M8/M9 IQ vs. D300/D700

Rob-F

Rob-F

Likes Leicas
Local time
4:39 AM
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
7,551
Amazingly, this topic doesn't seem to be in the archives. I see some M8 & M9 photos posted here that just look amazingly good. But (and this question is just for those who own or have used both) how do the Nikons stack up when used with your very best lenses? And what are those lenses? Some of my very best Nikkors are the 20/f4; 24/2.8; 28/2.8; 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor; 28/2.8PC.

I'd like to see some discussion on this, before I unnecessarily (if it is unnecessary) spend $$ on an M8.2 or M9.

TIA!
 
Nikon glass has come a long way from 1960. Still I use some single coated 24,35,50,105 from then and they seem to make nice pics on a D700 & D3.
I have new Nikkor lenses like the 35 1.8 and 60 2.8N. They are more Leica like. They were bought for D7000 use and are but a week old. I did a few shots on the D3 with the 60, and I must say it is a gem.

Leica has become more and more increased micro contrast so they render very small detail well, almost too well at times. For landscape work they are wonderful. A lady over 18, well not so good. Learn photoshop well. An old man with a beard and pipe, just the ticket.

I think you really need to decide if you want a RF or reflex camera. IF YOU PUT THE BEST NIKKORS on their digital body, you will be pleased. One of the kit Nikkors for $125 is another matter. They are ok at F5.6, close up, wide apertures they are just ok.

I can recommend my D7000, 35 1.8 60 2.8 N as best in class.

I should mention, distortion, Nikon seems not to care specially with zooms. You do not see that with Leica lenses.

If you like to shoot wide, M9 has the red edge problem not addressed yet. M8 has the IR problem which shows in some pictures. Unless you are a wedding or fashion guy, this is a non problem in my opinion. Just make a selection of the purple cloth and desaturate it. No big deal unless you have a 300 pix wedding to repair. I would put an IR filter over the flash.

Leica excells at sharpness mostly because of a lack of AA blur filter over the sensor. The penalty is moire sometimes. Photoshop again. Happens when fine detail matches the pixel repeat pattern. Again, fashion, knit cloths, anything with repeating lines are all potential problems.

Good Nikkors are becoming comparable with Leica lenses. You will need pretty large prints to see a difference.
 
I'm with Ron. Even a D70 delivers astonishingly good quality with good lenses, though 6 megapixels limits texture rendition.

Do I use Leicas because they deliver better image quality? Not really. I use them because I prefer smaller, lighter, sweeter-handling RF cameras with fewer switches and buttons, and smaller, lighter RF lenses.

Cheers,

R.
 
If you shoot longer than 50mm the D700 has it all over the Leicas. For 35/50 the Leicas still rules as a form factor. High ISO goes to the D700 as well. Different horses for courses.
 
Well, I presently use a D300, as well as a drawer full of Leica M cameras. I'm considering the trade-off between the compactness and light weight of an M8 or M9, for extended walking tours away from the car, plus the high performance of my 21, 24, 28, and 35mm ASPH Leica lenses; against the versatility of the D300/D700. With the Nikons I can use more focal lengths; use my PC Nikkors; have top-notch high-ISO performance; use an occasional zoom; and have sophisticated hi-tech flash. I do favor wide-angle lenses mostly.
 
Nikons aren't resticted to Nikon lenses ... there's an excellent range of Zeiss ZF primes available at very reasonable prices IMO.

I'm no pixel peeper ... my decision to go with a D700 was based purely on the camera's known reliability, it's price and the fact that it will produce usable files at 6400. Maybe at low ISO the M9 will produce more detail than the D700 but that doesn't help me if it's going to turn an image into soup at high ISO's.

You buy where your priorities lay IMO ... for me the IQ of the D700 is more than good enough, the size doesn't bother me and I know it can kick most other camera's butts at 6400. IQ verses IQ really wasn't a priority for me.
 
Rob-F said:
Well, I presently use a D300, as well as a drawer full of Leica M cameras. I'm considering the trade-off between the compactness and light weight of an M8 or M9, for extended walking tours away from the car, plus the high performance of my 21, 24, 28, and 35mm ASPH Leica lenses; against the versatility of the D300/D700. With the Nikons I can use more focal lengths; use my PC Nikkors; have top-notch high-ISO performance; use an occasional zoom; and have sophisticated hi-tech flash. I do favor wide-angle lenses mostly.
Click to expand...

On a practical level (IQ and such) the DSLR almost always wins out for me. Now, if we are talking cool factor... That's a different story :cool:
 
I have a D700, and a M9.

I think that for 28-90mm lenses, at lowish ISOs the M9 image quality is significantly better.

Of course, you lose autofocus, and matrix metering, so you have to be able to zone focus, and meter, or have enough time to get things right with the M9.

I find I use my M9 much more than D700.
 
Too bad that the Anti-Aliasing filter cannot be removed from the Nikons. The Leica's don't use one, and it does add a crisp feeling to the images.
 
theno23 said:
I have a D700, and a M9.

I think that for 28-90mm lenses, at lowish ISOs the M9 image quality is significantly better.

Of course, you lose autofocus, and matrix metering, so you have to be able to zone focus, and meter, or have enough time to get things right with the M9.

I find I use my M9 much more than D700.
Click to expand...

What about 20/21 and 24mm lenses? Those are important focal lengths to me, especially 24mm.
 
If I need versatility or plan to shoot in low light, I grab the D700.
If I want to travel light or want to use vintage glass, I grab the M8. (not that you can't use vintage glass on a Nikon DSLR, I just like the older LTM and M-mount stuff better.)

I'm sure that Leica's top glass scores better in lens tests than Nikon's top glass. But I cannot imagine needing better IQ than what I can get with the 24-70/2.8 from nikon. It's amazing, particularly when you consider it is a zoom.
 
The 24-70/2.8? I'll keep that one in mind!

Edit: I looked at a picture of one. Looks like a boat anchor. Think I'll pass.
 
Last edited:
Ah but you can remove it. Someone does it just like life pixels converts to IR.

I know because I saw it on the internet.

A little search yielded

http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d700hr.htm

At one point I did a comparison between my D200 and a M8, side by side, same shots. The Leica Raw files only needed sharpening to 1/3 to 1/2 the valve of the Leica to get the result.
The M8 had a 50 1.4 Asph Lux.

But now there are better Nikon lenses so the playing field would be more level.
 
It looks like I was forgetting something: it's not just about lenses. It's about the camera's sensor, too.
 
I have a D700 and a M8.
Since I bought the M8, I use it 80 % of the time. I still use the D700 for sports, macro, wildlife and if I need the AF.
For the rest, I enjoy using the M8 much more. The results are, in my opinion, more film like, the skies are nicer (less blown out highlights). I had six Zeiss ZF lenses (for Nikon) and sold five of them to buy ZM lenses (for Leica). I only kept the 100 Makro Planar.
 
I would like to see how the driving experience of a Porsche 911 stacks up against the one of a Landrover Defender...:rolleyes:
 
jaapv said:
I would like to see how the driving experience of a Porsche 911 stacks up against the one of a Landrover Defender...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I actually think comparing the Leica to a Landrover Defender is a little harsh ... they're really not that bad!

The Landrover I mean!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom