halabar
Member
(To start, let me state that I realize we haven't seen the IQ yet, so we can't really answer any questions about the performance of the new sensor, and how good the images will be compared to other digital systems)
I am now giving serious consideration to Leica as an option in upgrading my camera gear, now that Leica has a serious digital option.
What do I shoot?... Landscapes, artsy-citiscapes, night shots, still lifes, etc, - things that for the most part I feel are highly suited to the attributes of Leica glass from what I have heard.
Wht do I shoot?... Other than the joy of shooting which I hope to rediscover, my goal is to shoot stock to sell through online services.
So, given that I am currently shooting with a D200 and GOOD Nikon glass, and given that the 10MP sensor in the M8 may well limit the potential of the Leica glass, and, given the the cost of a Leica system, is an investment of $8-9k in Leica gear a sensible one right now?...
If I stretched right now I could buy the body, but then there is the question of lenses....
I realize fully that a print from a Leica shot on a fine-grain 100ASA film developed in Microdol printed on an Agfa graded paper will challenge most medium-format systems. But what I need is a realistic real-world comparison, since I'd have to scan film, so most of those nuances and benefits are lost. So the world I'll be working in is digital, with the limitations that entails.
Perhaps the other option is that in another 3 years when Nikon has still failed to deliver a FF body, and Leica comes out with the M9 at 16MP, then than might be a time to make a move....
Finally, I wonder about the landscapes... I know all about the Leica quality shooting scences at relatively close range. But how do they hold up with distant landscapes?.. honest question. I'd really like to know...
I am now giving serious consideration to Leica as an option in upgrading my camera gear, now that Leica has a serious digital option.
What do I shoot?... Landscapes, artsy-citiscapes, night shots, still lifes, etc, - things that for the most part I feel are highly suited to the attributes of Leica glass from what I have heard.
Wht do I shoot?... Other than the joy of shooting which I hope to rediscover, my goal is to shoot stock to sell through online services.
So, given that I am currently shooting with a D200 and GOOD Nikon glass, and given that the 10MP sensor in the M8 may well limit the potential of the Leica glass, and, given the the cost of a Leica system, is an investment of $8-9k in Leica gear a sensible one right now?...
If I stretched right now I could buy the body, but then there is the question of lenses....
I realize fully that a print from a Leica shot on a fine-grain 100ASA film developed in Microdol printed on an Agfa graded paper will challenge most medium-format systems. But what I need is a realistic real-world comparison, since I'd have to scan film, so most of those nuances and benefits are lost. So the world I'll be working in is digital, with the limitations that entails.
Perhaps the other option is that in another 3 years when Nikon has still failed to deliver a FF body, and Leica comes out with the M9 at 16MP, then than might be a time to make a move....
Finally, I wonder about the landscapes... I know all about the Leica quality shooting scences at relatively close range. But how do they hold up with distant landscapes?.. honest question. I'd really like to know...
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Not sure I'm the right one to try and answer your questions, but I'll try anyway.
I'm not a digital shooter. Not because I dislike digital with some visceral hatred, but because I can't afford an EOS 5D
(I'm a Canonista at heart ) or a M8 for that matter - though at least with the M8 I would have lenses I could use with it when I got it in hand :bang:
That said, IIRC the D200 is a 10MP DSLR with a 1.5 crop? IOW, very similar in those respects to the M8 (10MP & 1.3) so from that perspective it's a wash. A very different issue is that of RF vs. SLR technique. It's not always what you shoot, but how you shoot it. Do you have any previous RF experience? If not, go buy a cheap Canonet or Zorki and burn a few dozen rolls of color print film and make sure that the RF style suits the way you want to shoot. There is nothing in what you say you want to shoot that can't be done with either a RF or SLR but how you do it is quite different at times.
Lastly, I'd ask you about your tastes in landscape photography. Do you like to use wide angle lenses to get a wide expansive, almost panoramic, feel? Or do you like to use a long lens to separate out one interesting detail from the rocks and trees? The former suits RF's, the latter is the SLR's forte. Quality wise, you'll probably never be able to tell the results of the best lenses from Zeiss, Nikon, Leica or Canon apart under any normal circumstance. Yes, you can in extremes and that's where personal taste comes into play. All of the best work of these makers is equally good - where they differ is in purely subjective areas and that's a decision only you can make.
Hope this blather is of some help,
William
I'm not a digital shooter. Not because I dislike digital with some visceral hatred, but because I can't afford an EOS 5D
(I'm a Canonista at heart ) or a M8 for that matter - though at least with the M8 I would have lenses I could use with it when I got it in hand :bang: That said, IIRC the D200 is a 10MP DSLR with a 1.5 crop? IOW, very similar in those respects to the M8 (10MP & 1.3) so from that perspective it's a wash. A very different issue is that of RF vs. SLR technique. It's not always what you shoot, but how you shoot it. Do you have any previous RF experience? If not, go buy a cheap Canonet or Zorki and burn a few dozen rolls of color print film and make sure that the RF style suits the way you want to shoot. There is nothing in what you say you want to shoot that can't be done with either a RF or SLR but how you do it is quite different at times.
Lastly, I'd ask you about your tastes in landscape photography. Do you like to use wide angle lenses to get a wide expansive, almost panoramic, feel? Or do you like to use a long lens to separate out one interesting detail from the rocks and trees? The former suits RF's, the latter is the SLR's forte. Quality wise, you'll probably never be able to tell the results of the best lenses from Zeiss, Nikon, Leica or Canon apart under any normal circumstance. Yes, you can in extremes and that's where personal taste comes into play. All of the best work of these makers is equally good - where they differ is in purely subjective areas and that's a decision only you can make.
Hope this blather is of some help,
William
halabar
Member
Thanks wlewisiii!
True, the D200 and M8 are close in specs, but the big unknowns are DR and noise, which only time will tell how those sort out.
What I really need to do is borrow a M-series sometimes and burn some rolls through it.... (I am left-eyed, so I understand that might be an issue).
My landscapes run the gamut, but, I don't shoot the details with a long telephoto, rather, I much prefer my 85/1.4 for that. My 17-35 for the wide stuff.
Perhaps my ultimate question is will the M8 give me more than the D200 or even the D2x? or with the digital limitations, will I just not get the extra benefits that the Leica glass would offer?..
True, the D200 and M8 are close in specs, but the big unknowns are DR and noise, which only time will tell how those sort out.
What I really need to do is borrow a M-series sometimes and burn some rolls through it.... (I am left-eyed, so I understand that might be an issue).
My landscapes run the gamut, but, I don't shoot the details with a long telephoto, rather, I much prefer my 85/1.4 for that. My 17-35 for the wide stuff.
Perhaps my ultimate question is will the M8 give me more than the D200 or even the D2x? or with the digital limitations, will I just not get the extra benefits that the Leica glass would offer?..
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Where do you live? It may well be possible, in a larger city, to rent an MP or M7 from a dealer for a day or weekend with some classic lens like a Summicron 50/2 to see how it looks & feels for you.
As for the limitations of digital relative to the lenses abilities, well, that is something I can't answer for you. The only way any of us can learn that is with experiance. I will simply note that digital has been around for a long time and only now does Leica think it's acceptable. OTOH, Zeiss still thinks it is _not_ acceptable. It's an interesting question. I'll be curious to read Mr. Puts has to say on the M8...
William
As for the limitations of digital relative to the lenses abilities, well, that is something I can't answer for you. The only way any of us can learn that is with experiance. I will simply note that digital has been around for a long time and only now does Leica think it's acceptable. OTOH, Zeiss still thinks it is _not_ acceptable. It's an interesting question. I'll be curious to read Mr. Puts has to say on the M8...
William
halabar
Member
I'm in LA, so I have Samys:bang: :bang: :bang::bang: :bang: , Bel-Air, and a couple other choices. Yeah, I'll go to Bel-Air first.
Regarding the other discussion on the merits of digital, if I had all the resources of the masters, I'd still be shooting my HP5+, printing on Ilford Multigrade (sorry, never did get graded-papers) and just hanging prints on the wall. While I can apprciate the merits of the arguments, I still need to get files to the stock agency. And I'm a FIRM believer that digital 35mm, while it may not have passed 35mm film, it HAS passed SCANNED 35mm film. If I had darkroom access?.. yeah, I'd still be shooting film (B&W that is, color should be purely a digital domain now).
Regarding the other discussion on the merits of digital, if I had all the resources of the masters, I'd still be shooting my HP5+, printing on Ilford Multigrade (sorry, never did get graded-papers) and just hanging prints on the wall. While I can apprciate the merits of the arguments, I still need to get files to the stock agency. And I'm a FIRM believer that digital 35mm, while it may not have passed 35mm film, it HAS passed SCANNED 35mm film.
If I had darkroom access?.. yeah, I'd still be shooting film (B&W that is, color should be purely a digital domain now).
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
you'll want Leica glass to get the most from the sensor, if that's not an option I'd stay with the Nikon gear, not to mention the fact that the choice of focal lengths in a Leica will limit you for your stock stuff.
todd
todd
halabar
Member
Todd.Hanz said:
The investment in glass is certainly giving me pause.
But, I'll be watching carefully to see the results you guys get with the M8. And I'd certainly be ready to shoot the same scence with any of you in LA with my D200.
Matthew
Established
wlewisiii said:
Puts has published the first part of his review.
He uses the 5D as comparison for the M8 and basically comes to the conclusion that the image quality is as good as but not better than the 5D. He makes no comment on dynamic range, leaving it the second part of his review. He also makes no comment on which firmware version he's using; if he's not using the final one some of his quibbles could be resolved via firmware changes.
halabar
Member
Matthew said:
Well, if that bears out with testing of the final cameras, then I'd be better off waiting until the M9. But we need to see real-world samples.
Matthew
Established
I wouldn't write off the M8 because Puts doesn't think it beats the 5D. As he points out in the review the small differences between the two would be virtually impossible to discern on a print.
And as you say, we need to see actual output from the camera. The M8 brochure has a section that Simon Wheatley shot with the camera, but that hardly counts.
And as you say, we need to see actual output from the camera. The M8 brochure has a section that Simon Wheatley shot with the camera, but that hardly counts.
ampguy
Veteran
hmm
hmm
About Nikon and FF, they may never deliver a FF sensor body, but that's not because they can't, it's because it doesn't, by itself, improve image quality through 35mm lenses, although it does make it convenient for existing 35mm film lenses to have the equivalent angle of view when migrating.
hmm
About Nikon and FF, they may never deliver a FF sensor body, but that's not because they can't, it's because it doesn't, by itself, improve image quality through 35mm lenses, although it does make it convenient for existing 35mm film lenses to have the equivalent angle of view when migrating.
halabar said:
ampguy
Veteran
landscapes
landscapes
If you plan to go pro, with landscapes, you should consider a D2x or two. You'll need many SLR features and lenses not available in the RF medium.
landscapes
If you plan to go pro, with landscapes, you should consider a D2x or two. You'll need many SLR features and lenses not available in the RF medium.
halabar said:
BillBingham2
Registered User
I tend to agree that the difference between good Nikon and Leica glass for the vast majority of us is not perceptable. These days just about every Leica lens is a great lens. You can not say about about Nikon. They have some GREAT lenses and some good ones. You need to pick and choose your glass.
I love RF because it is small, easy to carry and not get noticed. The OM-1 was almost as good. I do like the RF finder better than an SLR, but I''m not sure for what you are shooting that is too big a deal.
There's some great 4x5 lenses out there, some great medium format glass too. I would give the M8 a year to settle in and see what final production brings us. It might be a great move, but having gotten the first Nikon CP 900 and finding out that I needed to send it back to Nikon and pay them to fix the bugs in thier software, I do not like being on the bleeding edge in Digital.
B2 (;->
I love RF because it is small, easy to carry and not get noticed. The OM-1 was almost as good. I do like the RF finder better than an SLR, but I''m not sure for what you are shooting that is too big a deal.
There's some great 4x5 lenses out there, some great medium format glass too. I would give the M8 a year to settle in and see what final production brings us. It might be a great move, but having gotten the first Nikon CP 900 and finding out that I needed to send it back to Nikon and pay them to fix the bugs in thier software, I do not like being on the bleeding edge in Digital.
B2 (;->
halabar
Member
ampguy said:
That's where I am leaning, but I'd like to see all the options first. Waiting for the D3 might be another 2 years. The other option is to see what Fuji can come with. Rumors are the S5 might be 12MP, with the DR of the S3. That would be nice.
But there is still a part of my photography that could use the Leica touch, having that light, inobtrusive camera for street shooting. But $10,000 is a lot to get into that game.
halabar
Member
BillBingham2 said:
Being able to tell the difference between the lenses when the limitations are those 10MP sensors is where it gets really fuzzy... I've got the really good Nikon glass, (17-35/2.8, 85/1/4, etc.) so I'm not sure I'd see the gains that I would like.
But man, I would love a M8 for street shooting....
halabar
Member
and thanks for all the sound, reasoned replies!!!
lifevicarious
Established
Keep in mind...
Keep in mind...
that many stock agencies require at least 12mp files. They do that partly to keep up with only the highest end cameras and to limit anyone with a digital SLR from trying to submit.
My point is, check with your stock agencies to see what their minimum file sizes are before you jump ship to the M, which it sounds like you have had little, if any experience with.
To be honest, I am in LOVE with the M8 and can't wait to get it (it will be 6 or 9 months though as I'm traveling for the next 15 months). I very much love the 5D that I have and think it's perfect for stock, travel, and landscape. For street photography, it works but nothing compared to a RF camera. If you shoot all kinds of different things, a SLR, whether Nikon or Canon, is probably more versatile then the M8.
Ideally, you use the right tool for the job and the M8 is not the right tool for every job. And neither is the 5D or D200. Most pros have multiple systems and use the system best suited for the tool. If you can only afford one system at this point, I would probably go with the SLR system of your choice.
But I would definitely rentan M7 or MP to see if you like the RF system first and then check with your agencies to see what they accept.
Hope that helps!
Keep in mind...
that many stock agencies require at least 12mp files. They do that partly to keep up with only the highest end cameras and to limit anyone with a digital SLR from trying to submit.
My point is, check with your stock agencies to see what their minimum file sizes are before you jump ship to the M, which it sounds like you have had little, if any experience with.
To be honest, I am in LOVE with the M8 and can't wait to get it (it will be 6 or 9 months though as I'm traveling for the next 15 months). I very much love the 5D that I have and think it's perfect for stock, travel, and landscape. For street photography, it works but nothing compared to a RF camera. If you shoot all kinds of different things, a SLR, whether Nikon or Canon, is probably more versatile then the M8.
Ideally, you use the right tool for the job and the M8 is not the right tool for every job. And neither is the 5D or D200. Most pros have multiple systems and use the system best suited for the tool. If you can only afford one system at this point, I would probably go with the SLR system of your choice.
But I would definitely rentan M7 or MP to see if you like the RF system first and then check with your agencies to see what they accept.
Hope that helps!
Last edited: