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

Thank you 🙂
Moriturii said:
I think what jaapv tried to say earlier was simply put (exactly like he said, with no reading in between the lines) if you pop tri-x into an Hexar RF / Leica M / Bessa, and then put the same Summicron on said cameras, your tri-X negs will look EXACTLY the (assuming you develop them the same) and that is absolutely true, no discussion. A cloth shutter or a copal metal bladed shutter in front of the negative doesn't make any difference.

Talk about making a hen from a feather guys.

But you have A LOT of chance to get unique looking images with film in my opinion, because for every combination of: 1) Lens + filter, 2) Film, 3) Developer, 4) development process (like 10+(?) additional variables here), 5) paper, 6) lens on enlarger, 7) paper developer 8) if you use condenser or diffuser enlarger... etc etc, you'll get different looking images at the end. Now that is a big big chance of doing something someone else has never done before.
Click to expand...
 
eleskin said:
I go through this every few years, and ask myself is it worth holding on to my digital M (M8 in my case) and a large collection of M lenses (Noctilux included). The prices of the M digital are going up all the time to the point of really turning off many users that do not have lots of spare cash laying around.
Click to expand...

I'm not particularly lacking in spare cash, but Leica's prices on their new (and not so new, design-wise) lenses has certainly turned me off. $3,4,7K for a fixed focal length lens is beyond my sense of value no matter what the MTF curve looks like. However a side effect has been the appreciation of used Leica lenses resale value, so I feel no particular urgency to dump mine. I'm immensely satisfied with the ones I own, including the Voitlanders. At one time I owned a slew of ASPH's and sold them all. Stupid from a financial point, but no regrets image-wise. I'm perfectly happy if my image quality standards are below some other guy's. I know very few (read: none) photographers I admire who measure a photograph's worth in terms of line pairs per millimeter.

Meanwhile, Nikon introduces cameras like the D800 that run circles around ANY M digital in pure performance and image quality for a fraction of the price.
Click to expand...

When they make one with full-frame and the D800's IQ that's as small as an M9, with equally small lenses, then I'll take interest.

I am getting older (In wear bifocals now) and sometimes really crave autofocus.
Click to expand...

I've been wearing bifocals for a dozen years, and I was seriously nearsighted and with significant astigmatism to begin with. I have no trouble focusing a Leica, or for that matter, a Rolleiflex or a Nikon FTn (none of these with any kind of corrective diopter), or manually-focusing my Canon 5D (diopter set to neutral mark). I get it if someone suffers from MD, RP, or has advanced cataracts with other health issues that preclude having surgery for them. But just the typical loss of accomodation that comes with middle age? If I were you I'd change optometrists, not camera systems.
 
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! 😛 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...

I had a D700 for a while before switching to RD-1, and then to RD-1 + M9. The comparison we get to computers, game consoles etc is IMO fully understandable. In retrospective the D700 IMO is a great tool with excellent IQ, but compared to M9 gives me so little pleasure. Using the D700 and similar DSLRs are like trying to experience the real life through a computer screen only. The D700 is not like a M9 that is a camera with shutter speed, aperture and the ability to manual focus.

I guess you have to experience both to fully grip the difference.

I have tried two mirror-less as backups to M9, but although they produce decent IQ they simply are not even close to the M9 when it comes to usability.

So all in all I dont think I would consider a D800. I might consider the new Nikon D3200 as a P&S.
 
I think these kind of comparisons are (sorry) rather moot. Not defending any brand but I think the pros and cons, if its worth it, or is the price justifiable, have been discussed so msny times.

I personally feel that all cameras are great these days, you can buy an entry level dslr or a larger sensor pocket and get great results and print door sizes.


Eaach camera has their own benefit and advantages, and irs up to the personal user to decide if thats the right camera. I for one have always admit Nikon's superiority in their flash system and AF performance, but I would never buy one because I dont like the result it gives me. Be it the colour, the characteristic, etc. im not saying its bad, but Im saying its not for me.

Meanwhile despite being noisy in iso 2500 and no sutofocus and costs alit, I love my M and M lenses that gives out results that I like.. And I cant get that characteristic from anywhere else..

People may say "Ah its all the same, they're all digital", bur its not. Thus why people have preferences, otherwise everyone would just go to the store and say "give me an x $ digital camera" and be done with.

A similar example would be cars... People buy the latest s class mercedes benz, to tale them from point A to B that costs a fortune, while An old 1990 Toyota corolla can take you from point A to B as well at a fraction of the price. So why do people buy the more expensive? Besides the fact that "they can", they feel a difference with the car. While some people, can love a 1990 old Toyota for whatever reasons too, not because they cant afford a newer car, they just love that old Toyota.

Thats just how it goes. Worth it or not is your own choosing and your answer alone that should matter. It is never worth it if you buy something you are not happy with.. But it is always worth it to buyn whatever makes you happy (as long as you can afford it)..
 
jippiejee said:
Never actually. While I do love the rangefinder experience, dslr's leave me completely cold. Too automated, distant, like a game console. I can't imagine going into that territory ever. I want it simple, tactile, compact. Leica MX gives me that.
Click to expand...

I used to think the same thing until I owned one. Very little difference. Hell, I even focus manually using primes. Set it to aperture priority, shot mine like a Yashica GSN. Rarely futz with any settings. Shoot away w/o ever having to change rolls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom