yanidel
Well-known
What is the underlying question ? If you could afford only one :
#1 Would you buy a Porsche or a Ferrari ?
or
#2 Would you buy a F150 Pickup truck or a Toyota Avensis?
If answering question #1, I would choose a M8.
If answering question #2, I would choose the D3.
#1 Would you buy a Porsche or a Ferrari ?
or
#2 Would you buy a F150 Pickup truck or a Toyota Avensis?
If answering question #1, I would choose a M8.
If answering question #2, I would choose the D3.
Nh3
Well-known
M8 = Shaky and unsuccessful evolution of an old formula.
D3 = A landmark and revolutionary camera which changed the paradigm of DSLR market.
Enough said.
D3 = A landmark and revolutionary camera which changed the paradigm of DSLR market.
Enough said.
narsuitus
Well-known
No struggle!
D3 because it will use the Nikon lenses that I already own.
However, the RD1 and a full-frame Canon should also have been included in the poll. It would not change my vote but I am sure it would change the vote of others.
D3 because it will use the Nikon lenses that I already own.
However, the RD1 and a full-frame Canon should also have been included in the poll. It would not change my vote but I am sure it would change the vote of others.
majid
Fazal Majid
The D3 is a no-brainer.
I have both, and I love rangefinders, but the D3 blows the M8 out of water so far it's not even funny. The ISO advantage is indeed 4+ stops, so even with a Noctilux the M8 just can't match the D3's low light performance.
As for weight, I carry a D3 every day in my messenger bag with a Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4 mounted and a Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-s (it helps I switched from a MacBook Pro to a MacBook Air).
I'll keep my MP until they pry it from my cold, dead hands, but I am seriously considering selling off my M8.
I have both, and I love rangefinders, but the D3 blows the M8 out of water so far it's not even funny. The ISO advantage is indeed 4+ stops, so even with a Noctilux the M8 just can't match the D3's low light performance.
As for weight, I carry a D3 every day in my messenger bag with a Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4 mounted and a Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-s (it helps I switched from a MacBook Pro to a MacBook Air).
I'll keep my MP until they pry it from my cold, dead hands, but I am seriously considering selling off my M8.
andydg
Established
Definitely M8
Definitely M8
Having shot with a D2x for 2 years, the weight of the body and lenses is a factor for me. Yes the D3 is an excellent camera, but so is the M8. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Yet the overall kit weight is my main concern.
Definitely M8
Having shot with a D2x for 2 years, the weight of the body and lenses is a factor for me. Yes the D3 is an excellent camera, but so is the M8. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Yet the overall kit weight is my main concern.
clicker
Well-known
For me the D3 wins hands down . Truly this is one great camera, albeit somewhat "chunky".
Bob Michaels
nobody special
No, I am not struggling trying to decide between a M8 and a D300.
I am just out there making photographs with the equipment I have. It happens to be film, but I don't think that is important. What is important is that I am making photos rather than struggling with camera choices.
I am just out there making photographs with the equipment I have. It happens to be film, but I don't think that is important. What is important is that I am making photos rather than struggling with camera choices.
Olsen
Well-known
dfoo
Well-known
I don't get this "revolutionary" stuff. Canon had a full frame digital with good high ISO years ago... bandwagon jumpers.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I voted D3, only because I cannot stand the idea of my precious M-mount lenses having their focal lenghts changed.
Had the choice been between a D3 and a full frame Leica, I would have put my whole (extensive) Nikon set on sale in this post to raise funds for the full frame RF camera.
