markowich
New member
thanks. i did that, also M9 files need sharpening. the conclusion is still the same though.
peter
The GetDPI Photography Forum
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!
m9 D3x comparism
- Thread starter markowich
- Start date
peter
O
Oxide Blu
Guest
I'm not sure I can agree with you. In the old days, when photography was chemical based, you could pop the same film into any camera -- then the lens mattered and mattered a hell of a lot, in some cases. But with digital I think it is more about the lens/sensor/in-camera firmware combination. The sensor and firmware is not the same from camera to camera, and I think they matter a whole lot, too, perhaps as much as the lens.
Lars
Active member
The lens makes the image - the camera's job is to capture that image with as much fidelity as possible. Both these cameras likely do a stunning job in that respect, while being completely different beasts in other regards.
The better the cameras become, the less valid is the argument that the camera matters. We might even down the road reach the point where more or less all cameras are good enough image capturers and it's all up to the lens.
O
Oxide Blu
Guest
So, in other words, the sensor and supporting hard/software, e.g. the camera, "makes" the image. Perhaps when a sensor can capture the resolution and dynamic range of a modern lens we can consider a competing argument.
Lars
Active member
Well, yes you could say that, I would say the lens forms the image and the camera captures it.
...or when the sensor/software is good enough that remaining level of deterioration is practically irrelevant. Which brings up the question - how good is good enough?
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
This is not completely apples and oranges ....if you are looking at the IQ possible from the two systems. The Nikon D3X represents the "state of the market" from a DSLR and in essence ..."whats possible". IMHO its the best standard to compare the M9 against. (or is it a consensus that the subjective judgment about performance should be left to "artists"). The sensor performance is just one measure of the cameras capabilities..but its an important one and for me the most limiting feature of the M cameras.
Even for street photography..where the form and handling of the M set the standard....you can build a kit around a D700 and zeiss primes or even converted Leica R lenses. A D3X with a Nikon AF lens is one thing (not particularly effective for street unless you are really really good.) I worked hard this winter to use a D700 and the zeiss/leica kit in Florida and its damn effective for street. The biggest advantage is a very clean ISO performance up to 1600....about 2EV better than my M8s. A zeiss 28/2 or a leica 80/1.4 summilux on a D700 body works .
Nikon will come out with a D700X or a D800 or a 15MP high Iso camera for 50% of the M9 price within the next year. So a smaller form than a D3X will be available. Put the best glass on it and you can produce a great file .
It will not handle like an M or have the small form needed for every situation..and no way will it inspire me like using the M s does......but if I want to understand the capabilities of the tools I can pick from .......then the D3x looks like a good standard for comparison.
Even for street photography..where the form and handling of the M set the standard....you can build a kit around a D700 and zeiss primes or even converted Leica R lenses. A D3X with a Nikon AF lens is one thing (not particularly effective for street unless you are really really good.) I worked hard this winter to use a D700 and the zeiss/leica kit in Florida and its damn effective for street. The biggest advantage is a very clean ISO performance up to 1600....about 2EV better than my M8s. A zeiss 28/2 or a leica 80/1.4 summilux on a D700 body works .
Nikon will come out with a D700X or a D800 or a 15MP high Iso camera for 50% of the M9 price within the next year. So a smaller form than a D3X will be available. Put the best glass on it and you can produce a great file .
It will not handle like an M or have the small form needed for every situation..and no way will it inspire me like using the M s does......but if I want to understand the capabilities of the tools I can pick from .......then the D3x looks like a good standard for comparison.
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
I should have disclosed that I have 3 M8.2 s and 2 M9 s on order. This is my go to system but when the light gives out and my Noctilux shooting with ISO 640 starts to underexpose..then I wish I had a D3x sensor in my M.
And if its work ....I am using the D3/D700 combination.
And if its work ....I am using the D3/D700 combination.
Stuart Richardson
Active member
Roger, if I may ask a delicate question -- why so many? Why 3 M8.2's and 2 M9's? Do they fail that often? How do 4 backups help?
I know that when I do an important shoot, I always have another camera, but it is not always the same type. So for example, if I am doing a wedding with a Hasselblad on film, I will also bring the D3 and shoot with it as well. I am just curious what the reasoning is, because if I were to have the same outlay, I would think that a better decision would be to get 1 M9 and 1 D3x -- they are more complementary, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. To backup the M9, I would either hang on to one of the M8's, or use a film camera.
This is by no means a criticism, I am just trying to figure out what your rationale is...
I know that when I do an important shoot, I always have another camera, but it is not always the same type. So for example, if I am doing a wedding with a Hasselblad on film, I will also bring the D3 and shoot with it as well. I am just curious what the reasoning is, because if I were to have the same outlay, I would think that a better decision would be to get 1 M9 and 1 D3x -- they are more complementary, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. To backup the M9, I would either hang on to one of the M8's, or use a film camera.
This is by no means a criticism, I am just trying to figure out what your rationale is...
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Stuart That wasn t meant to be a good thing having so many bodies.(more reflection of the extent I am going to get things right). I use 2 M bodies at the same time.. a wide angle on one and normal or short tele on the other. Working on the street you just can t change lenses fast enough . So two bodies is my normal kit .
I picked up an extra M8 when the prices came down as a backup. Its come in handy when something needed to be calibrated... I stopped worrying about the 4-6 weeks average turnaround on a repair or even that I had to send it in.
I will sell the two M8.2 s once I get the M9 s ..so I will have 2 M9s and a backup M8.
I have found the M8s very reliable and believe that most of the problems early on came from the newness of digital to Leica. You shouldn t need a backup unless its for a commercial shoot. But the M8s need some CLA service from time to time....so you need an alternative in some manner.
I picked up an extra M8 when the prices came down as a backup. Its come in handy when something needed to be calibrated... I stopped worrying about the 4-6 weeks average turnaround on a repair or even that I had to send it in.
I will sell the two M8.2 s once I get the M9 s ..so I will have 2 M9s and a backup M8.
I have found the M8s very reliable and believe that most of the problems early on came from the newness of digital to Leica. You shouldn t need a backup unless its for a commercial shoot. But the M8s need some CLA service from time to time....so you need an alternative in some manner.
Hi All,
Quick question with some relevancy to this thread (and I certainly have also investigate this as I use both D3 and M8)... but wanted to hear other opinions. Since some are comparing D3x & M9 with similar but not identical resolutions, especially for output to print, what have the comparisons been for those who compared a Nikon D3 (not D3x) and M8 files at base ISO, since they both have similar reolutions too. I ask because under critial examinations and high standards of print, D3 easily prints to 24x36 with most (but not all) subjects (with mild upscaling), whereas most quote something like 10x14 or maybe 13x19 as a break point for M8 files, where printed files from the M8 greater than 13x19" generally show some deterioration. If thats the case, it doesn't make much sense. Yes, I know there are other factors besides similar resolution, but these often quoted print sizes from both cameras are substatially different! Again, we're talking prints of extremely high quality with little artifacting or evidence of pixelation. Any thoughts?
Quick question with some relevancy to this thread (and I certainly have also investigate this as I use both D3 and M8)... but wanted to hear other opinions. Since some are comparing D3x & M9 with similar but not identical resolutions, especially for output to print, what have the comparisons been for those who compared a Nikon D3 (not D3x) and M8 files at base ISO, since they both have similar reolutions too. I ask because under critial examinations and high standards of print, D3 easily prints to 24x36 with most (but not all) subjects (with mild upscaling), whereas most quote something like 10x14 or maybe 13x19 as a break point for M8 files, where printed files from the M8 greater than 13x19" generally show some deterioration. If thats the case, it doesn't make much sense. Yes, I know there are other factors besides similar resolution, but these often quoted print sizes from both cameras are substatially different! Again, we're talking prints of extremely high quality with little artifacting or evidence of pixelation. Any thoughts?
Stuart Richardson
Active member
Roger -- thanks for clarifying. I think that makes sense. I thought you meant that you had 3 M8.2's and 2 M9's on order, meaning you were buying 5 cameras at once...it did not make sense to me! But as you describe it, I understand.
D&A -- I think the only way to answer this question would be to take similar images on both cameras and then print the results. This is not a very common situation (the M8 and D3 are used so differently, at least for me), so I don't usually shoot the same thing with them both at the same time. I have not printed larger than 11x17 with the D3 yet (I mostly use it for day to day work or night shooting), but I have printed 17x22 from the M8 and it shows no problems at all. I get the impression that at base ISO, the resolution is very similar, and the enlargability would be more dependent on your lens and the subject matter rather than on the cameras. I imagine something similar will be the case with the D3x and M9.
D&A -- I think the only way to answer this question would be to take similar images on both cameras and then print the results. This is not a very common situation (the M8 and D3 are used so differently, at least for me), so I don't usually shoot the same thing with them both at the same time. I have not printed larger than 11x17 with the D3 yet (I mostly use it for day to day work or night shooting), but I have printed 17x22 from the M8 and it shows no problems at all. I get the impression that at base ISO, the resolution is very similar, and the enlargability would be more dependent on your lens and the subject matter rather than on the cameras. I imagine something similar will be the case with the D3x and M9.
