My new DMR 'back-up'

[PeterA]

I was going to sell my Canon 1dsmk11 but have decided to keep it as a back-up to my DMR and R lenses via adaptors - I have sold all my Canon lenses .

So now I have a stop down shooter for my R lenses, and I will also try some adaptors for some Hasselblad CF glass I have and anything else that looks interesting.

I couldn't bring myself to sell the camera at its current market price - which is about 1/3rd o what I paid for it! Much happier to leave it as a testing tool for fun on the side.:bugeyes:

As another aside - I have bought a D3 and a couple of nice Zeiss lenses the 100/2 and the 28/2. I am reading the manual on the Nikon - so far I am very impressed with its light weight relative to Canon and DMR.

I love my R glass but dont expect to be able to use it with the new Leica DSLR when it comes out...:cussing: so I am now happy with having a back-up to the DMR, even though I prefer the DMR files - the Canon isn't exactly a slouch and it IS full frame...

 

[dhsimmonds]

Hi Peter

I also looked at the D3 recently and thought it a bit cumbersome to handle compared with my R9/DMR. I also thought the Nikon lenses were not so smooth as Leica's equivalent but the Nikon image quality is superb and that's what it's all about! Like you I am not so keen on the Canon lenses or the "smooth" images.

At the moment I just cannot part with my R9/DMR and R lenses, but I am increasingly concerned about Herr Kaufmann's future plans for the R system after reading his LFI interview, so cautiously looking at alternatives.

 

[PeterA]

Strange you feel the D3 is more cumbersome than the DMR - teh D3 is lighter and better balanced. I am shooting with a Zeiss 28 and a 100 - these lenses are smooth and sharp. I liek th D3 - but have to climb a learnign curve - as the interface is very different to the Canon 1D series bodies I am used to.

 

[jonoslack]

Strange you feel the D3 is more cumbersome than the DMR - teh D3 is lighter and better balanced. I am shooting with a Zeiss 28 and a 100 - these lenses are smooth and sharp. I liek th D3 - but have to climb a learnign curve - as the interface is very different to the Canon 1D series bodies I am used to.

HI Peter
How are you feeling the D3 files compare with the Canon files in terms of resolution?
Do those Zeiss lenses make up for the reduction in resolution?

 

[PeterA]

Jono - I don't see much difference if any in resolution between my 1dsmk11 and the D3. These Zeiss lenses are nicer than their Nikon or Canon equivalents.
Pete

 

[fotografz]

I bet it would be hard to detect a difference since they are both full frame and the Canon 1DsMKII is only 4 megs bigger, but the Nikon offers 14 bit ADA conversion with 16 bit processing.

 

[jonoslack]

I bet it would be hard to detect a difference since they are both full frame and the Canon 1DsMKII is only 4 megs bigger, but the Nikon offers 14 bit ADA conversion with 16 bit processing.

Hi Peter and Marc
Thanks for the replies.
I'm dithering on the brink here :bugeyes:
How do you feel the D3 files compare to the M8 at low ISO?

 

[PeterA]

Jono ( sounds Aussie to me )
No way would I buy an M8 over a D3. The D3 is just such a more flexible machine. I realise this may be heretical and I am a Leica nut - bit for people who only want one system - it is a no brainer to go with an SLR like the D3. You should talk to Woody he has gone through the thinking and decision making from I guess a similar perspective to you already.
Today I think the D3 is a better all round shooter than my Canon 1dsmk11 - I cant comment on the Mk111 version - but I guess the fact that I didnt buy one is a comment. The 14-24 zoom looks special from Nikon.
But what can I say? for wide shooting I think Leica primes are better and I know Schneider on Alpa kills anything in 35mm land as well as anything I have tested in MFD land.

Will you see a difference between the zooms and the CaNikon vs other choices? unless you print LARGE - and I print 2x3' for as my standard size..well the differences are more academic than practical.

Hope this helps.

Pete

 

[gogopix]

Dear Peter,

You may want to look at the resulting images. An M8 with Leica glass is just so much more alive and exciting . Yews I was impressed by some of Guy's and Kurt's images (D300 and D3) with the AF glass. Yes. nailed the focus.

When I went back, they just seemed ok, maybe very ok, but I don't want a camera system that does ok.

AT the same time we have people talking about exciting prints up to 20x30 or higher with the M8.

But this isnt a skills test, it's about IQ and I just don't think the D3 is going to be as satisfying in the long run...

... for some people.

Regards
Victor

 

[PeterA]

Dear Victor,


If the choice was just one system thats where i am coming from in my answer. Yes I do like the M8 file - but I cant get 70/80/100/200/300/400 etc focal length in M8. I cant get hi ISO , I cant get auto focus , etc etc etc..

So my thoughts to Jono were based on the idea of just one system. No doubt teh modern DSLR delivers great flexibility.

if you are going to run mutliple systems - well then the world is your oyster isnt it?

Regarding file quality i am pretty comfortable being able to make a decent file that si printable with any system really.

Regards
Pete

 

[fotografz]

This debate is somewhat academic isn't it? It all has to do with what you shoot, for who, and what is done with it afterwards.

We all know from practical experience what is best suited to our needs. After 35+ years shooting an M camera, I know it's strengths and limitations pretty well ... and know what applications I can and cannot use it for effectively. The M8s chief attributes are relatively demure size and portability, and (IMO) incomparable fast aperture 35mm lenses (especially at the wide-angle end of the spectrum), that produce a wonderful file to make prints from ... really, more than one should expect from a crop frame 10 meg file. It's drawbacks are staggering costs for the best lenses with a narrow band of focal length applications to select from, and relatively poor high ISO performance compared to today's most common DSLRs ... comparatively weakening low light work once the domain of the Leica M and it's large aperture high performance optics.

RE: IQ ... obviously, the M8 is most excellent in this regard ... in the hands of expert shooters adept at post processing techniques, I do believe a 30X40 can be made ... but not necessarily from an ISO above 200. But if the end goal were a 30X40 print with IQ that is unquestionable, the M8 would not be my weapon of choice anyway ... and in fact may well be my last choice amongst what's available ... but neither would that choice be a D3.

The D3 brings something new to the party ... incomparable low light ability using an almost unlimited range of excellent AF optics ... not Leica quality optics perhaps, but AF consistency that will nail a shot in light so low it's hard to see anything ... using ISOs previously unheard of that keep shutter speeds high enough to hand-hold a moderate telephoto. I sure wouldn't count on it for 30X40 prints, but as I said ... were that the goal I'd use something else going in.

Gun to head, and I had to select one camera system to cover a broad spectrum of applications ... it currently would be the Canon 1DsMKIII. Not optimal in any one area, but highly capable in almost all of them. It's huge EOS mount accepts most any optical choice, encompassing some of the most celebrated optics ever produced ... including many Leica optics. There is no doubt a 30X40 can be easily made from its 22 meg full frame file, and it's low light high ISO performance is excellent. Applications range from wedding/event, street shooting, macro, super telephoto nature and sports, even studio applications.

Fortunately, I don't have to make that choice : -)

 

[gogopix]

Marc and Peter make excellent points. I was only providing the counterpoint; that is, for some, an 'all-in-one' camera may not be the best choice (and will admit that of all the cameras I do NOT have, the D3 is the one I would be most tempted to buy, for the reasons Marc and Peter point out :salute

However, between 12mm and 135mm I find the M8 my most used camera. In fact, many do not use telephoto (and of course the much neglected Visoflex produces excelent images as Jaap and others have shown). It is small, travelable, takes any flash in auto mode, has some of the sharpest Leica lenses, and opens the great INEXPENSIVE series of lenses from Voightlaender. That in itself could make a M8/VC combination the least expensive.

The D3 itself has limitations, such as size and less flexibility than the Canons (and soon Sony) due to registration distance. It does, however have the ZF lenses, but those are also available for the most part in ZM mounts.

The auto focus is likely the tip over the edge; that certainly makes photography easier,


regards
Victor

 

[Hacker]

I bet it would be hard to detect a difference since they are both full frame and the Canon 1DsMKII is only 4 megs bigger, but the Nikon offers 14 bit ADA conversion with 16 bit processing.

Anyone with comparisons between the D3 and the 1DS III?

 

[fotografz]

Anyone with comparisons between the D3 and the 1DS III?

Yes, me

Two different animals actually.

The choice of lenses for the 1DsMKIII makes a fairly obvious difference. APO optics really perform well on this camera as do some Zeiss lenses via an adapter. The MKIII is excellent when the right lens is mounted, but shows the short comings of many Canon L optics that are in need of updating.

The D3 is a much better low light camera, and some Nikon optics have been updated to perform well on this 12 meg., 14 bit machine ... plus Zeiss makes some fully coupled manual focus lenses that also perform well on it.

I see the D3 as a direct competitor to the Canon 1DMKII as opposed to the 1DsMKIII. The D3 wins this comparison, but the 1DMKIII is no slouch.