Had the choice been between a D3 and a full frame Leica, I would have put my whole (extensive) Nikon set on sale in this post to raise funds for the full frame RF camera.
colker
Well-known
contemporary digital is better than 35mm negative. it has more detail and less noise. unless you are shooting slides but i rather do anything than shoot slides.
a nikon d3 w/ 20+mp is a much more evolved technology than a Leica M8. in terms of results, the nikon is better. sure, we may like the Leica handling better etc... but when you get to results, the leica is outdated.
i need big prints, 1.5 x 2 meters. i can't use a Leica M8. i could use a Nikon D3 or large format film.
a nikon d3 w/ 20+mp is a much more evolved technology than a Leica M8. in terms of results, the nikon is better. sure, we may like the Leica handling better etc... but when you get to results, the leica is outdated.
i need big prints, 1.5 x 2 meters. i can't use a Leica M8. i could use a Nikon D3 or large format film.
dfoo
Well-known
Better is highly subjective.
totifoto
Well-known
I choose M8 cause Nikon does not feel comfty in my hands. I almost went from Canon to Nikon few months ago but the Nikons felt strange in my hands. Hope they come up with a full frame rangefinder though 
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
The Nikon D3 is not 20+mp....it's 12mp. And for that, you won't be getting stellar 1.5meter prints unless your standards are pretty low. For that, you'll need the D3X which is 24mp.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
I solved my problem — 12mp FF and (barely) affordable — the ta-ta . . . .
D700
A very good camera.
D700
A very good camera.
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
Why should there be any struggle? They are completely different kinds of camera with a different photographic philosophy.
Besides for a dSLR I go with the Canon 5D's.
This is the kind of question I expect from someone who knows nothing about the strengths and weakness and just thinks new is better.
Besides for a dSLR I go with the Canon 5D's.
This is the kind of question I expect from someone who knows nothing about the strengths and weakness and just thinks new is better.
kevin m
Veteran
"Photographic philosophy" doesn't really pass the "sniff test," does it?
They're both just light-tight boxes with lenses attached. The M8, with a compact lens attached, is more portable; some of the available lenses are better than their SLR equivalents. Those are the only readily quantifiable advantages it has over a DSLR. To get that portability one must give up a competent digital interface, full-frame, auto focus, modern flash capabilities, and state-of-the-art high iso performance. Them's the facts.
I have yet to see any example where the same photographer using an RF and an SLR back-to-back would get results different enough to support the notion that they're "completely different" cameras, anyway. The idea of 'rangefinder superiority' seems to be more about a photographer's preferences than any great differences in performance.
Ben Z
Veteran
One very strong advantage to me is being able to see the subject at the exact moment of exposure, i.e. if he blinked. I don't know too many people who use an accessory finder in the flash shoe of a DSLR, but that would work too.
Like a lot of people who use an M8, I use a DSLR too. In my case it's an "ancient" Canon 20D, not even a 5D. I've said a few times, to the chagrin of a few enthusiastic M8 fans, that in terms of image quality I don't see the 20D lagging behind the M8 once the RAW files are properly processed and printed. To me, comparing RAW files is like tasting raw meat: what matters is how they taste once they're seasoned and cooked. I'm sure the files from a 5D, IDS-MkII or III, 5D-II, or the Nikon full-framers, are even better in most respects than my 20D, but I have no interest (and fortunately, no need) to cart them and their bazooka lenses around. Been there, done that. Were it not for the M8, I would most likely be shooting a Canon G10 right now, so that's what I need to compare to. In that case (and with all due respect to the G10 which is a remarkably competent image-maker) I'll take the image quality of the M8, as well as just about everything else about the M8.
Like a lot of people who use an M8, I use a DSLR too. In my case it's an "ancient" Canon 20D, not even a 5D. I've said a few times, to the chagrin of a few enthusiastic M8 fans, that in terms of image quality I don't see the 20D lagging behind the M8 once the RAW files are properly processed and printed. To me, comparing RAW files is like tasting raw meat: what matters is how they taste once they're seasoned and cooked. I'm sure the files from a 5D, IDS-MkII or III, 5D-II, or the Nikon full-framers, are even better in most respects than my 20D, but I have no interest (and fortunately, no need) to cart them and their bazooka lenses around. Been there, done that. Were it not for the M8, I would most likely be shooting a Canon G10 right now, so that's what I need to compare to. In that case (and with all due respect to the G10 which is a remarkably competent image-maker) I'll take the image quality of the M8, as well as just about everything else about the M8.
Last edited:
