Uh, the Noctilux has been around a long time... the 0.95 version is just a progression of a lens that was out way before digital was mainstream.
dimitris
Established
I would advise the OP to buy some Zeiss ZF and see how he likes it. That way your size will drop significantly and quality goes up too.
fwellers
Member
That is what I was thinking. It's only ~$30 to rent a zf.2 planar T* 50mm.
)But I don't know about better IQ, not compared to the 24-70.
Tzelet
-
I would never sell a Nikon D700 and a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 to buy a Leica M8. Actually, I'm about to sell my Leica 35mm Summilux f/1.4 (the new ASPH version) to get that exact Nikon combo. Just goes to show that we are different.
filmfan
Well-known
Sorry, but M cameras are still best for film. If you are a digital shooter, stick to your D700 which is the best digital camera one can own at the present moment.
I have no problem using the M8 in dim light, and the M9 is even better. I picked up the 50/1.1 and 35/1.2 Noktons, but my J-3's and Zeiss Sonnars do quite well at F1.5.
1939 CZJ Sonnar at F1.5, on the m8. Jamestown Settlement, Virginia.
as far as Leica M being only good for film- I disagree, and I use both Dital and Film Leica M's.
1939 CZJ Sonnar at F1.5, on the m8. Jamestown Settlement, Virginia.
as far as Leica M being only good for film- I disagree, and I use both Dital and Film Leica M's.
I've used this as an example before,
ISO 2500, 35/1.2 Nokton wide-open, 1/6 second hand-held, on the M9 in a planetarium.
ISO 2500, 35/1.2 Nokton wide-open, 1/6 second hand-held, on the M9 in a planetarium.
fwellers
Member
Thanks all for the great and thoughtful replies. This really is a good forum.
Today I put my 50 1.8d on the D700 and am much happier with it. As some have said, the small light lens helps make it feel different and I really think I need to stick with primes for a while. I can't put my finger on it, but with a prime I have more fun. Even though I may miss opportunities, it's just more fun to compose, create and shoot.
At least in good light, I don't seem to have a problem manual focusing on the D700. But I am thinking of either getting a better manual focus lens or at least an AFS lens that lets me override autofocus without having to fumble with switches.
I am considering selling my 24-70 for a prime or two.
I'll take that decision to other forums as this forum is not mainly for Nikon lenses and I don't want to crud it up with Nikon lens issues.
Again, I am just happy as heck at the maturity level and help around here Good on you all and thanks again !
Today I put my 50 1.8d on the D700 and am much happier with it. As some have said, the small light lens helps make it feel different and I really think I need to stick with primes for a while. I can't put my finger on it, but with a prime I have more fun. Even though I may miss opportunities, it's just more fun to compose, create and shoot.
At least in good light, I don't seem to have a problem manual focusing on the D700. But I am thinking of either getting a better manual focus lens or at least an AFS lens that lets me override autofocus without having to fumble with switches.
I am considering selling my 24-70 for a prime or two.
I'll take that decision to other forums as this forum is not mainly for Nikon lenses and I don't want to crud it up with Nikon lens issues.
Again, I am just happy as heck at the maturity level and help around here Good on you all and thanks again !
efirmage
Established
Yes, +1 for prime lenses. I can't stand zooms anymore unless I'm doing something that absolutely requires them. It's a hinderance to the art of composition IMO.
If your main concern about the X100 is the VF I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. This video shows it in action and it looks amazing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-VoXxwGWYc&feature=player_embedded
Between that and your D700 you would have a very fun and capable setup.
If your main concern about the X100 is the VF I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. This video shows it in action and it looks amazing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-VoXxwGWYc&feature=player_embedded
Between that and your D700 you would have a very fun and capable setup.
nobbylon
Veteran
Brian,
I'm not being critical about your posted photo and I know you know and understand Nikon but seriously are you happy with the lack of clarity to high iso M8,9 pics compared to PRO nikons? I've used both myself and am not impressed by the lack of detail and sharpness of M8.9 files at higher iso. At normal levels the M9 is amazing with one caveat, good lens. At higher iso work I really think it's average at best. Lack of sharpness and contrast.......
I'm not being critical about your posted photo and I know you know and understand Nikon but seriously are you happy with the lack of clarity to high iso M8,9 pics compared to PRO nikons? I've used both myself and am not impressed by the lack of detail and sharpness of M8.9 files at higher iso. At normal levels the M9 is amazing with one caveat, good lens. At higher iso work I really think it's average at best. Lack of sharpness and contrast.......
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
If you want my opinion it seems to me you've been bitten. I was in a similar position a few years ago (though with a less impressive setup) and I started thinking about Leicas. Finally just last year I decided to give in, I sold everything and got an M7 and a 35mm/1.4.
Never looked back since
Never looked back since
I am happy with the M9 high-ISO performance. It was good enough to record the planetarium as I saw it- background starfield and all.
This is also ISO 2500 with the M9, brighter lighting.
The latter image was in a display which used computer-controlled lighting to convey the story. The lighting was changing every few seconds.
These are recorded as DNG, straight conversions to JPEG using LightRoom 3. No custom profiles, no noise-reduction.
The subject of noise-reduction on CMOS sensors vs straight output from CCD sensors is of interest to me. The DSLR has a lot of processing going on-sensor and in-camera. I would like to find a datasheet that gives the native signal to noise ratio of the sensor used in the D700 to compare with the Kodak CCD's.
This is also ISO 2500 with the M9, brighter lighting.
The latter image was in a display which used computer-controlled lighting to convey the story. The lighting was changing every few seconds.
These are recorded as DNG, straight conversions to JPEG using LightRoom 3. No custom profiles, no noise-reduction.
The subject of noise-reduction on CMOS sensors vs straight output from CCD sensors is of interest to me. The DSLR has a lot of processing going on-sensor and in-camera. I would like to find a datasheet that gives the native signal to noise ratio of the sensor used in the D700 to compare with the Kodak CCD's.
dave lackey
Veteran
Quote:
It is a risk for sure switching up like this. I know at times I would miss my D700. It's just such a fantastic camera as far as what it can do for you. But it's all about the camera and not so much "me".
IMHO, I think you should rethink what you are doing photographically. It takes awhile to figure out what you want to do and THEN you should gear up for your needs. Having shot huge Nikon digital with the same 70-200VR lens, I can tell you it was wonderful, but I don't sports anymore and have sold off all of my huge Nikon DSLR's, lenses and studio equipment at a loss.
I now carry a Leica M3 for 400 iso film, and a Leica R4 SLR for everything else because it has a meter and the lenses are fantastic and inexpensive. Why? Because they do what I need them to do. It took several years to finally move away from Nikon DSLR's to rangefinders and mostly film because I did not really know where I wanted to go photographically. I do now because it has become my business.
Sure, I have a D40 for the digital needs and a few other cameras including an XA2 but my work cameras are the M3 and R4. Just finishing up my first book in a series and I can assure you that a D700 and the fantastic 70-200 lens would have been of no use whatsoever.:angel:
So, stop thinking it isn't about you. It is ALL about you and the cameras are tools to be used to accomplish tasks. The camera should become invisible and not interfere with the final result but that means it should also be capable of producing said results. Figure out what you want to do first, then, make the gear changes as necessary.
It is a risk for sure switching up like this. I know at times I would miss my D700. It's just such a fantastic camera as far as what it can do for you. But it's all about the camera and not so much "me".
IMHO, I think you should rethink what you are doing photographically. It takes awhile to figure out what you want to do and THEN you should gear up for your needs. Having shot huge Nikon digital with the same 70-200VR lens, I can tell you it was wonderful, but I don't sports anymore and have sold off all of my huge Nikon DSLR's, lenses and studio equipment at a loss.
I now carry a Leica M3 for 400 iso film, and a Leica R4 SLR for everything else because it has a meter and the lenses are fantastic and inexpensive. Why? Because they do what I need them to do. It took several years to finally move away from Nikon DSLR's to rangefinders and mostly film because I did not really know where I wanted to go photographically. I do now because it has become my business.
Sure, I have a D40 for the digital needs and a few other cameras including an XA2 but my work cameras are the M3 and R4. Just finishing up my first book in a series and I can assure you that a D700 and the fantastic 70-200 lens would have been of no use whatsoever.:angel:
So, stop thinking it isn't about you. It is ALL about you and the cameras are tools to be used to accomplish tasks. The camera should become invisible and not interfere with the final result but that means it should also be capable of producing said results. Figure out what you want to do first, then, make the gear changes as necessary.
dimitris
Established
That is what I was thinking. It's only ~$30 to rent a zf.2 planar T* 50mm.
But I don't know about better IQ, not compared to the 24-70.
My distagon ZE was so much better than my 35L to the point that I sold it after a week.
Chandler
Rangefinderer
fwellers, some food for thought (if you have not already come across this on Steve Huff's) -
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/09/08/making-the-move-nikon-dslr-to-the-leica-m9-by-scott-graham/
I'm facing the same dilemma with my Canon DSLR kit haha.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/09/08/making-the-move-nikon-dslr-to-the-leica-m9-by-scott-graham/
I'm facing the same dilemma with my Canon DSLR kit haha.
maddoc
... likes film again.
A couple of years ago when got tired of toting a huge and heavy D1x + 17-55DX or 70 - 200 VR around, I remembered that the majority of photos that I liked ("street-photography" / documentary photography) had been taken with a Leica. No zoom, no AF, no preview, and no wysiwyg. After buying my first Leica (M6) and 35mm + 50 Summilux (both pre-ASPH) lenses I was hooked and sold the Nikon stuff. Initially, I was not sure if I could "survive" without the bells and whistles of a DSLR but it seems that I could.
fiatlux
Established
Quite possibly, but the M9 is the best digital rangefinder camera, if that's what you are after.
I have a D300 and D40 plus a lot of Nikon zooms and primes and have hardly used them since I got an M8. It is not just IQ or size (a D40 with 1.8/35 DX is quite unobtrusive), it is also about handling. If you like manual focusing, nothing is as fast and precise as a rangefinder IMO (at least for certain focal lengths).
I sometimes shoot sport, so I will probably at least keep my 80-200 2.8 and my D300, although look at that great sports picture shot with a 35mm on a M9:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=38492578
jky
Well-known
+1 on sticking a prime lens on the D700.
This might be adequate to solve the size issue you mentioned. I still personally find the D700 + 35mm f2 too big of a kit, but coming from the zooms you noted, it might be enough of an improvement.
This might be adequate to solve the size issue you mentioned. I still personally find the D700 + 35mm f2 too big of a kit, but coming from the zooms you noted, it might be enough of an improvement.
Ben Z
Veteran
I can't tell anyone else what to do, just say what my experience is.
Been using Leicas for about 40 yrs. In the same time frame though, I've always also owned an SLR, and glad of it. It's always been true that rangefinders have their weaknesses (as do SLRs) and that hasn't changed with digital. If you're like me and like to take a wide range of subjects, then having both systems is a big convenience.
I've got a Visoflex. I've used it for macrophotography, and telephotography (have a 400mm Telyt, great lens). It's doable, but IMO an SLR gets me a lot more keepers.
I know all the techniques for pre-focusing, hyperfocaling, and using short focal lengths for greater DOF, but when it comes to capturing erratically-moving subjects like kids and pets with a portait-length lens at wide apertures (for action-stopping shutter speeds, and subject isolation) a modern multi-sensor predictive-AF SLR gets me a ton more keepers than the Leica despite all my years of practice at it.
Yes a D700 (or in my case a 5D) and a fast zoom is significantly larger than a Leica with a small prime. But subjects know a camera regardless of it's size, so if a DSLR makes anyone uncomfortable, it's likely because the photographer himself is telegraphing his own discomfort. Just check out the # of very successful photographers who make gorgeous people-photographs with huge DSLR's. I use a Leica as my travel camera because when I get on a bus or metro or sit down at a cafe I can put the Leica in my coat pocket or a little bag that rides close to my body, so I can enjoy the non-photographic moments of my trip more than if I had a large, bulky camera/camera bag to deal with. But there is a trade-off. I can't even begin to account for the number of great shots I've missed switching lenses, which I would have gotten if I'd merely been able to twist a zoom ring.
Lastly, there's the issue of service. Here in the USA I've never had Leica service that didn't take at least a month, and sometimes longer. When I was shooting film, a second body wasn't that major an outlay. A second M9 is well beyond what I can bring myself to spend. OTOH, my 5D recently needed service and it was back to me from Canon in a week. Plus, I had my 20D to use in the meantime. A backup DSLR is a few hundred $, not several thousand.
In the end, much as I enjoy the Leica and always have, if finances forced me to settle on one system alone, it would have to be a DSLR.
Been using Leicas for about 40 yrs. In the same time frame though, I've always also owned an SLR, and glad of it. It's always been true that rangefinders have their weaknesses (as do SLRs) and that hasn't changed with digital. If you're like me and like to take a wide range of subjects, then having both systems is a big convenience.
I've got a Visoflex. I've used it for macrophotography, and telephotography (have a 400mm Telyt, great lens). It's doable, but IMO an SLR gets me a lot more keepers.
I know all the techniques for pre-focusing, hyperfocaling, and using short focal lengths for greater DOF, but when it comes to capturing erratically-moving subjects like kids and pets with a portait-length lens at wide apertures (for action-stopping shutter speeds, and subject isolation) a modern multi-sensor predictive-AF SLR gets me a ton more keepers than the Leica despite all my years of practice at it.
Yes a D700 (or in my case a 5D) and a fast zoom is significantly larger than a Leica with a small prime. But subjects know a camera regardless of it's size, so if a DSLR makes anyone uncomfortable, it's likely because the photographer himself is telegraphing his own discomfort. Just check out the # of very successful photographers who make gorgeous people-photographs with huge DSLR's. I use a Leica as my travel camera because when I get on a bus or metro or sit down at a cafe I can put the Leica in my coat pocket or a little bag that rides close to my body, so I can enjoy the non-photographic moments of my trip more than if I had a large, bulky camera/camera bag to deal with. But there is a trade-off. I can't even begin to account for the number of great shots I've missed switching lenses, which I would have gotten if I'd merely been able to twist a zoom ring.
Lastly, there's the issue of service. Here in the USA I've never had Leica service that didn't take at least a month, and sometimes longer. When I was shooting film, a second body wasn't that major an outlay. A second M9 is well beyond what I can bring myself to spend. OTOH, my 5D recently needed service and it was back to me from Canon in a week. Plus, I had my 20D to use in the meantime. A backup DSLR is a few hundred $, not several thousand.
In the end, much as I enjoy the Leica and always have, if finances forced me to settle on one system alone, it would have to be a DSLR.
Last edited:
luuca
Well-known
For me the couple m9+ summicron 35 v4 works perfect as a one-lens setup
Last edited: