colonel
Established
The M9 has better colours (the D700 pictures look anaemic by comparison) and better clarity (whatever that means)
However if you are taking pictures at ISO 1600 or above the D700 is a clear winner. Its also nice to have a zoom sometimes. I loved the Nikon 24-120mm f4.
I had both and sold the D700. I still keep a P300 compact for video and snapshots at school plays.
note that the M9 is a COMPLETELY different way of working. You will be thinking about at least aperture and focus distance for everyshot. its more hardwork but the pictures turn out better!
R Cutting
Member
m9 vs d700
m9 vs d700
Here are some crops from Leica M9 with 50 summicron @ f8.0 and Nikon D3 with 50mm f1.4 D lens @ f8.0.
Both at infinity.
Both crops are more than 100% to show differences, and is a tight center crop of much larger picture.
Both shot raw and converted with Cs4.
I have found M9 to consistantly be sharper, but than again it is 18Mp vs 12Mp.
I think you need both camera's , i wouldn't sell either one.
The D3 is the camera i choose if i need speed and have to time to waste, but if i have time i always choose the M9.
And of course if light is low the d3 will get the best pic.
For landscapes the M9 would be the better choice, all depends on what kind of pics you take.
And of course if you have a bunch of leica lenses laying around you must buy a M9!
m9 vs d700
Here are some crops from Leica M9 with 50 summicron @ f8.0 and Nikon D3 with 50mm f1.4 D lens @ f8.0.
Both at infinity.
Both crops are more than 100% to show differences, and is a tight center crop of much larger picture.
Both shot raw and converted with Cs4.
I have found M9 to consistantly be sharper, but than again it is 18Mp vs 12Mp.
I think you need both camera's , i wouldn't sell either one.
The D3 is the camera i choose if i need speed and have to time to waste, but if i have time i always choose the M9.
And of course if light is low the d3 will get the best pic.
For landscapes the M9 would be the better choice, all depends on what kind of pics you take.
And of course if you have a bunch of leica lenses laying around you must buy a M9!
Attachments
Last edited:
David_Manning
Well-known
To add a different perspective...
I have an M6 and one M-lens (a Zeiss Biogon 2/35). I also HAD a D700. While I would never spend $7k for a digital camera (especially one so limiting in features as an M), the M9 intrigued me because I love shooting the M6 but don't like the whole lab/scan/color correct process. Digital is definitely the easy way out, for me.
That put me squarely in the sights of the X100, which only had a 35mm-equivalent (which is all I used my M with anyway). I travel a lot for a living and I wanted a compact camera body more than anything.
Last week, I ended up trading my D700 and all it's accessories for a 5DmkII. Some of my reasoning (and this is purely personal):
1. Digital is easier for me without having to buy/work with chemistry or labs, or driving to labs, and waiting for labs.
2. I was struggling with color from negatives. Chromes were perfect...but extremely expensive...a $15-$20 endeavor for each roll (along with the two-week wait). Yeah, I can project them...but I can project digitally too on Apple TV.
3. I love the compact dimensions of an M-body (or X100 body). In fact, my current favorite is a Contax T3 because of the IQ on film and the tiny dimensions. Unfortunately is it hamstrung by all the same film-workflow shortcomings (for me).
4. My D700 is awesome..takes pictures anywhere, anytime. The images look as good as any M9 image I've seen (online anyway...no real science here).
5. The D700 is not only large but heavy...much heavier than I want to carry all day on my travels, which essentially makes the D700 useless to me.
I've found my 5DII to be a bit smaller, but quite a bit lighter than the D700. I've decided to pair it to primes instead of zooms, taking away more bulk and weight. The image quality is really on par with the D700...I've come to the realization that any full-size sensor which is modern will do the high-ISO job very well. The 5DII has plenty of megapixels, which isn't a big deal but they're there. The 5DII has 1080p video, which looks awesome with fast primes. I'm still trying to use it properly, but it's something neither the D700 has, nor the M9 ever will in my opinion.
So, for 1/3 the cost, the new Canon (really, the D700 too) has (for my intents and purposes) the IQ of an M9, more flexibility than any rangefinder, and is easily just as sharp on the printed page (due to electronics and sharpening).
Do I like my film M? Of course...love it (to mimic Peter Lik). But at the end of the day, once again, a dSLR is so much more flexible and less expensive. I suppose I can deal with a bigger body...I will just fold the few extra thousand $$ into a travel budget
I have an M6 and one M-lens (a Zeiss Biogon 2/35). I also HAD a D700. While I would never spend $7k for a digital camera (especially one so limiting in features as an M), the M9 intrigued me because I love shooting the M6 but don't like the whole lab/scan/color correct process. Digital is definitely the easy way out, for me.
That put me squarely in the sights of the X100, which only had a 35mm-equivalent (which is all I used my M with anyway). I travel a lot for a living and I wanted a compact camera body more than anything.
Last week, I ended up trading my D700 and all it's accessories for a 5DmkII. Some of my reasoning (and this is purely personal):
1. Digital is easier for me without having to buy/work with chemistry or labs, or driving to labs, and waiting for labs.
2. I was struggling with color from negatives. Chromes were perfect...but extremely expensive...a $15-$20 endeavor for each roll (along with the two-week wait). Yeah, I can project them...but I can project digitally too on Apple TV.
3. I love the compact dimensions of an M-body (or X100 body). In fact, my current favorite is a Contax T3 because of the IQ on film and the tiny dimensions. Unfortunately is it hamstrung by all the same film-workflow shortcomings (for me).
4. My D700 is awesome..takes pictures anywhere, anytime. The images look as good as any M9 image I've seen (online anyway...no real science here).
5. The D700 is not only large but heavy...much heavier than I want to carry all day on my travels, which essentially makes the D700 useless to me.
I've found my 5DII to be a bit smaller, but quite a bit lighter than the D700. I've decided to pair it to primes instead of zooms, taking away more bulk and weight. The image quality is really on par with the D700...I've come to the realization that any full-size sensor which is modern will do the high-ISO job very well. The 5DII has plenty of megapixels, which isn't a big deal but they're there. The 5DII has 1080p video, which looks awesome with fast primes. I'm still trying to use it properly, but it's something neither the D700 has, nor the M9 ever will in my opinion.
So, for 1/3 the cost, the new Canon (really, the D700 too) has (for my intents and purposes) the IQ of an M9, more flexibility than any rangefinder, and is easily just as sharp on the printed page (due to electronics and sharpening).
Do I like my film M? Of course...love it (to mimic Peter Lik). But at the end of the day, once again, a dSLR is so much more flexible and less expensive. I suppose I can deal with a bigger body...I will just fold the few extra thousand $$ into a travel budget
nobbylon
Veteran
I thought we were compairing the M9 with the D700. Both full frame.
The K-5 is crop.
I like full frame for the larger viewfinder and greater DOF control.
nobbylon
Veteran
M9 has better colours? since when? If you thought your Nikon colours were aneamic you had either the camera set up wrong (jpegs) ot your conversion process from RAW is not up to it.
The M9 is SLOW compaired to the D700, yes it is a COMPLETELY different way of doing things. Not better or worse just different.
Statements like 'the pictures turn out better' are simply false.
Some of my M9 shots were better, most of my D700 shots were better.
The original poster asked about Image quality.
A closer match price wise and pixel wise would be a D3X versus M9 match and I can say that between D700 and M9 the differences are small.
Between D3X and M9, for pro use in and out of studio the M9 is lacking. That's why there is an S2.
All these things really don't affect my way of taking pics as I get what I want from the Nikon but rather than trying to contribute to internet folklore find it much more informative to stick to facts.
jberry
Newbie
My take is if you can have just one system or one camera get the one that best fits you and what you do and what you take.
I used to own a D700 but went to an M8.2, now going back to a dslr.
Both have very good image quality depending of course on the lenses you use. I would have to say that if you use Leica glass you would get the better image quality compared to the D700 with newer Nikon glass. But again they come VERY close.
I used to own a D700 but went to an M8.2, now going back to a dslr.
Both have very good image quality depending of course on the lenses you use. I would have to say that if you use Leica glass you would get the better image quality compared to the D700 with newer Nikon glass. But again they come VERY close.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
I can't see this reaching a definitive conclusion ... ever.
Before digital you could put the same sensor in a Leica and a Nikon, it was called film, even with that no one could could agree which was "best". So what chance now the sensors are different ? Didn't I see a comparison of some cameras which have the same sensor and even then at a technical level they were different due to the way the output was manipulated by firmware and that was RAW output.
Before digital you could put the same sensor in a Leica and a Nikon, it was called film
, even with that no one could could agree which was "best". So what chance now the sensors are different ? Didn't I see a comparison of some cameras which have the same sensor and even then at a technical level they were different due to the way the output was manipulated by firmware and that was RAW output.
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
I read an article years ago about the photo editors of National Geographic. When they got Leica slides they could tell the difference with the colors and image quality preferred of the Leicas, in general.
nobbylon
Veteran
John,
great set of pics on your pbase site. Although your comment above is regarding film, I will agree that with certain lenses, Leica negs do stand out.
I found the same with 35 summicron, infact any Summicron 35,50 or 90, 50 'lux, all M and also when I had an R8 with 35 summicron and 60 elmarit.
However I also find that the Nikkor 28 ais, any 50 f2 and the pro zooms do the same.
The other great thing and one of the reasons I like using 35 and 50 Summicrons and a 90 elmarit on my D700 is consistancy. The images all look very similar in colour, sharpness and bokeh leaving only the focal length to distinguish between.
With regard to digital, I still beleive the M has a lot of catch up to do. Image quality is good enough as is the D700 with the M due pixel count having an un noticable edge at huge size photos that most will never see.
However iso, reliability, screen size, weather sealing and value for money need work before most with a high end Dslr will consider it a smart option.
awilder
Alan Wilder
Great responses. R Cutting's pix nicely demonstrated IQ differences between the M9 and D3 or D700. The ISO advantage of the Nikon over the Leica is partially mitigated by Summicron or Summilux lenses IQ advantage wide open. Only with the newer, much larger Nikkor G lenses such as the 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 does Nikon catch up to Leica but for a basic 50/2 or 35/2, no Nikkor beats a Summicron wide open for IQ or size. If size, weight and quietness are paramount, I'd get an M9 which is best suited for discrete street shooting, poorly lit clubs, etc. The IQ difference is evident but not enough for that reason alone unless I did more of the aforementioned types of shooting.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Now that is highly doubtful. In the film days when the image quality was equal and SLRs had no weathersealing either, rangefinders were a niche product already. It is about users preferring system types, and nothing else.
Archiver
Veteran
I don't own the D700 but I do have a 5D Mark II, as do a number of others in this thread. I use the M9 almost exclusively for my personal work, and the 5D Mark II does most of my professional work, as I prefer the convenience of AF, matrix metering, zoom lenses and precise viewfinder framing. I also shoot video with the 5D Mark II, which the M9 cannot do.
When using full size Canon raw files, the image quality is very similar to the M9, although the look is different. I need to use the best and sharpest lenses to get this, though.
The Canon 35/1.4L is one of my favourite lenses and performs extremely well on the 5DII. It beats the Voigtlander 40/2 Ultron by a margin for colour and sharpness, but the Ultron pancake lens turns the 5DII into a M9 on steroids. It gives me something close to the same size but with all the mod cons of a DSLR. If it had M9 image quality and 'look', then it would come down to size. The M9 and Voigtlander 35/1.4 is just so much smaller than the 5DII and 35/1.4L.
When using full size Canon raw files, the image quality is very similar to the M9, although the look is different. I need to use the best and sharpest lenses to get this, though.
The Canon 35/1.4L is one of my favourite lenses and performs extremely well on the 5DII. It beats the Voigtlander 40/2 Ultron by a margin for colour and sharpness, but the Ultron pancake lens turns the 5DII into a M9 on steroids. It gives me something close to the same size but with all the mod cons of a DSLR. If it had M9 image quality and 'look', then it would come down to size. The M9 and Voigtlander 35/1.4 is just so much smaller than the 5DII and 35/1.4L.
colonel
Established
Much better colours, IMHO
Bear in mind I only ever shoot raw
The nikon colours always need boosting and its very difficult to get good skin tones. this is not a new thing, its been mentioned many times by many people.
I would rate the Canon 5Dii better then the D700 for colours and the M9 better still.
Slow is all relative. My shooting style doesn't require machine gun shooting, so I notice no difference in speed shot to shot. Although the response of the D700 feels much faster obviously.
I have found at Base ISO, at pixel level the M9 has better detail then the D700 (in fact the M8 did as well). this is even more of an achievement at 18mp. This is probably due to the lack of AA filter, weak IR filter and a sensor designed for studio shooting.
The M9 is a completely different way of shooting from a DSLR. Its slower and more considered, but I get far more keepers and nothing OOF. Its also extremely light. Quite frankly you loose the inclination to pick up a D700, but my M9 goes everywhere with me.
Anyone who buys the M9 and expects something magical, or something more functional then their expensive D700 is on a hidding to nothing. The M9 is all about timeless quality and composition. its certainly not for everyone and I would not use the "best camera" monkier for any camera at this level.
Lastly you also have to take into account the amazing Leica lenses.
Look, I'm glad you like your D700, its a great camera. I have had two. But after a few months with the M9 I didn't need them anymore. of course if I was a sports or long range wildlife shooter I would have kept them.
All the best
Last edited:
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I'd love to see some side-by-side comparisons of the same scene shot with both the M9 and the D700.
Comparing random shots found on the Internet from the two cameras makes for an awfully-tough comparison.
I routinely shoot with an M8.2 alongside a D700. And as much as I wish it weren't the case, I have to give a slight edge to the D700. But that's not surprising, given the M8's crop factor.
But whichever camera would come out on top - I have a very tough time believing it would make a different in practical application.
Comparing random shots found on the Internet from the two cameras makes for an awfully-tough comparison.
I routinely shoot with an M8.2 alongside a D700. And as much as I wish it weren't the case, I have to give a slight edge to the D700. But that's not surprising, given the M8's crop factor.
But whichever camera would come out on top - I have a very tough time believing it would make a different in practical application.
nobbylon
Veteran
What is it you find highly doubtful? I don't see a point your making Jaap.
Until the Nikon F arrived along with Spotmatics etc, the Leica was the 35mm chosen by most pro's. Hardly a niche product. It became niche when Slr's took over the pro user base. The Slr was more versatile and still is.
In the film days the only quality difference, disregarding developement and exposure was lens choice.
Now it's both sensor performance and lens choice.
Pick the best sensor, add the best lenses, equals best quality pics.
Since this thread was about image quality comparison, perhaps we have digressed a little too much,
best regards John
nobbylon
Veteran
I only ever shoot RAW myself.
I suppose it is just personal preference on colour. Personally I dislike the over saturated look to some pictures I see. I much prefer pictures to look like I remember the scene when shot.
Nikon's have always been a bit tricky with skin tone apart from one, D2X and the reason I have my D700 loaded with the D2X profile as standard. If I need it to be anything else it gets changed in post,
regards john
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Just my point - it was the pro's choice when there were not too many SLRs - and then they took over. I don't see history reversing itself. Most pros chose Contax btw....
Voe
Member
I used to shoot Pentax before switching to Leica, and the difference I find in image quality is that Pentax provided better color rendering especially with Leica R lenses and after I got the M8 and consequently the M9, I still prefer the Pentax colors. But, Leica is light years ahead in per pixel sharpness of Pentax sensor. Though the FA Limiteds are very, very close. I still regret selling my three FA Limiteds. I regret selling them more than any other Leica lens I sold. But I will hang to my 35 and 50mm lux asph, no matter what. After more than a year with Leica I still miss Pentax badly.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Anybody finding D700 colours to be weak have not tried setting the camera to "vivid". As for skin tones being difficult to get right, as nobbylon has said, just load the D2x colour profiles into the D700. If you don't want to do that and you are working in RAW then it can be changed in the latest version of Capture NX2 which has the D2x colour profiles. I think making available the D2x profiles for the D700 and/or the Capture NX2 NEFF converter was a tacit acknowledgement that there was a problem with skin tones but it is now fixed for the most part.
Bob
Bob
Paterson
Member
I've used dslrs for most of my carrier d1, d2x, d3s d700 and d300s, I've used Nikon cameras and lenses since 1979 (Fm2n, F3's). Ive used them all and in every situation you can imagine. I still use the D3s for sports and other assignments where I need speed or high ISO. I rarely shoot over 800 ISO, that's why I invested in fast glass. Leica M8 and M9 are used for everything else, small quiet light and the best lenses in the world fast and razor sharp. Nothing beats them, don't fool yourself or try to justify the size of any Dslr out of Japan. I have to carry cameras and lenses with me everyday, the M's rule. One final thing, print you images without any post procesing, see which images are sharper and true.