Image quality comparison of M9 vs D700

A

awilder

Alan Wilder
Local time
1:30 PM
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
1,449
Every once in a while, I'm tempted to consider the purchase of an M9. As an owner of a D700 and several Nikkors, I also own a few M-mount lenses (50 'cron, 90/4 Rokkor-M and a 135 Elmar) which I occasionally use on my Olympus E-P2. Aside from the obvious M camera advantages such as low light focus speed/accuracy, better wide aperture peformance of fast lenses, size, stealthess, or ability to use highly corrected superspeed wide angles and normals (something beyond my financial discretion), I'm curious as to whether or not I could see any difference in digital image quality. Some of the advantages of the D700 within the focal length range of the M system as I see it is better high ISO performance, Nikon flash peformance, closer focus. Unlike fine grained film, I don't think the digital format fully expoits the optical superiority of Leica lenses over the better Nikkor zooms or legendary primes like the 105/2.5 Nikkor. Can anyone whose used both cameras comment on image quality difference and how noticable? Sample comparison pix would also be helpful in making the point.
Thanks.
 
Once you own an M9, you'll be able to see how much better its IQ is than anything else on the planet :D

But seriously. I've got an M9. I don't have a D700, I 've got an ancient Canon 5D Mark 1 and an even more ancient 20D. Putting aside purposeful tests where I bias things toward its strengths, in final prints the only way I know what camera it came from is because I remember what camera I had with me at the time.

My feeling is, the best camera is the one I'm using. When I travel, I do not want the burden of a bulky SLR swinging from my neck, nor the bulky gadget bag required to hold the equally-bulky zoom lenses and other accessories. But when I'm asked to shoot someone's kid's graduation, or their grandkids at play, I know the fast AF and zoom lens will let me easily capture what they're expecting, whereas even after 40+ years with Leicas, I can't make it equal in a situation with subjects skittering around (unless I use a wide lens stopped down, in which case subject isolation isn't possible).

The M9 image quality is excellent. So is the D700. If one is better, it isn't by much, and certainly not visible in all situations. And unless you intend for some reason to make it an either-or proposition, having both at your disposal will only expand your possibilities.
 
Ben Z said:
Once you own an M9, you'll be able to see how much better its IQ is than anything else on the planet :D

But seriously. I've got an M9. I don't have a D700, I 've got an ancient Canon 5D Mark 1 and an even more ancient 20D. Putting aside purposeful tests where I bias things toward its strengths, in final prints the only way I know what camera it came from is because I remember what camera I had with me at the time.

My feeling is, the best camera is the one I'm using. When I travel, I do not want the burden of a bulky SLR swinging from my neck, nor the bulky gadget bag required to hold the equally-bulky zoom lenses and other accessories. But when I'm asked to shoot someone's kid's graduation, or their grandkids at play, I know the fast AF and zoom lens will let me easily capture what they're expecting, whereas even after 40+ years with Leicas, I can't make it equal in a situation with subjects skittering around (unless I use a wide lens stopped down, in which case subject isolation isn't possible).

The M9 image quality is excellent. So is the D700. If one is better, it isn't by much, and certainly not visible in all situations. And unless you intend for some reason to make it an either-or proposition, having both at your disposal will only expand your possibilities.
Click to expand...

Well said indeed.
I've still got a D700, by far the best camera I've used for ease of getting good results without too much fuss.
I sold the M9 because it didn't do anything I couldn't do with the D700.
I say 'i couldn't do' for all who like the M9.
Image quality wise and only noticeable when pixel peeping the M9 had a slight edge with the 50 summilux I used for a comparison but looking at the full image, no difference. Difference between 12 and 18 mp probably. I used a manual Nikkor 50 f2, a summicron R 50 and a 24-70 on the Nikon.
Personally I was disappointed with the M9. The D700 with a good zoom is just too easy to get nice pics, in focus, accurately exposed etc. No hassle in post from RAW using NX2.
The high iso is just in a different league compaired to the M9.
Add the weather sealing of the Nikon and it's a complete package.
It is big and I do miss the size of M cameras but for digital the D700 was my winner.
 
I think d700 is superior in every way except you can't put leica m glass on it. That's probably one of the reasons people are still paying 6grand (triple d700 price) to buy M9 and I think it's a very persuasive reason.
 
fbf said:
I think d700 is superior in every way except you can't put leica m glass on it. That's probably one of the reasons people are still paying 6grand (triple d700 price) to buy M9 and I think it's a very persuasive reason.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right, that some people buy the camera believing there's magic in Leica Glass. But I think a large percentage of people who bought the M9 bought it because it's a rangefinder vs an SLR. Furthermore, I think you'll find the largest percentage of people who are satisfied with the M9 are those who bought it for that reason, and either were already familiar with the Leica rangefinder, or at least took the time to research all the various features and quirks ahead of time. Honestly, I understand people having wish-lists of what they'd like the next model to feature. I don't really get the complaints, though. I mean, within weeks of going on sale, and during the first few months when there were still long waiting lists, every niggle about the M9 was thoroughly vetted and discussed on the internet. Anybody who spent $7000 on a camera without doing their homework doesn't really earn a lot of sympathy from me, sorry to say.
 
I would have to think Ben Z in post #2 comes very close to the unbiased truth. I don't own an M9 but Leica glass on my film Ms did not stand out head and shoulders above the Nikkors I had for my Nikon SLRs. The M9 came out after I got the D700 and looking back had I had a choice I would still have got the D700. I simply do not need a FFDRF enough that is 3x the cost of a D700. OTH there are those that need a FFDRF no matter the cost and the M9 is the only game in town.

Bob
 
Ben Z said:
I'm sure you're right, that some people buy the camera believing there's magic in Leica Glass. But I think a large percentage of people who bought the M9 bought it because it's a rangefinder vs an SLR.
Click to expand...

That is the last thing I thought of when buying an M9. I thought 'great a digital camera without any crop factor that can take my M lenses!' I didn't think 'great a digital rangefinder!'. I haven't picked up a DSLR for the last 19 months since buying an M9 because it does all I ask, not because it is a rangefinder or has some sort of rangfinder hype or mystic about it. The DSLR went from hero to zero in one day, it was that obvious. But if you truly need high ISO (and not many do beyond camera forum bragging) get a Nikon (or Canon), they are great.

Steve
 
Ben Z said:
Once you own an M9, you'll be able to see how much better its IQ is than anything else on the planet :D

But seriously. I've got an M9. I don't have a D700, I 've got an ancient Canon 5D Mark 1 and an even more ancient 20D. Putting aside purposeful tests where I bias things toward its strengths, in final prints the only way I know what camera it came from is because I remember what camera I had with me at the time.

My feeling is, the best camera is the one I'm using. When I travel, I do not want the burden of a bulky SLR swinging from my neck, nor the bulky gadget bag required to hold the equally-bulky zoom lenses and other accessories. But when I'm asked to shoot someone's kid's graduation, or their grandkids at play, I know the fast AF and zoom lens will let me easily capture what they're expecting, whereas even after 40+ years with Leicas, I can't make it equal in a situation with subjects skittering around (unless I use a wide lens stopped down, in which case subject isolation isn't possible).

The M9 image quality is excellent. So is the D700. If one is better, it isn't by much, and certainly not visible in all situations. And unless you intend for some reason to make it an either-or proposition, having both at your disposal will only expand your possibilities.
Click to expand...



This should be carved in stone for future generations!
 
Your question is really "Do I want an SLR with associated pros and cons v. a rangefinder with associated pros and cons?" The M9 is a suitable digital rangefinder with more than acceptable IQ and the Nikon is a suitable digital SLR with more than acceptable IQ (if 35mm film is the baseline standard). On a print, as noted above, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference. You just need to pick which system is more appropriate for your needs.
 
It seems that few people have both cameras currently but several have gone from one to the other for various reasons.

The way I see it if you can afford an M9 and the associated M optics you can probably afford a D700 as your high ISO rescue package ... I doubt that this works in reverse though! :D
 
There are a ton of pictures on the net to compare things with but you would get the usual, uch, "you can't tell anything from pictures on the net." The differences between the two, excluding price, WRT photos is nit picking from what I have seen on the net. It really is just a matter of choosing a system that is the most appropriate for what you do/want, cost aside.

Bob
 
Nikon Bob said:
There are a ton of pictures on the net to compare things with but you would get the usual, uch, "you can't tell anything from pictures on the net." The differences between the two, excluding price, WRT photos is nit picking from what I have seen on the net. It really is just a matter of choosing a system that is the most appropriate for what you do/want, cost aside.

Bob
Click to expand...

Actually, the difference, in good light, between the image quality of the very best "full frame" DSLR and the M9 and a sub 1K amateur APS-C DSLR (with a good lens) is nit picking.
 
I have shot great stuff with my 5D, that would not have been any better with the M9. I have had many more problems with the M9 than any camera I have ever owned. I have had the sensor replaced once and now the second one has 100's of tiny dots on it. My 5DII has superb image quality and certain lenses, the 135L and 200L f2 are as good as anything in Leitz glass I have and to me, after shooting Leica for 40 years, are the most Leitz like glass I have seen. The 35L is nice and does a good job but it isn't quite the same.

As far as actual image quality the M9 is special and I like the rendering but get more keepers with the SLR's. I find my focus will drift on the M9 and I have to adjust it from time to time with the allen wrench. I have dust inside the viewfinder of the M9, that Leica has cleaned once. The soft release catches and often will not trigger the shutter on first try, causing me to miss images so I don't use it any longer. Leica will replace this under warranty. And so it goes. I never had these problems with other M cameras (non digital). So what is quality if you miss images?

I like using the 135, some don't. I had my 135 f4 calibrated with the M9 and it was still off. I taught myself how to disassemble the 135 and adjust the focus. This is the only way it could really be calibrated to my M9. Adjustment of M lenses, if you like to use them wide open or stopped down just a little, is also a concern and known issue. There are Leica repairman that will not work on the M9 and calibration and one well known one that recently told me he would no longer work with the M9 and 135 calibration.
 
Last edited:
Pablito said:
Actually, the difference, in good light, between the image quality of the very best "full frame" DSLR and the M9 and a sub 1K amateur APS-C DSLR (with a good lens) is nit picking.
Click to expand...

Sure, most of the stuff out there today will do in those circumstances. The same applied to film cameras too.

Bob
 
ChrisLivsey said:
You didn't ask this but it is, in my opinion relevant, G10 v MFDB H'blad

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Note: I am not recommending either of these cameras over the two you name, and I own neither of those either :D but you did ask about digital quality.
Click to expand...

I almost fell out of my chair laughing so hard. If he's serious this doesn't say much for his ability or his friends judgment on print quality. I don't think the Phase backs are bad products although I've not shot with one however I do have a new Hasselblad CFV39 back and a Canon G10. I haven't shot them side by side but I've shot plenty and printed many prints from each. While the G10 is a nice camera it's not in the same universe in any way compared to the CFV39 back. Also were not even considering the difference in Zeiss glass vs the zoom on the G10. Sharpness, color depth and dynamic range are way beyond the the ability of the G10.

I use the G10 on sets where motion picture or video is being shot rather than my Canon 1dsII which is way too noisy. Comparing shots between the two canons under the same shooting conditions the 1DsII is clearly the winner. The G10 just can't separate tones particularly in darker values and noise in shadow areas is much higher. Chromatic. aberrations are much more pronounced in the G10 vs L primes that I normally shoot on the 1DsII. I've also found the Zeiss CF lenses to be much better in resolution and chromatic aberrations vs Canon L primes. I was actually shocked at the difference in the Zeiss and Canon glass.

You don't think he was really serious do you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom