KM-25
Well-known
I have two 5D's....I am strongly considering making the switch, I am #1 at a large West coast dealer for the D3 and D300. I don't much care for Canon ergos in the one series, the 5D is OK, I am actually pretty fast with it. But that is the only thing that is fast on the 5D. 9 FPS at 12 MP in full frame beats the pants off of the 5D for a lot of my uses.
Ben Z said:I doubt it. Twice as much money as a 5D with the same resolution, 2/3 the cost of a 1DS-MkIII with (almost) double the resolution. I don't see too many Canon users dumping their entire systems to switch over, or too many undecideds being swayed to the Nikon side. I think the D3 is intended to keep more of Nikon's current users from considering defecting. I was a very loyal Nikon guy at one time but I just couldn't wait for them to get AF motors and IS into the kind of lenses I was looking for. Then until the D200 their affordable DSLR's wouldn't meter with my lenses :bang: Nikon's not got the cushy position as Leica. When you have no competition you can beat your customers off with a stick and they'll still keep coming back
Ben Z
Veteran
I didn't say nobody would switch. There are always some people who will. I doubt that most or even a signficant number will. Time will tell.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Buy a Nikon 9000 scanner, shoot film, save yourself the hassle of a digital M. That will save you $4k over the price of an M8 comce October and buys a hell of alot of film and processing.
/T
/T
PATB
Established
Tuolumne said:
I wish that were true. However, I would rather PP an M8 file than scan film/slide then PP!
Moot point for me as I only have a film M and have no choice but to scan, unless I drag the dSLR out
.
KM-25
Well-known
Tuolumne said:Buy a Nikon 9000 scanner, shoot film, save yourself the hassle of a digital M. That will save you $4k over the price of an M8 comce October and buys a hell of alot of film and processing.
/T
I have one, love it for my 6x9 images...
rsl
Russell
I'm a lot more interested in photographs than in cameras. A camera is like a toothbrush. Its only value is in what it can do. I can afford an M8 with no problem as well as a whole stable of lenses, but, comparatively, I can produce better photographs with a D2X. The M8 should be great for street work because it's black, small, and quiet, but my R-D1 has the same characteristics, doesn't lock up, doesn't have a serious problem with IR, shows very low noise at ISO 1600, etc. etc. Besides that, the R-D1 has controls that'll let me change ISO without looking at the thing. The M8 can't do that. The M8's only real advantage is that it can produce marginally better images than the R-D1 can, but for images made on the street you can't tell the difference unless you're going to make prints far larger than 11 x 14. Nikon just came out with the D3, a full-frame DSLR with ISO ranges far, far higher than the M8. The price hasn't been announced yet, but for most photographers it's going to be much better at producing fine photographs than the M8. In the end, the M8 just isn't as good a tool as several other cameras on the market at a comparable price. After my earlier experiences with Leica I thought the M8 would be a winner. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be, and what Leica's been doing to try to improve it hasn't been working. Sorry Jaap, I had high hopes for the camera, and the work you've done with it is outstanding. But I mostly do a different kind of work, and the M8 just doesn't seem to be living up to its promise -- at least for me.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
rsl said:
I have no problem with that - no tool is universal. If it does not suit you - fair enough. No reason, though, to put the M8 down as a failure - which it clearly isn't. Sensor microcontrast response,dynamic range, acuity, overall image quality, vignetting, are all miles beyond the RD1, as it should be. Resolution is not of interest on normal prints, as you say rightly. IR is no problem as soon as one understands how to manage it, and nearly as difficult on the RD1 and many other cameras, including Nikons.The number of lockups and other failures is minor compared to the 20000 sold, but ideally should not happen at all, I agree. Unfortunately we live in an imperfect world and all complicated appliances seem to suffer from a similar failure rate.I won't fight you on ergonomics - that is so personal. I change ISO in the User settings for instance, and Bessa camera's never appealed to me Btw I doubt that the new Nikons are going to be much use as a street camera- they are huge. So I would suggest that justifying ones choice should not include putting down the products not chosen.
And thank you for the kind words at my work
Last edited:
M
mark_wilkins
Guest
rsl said:
As someone who owns a Leica M7, M8 and a Nikon D200 (which is not quite a D2x but close enough to be in the ballpark) I can say honestly that I just get better pictures with the Leica whenever I'm taking handheld pictures in extremely low light. Using the Leicas, I have more control over the point of focus and often can focus faster, the rendering of out of focus detail is more pleasing, and I'm more often able to achieve a really satisfying result.
Under all other conditions, my results are usually equivalent or better with the Nikon. So, I guess it depends on of what you're taking pictures.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
jaapv said:
I wish you would stop saying that ... eventually people may start to believe you and it will become just another mainstream camera ... I wont want mine then!
rsl
Russell
jaapv said:I have no problem with that - no tool is universal. If it does not suit you - fair enough. No reason, though, to put the M8 down as a failure - which it clearly isn't. Sensor microcontrast response,dynamic range, acuity, overall image quality, vignetting, are all miles beyond the RD1, as it should be. Resolution is not of interest on normal prints, as you say rightly. IR is no problem as soon as one understands how to manage it, and nearly as difficult on the RD1 and many other cameras, including Nikons.The number of lockups and other failures is minor compared to the 20000 sold, but ideally should not happen at all, I agree. Unfortunately we live in an imperfect world and all complicated appliances seem to suffer from a similar failure rate.I won't fight you on ergonomics - that is so personal. I change ISO in the User settings for instance, and Bessa camera's never appealed to me Btw I doubt that the new Nikons are going to be much use as a street camera- they are huge. So I would suggest that justifying ones choice should not include putting down the products not chosen.
And thank you for the kind words at my work
Well, I don't mean to be insulting. I have very happy memories of my Leica days. The M4 was a marvelous machine as was the M2 and even the 3F, all of which I used extensively in the 60s and early 70s. My problem with the M8 isn't that it's high priced. My problem is that I see Leica moving away from selling working cameras to selling collectibles -- actually, I should say, moving farther in that direction, since it's a direction they've been moving in for several years. Leica got way behind the rest of the world as it went digital and now, instead of trying to catch up and become competitive as a working camera manufacurer, they seem to be playing to the people who want to collect cameras and lenses. Yes, Nikon's had its problems with new products as has Canon, but both were able to overcome the problems in short order. It seems to me -- and I know you disagree -- that Leica, finding itself in great difficulty with a defective digital camera they don't seem to know how to fix, feels that the answer is to raise the price and make the camera more precious. I don't want to own a collectible digital, no matter what value it may assume as the years go by. I want a digital camera I can take out on the street and depend on. I was hoping Leica would make that camera, but they haven't -- at least not yet, and I don't see any way for the M8 ever to become that camera. I'll be watching for the M9. Yes, the quality of images from the M8 is exceptionally good -- for a digital camera with a 1.3 lens factor. But if you're going to do serious landscape work or formal portraiture you're not going to do it with a small digital. -- Leica or otherwise. You're going to do it with at least a medium format , or better yet a 4 x 5 or even an 8 x 10 view camera.
If all this sounds insulting, I apologize, but I don't retract what I'm saying.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
rsl said:
Nobody can disagree with this one - but I do hope you are not suggesting that the M9 should be a 8x10 view camera..
rsl
Russell
jaapv said:...but I do hope you are not suggesting that the M9 should be a 8x10 view camera..
Let's hope not. If it used Leica lenses it'd probably vignette a bit.
Ben Z
Veteran
rsl said:
I'm going to assume when you say "you're" you really meant "I'm". Galen Rowell used 35mm rather than MF or LF and he was seriously serious about landscape work and got paid a lot for it. He was in tip-top physical condition, better than most men half his age (I knew him personally), yet he wasn't about to strap an 8x10, 12 film holders, and a Berlebach tripod to his back and head down a trail or up a mountain.
Eisenstadt used a Leica for much of his formal portraiture. He was quoted as saying that the small camera put his subjects more at ease and allowed him the freedom to interact with his subject, which he couldn't do behind a large camera on a tripod.
There is no denying the laws of physics, that a larger film or sensor has the potential for greater image quality, all else being equal. But in photography, which is as much an art-form as a science, all else is never equal outside of a test lab.
rsl
Russell
Ben Z said:
Ben, you're right, of course. You also can use a point-and-shoot for landscape. Depends on what results you want. I've never done landscape as real landscape. I've done a lot of dying towns and abandoned farms, and, in a sense that's landscape. I've done that stuff with 35mm, D2X, D100, Leica M4, M2, 3F, Rollieflex, and 4 x 5 view cameras. But that isn't really landscape in the Ansel Adams sense. I think Galen Rowell has done some good work, but I also think he's pushing the saturation in his color prints to the point where I wouldn't buy them. Even a point and shoot can make color landscape pictures that look just great on the web and fine in a book or magazine. But, in the end, the real test in landscape is large black and white prints where every detail must be brought out. Yes, fog pictures are nice too, but that doesn't negate what I just said.
Glad to hear you finally got your M8 and that you're happy with it. It makes me unhappy that I've decided not to do that.
Best regards,
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Ben Z said:
Benson, how can you do that to me?
. I post: "nobody is going to disagree with that" and the next thing you do is disagree. rsl said:
Russel, I never did use the word "insulting" or even think it. I think we agree to disagree in the best possible sense.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
gb hill said:
Forums and threads on the Internet are not the real world, official reports on the state of the company for the stock exchange are. (or should be
)Ben Z
Veteran
rsl said:
Rowell's work has achieved enough commercial success that it's probably reaching a little far to insinuate that the results are closer to P&S than LF.
If you happen to catch an exhibit of Ansel Adams' b&w landscapes (I had the good fortune to see them at the art museum in Chicago), you may be shocked (I was) that most of the prints are not larger than 8x10, and I think 11x14 was the largest I remember. Were they more detailed than had they been shot on a smaller format? Undoubtedly. Could anyone detect it? Probably not without going right up to the print with a loupe, which might not have gone over too well with museum security
rsl
Russell
Ben Z said:Rowell's work has achieved enough commercial success that it's probably reaching a little far to insinuate that the results are closer to P&S than LF.
If you happen to catch an exhibit of Ansel Adams' b&w landscapes (I had the good fortune to see them at the art museum in Chicago), you may be shocked (I was) that most of the prints are not larger than 8x10, and I think 11x14 was the largest I remember. Were they more detailed than had they been shot on a smaller format? Undoubtedly. Could anyone detect it? Probably not without going right up to the print with a loupe, which might not have gone over too well with museum security
Year before last Ansel's show was here at the Fine Arts Center in Colorado Springs. I didn't use a loupe, but I did examine the prints very closely with my bifocals. Most of the prints in that show were 11 x 14 -- contacts. They were superb.
Don't misunderstand what I'm saying though. I'm not into landscape. I consider Ansel a great teacher and a very good photographer, but my tastes run more to Walker Evans and Winogrand -- especially Evans. As HCB pointed out, people who judge photographs entirely on their sharpness miss the point entirely. HCB also pointed out that color is a very difficult medium. Most of the people who display color photographs at art fairs demonstrate that fact beyond any question. Pushing the color saturation sells photographs, no doubt about it, but that's not my cup of tea.
M
mark_wilkins
Guest
Ben Z said:
Ansel Adams almost always contact-printed his prints because he preferred the tonality of contact-printing. If you saw an 8x10 print, it was from an 8x10 neg, etc.
-- Mark
rsl
Russell
Ben Z said:
Yes, and HCB used a Leica for all his portraiture, but neither HCB's nor Eistnstat's portraiture was "formal" portraiture. Eisenstat, HCB, and many other people produced great portraits with 35mm cameras, for exactly the reason Eisenstat stated: a small camera that doesn't initimidate can do the best job of capturing the kind of essential thing that puts you in contact with the subject of a portrait -- provided you're fluent with the camera. The one I always remember is HCB's snapshot of the Curies -- both of them looking embarrassed. He shot that picture as soon as he came through the door, and it would have been impossible with any large camera. So, I'm not saying you can't do great portraiture with a small camera, but I am saying it's not "formal" portraiture.
Sorry. I'm afraid this is way, way off the subject of this thread.