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
While I would love an RF sized digital rangefinder, the D3X would be my choice. Actually it would be the D700 and a new 180/2.8 ED-AF. Perhaps the new D400 when it shows it's face. As said earlier, the D3 is just TOO big to carry.

But a D90 with three lenses (CV 20 & 58 and Nikkor 180/2.8 AF) and a GR-D II and I'd be done......... at least till Olympus came out with their M4/3 body...........

B2 (;->
 
kevin m said:
"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.
Click to expand...

A Rf is superior when using wide angles. an slr is superior when using tele and macro.
wides on slrs distort by virtue of design constraints, the retrofocus issue.
otoh when using big teles, 180mm for example, you want an slr.
yes, they are worlds apart when shooting: th VF on a rangefinder will let you anticipate the shot. the slr VF is for highly controlled composition.
 
They are different cameras. The D3 is an expensive brick of a camera that has more pixels than I need. Why M8 v D3 ??. Yes to an M8.2 and yes to a DP2, D700, G10, G1 or 5d II over the D3.
Darrin
 
Of these two the M8,but as its an unfortunate requirement that you have to waste thousands on extra f-stops because of the pxxx poor sensor then its out of my acceptability,Ill stick with film until leica stop trying to con me.
 
I had both the M8 and the D700 in that order. I had the M8 and really liked it but when deciding whether to upgrade I decided to sell it and then wait for M8.2 prices to come down and then just buy one. Meanwhile between digital cameras I couldn't help it and picked up the D700 and the standard zoom and a 50/1.8. I was really really impressed with it so much that I no longer had to urge to buy an M8.2. What I had thought to be perfection was right in front of me on my Mac when I open the files on NX2. You can shoot and shoot on any iso and made very little difference. And that cheap little 50/1.8 which cost less than a couple of Leica uv filters was simply outstanding and the 14-24? Forgettabout it. Then someone offered me nearly what I paid for the whole kit so I sold it. Why? I am not good enough for it. I have a cabinet full of Leica lenses and thought of them being irrelevant was too much for me. I will now only shoot b/w film and no longer look into the light.
 
the d3 is a much better camera is virtually every respect. the d3 represents the current pinnacle of digital cameras, whereas the m8 is merely a digital that takes m mount lenses with less than spectacular low light abilities.
 
Not at all.

The D3 is a properly constructed and well thought out, pro-grade camera.

The M8 is basically just a sensor in a Leica shaped box. It's not really very good at anything, other than being available to RF enthusiasts.

I must say however, that whilst I have no intention of buying either, the D3 is the one that I would take given the choice.
 
I've had both Nikon and Leica most of my life. Hard to choose between the two as both serve a different master. Used Nikon digital, but mostly with MF lenses and still kept the Leicas. Leica came out with the M8 and had to try it. I liked it a lot, but still had Nikon on the brain. When the D700 came out, I traded my Leica in and got it. I still kept my MF Nikkors and loved the set-up, that is until a trip to the Florida Key's. Lugging that Gear around was a real pain. I got back, sold all my Nikon Gear and got another M8. End of story.

I can put 3 small lenses in a fanny pack, the M8 on my shoulder, do what I want and never know it's there. Now add the size of the D3, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.2, 85 f1.4,135 f2 and a 180 f2,8 and you have to hire a mule to lug the gear.

Granted, I'm not working at it for a living any more. If I were, I'd have both.

So, in my opinion, it's based on need at the moment and that does change. Both are great.
 
I think I solved the dilemma: Lumix G1. Best of both worlds, and it takes M lenses. Light as a feather. Good image quality. Acceptable image quality at ISO 1600. I'm done.

/T
 
I tried the G1. Not for me. The ergonomics are not good, and due to the extreme crop factor, where are the wides?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom