pachuco
El ****
I've often thought of Leica more as the Ferrari of the camera world.
M8/M9 IQ vs. D300/D700
- Thread starter Rob-F
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 37
- Views 8K
I've often thought of Leica more as the Ferrari of the camera world.
f16sunshine
Moderator
For me it's more the Citroën. A marvel when running smoothly. Not so when in need of repair.
I agree with the comments about form factor. RF's are just more comfy to shoot with 35 or 50 mounted. Longer I go straight to reflex.
bluebook
Member
IQ/$$ Nikon is wayyy better.
For equally priced M8 vs D700, equally priced 50/2 Planar vs. 50/2 Makro-Planar, I personally prefer Nikon side for image quality purpose.
But as previous posters before me said, judging between RF vs. SLR is more a usage/style of question rather than IQ.
For equally priced M8 vs D700, equally priced 50/2 Planar vs. 50/2 Makro-Planar, I personally prefer Nikon side for image quality purpose.
But as previous posters before me said, judging between RF vs. SLR is more a usage/style of question rather than IQ.
SciAggie
Well-known
I have an M8 and D300. As others have said here, I think the main difference is as bluebook said in camera usage and style. The D300 is great but it is large and heavy. It is a go-to for sports and wildlife and when I'm lazy. The M8 is lighter and more discreet and what I reach for when I want to just pack a camera. If I were forced to chose one for IQ, I would chose the Nikon, especially the FF version.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
Very interesting. Hell if I could find any prices, though.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
It says they charge $450.00 plus $20.00 shipping.
I don't believe I saw any strong difference between the with and without pictures. It's there, more so in one or two places than others; but not really a big difference.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Do you mean you can equal or exceed that "crisp" M8 look with your D300?
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
Thanks. I'm not on all cylinders today I guess. On the D700 page I was impressed with the portrait.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
In my own experiences, I don't see any crispness advantage of the M8 over the D700. In the studio, I do a ton of side-by-side shooting - getting similar images under the exact same lighting conditions.
I'm not using the newest aspherical Leica glass - so obviously that could play a role.
Still, the Zeiss planar is a very solid lens. But I would never claim that it offers any advantage over the 24-70/2.8 (or even the 35-70/2.8 that I used to use) when I compare images shot side-by-side.
There is one thing I do find interesting. After I do a portrait session, I give the subject an online gallery of proofs - from which they get to pick a half dozen favorites.
And after shooting about 60 sessions in the past year, I can say the people I work with don't care which camera I use. They are pretty evenly split - choosing both Leica and Nikon images - when picking their favorites.
f/14
Established
This may boil down to shooting style, size and weight.
Worked my way slowly up the digital Nikon food chain over many years.
D70 new, D2x 2nd hand; D3 new and now D3x 2nd hand. Latest Nikon lenses trying to make a part-time living. On the analog side Pentax 40 years ago, then slowly up the Nikon F ladder ending in the current F5. Have also spent some 8 years with 2nd hand Leica M6 and R8. Started with the old Leitz "Kings of Bokeh" but moved into the latest Leica ASPH lenses as someone wanted to part with them. Simply because my digital experience had made me look for the additional sharpness. (Guess there are two opinions about that.) Have access to M8 and M9 for comparison through friends.
Not pleased with the size and the weight of the Nikons, but when I want to be sure of bringing pictures home that's the choice, - with zoom lenses.
When it matters less or when there is more time I bring the smaller Leicas because they are easier to transport, and for the sheer joy of another style of working.
Could be me, but the rangefinder pictures tend to end up as more formally correct in the composition while with the the SLR s composition is more free. Even with prime lenses on the SLRs.
From the analog negatives it is easy to see the superior quality of the German lenses, but the newest Nikon lenses and their digital cameras can stand up to any digital challenge today. Anyway, what is the best digital today will be old legacy tomorrow. Will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow.
BTW, when you reach 18 to 25 Mpixels, digital BW starts feeling like film again (no better words for it yet).
Worked my way slowly up the digital Nikon food chain over many years.
D70 new, D2x 2nd hand; D3 new and now D3x 2nd hand. Latest Nikon lenses trying to make a part-time living. On the analog side Pentax 40 years ago, then slowly up the Nikon F ladder ending in the current F5. Have also spent some 8 years with 2nd hand Leica M6 and R8. Started with the old Leitz "Kings of Bokeh" but moved into the latest Leica ASPH lenses as someone wanted to part with them. Simply because my digital experience had made me look for the additional sharpness. (Guess there are two opinions about that.) Have access to M8 and M9 for comparison through friends.
Not pleased with the size and the weight of the Nikons, but when I want to be sure of bringing pictures home that's the choice, - with zoom lenses.
When it matters less or when there is more time I bring the smaller Leicas because they are easier to transport, and for the sheer joy of another style of working.
Could be me, but the rangefinder pictures tend to end up as more formally correct in the composition while with the the SLR s composition is more free. Even with prime lenses on the SLRs.
From the analog negatives it is easy to see the superior quality of the German lenses, but the newest Nikon lenses and their digital cameras can stand up to any digital challenge today. Anyway, what is the best digital today will be old legacy tomorrow. Will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow.
BTW, when you reach 18 to 25 Mpixels, digital BW starts feeling like film again (no better words for it yet).
ampguy
Veteran
a significantly more advanced sensor than the m8/m9 or the older Nikons would be the D7000 sensor, which I think is also used in a Pentax dslr variation.
The Pentax shorter flange distance, would let you mount Nikons (some w/o adapter), as well as Leica R, etc. and give visual and audio confirmation with legacy MF glass, and may be a smaller size than the Nikon D7000.
With a Nikon, you're pretty much stuck with Nikon mount lenses due to the large flange to sensor distance.
The Pentax shorter flange distance, would let you mount Nikons (some w/o adapter), as well as Leica R, etc. and give visual and audio confirmation with legacy MF glass, and may be a smaller size than the Nikon D7000.
With a Nikon, you're pretty much stuck with Nikon mount lenses due to the large flange to sensor distance.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Actually, there is a replacement rear flange available for the R lenses to convert them for use on the Nikon mount. You have to remove the Leica flange and install the Nikon flange. It's a DIY, and is reversible. You have to use stop-down metering. No auto diaphragm action.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
What? Shame on Leica! With Nikon cameras, you get to use Nikon lenses without having to change the flange.
:angel:
Last edited:
Jim Evidon
Jim
M8 vs. Nikon D300? It's like comparing the best orange with the best apple.
I have a Nikon D300 with the excellent 16-85 short zoom for general shooting and a 55-200 zoom for long shots. I won't talk about the 50-500 Sigma I also have, except to say that it is huge, very heavy and good only for shooting birds, butterflies and small rodents.. All lenses have VR as well.
I also have an M8 with a variety of lenses made by Leica and CV. I have to say that I find no difference in picture quality between the Leica and Nikon cameras although the German lenses typically have more contrast.
The only advantage I see between the two aside from a lot more bells and whistles on the D300 is weight and size. I use the D300 mainly for
photography that is beyond the capabilities of rangefinder cameras such as macro, long shots and lighting conditions where the VR feature allows me to shoot hand held in low light. The live view feature is also useful on occasion.
I prefer the Leica or my new compact Panasonic GF1 for walking around and for traveling due to the size, weight and convenience. BTW, Panasonic learned how to produce high quality lenses from their association with Leica and I find their glass pretty comparable.
As I said, apples vs. oranges.
I have a Nikon D300 with the excellent 16-85 short zoom for general shooting and a 55-200 zoom for long shots. I won't talk about the 50-500 Sigma I also have, except to say that it is huge, very heavy and good only for shooting birds, butterflies and small rodents.. All lenses have VR as well.
I also have an M8 with a variety of lenses made by Leica and CV. I have to say that I find no difference in picture quality between the Leica and Nikon cameras although the German lenses typically have more contrast.
The only advantage I see between the two aside from a lot more bells and whistles on the D300 is weight and size. I use the D300 mainly for
photography that is beyond the capabilities of rangefinder cameras such as macro, long shots and lighting conditions where the VR feature allows me to shoot hand held in low light. The live view feature is also useful on occasion.
I prefer the Leica or my new compact Panasonic GF1 for walking around and for traveling due to the size, weight and convenience. BTW, Panasonic learned how to produce high quality lenses from their association with Leica and I find their glass pretty comparable.
As I said, apples vs. oranges.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Reason is fleeting and shall not be tolerated.
Jim Evidon
Jim
Just to muddy the waters. My wife, for years used my hand me downs. When I bought the D300 she got the D70s. She hated it. She, a woman of height challenged stature, found it too heavy to carry around.
I finally decided she should get her own brand new camera and after we shopped around we both fell for the new stationary mirror Sony Alpha 33.
It is, along with the A55, the best APS sized SLR on the market. It is small,very light without a moving mirror and shoots up to 8 fps if that is important. I don't think so. The image, again IMO, is much sharper than Nikon.
It seems that Sony, like Panasonic, has learned much from their German partnerships about making lenses.
That's all I have to say on the subject, and if you will excuse me, it is time to hug my Leica's.
Last edited:
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I've an M9 and just sold my 1Ds3. At low iso the M9 is pretty well a match, accepting that you lose auto focus. Don't underestimate this, there are pictures I wouldn't have without it.
At high iso the 1Ds3 is ahead, though I find the M9 better than I expected from web commentry (perhaps I'm undemanding). The M9 also suffers more from moire, but files are sharper before processing.
In the end I sold the 1Ds3 because I prefer using the M9, not because it's a worse camera.
Mike
At high iso the 1Ds3 is ahead, though I find the M9 better than I expected from web commentry (perhaps I'm undemanding). The M9 also suffers more from moire, but files are sharper before processing.
In the end I sold the 1Ds3 because I prefer using the M9, not because it's a worse camera.
Mike
Similar threads
- Article
