M and no back up in my situation is just plain nuts. I have had only one digital M due to cost and the view that the M8 replacement would be coming soon (what I felt last year, whew, I am glad I did not buy the M8.2!!! I would have been pissed!!) The M8 will become my backup, and the M9 my primary.
Click to expand...

If I were you I would do nothing. You already have good digital camera; the M8. The only thing is the no. of exposures. 40.000!! That is ten fold the no. of exposures I have come to.

I have a Canon 1Ds III and a M8. Still I can't be without my M8. It does jobs the Canon can't (nor any Nikon, which lags far behind Canon, by the way). I find the M9 'too expensive' and not all that much better than the M8. So, i will wait until they reduce the M9 price - buy a 2.hand one - or wait until the M10 materializes. With the M8; I am patient. you should be too.

If your tax money is burning a hole in your pocket, sell your M8 for 2,000 $ and buy the M9 for 5,000 $ 'net'. That's far more reasonable.
 
Olsen,

Yes, I have hit the 40,000 mark!

And I have had NO PROBLEMS with my M8 at all!!!

I know there were some who had to send them back, but mine is a real workhorse that never had a problem, other than the high ISO quality which is the design of that sensor.

I even had it on some crazy amusement park rides subjecting it to some major G-forces with no problems at all.

I think those who condemn the M8 should know this is a really great camera that can take sever punishment and come out fighting like a champ!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom