M8 owner: M9 or D3 (D3x?) with 17-30mm 2.8?

[Tom Niblick]

I'd go for the M9 and pick up a good used D3 or even D2x (about $1,000 on Ebay). Add a 60 or 105 micro, a 70-200 (or 80-200) and 1.4 or 1.7 extender and that's all the Nikon you're likely to ever need. Forget the 17-35 as your Leica has those focal lengths covered. The weight and the speed of the brick-like Nikons come in handy when you're shooting fast and furious from a distance. With the zoom, it's a very steady 5 pounds. Sure, there not cameras you want to pack when going on vacation, but they are workhorses. They're okay wide but you know the M9 is going to be better and a M9 (or M8) with a 28 and 15 will weigh about the same as a 17-35.

Tom

 

[bene]

Some high end photographers on another forum sold their D3/D3x/D700 and all their Nikon glass and migrated to the Sony A900, saying that the colors from the Sony were better than from the Nikon. Have you seen this type of discussion anywhere?

Their Zeiss/ Sony (ZA) glass is the best in SLR world. Hi resolution of 24 megpix.
Just don't go above 1600 ISO well i suppose most pros dont go there.

Alpha is the best for wedding photographers at the moment. i few cents..

 

[jsrockit]

I think those who condemn the M8 should know this is a really great camera that can take sever punishment and come out fighting like a champ!

Good to know...

 

[Richard Marks]

Olsen,

Yes, I have hit the 40,000 mark!

And I have had NO PROBLEMS with my M8 at all!!!

I know there were some who had to send them back, but mine is a real workhorse that never had a problem, other than the high ISO quality which is the design of that sensor.

I even had it on some crazy amusement park rides subjecting it to some major G-forces with no problems at all.

I think those who condemn the M8 should know this is a really great camera that can take sever punishment and come out fighting like a champ!

The really outstanding wide lens for me on the D700 is actually the 14-24 f 2.8. and not the 17-35 which is discontinued. You really should have a trial of this one. Its so good I am told they are even putting it on Canon. Its a great big lump of glass and you can not easilly put filters on it but if you say what can a D700 give me that I can not do with RF id say this lens is pretty exceptional. D700 and 14-24 vs M9 and WATE might be an interesting little copmarison. My money is on the Nikon 14-24 for image quality given the vignette issue with very wide on an M9. Incidentally I am talking purely image quality here and not weight of gear or cost for that matter. neeldess to say I have not seen any reports of the WATE on the M9.

Best wishes for 2010.

Richard Marks

 

[borrel]

Pull yourself together! Consumerism is one thing, being an upgrade slave is highly addictive. Neither are formulas for better pictures. My M8 takes 75% of all my pictures, but only my 5DII can take closeups of bumble bees in flight and only a small pocketable could have taken this picture:

(Look at the EXIF, it was a 2.1mpx IXUS!)

If you like taking pictures, and have an ample bank account, use your money to go where the pictures are!

- Børre

 

[bene]

Pull yourself together! Consumerism is one thing, being an upgrade slave is highly addictive. Neither are formulas for better pictures. My M8 takes 75% of all my pictures, but only my 5DII can take closeups of bumble bees in flight and only a small pocketable could have taken this picture:

(Look at the EXIF, it was a 2.1mpx IXUS!)

If you like taking pictures, and have an ample bank account, use your money to go where the pictures are!

- Børre

Very true I prefer the M9 simply because I like wide. M9 should be the minimum standard for DRF. My few cents.
I love my M7

 

[Richard Marks]

Pull yourself together! Consumerism is one thing, being an upgrade slave is highly addictive. Neither are formulas for better pictures. My M8 takes 75% of all my pictures, but only my 5DII can take closeups of bumble bees in flight and only a small pocketable could have taken this picture:

(Look at the EXIF, it was a 2.1mpx IXUS!)

If you like taking pictures, and have an ample bank account, use your money to go where the pictures are!

- Børre

Fighting talk but rather simplistic in my opnion. The subject in the shot you cite looks very resentfully directly at the camera. Once he has seen you it really does not matter what size. You might as well set up a 5x4". The man does not look too happy and certainly it does not imply that the compact is any less confrontational. I would advocate a small courtesy requesting to take the shot.

As for using money to travel rather than take pictures, I genuinely see pretty awful shots from very expensive holidays. I really think on e has to "make" the pictures not travel to where they are. I have worked quite a bit in developing countries for medical charities and have some unforgetable pictures but with two young children i am pretty grouned in the UK. Fortunately not so expensive where the pictures are!

best wishes for 2010

Richard