D800: Anyone have second thoughts on the MM/M9/M8 in terms of value?

eleskin said:
Anyone else have these feelings as well?
Click to expand...

I reached this point when I found that the D700 blew away the M8 in one of the categories that mattered most to me - low-light performance. As someone with a two-decade love affair with Leica, it was a tough reality to accept.
But, in the end, I sold my M glass and M8.2.
I did end up buying an Xpro-1 - again for the nice low-light performance.

If I'd started with an M9, I don't know if things would be different or not. haven't shot with one, so I have no first-hand experience with its low-light performance versus the D800.
Likewise, if I didn't place such high value on high ISO performance, maybe I would have been happy sticking with the M8. It is certainly capable of creating great images.
 
twopointeight said:
Tim, ouch that hits the nail on the head with my M8.2 vs. my 5DMK2 and the need to make a living with these tools. That M8.2 and lenses could become a 5DMK3 or XPro system. How do like the XPro, low light and focus-wise?
Click to expand...

I like the 35/1.4. But I can't say I'm all that thrilled with the 60/2.4. In fact, I'll soon be selling the thing. Don't get me wrong - the image quality is wonderful. But I shoot a lot in a darkened studio when doing portraits. And it just doesn't focus well in low light.
It would be a great general purpose travel lens, however.
 
I have an M6TTL that I bought before film "went out of style". I use it every now and then but I hate screwing around with film. I still love my Leica lenses so I bought an M8. Value wise that probably wasn't a good move. However, I'm not a professional photographer. I take pictures for the fun of it so I don't worry about value.
 
I've thought about an M9 and briefly thought about a D800 but really don't see what I'd be gaining over my D700 ... except for the form factor with the Leica but the size of a DSLR and this constant comparison we get to computers, game consoles etc is boring. It's still a camera with shutter speed, aperture and the ability to manual focus if you choose and it's large and in charge! :p Nikon were way ahead of the game when they released the D700 and it's current used value proves that.

Leica have a dedicated band of customers who will follow them down a mineshaft though many seem to be pausing at the edge these days and considering their options. For the price of a used M9 body you can get an Xpro and all the lenses you need ... and change. That's not some big ugly DSLR, it's a small glorified point and shoot with interchangeble lenses and realistically aside from focus, it kicks the M9's rear end in every department.

A lot of people will move from the current digital M to the next one without giving it a thought ... and they'll be doing so because ten comes after nine and it's a Leica!
 
Keith said:
I've thought about an M9 and briefly thought about a D800 but really don't see what I'd be gaining over my D700 ... except for the form factor with the Leica but the size of a DSLR and this constant comparison we get to computers, game consoles etc is boring. It's still a camera with shutter speed, aperture and the ability to manual focus if you choose and it's large and in charge! :p Nikon were way ahead of the game when they released the D700 and it's current used value proves that.

Leica have a dedicated band of customers who will follow them down a mineshaft though many seem to be pausing at the edge these days and considering their options. For the price of a used M9 body you can get an Xpro and all the lenses you need ... and change. That's not some big ugly DSLR, it's a small glorified point and shoot with interchangeble lenses and realistically aside from focus, it kicks the M9's rear end in every department.

A lot of people will move from the current digital M to the next one without giving it a thought and they'll be doing so because ten comes after nine and it's a Leica!
Click to expand...

Keith, have a look at full size:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Nikon-D800-D800e/samples/comparison/d800e_0689.C1default.jpg
 
BobYIL said:
Keith, have a look at full size:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Nikon-D800-D800e/samples/comparison/d800e_0689.C1default.jpg
Click to expand...


There's a scary amount of detail in that pic! :eek:

When I looked into the possibilities of a D800 I realised that it's main advantage over the D700 is pure resolution and not much gain in ISO advantage if any. Ultimate resolution not being vital to me I made the decision to stick with my D700 ... if anything I'd consider a used D3s because it does have an ISO advantage apparently!

I suspect I'll get another couple of years out of my D700 and then who knows what may be available? :D

The D800 is amazing for what it offers but the D700 really has been one of Nikon's great cameras IMO ... I have nothing but praise for mine!
 
haempe said:
Sorry , icebear, your enthusiasm is honorable, but photography is more than snapping around on the street. For photo-journalism or low light event photography a Leica M may be first choice, but there are thousands of tasks in photography I would not even think to use a RF-cam.

I would never ever spend all my money on a special purposes tool, if I have to manage much more universal (or otherwise special) tasks.
(I'm not sure, if the topic of this thread is professional use, my words are based on this assumption...)

If it works for you, it's fine, but (for example) I would go crazy if I had to use the M in the studio for product photography or something similar...
Click to expand...

Hallo hämpe,

yes, you are absolutely right. To go for and stick to the RF concept is not "a one size fits all" decision and I see certain disadvantages. Despite all shortcomings for me the M9 still outways the supposedly superior features of the DSLR's. Starting with 500+ page manual and I don't want to know how many different menues.

I did not go for the M8 / 8.2 which I think, was a faulty model. But FF in an M size body like the M9 is great and for me simply the option to switch ISO on the go makes it superior to film. The performance level is plenty sufficient for me.
If I screw up a shot it's my fault and not the camera's. I am in charge and that's the way I want to take pictures and not some internal CPU and 60 zone metering and 24 spot autofocus mode.

I'm not a pro but I aim for high quality results. I had 2 T90's (with multispot meter!!) with a really nice FD1.2/85L and a 2.8/200 for concert photography. (btw. I used TMY pushed to 800, so I'm smiling a bit when clean ISO 1250 is lamented for being insufficient). Canon screwed me on that investment with the next generation. Not sure if you could use older Nikon lenses with manual focus on the latest Dxyz. I can use all my Leica lenses on my M9.

A friend of mine use a 15x18 Linhof in his studio for product shots. There was no way 10 years ago that he made switch to digital on the same qualtiy level, he got out of the business, sadly.
 
I'm an RF person but also value and use SLR's / DSLR's and just cant see the M9 as a workable camera for much of what I shoot plus compared to the D800 it's way behind the curve and seriously over priced. IMO the M9 is a cult camera.
 
When the M9 drops below a certain price point I'll be looking into one very seriously. I can't afford a new M digital camera, but (to me) the IQ level of the original 5d and d700 is fine - I don't really need more than that - and the m9 is at a similar level (worse in some ways, better in some ways.) The main thing is the FORM, not the IQ. They're all 'good enough' in IQ, but the FORM is what makes the real difference between them. Consider the size of DSLRs, plus the fact that you cannot buy good lenses for them unless you go to the f1.4 primes which (from nikon and canon) are HUGE and very heavy. I hate lugging around lenses and cameras personally, so hence the m9.

edit: Comparatively, consider an m9 with a summicron 28mm/ultron 28mm and a summilux 50mm/nokton 50mm in comparison to a 5d with a 24mm f1.4L and 50mm f1.2L. Similar setups, dslr one is significantly larger and heavier/bulkier. I could wear the m9 on my shoulder all day every day - the 5d I can not.
 
gavinlg said:
When the M9 drops below a certain price point I'll be looking into one very seriously. I can't afford a new M digital camera, but (to me) the IQ level of the original 5d and d700 is fine - I don't really need more than that - and the m9 is at a similar level (worse in some ways, better in some ways.) The main thing is the FORM, not the IQ. They're all 'good enough' in IQ, but the FORM is what makes the real difference between them. Consider the size of DSLRs, plus the fact that you cannot buy good lenses for them unless you go to the f1.4 primes which (from nikon and canon) are HUGE and very heavy. I hate lugging around lenses and cameras personally, so hence the m9.
Click to expand...


It's all so confusing ... sometimes I just feel like seling everything and shooting with an OM-1 and 50mm and 35mm lenses. Nothing else at all! :p
 
Keith said:
I've thought about an M9 and briefly thought about a D800 but really don't see what I'd be gaining over my D700 ... except for the form factor with the Leica but the size of a DSLR and this constant comparison we get to computers, game consoles etc is boring. It's still a camera with shutter speed, aperture and the ability to manual focus if you choose and it's large and in charge! :p Nikon were way ahead of the game when they released the D700 and it's current used value proves that.

Leica have a dedicated band of customers who will follow them down a mineshaft though many seem to be pausing at the edge these days and considering their options. For the price of a used M9 body you can get an Xpro and all the lenses you need ... and change. That's not some big ugly DSLR, it's a small glorified point and shoot with interchangeble lenses and realistically aside from focus, it kicks the M9's rear end in every department.

A lot of people will move from the current digital M to the next one without giving it a thought ... and they'll be doing so because ten comes after nine and it's a Leica!
Click to expand...

Hi Keith,

yes, I also have the coal dust in my face but sometimes getting a bit dirty is lot's of fun :D.

Talking about bit ... you might want to check the bit depth the Nikon D's are capable of. As far as I could find out, the M9 records 16bit raw per channel. I think the D700 12 bit and the D800 gives you a choice of 12 or 14bits. Just mps and max ISO isn't everything when it comes to IQ.

For me the M9 delivers files that are just amazing (ok still some dust in the eyes...) and I will not feel the urge to upgrade to a M10 whenever that might come out. I don't want to plaster a billboard with my shots.
 
If autofocus is becoming increasingly important for you, then a camera with good AF becomes more attractive. I love the M experience as well as the lenses, but I also shoot with some AF cameras like the 5D Mark II, Ricoh GXR and Fuji X100.

The D800 doesn't interest me, and I only shoot the 5D Mark II for work, as that is when I need the zooms, HD video etc. Otherwise the Canon is too big for me to carry about on a daily basis, something I am quite happy to do with the M9.

If I had to pick a current camera with AF and rangefinder qualities, I'd get a X-Pro 1 at the minimum. In the meantime I'm very happy with my GXR and X100 for when I need AF and a smaller footprint than even the M9. The M9's image quality is stunning, though, and nothing I have can beat it in good light.
 
I've noticed over the last few weeks there's a steady flow of M9s going through the classifieds ... there seems to be one every couple of days at the moment!

They all seem to be $5000 to $5000.500 or there abouts ... are people getting these prices easily or is it a struggle?
 
It's a neat trick, what Leica pulled. For 80 years, they built a reputation — 'the Leica look,' 'the glow,' 'classic photojournalism' — what have you. A Leica 'signature.' Then, when they abandoned film and went digital, they managed to get people to define the new digital look as 'the Leica look.' Genius. The old look was Tri-X and D-76. The new look is color and grainless.

Digital is wonderful. For many things. But, it's also an equalizer. That part is sad. My interest in photography began with fashion, and until the digital changeover, you could identify any of the major fashion photographers' work in magazines with a quick glance. Everyone had a signature. Whether they were shooting in color or black and white, there was a commonality to their images. Now that everyone's shooting the Hasselblad H system or the Canon 1s, it's all gone. Can't tell one from the other (except for Terry Richardson).

So, anyway.... It seems to me the thing that made Leicas wonderful - that vast catalog of imagery stretching back so many years - it wasn't about clinical sharpness, maximum resolution, or grainlessness. Sure, the lenses were some of the best. But, with Tri-X and f1 or 1.4, so what. None of the most renowned rangefinder fotogs had that 'ultimate clinical precision' thing going for them. And, so, now, when Leica's touting all their tech achievements, and still resting on the laurels and legacies of people like HC-B, i'm wondering how it all fits together.

The OP seems like he wants a Leica because it's a Leica. Not because it actually fits what he wants to do or how he wants to do it. I used to be in the same camp. I tried M7s on two occasions, and an Ikon after that. I had three R cameras. And, all of them were disappointing, in some way or another, despite the excellence of the (M) glass.

A D800 might feel 'plastic-y.' Compared to an M6. So what. 99% of the pros making a living with photography are somehow getting by with plastic. At some point, we have to get over ourselves. There's a reason pros don't use Leicas for professional work. And, there's a reason why the dilettantes use them only "for personal work, when i can take my time and THINK."

Get a D800. Or a 5DIII. Sell it a month before the D900 or 5DIV comes out. And, repeat. Stay at the top of the tech curve so you never have to feel inferior. You'll probably have to stay out of forums like this, where the guys with the digital Leicas will constantly tell you their cameras do magical things, despite the old, low-spec sensors.
 
:confused:Nothing was more equalizing that film. Put the same film into any camera and you get the same look. The only difference one can make is by the lens. Now, with digital we get the added parameters of the (type) of sensor and in-camera file handling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom