TJV
Well-known
Having last night attended an official D3 and D300 preview evening, I've been thinking a lot about the tools of the trade...
Now, having given up on my M8's some time ago, and allowing myself some distance and time to think about my experiences with the camera, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that apart from a film M (which I've gone back to in conjunction with a Mamiya 7ii) the M8 would still be the best digital camera for me to invest in for use in the style of work I like.
Handling the new Nikon's and the new lineup of lenses, I couldn't help but be impressed with their build quality, features, screens and high ISO performance. To be honest, I think the build quality of the Nikon's is far better than that of the M8. But, and there is a massive "but..." I don't need 99% of the features they've packed into them. I don't want or need zoom lenses. I don't need to shoot wirelessly with five camera's positioned around a room or live view. Who needs 9 frames per second for candid photography?
I sat there with the D300 in my hand and thought to myself, "this is a great camera," but it's not what I need. It's a great and versitle tool but it's a rather large space station. It's too confusing and takes away the fun of it all. If they made an FM2 with a D300 sensor inside it I'd buy it in a heartbeat, but they won't. The M8 may not be perfect, and I personally don't regret getting rid of mine, but it's the most intuitive and unintimidating digi camera on the market short of a point and shoot.
Thinking about my wish list for Leica, I would say they must address the IR issue and battery life (500 shots is not good, 2000 shots, like the D2x routinely takes with one battery is.) I don't care for more than 12MP. Nikon have the count right, IMHO, especially with regards to how it relates to high ISO noise. Full frame would be good but not necessary. A quieter shutter wind on is needed.
Anyway, I've written enough rambling nonsense for one day. My only point is really that one mans junk is anothers treasure.
Now, having given up on my M8's some time ago, and allowing myself some distance and time to think about my experiences with the camera, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that apart from a film M (which I've gone back to in conjunction with a Mamiya 7ii) the M8 would still be the best digital camera for me to invest in for use in the style of work I like.
Handling the new Nikon's and the new lineup of lenses, I couldn't help but be impressed with their build quality, features, screens and high ISO performance. To be honest, I think the build quality of the Nikon's is far better than that of the M8. But, and there is a massive "but..." I don't need 99% of the features they've packed into them. I don't want or need zoom lenses. I don't need to shoot wirelessly with five camera's positioned around a room or live view. Who needs 9 frames per second for candid photography?
I sat there with the D300 in my hand and thought to myself, "this is a great camera," but it's not what I need. It's a great and versitle tool but it's a rather large space station. It's too confusing and takes away the fun of it all. If they made an FM2 with a D300 sensor inside it I'd buy it in a heartbeat, but they won't. The M8 may not be perfect, and I personally don't regret getting rid of mine, but it's the most intuitive and unintimidating digi camera on the market short of a point and shoot.
Thinking about my wish list for Leica, I would say they must address the IR issue and battery life (500 shots is not good, 2000 shots, like the D2x routinely takes with one battery is.) I don't care for more than 12MP. Nikon have the count right, IMHO, especially with regards to how it relates to high ISO noise. Full frame would be good but not necessary. A quieter shutter wind on is needed.
Anyway, I've written enough rambling nonsense for one day. My only point is really that one mans junk is anothers treasure.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
I agree that the DSLR's are getting too big, heavy and with too many things jammed into them.
My ideal camera would be an FE2 with a D3 sensor.
But the people on this forum are not the target audience for these things.
If you want to see the target audience, THIS Canon forum is like a Bizarro twin of RFF. It's composed of thousands of wild-eyed ignoramuses seemingly born yesterday who want to do nothing but spend tens of thousands of dollars on the latest and greatest.
Reading it and comprehending these people is a revelation:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=33
My ideal camera would be an FE2 with a D3 sensor.
But the people on this forum are not the target audience for these things.
If you want to see the target audience, THIS Canon forum is like a Bizarro twin of RFF. It's composed of thousands of wild-eyed ignoramuses seemingly born yesterday who want to do nothing but spend tens of thousands of dollars on the latest and greatest.
Reading it and comprehending these people is a revelation:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=33
Avotius
Some guy
I have used a canon 20D for some time and I must say I found it a lot easier to use the a nikon d200, the d200 has a hundred buttons on it and the 20D seems somehow simplified to how I like it. Plus I dont use half the buttons on there anyway so I can easily ignore the rest. That said I too was thinking if nikon stuck a D3 sensor or something like that in the body of the FM3 with a easier to see light meter then I would be sold. Why the heck do pro digital cameras need to be so damn big???
But also I have to comment, my 20D has lasted about 3 years now, its shutter button is pretty much worn down to a nub and needs replacing soon. The outside black paint stuff has worn through in a lot of places, but I still think that out on a long trip I trust it more then I would trust an M8 to make it back from the trip in one piece.
But also I have to comment, my 20D has lasted about 3 years now, its shutter button is pretty much worn down to a nub and needs replacing soon. The outside black paint stuff has worn through in a lot of places, but I still think that out on a long trip I trust it more then I would trust an M8 to make it back from the trip in one piece.
Last edited:
KM-25
Well-known
I love my M8, but I am very excited to get my D3 and D300 in a few days. 10 new lenses, super low light ability, awesome Zeiss primes...but then again I get paid to use this stuff.
It's fun stuff, no need for me to bash it.
It's fun stuff, no need for me to bash it.
TJV
Well-known
sitemistic said:Well...if you just like the look and feel of a Leica M, that's fine. But, I'm a little tired of Nikon and Canon digital cameras being attacked because of their complexity. If you only want to use one like an M8, then there is nothing complex about them. You just select the M setting on the camera and the M setting on the lens, set that puppy in single exposure, and go for it. I even have screens in my 5D's with split image focusings aids for manual focusing.
Sure, the 5D has all of this gee-whiz automation, but you don't have to use it and you can't argue that it adds cost to the camera because the 5D is half the cost of an M8. Set the 5D to manual everything and save yourself $2500!
Sorry for the rant, but I keep hearing this arugment against complexity until I'm really pretty sick of it. It's just bogus. A Canon 1D MkIII is only as complex as you want to make it with a couple of button pushes. And it's one heck of a better built camera than an M8. I own Leica M's and I flog Canon digitals professionally, and I can tell you that where build and pure ruggedness is concerned, a professional Canon or Nikon will simply leave an M in the dust.
O.K. I feel better now.
Hey, fair enough. A valid opinion for sure.
My pet hate about the M setting on these SLR's is that using the little dials etc on the modern designs - instead of the aperture ring on old D lenses etc - has really taken away something of the intuitive 'feel' of the camera. I'm definatly not against bells and whistles as such, I just think the modern form of camera designs goes against what I think is condusive to straight ahead, intuitive shooting. I mean, you can't feel when the aperture ring has hit its limit, either at its widest or smallest. You have to actually take the time to look at the top LCD or thru the viewfinder to see the readout, which, again only in my opinion, is a struggle to see and comprehend with what looks like a hundred little LCD lights, readouts, numbers and scales. Call me crazy, but I always liked the little "petrol gague" in my Pentax K1000 or the simplicity of my M7 readout. It's bright red and simple to comprehend and make informed judements.
Definatly, the Nikons and Canon's have their place and do infact perform better than Leica's current offerings on some levels. I don't even think that they are less suited to street work than a Leica, because that just comes down to how you want to work. I just think the M8 is the best bet for someone like me at the moment but it's a shame it falls short (again a subjective call) on a few small points.
Paul Kay
Member
I use Canon 1D series professionally - superb cameras and lenses (well some - despite what you might read) - but they require a different mindset to using the M8. I quite simply shoot the M8 differently but refuse to make comparisons because the Canon's (and Nikons) are used in completely different ways.
Weight in dSLRs is an issue though - I'd say that there'd be a good or even substantial market for the equivalent of an FM2D too simply because a lot of photography doesn't require the high spec of current 'pro' dSLRs, but does require a lighter, robust, reliable camera and I find many of the existing lighter weight ones appear to be simply too fragile!
Weight in dSLRs is an issue though - I'd say that there'd be a good or even substantial market for the equivalent of an FM2D too simply because a lot of photography doesn't require the high spec of current 'pro' dSLRs, but does require a lighter, robust, reliable camera and I find many of the existing lighter weight ones appear to be simply too fragile!
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Another vote for something like an FM2D with the D3 sensor. It would be just what I need and nothing more.
Bob
Bob
VinceC
Veteran
You can use older manual lenses on the Nikon DSLR bodies, with manual aperture rings. If the settings are palced on M, that leaves only the shutter selection set by digital.
M. Valdemar
Well-known
It's not the complexity that bothers me, it's that the cameras have become such heavy behemoths.
I'm too old to carry around 10 pounds of camera and lenses.
I'm too old to carry around 10 pounds of camera and lenses.
wgerrard
Veteran
I use my DSLR so occasionally that I usually need to scan the manual first. That may say more about me than the camera's complexity, though.
However, I wander how many folks -- non-pros -- actually use all the features of the big expensive DSLR's. How many are attracted by the automation, but are later chagrined to find out that all those features require some decision making?
I saw the same thing happen before digital when people could get their hands on automatic film SLR's. Folks bought a camera and used it enthusiastically for a period of time. Then, perhaps faced with the need to learn something about photography, but certainly with waning enthusiasm, they put the camera in a closet, to use only a few times a year, on full automatic, for snapshots.
However, I wander how many folks -- non-pros -- actually use all the features of the big expensive DSLR's. How many are attracted by the automation, but are later chagrined to find out that all those features require some decision making?
I saw the same thing happen before digital when people could get their hands on automatic film SLR's. Folks bought a camera and used it enthusiastically for a period of time. Then, perhaps faced with the need to learn something about photography, but certainly with waning enthusiasm, they put the camera in a closet, to use only a few times a year, on full automatic, for snapshots.
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
KM-25, I hate you! Keep us posted on D3 thing....
Sitemistic, you right all the way!
If needed, One can even turn the display off and see what he/She did when the card is full, and all in manual mode. Hey even use an external light meter.
I use a Finepix F11 with a broken LCD like that.
Looking to my d200 and my Bessa R2S.. they are not that different in weight, and if you set up a 85cm on the R2S it easily out weight the D200 with a 18-135... if you use a D40x than, even the R2S or the Nikon S look and feel much bigger.
I do apologize but regarding cameras, I'm not that fundamentalist.. (unless is Canon, nah just kidding). I'll try to use even my Agfamatic 50 if I could find a 126 cartridge.
Sitemistic, you right all the way!
If needed, One can even turn the display off and see what he/She did when the card is full, and all in manual mode. Hey even use an external light meter.
I use a Finepix F11 with a broken LCD like that.
Looking to my d200 and my Bessa R2S.. they are not that different in weight, and if you set up a 85cm on the R2S it easily out weight the D200 with a 18-135... if you use a D40x than, even the R2S or the Nikon S look and feel much bigger.
I do apologize but regarding cameras, I'm not that fundamentalist.. (unless is Canon, nah just kidding). I'll try to use even my Agfamatic 50 if I could find a 126 cartridge.
Ben Z
Veteran
I have a 20D and no problem with its complexity. I can shoot it in aperture-priority or manual just like my M8. I don't know or care what half of the buttons and settings are. But even with the "kit" 18-55 zoom, or a couple of light primes, it takes up more room requiring a bulkier bag, and no way I can fit it into my coat pocket like I can the M8 once I take off the lens. For me as a traveller the choice therefore isn't between the M8 and a DSLR, it's between the M8 and a compact digital like the DLux-3 or similar. Now those puppies are a collossal pain in the backside to use manually:bang:
Richard Marks
Rexel
We still continue to compare the M8 with digi SLR's. Its just not logical. You might as well compare an M6 with a Nikon F5 (both great in different ways).
If you want a rangefinder and you want digital capture then an M8 it is. If you do not value the unique properties or appreciate the unique limitations of a rangefinder then get a DSLR and appreciate its advantages, accepting its limitations.
The dilema I have is a bit simpler, whether or not to use my M8n or my M6 (or which lens to put on each if shooting with both!!
Best wishes
Richard
If you want a rangefinder and you want digital capture then an M8 it is. If you do not value the unique properties or appreciate the unique limitations of a rangefinder then get a DSLR and appreciate its advantages, accepting its limitations.
The dilema I have is a bit simpler, whether or not to use my M8n or my M6 (or which lens to put on each if shooting with both!!
Best wishes
Richard
willie_901
Veteran
I absolutely despise the complicated, heavy, noisy, user-interface hostile cameras that modern DSLRs have evolved in to.
That said, I was pleasantly surprised by how much my Nikon D200 with an AI/AIS lens is similar in use to my Nikon F3. DSLRs are much more tolerable for me when used without the obligatory, massive, designed to be used in full auto mode, one-zoom-lens-for-everything attached.
The trouble is, you have to sit down and study the manual and thumb through the menus systems to set the D200 up to work like a manual SLR.
Even with my aging eyes, I do not find manual focusing to be a real show stopper.
I'm sure other companies' higher-cost DLSRs can be set up in a similar fashion.
Like others have posted, I would prefer a smaller, less complicated design. I fear this type of product won't be marketed until the DLSR growth curve levels out. There is no motivation right now to mass market the minimalistic DLSR that is wished for so often here, and elsewhere.
willie
That said, I was pleasantly surprised by how much my Nikon D200 with an AI/AIS lens is similar in use to my Nikon F3. DSLRs are much more tolerable for me when used without the obligatory, massive, designed to be used in full auto mode, one-zoom-lens-for-everything attached.
The trouble is, you have to sit down and study the manual and thumb through the menus systems to set the D200 up to work like a manual SLR.
Even with my aging eyes, I do not find manual focusing to be a real show stopper.
I'm sure other companies' higher-cost DLSRs can be set up in a similar fashion.
Like others have posted, I would prefer a smaller, less complicated design. I fear this type of product won't be marketed until the DLSR growth curve levels out. There is no motivation right now to mass market the minimalistic DLSR that is wished for so often here, and elsewhere.
willie
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
"If they made an FM2 with a D300 sensor inside it I'd buy it in a heartbeat"
"My ideal camera would be an FE2 with a D3 sensor."
"That said I too was thinking if nikon stuck a D3 sensor or something like that in the body of the FM3 with a easier to see light meter then I would be sold"
"Another vote for something like an FM2D with the D3 sensor"
I'm just reiterate these sentiments here for google spiders to catch it.
As for me, *anyone*, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, heck even Canon, if they would stick a good CMOS sensor on any of their vintage SLR's, I'll buy it.
No LCD, no menus.
"My ideal camera would be an FE2 with a D3 sensor."
"That said I too was thinking if nikon stuck a D3 sensor or something like that in the body of the FM3 with a easier to see light meter then I would be sold"
"Another vote for something like an FM2D with the D3 sensor"
I'm just reiterate these sentiments here for google spiders to catch it.
As for me, *anyone*, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, heck even Canon, if they would stick a good CMOS sensor on any of their vintage SLR's, I'll buy it.
No LCD, no menus.
bohdan
-- Physicist
Just sharing here...not making a judgement.
I have a friend that wanted a camera, a film camera to be precise. He was new to photography and wanted to go with film rather than digital. Having been a shooter since about the age of 9 with a Ricoh rangefinder, I gave him all the familiar wisdom. You know: buy a hundred rolls and just shoot, shoot slide film of it's more exacting methodology. The typical advice.
He saw my EOS1 camera and loved it. Having an additional EOS-1n, I decided that I would sell it to him for a fair price. Needless to say, he asked me if I would buy it back from him. He named off reasons: too large, not enough auto focus points, different metering characteristics etc. The list went on, he even compared it to his film Rebel that was a lot newer and had 3000 focus points and 15000 point metering.
What did I think? This was a EOS1 camera, that in it's day (which was not too long ago), that was highly sought after by pro's. It's built like a tank and is very reliable. I bought it 10 years ago second hand. It's had only one problem.
For him, the point was that it was not the newest and not the most tricked out...even though he'd probably not use 80 percent of those new features. I bought it back at a discount because I did not want to see such a beautiful thing go to waste.
Now, I have an embarrassingly large collection of cameras (in my opinion). Each of them have their place and their use. I love them all, the complex Canons and the simple Leica's. All of them do what I need them to do...make pictures.
What do you think of this?
1. One photographer said to another in book I recently read..."Most photographers can't even use a box camera to it's maximum capability."
2. While not directly applicable, Willie Mosconi said something about being about to shoot billiards with a broom stick.
Do you think that this is what we are really about here? Do you think that we are all after that perfect 36 shots in a roll...everyshot being at least acceptable to shot to someone other than our mother?
I have a friend that wanted a camera, a film camera to be precise. He was new to photography and wanted to go with film rather than digital. Having been a shooter since about the age of 9 with a Ricoh rangefinder, I gave him all the familiar wisdom. You know: buy a hundred rolls and just shoot, shoot slide film of it's more exacting methodology. The typical advice.
He saw my EOS1 camera and loved it. Having an additional EOS-1n, I decided that I would sell it to him for a fair price. Needless to say, he asked me if I would buy it back from him. He named off reasons: too large, not enough auto focus points, different metering characteristics etc. The list went on, he even compared it to his film Rebel that was a lot newer and had 3000 focus points and 15000 point metering.
What did I think? This was a EOS1 camera, that in it's day (which was not too long ago), that was highly sought after by pro's. It's built like a tank and is very reliable. I bought it 10 years ago second hand. It's had only one problem.
For him, the point was that it was not the newest and not the most tricked out...even though he'd probably not use 80 percent of those new features. I bought it back at a discount because I did not want to see such a beautiful thing go to waste.
Now, I have an embarrassingly large collection of cameras (in my opinion). Each of them have their place and their use. I love them all, the complex Canons and the simple Leica's. All of them do what I need them to do...make pictures.
What do you think of this?
1. One photographer said to another in book I recently read..."Most photographers can't even use a box camera to it's maximum capability."
2. While not directly applicable, Willie Mosconi said something about being about to shoot billiards with a broom stick.
Do you think that this is what we are really about here? Do you think that we are all after that perfect 36 shots in a roll...everyshot being at least acceptable to shot to someone other than our mother?
panos
Established
do you know what is the difference between painters and photographers?
painters do not talk about their brushes.
that is what my tutor told me at college today.
i think he is right
at the end of the day is all about the pictures right?
now you can ask why do i bother to right in this thread if i believe the above quote.
and you are right
but i am so bored , have nothing else to do so there you go
xx
panos
painters do not talk about their brushes.
that is what my tutor told me at college today.
i think he is right
at the end of the day is all about the pictures right?
now you can ask why do i bother to right in this thread if i believe the above quote.
and you are right
but i am so bored , have nothing else to do so there you go
xx
panos
PATB
Established
panos said:
Because there is no decent brushforum.com
Patman
Established
I have the Nikon D200 and have not been impressed with it at all. I purchased it because i have the Kodak DCS Pro 14, which i love, but it is too slow and the higher ISO is very noisy, hence the D200 because it uses the same lenses and was much faster. I find the color is way off on the Nikon, the Kodak far superior, and the body is too small when using large lenses Since i have purchase the M8 i haven't used anything else and when i look back on my past every outstanding photo i have ever taken was taken with a Leica RF camera and lens. If you need the long lenses i would probably reccommend Canon, though not a canon user, i think they make a superior product.
furcafe
Veteran
Anyone who knows painters knows they do often talk about brushes (& paints, etc.), so I wouldn't be surprised if you were able to find lots of "brush & easel" talk on internet painter fora.
PATB said:Because there is no decent brushforum.com