Image quality comparison of M9 vs D700

[Shade]

The difference in image quality is discernible. But then you'd have to ask, how do you present your pictures? If you print them post card size, I don't think there are any significant differences. But if you use it for many other pruposes, then I think it's worth to try.

 

[roboflick]

I think the difference between the two systems comes down to image character not image quality. I love shooting my Leica and Zeiss lenses with Amedeo adapter on my Leica wide open for the unique bokeh. At f4 or f5.6, I can't tell the difference between my Nikkor 50 1.8 and my Summicron.
But at f 2 or 1.5 clear difference with the classic bokeh winner being the Leica.

On the other hand nothing I've used beats the Nikon 135 dc for portraits on my f5 or d700.

Nik
bottom line get and use both, they are complementary

 

[fti]

I have a D700 with some premium lenses... but it's not a Leica. I tried the M9 and it was everything I thought it would be. I bought an SD card at the store, and they let me try out the M9 (Leica dealer in Lisse, NL - great service!). The quality is different, but not too different with my D700 and Zeiss. At least that's how I feel about it.

If I were a pro, I'd have the D700 for sure, but thankfully I am not and I can get to thinking about how I can offload my Nikon gear and take the Leica plunge 😀

 

[kanzlr]

I had a D700 and an M8.
At Base ISO the M is wonderfully crisp, with a little summicron in front.

you cannot really compare them I guess, but the M8 had similar resolution to the D700, as far as larger prints go. So the M9 will be quite a bit better still.

assuming you have nice lenses and shoot low ISO.

 

[northpole]

Time moves on and with it digi camera technology.

I cannot understand why this thread has spent so much of its time comparing two cameras at such different price points - well, I can insofar as the OP asked the question!. I just don't get why the question was asked in the first place! As an earlier poster commented, in price terms, the M9 should be compared against the D3X, not the D700; and I haven't seen any subsequent posts to say how one compares against the other.

The D700 is dead. The only reason we haven't seen it's replacement, the D800, is down to the dreadful floods in Thailand. Otherwise we would be comparing the M9 against a 36MP camera, presumably at a slightly closer price comparison point? Jan/ Feb next year should see the launch of the D800.

Hopefully the M10 will be along soon to keep Leica in the game of high res digi photography. Assuming that is what Leica customers would like to see.

Peter

 

[Frank Dernie]

Time moves on and with it digi camera technology.

I cannot understand why this thread has spent so much of its time comparing two cameras at such different price points - well, I can insofar as the OP asked the question!. I just don't get why the question was asked in the first place! As an earlier poster commented, in price terms, the M9 should be compared against the D3X, not the D700; and I haven't seen any subsequent posts to say how one compares against the other.

The D700 is dead. The only reason we haven't seen it's replacement, the D800, is down to the dreadful floods in Thailand. Otherwise we would be comparing the M9 against a 36MP camera, presumably at a slightly closer price comparison point? Jan/ Feb next year should see the launch of the D800.

Hopefully the M10 will be along soon to keep Leica in the game of high res digi photography. Assuming that is what Leica customers would like to see.

Peter

Hi Peter,
I have, and use, M9, D700 and D3x so I can help perhaps.
Firstly I use the D3x very infrequently because of its size and weight. I like it a lot, and the results are superb but I use the M9 about 10 to 20x more frequently.
The D700 is probably the camera I would keep if I was only allowed one camera. It is not as good as either the M9 or the D3x, not surprisingly, but is more versatile than the M9 (600m lens - macro) and smaller and lighter than the D3x, so I would actually have it with me🙂
Generally the M9 is my favourite camera to use, by a considerable margin, but consider this:
1. I am old and had years of learning the craft side of photography before all the electronics meant anybody could get good technical results wit no knowledge or understanding at all.
2. I shot Kodachrome 64 and Fuji Velvia. iso160 is pretty fast for me, I note the internet obsession with high iso performance but I almost never use above base iso, and then very, very rarely above iso400.
3. I am much irritated by poor ergonomics and a thousand more functions in a menu than I need. The Nikon is about a billion times better than Canon IMHO but still not close to the Leica in intuitive sense.

I would not recommend a rangefinder camera on quality grounds to a new photographer, or even an experienced one who has had most experience since the autofocus era. They will certainly get far fewer keepers, whatever the potential of a rangefinder and the lenses may be. It is -much- more difficult to get technically good results on a rangefinder than modern AF matrix metered electronic marvels.
OTOH for an old fart like me with years of experience with incident meters and manual focus the M9 is manna from heaven.
FWIW

 

[bigeye]

I had missed this thread. Good perspective by Ben Z, David Manning and Frank Dernie.

(Note that the G10 vs. Hasselblad H2 web page url is titled "kidding".)

- Charlie
.

 

[northpole]

Frank

I suppose my question would be, setting aside the weight issues inflicted by the D3x, are the results superior to those you obtain with the M9? I suspect that given you continue to use the M9, if superior, the difference is not significant enough to send you on a weight lifting course!

I ask this because I am assuming that the new D800 which will have a full frame sensor with 36MP and be approximately the same size and weight as the D700. (I could well be wrong!).

I agree with your comments about the size and weight of the D3x - my move to digital hasn't progressed past the M8 and I still have an M7 and F5. The F5 with a couple of the fast AFS zoom lenses whilst superb, drove me to Leica due to weight and bulk.

Don't know for sure why I haven't really warmed to the M8 - for digi shots I find myself more often than not using a D-Lux compact. Nowhere near as good but oh so portable!!

My reference to Thailand was fed by the Nikon rumor web site which suggests that the D800 will be manufactured there and the entire Nikon production facility was submerged by the floods. Hence dire supply problems.

Peter

 

[AndrewNYC]

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.

And I've never seen a compelling photo that couldn't have been made with either. In other words, a great photo isn't made because it is Leica glass. In fact, most of the Leica shots in Flickr are, on average, less compelling because "stealth" shooting isn't compelling 99% of the time.

 

[bigeye]

The D800 looks to be quite something.

.

 

[Turtle]

Couldn't vs more likely are two different things. There are a lot of photos I could have taken on a SLR but there are good reasons why I did not try to. The D700 and M9 are very different beasts and comparison seems pointless to me.

 

[celluloidprop]

I have a very hard time believing the D800 rumors. The D700's bread and butter is being fast and having excellent high-ISO, despite being long in the tooth.

36MP is bound to run into noise issues (relative to the D700, D3, D3s) and framerate will suffer. If it's a studio camera, it will crush D3X sales. If they manage to pack 36MP in and maintain D700-quality noise, it will even crush D3S sales.

This isn't even a D700 vs D3 situation, where the D700 equalled many specs - it would actually leap beyond the 'pro' SLRs.

 

[northpole]

Well, if the rumours are true, we will soon find out exactly what the spec is for the D800. I don't see why it wouldn't have a 36mp sensor - look what Sony have just served up with the NEX-7 on a much smaller sensor.

Computer technology moves on apace and that is what is serving photography these days. To me it is a bit like film technology on a much accelerated development programme - but instead of changing film, with today's technology, you have to change your camera body to enjoy the benefit of the 'new film'.

The D4 is rumoured to have an 18mp sensor - providing the press pros with the bits they demand - ultra fast performance in lighting conditions beyond their control.

The D800 is targeting the amateur market where 'mine is bigger than yours' psychology still prevails along with the fetish for zooming in to see how much detail can be achieved with the latest sensor/ lens combo on a single shot - irrespective of what the overall photo may look like!

No doubt there will be a D4x also to provide pros with the ideal studio solution, as Nikon see it. And I'm sure Canon won't be far behind with their offerings.

The context for my comments is that Leica really ought to be making efforts to keep up with the technology. Nikon uses Sony products; perhaps Leica ought to reconsider its supply chain to give it a fighting chance in these faster moving times.

In the audio world, there were only one or two suppliers of top end lasers for cd players. The differentiator was how the individual company utilised that component and integrated it with all the other myriad of components to produce a superior sound. Hence the likes of Naim maintained their position as one of the top audio brands despite not manufacturing the laser component.

Leica uses Kodak I believe - do they have the technological muscle to keep up with the Sony's of this world?

If not critically important now, I believe it will become so in the very near future.

In the meantime, comparisons of D700 vs M9 is, in my opinion, completely redundant.

Peter

 

[Shade]

I dont know but i personally dont find one better than the other. The only obvious is that the nikon d700 has better high iso noise capabilities no doubt. But the inage produced is just different. Whether you like the m9 or the d700 better comes down to personal taste.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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 😀 but you did ask about digital quality.

It's not a Leica, so nobody's paying attention to that one 😉

 

[gavinlg]

It's not a Leica, so nobody's paying attention to that one 😉

We've already been through it - it's a rubbish comparison, and the canon G series is nowhere near DSLR quality let alone MF digital quality.

 

[emraphoto]

And I've never seen a compelling photo that couldn't have been made with either. In other words, a great photo isn't made because it is Leica glass. In fact, most of the Leica shots in Flickr are, on average, less compelling because "stealth" shooting isn't compelling 99% of the time.

Indeed! The idea that an M9 demands a more 'considered' or 'slower' process versus a dslr is frankly bollocks. You, the photographer, are either a slow and considered photographer or not, regardless of the camera.

I have never sat in a room of photographers and attributed a photos strength to a lens signature or leica glow. That stuff is just not on the radar of most of the prolific photographers of our time.

To address the OP, I am sure there are discernible differences between the two image wise. I would argue that both cameras are capable of producing mind bogglingly great images, it boils down to ones preference in approach and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[emraphoto]

We've already been through it - it's a rubbish comparison, and the canon G series is nowhere near DSLR quality let alone MF digital quality.

And with that said, there have been times in the past when the ONLY way I could produce the work required was with a point and shoot (in this case a g10). If it didn't hide itself in my pants pocket it wouldn't have gotten where it needed to be and the work wouldn't have happened.

Everything has it's place. Everyone has their needs.

 

[bigeye]

I don't see many Leicas on the sidelines of sports fields or in Audubon Society credits, nor do I see Nikons in madison square park where flocks of Leicas congregate for 'street shooting.' Stealth suffers when you swing a D700/70-200mm rig, like the 16" main battery of the USS Missouri, on the citizenry.

Since a good 3 lens DSLR kit is about as big as an old medium format rig, I'd probably use a backpack or a wheeled pelican to transport it. Or, I'd just slip a Leica in my suitcase with a spare lens or two. They've always been about travel.

The Leica is also a 'lifetime' product, which creates a cachet that can be appealing to a degree, but there are better alternatives for earning respect. (In our resort supermarket this summer, I did manage to get a least 1 bamboo shish kabob spear into the 12th Earl of Canarsie, who was crassly displayed a M9 on his chest in the frozen foods section before he ran out and locked himself in a range rover.)

- Charlie