M8 or D3

Whisper-quiet?!!! I must have a different camera. My M8 sounds like a sack of quarters hitting the floor when I trip the shutter. I think my Canon 5D has about the same acoustical 'presence' as my M8.

awilder said:
The M8 wins only if you consider it's whisper quiet shutter but then again there are plenty of high end non SLR digital cameras that are this quiet as well.
Click to expand...
 
thanks everyone. It seems there is a consensus that D3 is far better digital rag than m8. well, i will just have to sell my mf to buy the D3 then.
 
mervynyan said:
thanks everyone. It seems there is a consensus that D3 is far better digital rag than m8. well, i will just have to sell my mf to buy the D3 then.
Click to expand...

The choice is entirely yours!
If you think what you have read is a "consensus" then I guess you will be fairly easilly pleased with just about anything.

Enjoy your D3

Best wishes


Richard Marks
 
Don't judge by us, I'm looking at the Nikon D80 vs Pentax K10D or maybe even the Canon 30D now that the 40D is out. If you have the money you could buy both and eBay the loser when you choose which one you like better. As they say, YMMV.
 
This is fun.
I have a D200 and a M8, I carry the M8 all the time. The D200 sits in my bag it is too big/heavy now. I cannot imagine carrying a D2-D3 all day .. I remember my first time holding my 90 2.8 .. I thought this can't be real, its a toy lens.
Sure there are limitations with a rangefinder, if I have my 'sports' head on, my 'wild life' head, or my 'macro' head .. then the Nikon wins. As for noise, I never go above lowest speed unless it is really needed, (I came from asa 25, when 100 was outragous!).
I simply prefere the M8, its a case of less is more. I got it because I wanted to think the picture, then make the picture. I do that with the M8. With my D200 its too smart, its a super quality point-n-shoot, and I've learned to use it that way. Blast 5 frames, auto exposure, auto contrast, auto braket, Photomatix.
The majoroty of my photos are landscape, portrait, slow moving subjects and candid street life, for that the M8 works well. It is still less noticable than a DSLR, with our without the shutter noise.
When I go skiing, or wanting to autofocus on a moving subject .. a trip on safari .. the its a no brainer. But I don't do that much. So more and more the Nikon lies in the bag.
I haven't looked at resolution since I went from a 1 meg pixel Oympus to my first DSLR, then I eventually bored myself with it. The only good thing with full frame is that wide really is wide, however my telephotos will have shrunk again.
Nikon Glass? Well I dumped my full frame glass over the last few years, and it annoyed me that I'd have to buy again .. so it makes sense to me to buy Leica glass instead .. ha ha ha.
So it has been said already, horses for courses, you decide what photos you take, and how self concious you'll feel using the camera. But be happy that whatever you decide the alternative will still haunt you ....
 
It took you 17 hours to be convinced...I feel like maybe there's a chance you already made up your mind you and you just needed someone to stroke your opinion?
 
mervynyan said:
I really think I need a FF dSLR, D3 seems about in the right price range. But I am very tempted with M8. They are about the same price. what do you think?:bang:
Click to expand...

It's like asking, "Should I buy a sedan or a truck?" The answer depends on what you plan to do with the thing. If you're going to shoot weddings and other critical situations you need the D3. If you're going to do street photography you probably need the M8.
 
I debated the same question this month and I opted for the M8. My Cron-28 arrives in the morning and I'm soOoo stoked! I'll likely order the Cron-75 as well. The D3 looks fantastic and it will run circles around my M8 but I wanted a good quality camera with outstanding optics, and that I could easily manage on the street.
Regards,:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Digital Dude said:
The D3 looks fantastic and it will run circles around my M8 but I wanted a good quality camera with outstanding optics,
Click to expand...
What do you mean "run corcles around"? I doubt it. In terms of versatility yes, D3 can do pretty much anything exept being unobstrusive and light to carry in a small bag.

But M8 with a good lens at 10MP is much likely not worse than the 12MP Nikon. For color it may be a matter of taste, I personally never liked the Nikon color too much, for weight and size I took my Canon 5d (lighter than D3) on a trip to Paris last year, with 3 additional lenses. That was a mild form of torture to schlepp that gear around all day long. I calculated the exact weight for 5d + 4 lenses versus M8 + 4 lenses: It was 3,1kg versus 1,4kg for the Leica system, larger bag for the Canon not yet included. People who never actually saw a Leica M with lens attached in real should have a look: It is shocking how small they are. Specially those high quality lenses. My best lens is the Canon 135L, it is huge and litterally shouts "PRO GEAR" everyone stares at you in the streets. I don't like that.

I had the opportunity to shoot the M8 for a few hours last week (loaner from local Leica shop), I was in the forest and at ISO 640 (which is ISO800 really) I had shots at 1/90th second that displayed sharp well defined fine detail (small leafs on the forest ground at a distance) I don't see that in my 5d files everything is more fuzzy and needs sharpening.

The lack of AA filter is quite a difference, and several experienced pros on l-user forum found that the M8 files enlarge better than the 5d to big sizes.

Somehow people love myths and big stories, and everyone expects the D3 to be like the second coming. It is just a 12MP FF camera with very good (apparently) high ISO performance.

I don't know about you, but I generally avoid higher ISO speeds than ISO 800 (that would be 640 on the Leica). I dont shoot at night, do you really?

Long speech, short message: I believe that the IQ of the M8 can - inside it's range of use - hold its own against any DSLR on the market. I don't know about 1ds III but noone knows that one yet...

regards, Bernie
 
Digital Dude said:
.... but I wanted a good quality camera with outstanding optics, and that I could easily manage on the street.
Regards,:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


me too! it's called an M7, or an M4P, or a CLE! ;) :)

:)
 
"Nikon lenses are nothing particularly exciting, but they are in no way bad."

The 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens is astonishingly good. And don't forget the 85/1.4. Or the new 105.
 
I have am M8 and a Canon 1DMk2. Different tool for different jos. M8 is my "go-to" camera. I carry it wherever I go. Canon is for special jobs. For example, next week I have to photograph about 100+ 4th graders for a school fair project. Canon for that job. M8 could do it, but I need to shoot quickly. At the fair itself, M8.
 
They're totally different tools, that probably change the way you shoot and they each do different things better.

I use the Canon 1D, which is about the same size and weight as the D3, and it's great for sports and action, but it's just huge. Combined with the 70-200 and you have a setup that weighs about 6 pounds (with the 2.8 version), is almost a foot long and just attracts a lot of attention. It's a great combo and I love the images I can get with it when I shoot sports or close-up portraits, but blending into a crowd is pretty tough and all eyes are on me because they want to see what the photographer guy is doing.

I find it easier to shoot people doing what they were already doing when the camera is smaller. A huge lens pointed at them tends to change what they do, if just a little. It works if you want to shoot tight 'candid' portraits (I do, but I'd like to be able to without lugging around 6 pounds of magnesium and glass.
 
Last edited:
RObert Budding said:
"Nikon lenses are nothing particularly exciting, but they are in no way bad."

The 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens is astonishingly good. And don't forget the 85/1.4. Or the new 105.
Click to expand...

Dont agree with Robert :)

Had a full spec of pro Nikon lens and I actually prefer the 80-200 AFS 2.8 to the 70-200 2.8 : the VR does help a lot, yes, but the 80-200 opctics are sharper.

The new 105.. pfff.. didnt like at all.. Prefer a cheaper Tamrom 90mm 2.8 Macro.

Now, the 85 1.4... thats a different story : renders images beautifully... gorgeous lens.

This is my experience with these lens... YMMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom