Are you struggling deciding between the M8 and Nikon D3?

Are you struggling deciding between the M8 and Nikon D3?

  • Leica M8

    Votes: 157 49.2%

  • Nikon D3

    Votes: 123 38.6%

  • Both, you silly goose (bad GAS attack!)

    Votes: 39 12.2%
  • Total voters
    319
I don't think there's any "struggle". They are different beasts. If you need an SLR now (or in future) because of sports or birding or whatever, M8 is not a choice. Ditto if you already have a closet full of M lenses.
 
toyotadesigner said:
I wrote Mega Pixels, not megabytes. A scan of a 6x9 cm slide turns into an image with 12.900 x 8.600 pixels minimum.

Using JPEG @ 24bit color depth the file size is some 40 megabytes.
Using TIFF @ 24bit color depth the file size is some 350 megabytes.
Using TIFF @ 48bit color depth the file size is some 700 megabytes.

I can print this image without upsampling @ 300 ppi at 43 x 29 inches or 110 cm x 73 centimeters, @ 150 ppi at 86x58 inches or 220 x 146 cm and you still can stick your nose very close to it to see all details.

No sharpening, no other manipulation before printing, all sharpening settings of the RIP turned off.

Of course I can scan the image @ 8.000 ppi with an Imacon or drum scanner and get even more detail, but that's a completely different story.

Now look into your EXIF data. Chances are high that your digi cam comes with a resolution of 72 ppi or 96 ppi internally.

No doubt your image is beautiful - as long as you can't compare it side by side to a 6x9 scan and crop.

Below is the original on top, a 100% crop at the bottom. The100% crop is 32 cm or 12.6 inch wide... The orange rectangle marks the crop.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the ppi figures in the exif compared to a resolution of a scan is simply not correct. "ppi" or "dpi" is a printing/scanning measure. A digital image does not posses any "ppi" or "dpi" per se. It's already made of pixels. How dense you're going to print on the media is what the "dpi" means.

I do agree that 6x9 scan is still ahead of today's 35mm (or smaller) DSLRs!
But then again - some will say that 6x9 can't hold a handle to a scan from large format camera...

Scanning at very high resolutions also has its practical limits, though. In the 35mm world I'm yet to see a scan with more than about 16mp USEFULL resolution. Sure, it can be scanned to produce 80mp image, but it doesn't really reveal any more detail detail than 16 or 21mp.

That's just my opinion of course.


Oh, yes - I vote D3
 
Last edited:
Waiting, waiting...

Waiting, waiting...

D3 is too big, has too many bells & whistles, and is too expensive. The M8 is too noisy and, of course, too expensive. I'm waiting for the Voigtlander R6A full-frame sensor-ed rangefinder 😉
 
Normally I'd vote "both", but the M8 isn't particularly tempting to me despite my all digital workflow (I do love my RD1 though). So I voted for the D3, as I'm sure there's one headed my way sooner or later.

j
 
Neither, but if Pentax were to bring out a D3 equivalent I'd be tempted.

The M8 is way too expensive for the limited use I'd give it, so I'll be one of those waiting (perhaps for a long time) for a cheaper alternative.
 
I am a big fan of Nikon glass, and once owned a D50 that made some really nice pics, but I would go w/ the Leica. The sample photos I have seen posted on pbase look more film like (less loss of shadow detail, less plasticy digital look) than anything I have seen. Even the B&W looks pretty good, and that is saying something. But $6000 for a camera and lens?!!! Even if I had the disposable money, I wonder. Camera seems to have some serious issues too.
 
This is quite an interesting poll and the M8 is holding it's own considering it's limited application and slightly troubled reputation ... but I guess this is RFF. Imagine asking this same question on the Nikon forum! 😱

I voted D3 ... I already have the M8 but if I was starting over I would have to chose the Nikon for the versatility of a DSLR as good as this ... as I only really want one high end digital camera in my life!
 
For me, a no-brainer...the D3. My film gear gives me everything I need, but my great Nikon glass (80-200/2.8, 85/1.4) would love to be attached to a D3. From the very start, I've had absolutely no interest in the M8...still don't. But, back to reality, I plan on getting neither.
 
D3 + M7. Use the D3 for all its good for and the M7 for all its good for. Although looking at the D3 high ISO it might just dampen my Neopan 1600 fetish enough :s
 
There is a $500 US price advantage for the D3 over the M8 at B&H.
And I own Nikon lenses, but I also own Leica mount lenses too.
But I have an RD1-- so I can use the Leica mount stuff on it.
But you know in your brain that the Nikon full frame is going to trickle down to their high-end amateur cameras by next year so I could wait a while and get a "D400" full frame.
I vote for the D3, but I think I'll wait a year before I buy.
(Is Leica going to trickle down the M8 technology to a lower cost body? I doubt it.)
 
The only reason I'd want a digital rangefinder is to be able to use vintage glass on it. I'm not paying $5k for that privilege, though.

The M8 will be replaced, and when it is, then they'll start selling for reasonable used prices.
 
Yep, I got out of the DSLR market for that very reason. Fed up in particular with Nikon's feature hobbling (particularly not being able to use AI/S lenses with metering) I went with the R-D1 and got back into film in a big way. Haven't shot a digital image since October and am seriously considering selling the R-D1. That serious consideration will turn into a definite as soon as an FX sensor ends up in a (more) compact body or Pentax's whisper grows louder (eagerly waiting to see what the K10D replacement offers).
 
Not even a second thought, the D3. I would like to see another iteration of an M-mount digital RF that can generate that second thought though. Until then, RF's are reserved for the pleasure of shooting film.



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