Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I also think the Nikon has more yellow to it's files. See the tree difference the Leica matches it better in real world
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
To a great extent you can say that most folks do not mind working it somewhat. The Nikon files are not that far off from reality that it becomes a problem for someone that goes fast and has lot's of images either. So with some general understandings of what you are getting and being able to correct on the fly is pretty good. Right off the bat we know the DR is smaller so adding fill and opening up the low end to get back a little is fairly easy. Correcting the yellow is something of a tone curve to apply . So as much as i would rather not work it too much because of time it still is very good. Honestly also the reality is if not comparing against something else one may not realize what is wrong or right too.I think Nikon especially likes yellow in low light. At least my D70 tended that way.
I think where the Nikon is devastatingly good is the AF and "getting the shot." When I was looking at D300 vs. K20d vs. E3, the Nikon was just ridiculously quick and accurate.
Your shots show the difference in the final product, but seems that in digital land you can "fix it in post" and get 99.9% of the way there. So then doesn't it somewhat reduce the "camera" part of the equation to framing and composition? I know that is an extreme simplification, but if the technical end of the cameras are all coalescing towards some objective (?) "ideal" (much like car bodies all look alike today chasing drag coefficients), does it then become an exercise in using the camera to compose and then pp to really generate the image? I know that the darkroom has always been the place that it "lives" but seems that digital has shifted (or made possible the shift) heavily toward pp.
I agree Woody folks do get religious about there gear. We are finally at a point in digital that it is more about what you want to shoot instead of have too. For me mixing up the systems is a good thing but if someone went only Nikon or Leica there not losing much either way. I love my M8's but there are limits with it. But the same token i love shooting RF too and the Leica files are awesome. Now it is said the D3 is even better i will take that advice from folks and assume it would even be closer . Tis is all good for us the end user. We are starting to get better and different choices.guy
Again I say many thanks for these efforts. Having a pro like you do the testing assures that all of us gain from your knowledge and experiences.
It would appear to me that one could go with either system and be happy or to mix and match to take advantage of the Leica lenses where appropriate and the Nikon versatility for AF, macro, and long lenses as well as high iso and focus tracking if you are into sports, kids etc.
Many thanks
Woody
Guy I am particularly interested in Woody s point about mixing and matching. A common comment when people review collections in my portfolio..is the need to have consistency in renderings. Like a wedding album shot with some MF and some M8 ..the different look can throw things off. The DMR and the M8 blend very well ...the look,color etc seems similar. As a pro using now the Nikon and the M8 is this a consideration.....or as you get the files where they look good are they really not that different? And of course thanks for doing this test..its very helpful as I use both systems.