Post Honeymoon?

[TRSmith]

The end of the year approaches and once again I'm looking to make a small purchase. This year I'm considering a D700 body and one new Nikon lens. Before I do, I thought I'd check in with those of you who jumped on the Nikon FF wagon early and have spent some time with the cameras. Are you still in love?

I ask because the other option I'm considering is to expand my Leica gear. Even (gasp) to keep saving for the release of the S2. It's actually a tough call for me. And yes, it's "either or" since I'm A. not made of money, and B. married long enough to the same woman so that she's become completely hip to my tricks of persuasion.

My main attraction to the D700 is the abilities it offers in close and tele applications. And, I confess to being curious about the larger sensor.

Anyone who also uses the M8 care to offer their impressions after having spent time with both systems?

Thanks!
Tim

 

[Bob]

I sold my D3 and might replace it with a D700, but I am waiting for the next Nikon announcement. I am also considering a 5DII after I get to se some files. I was pretty disappointed by the relatively poor showing of the AF Nion primes, but as other have pointed out, there are ZF alternatives.
-bob

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Why poor showing Bob? Not sharp or disappointed with the AF relative to their canon bretheren?

One of the big sticking points which stopped me from switching to Nikon a couple of months back was the price for slow focusing primes compared to the super cheap, super fast focusing and super sharp Canon primes such as the 50/85/100 that I use for wedding use and love. To be honest I'm glad I did hold off. Money started to become incredibly tight, my credit cards need paying off and the bookings are a lot slower and people aren't taking the expensive packages anymore.

 

[helenhill]

Expand Leica Gear or GASP....S2
is my VOTE


Nikon is sooooo Boring, homogenized & slick
the everybody's gear (sorry to ALL my Nikon gearhead Friends )
Think Different , Be Different
or buy some retro Film Gear- CHEAP
I mean you do have an M8
how much more Digital do you need (or just add a great pocket cam Ricoh or the new coming sigma for a Digital Thrill)

Be HAPPY .....

Cheers ! H

 

[TRSmith]

I tend to think along the same lines as you do Helen. I'm not terribly excited by Nikon. Although having seen a D700 in person I was really impressed with the size of it. The thing is, I have a trip planned for April that will take me pretty far off the grid and I am not going to go with just the one M8. And it isn't looking like the S2 will be available by then. So kind of looking for that other system to bring along. It might be, as you say, a second M.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Honestly after shooting MF it is really hard to think 35mm again. i know it certainly has it's place but you know right off the bat it will never beat your MF quality. So you buy the Nikons for other reasons for sure and those reasons have to be a real need.

 

[robmac]

Having played with a lot of D3/D700 NEF files (taken with uber long Nikons like the 200-400, etc) a Nikon pro was kind enough to send me on CD, I'll make some observations for your consideration.

Context: I have shot older Nikon DSLRs an have been shooting Canon (1Ds, 1Ds2, 5D, 1D2, 30D) with alternate (CV, ZF, Leica, Mamiya) glass and have now settled on Leica R and Mamiya on my 1Ds2.

- You'd look at the shots and go "nice'", then look at the ISO in EXIF and go "holy cr*p!"

- I torqued the NEFs with NX2, RD, C1V4, etc - all have their +/- on NEF files, with RD really doing nice work (see below).

- I found the D3/D700 NEF files required careful processing to get the acuity to pop. Don't know if it's firmware manipulation for NR or the AA filter, but even low ISO shots required LOTS of careful sharpening to come close to matching the performance (in acuity terms) of say a 5D or 1Ds/1Ds2 staright from the camera (assuming good glass) or with a light USM/smart sharpen pass.

- RD with it's R-L deconvolution sharpening did the best when it came to bringing out fine detail.

- I'd seriously thought of moving to Nikon, but after playing with the files decided I didn't want to invest the time in PP required - despite the (D700s) great feature set and high ISO performance.

Again, juts my experience, others will vary.

 

[TRSmith]

Thanks to everyone for your response. What's emerging is a conclusion that can be drawn from what's NOT being said. I'm not hearing any sort of ringing endorsement for the D700 or that it provides a nice compliment to the M8. Maybe what I need to do is to continue to wait a bit more for that next addition and hope that the S2 fits me as I hope it will.

There's something about the current state of medium format digital that doesn't feel right for me. Maybe it's because I remember the old film Hassleblad and Mamiya 645 days. My memory (which could be wrong) is that in order to get any kind of depth of field required a lot of light. Either flash or full on sunlight. And that they were big and awkward and not really made to withstand the elements. All of which pigeon-holed them in my mind as studio cameras. It's a preconception I guess, one that's hard to break.

Since I don't have a business reason for the MF level of quality and simply want to tickle myself with the joy of shooting, I think I'll add another M8 body as a backup for my trip and look around for a nice 50mm lens. And continue to wait for the S2. :thumbup:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Not much is going to beat a M8 and i think many of us know that , need high ISO than get a Nikon other than that the quality is not better than the M8. Now if shooting stuff outside the M8 realm of limitations than obviously you need the Nikons or Canons. Mf does have the DOF limitations and is a little bulkier but not bad . For travel maybe not the right choice. Besides if your going to have a backup than have the same primary otherwise it really is not a backup. But just another system to carry. JMBA
New acronym . Just My Biased Answer :ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

okay in a silly mood this morning

 

[TRSmith]

You're 100% correct about the backup Guy. You have artfully exposed my latent GAS! So many cool toys out there it's hard to resist sometimes.

 

[ecliffordsmith]

Hi Tim,

I cannot offer any advice I am afraid as I have never owned a DSLR. How likely are you to need macro/tele functionality and high ISO? From what I have seen of your images you appear to shoot a lot in good light and as you are well aware the M8 with a Leica lens offers very pleasing, low maintainance results.

How about compact incase the M8 fails? Or an M8.2???

 

[nei1]

Tim,my advice if you want to stretch yourself is to buy a second hand M6 ,a 50mm summilux and take nothing else,you will return from the wilderness a better man!
p.s. some film might be a good idea! Tri X only!

 

[mwalker]

I may be jumping in here late but I bought a D700 and the new Nikon (24-70 ?) lens and took it to wyoming with the M8 in September. When I got home I worked on the M8 images less than four minutes each in PP. The Nikon much longer and could never get them quite to the M8 level. I sold the D700. That said, I'm thinking about buying a D300 for car races and things that I don't consder art mainly for the sensor crop factor and extra reach. I wish along with the S2 launch they would offer a R10!

 

[TRSmith]

Ed: Yes, I think the most practical purchase is likely to be the M8.2 body, or even a used M8 (they seem to be dropping in price). And that's probably where I'll end up.

nei1: I have my trusty Nikon F3 that's been serviced and ready to rock. There's a half-exposed roll of Tri-X in it now and that's as far as I'm willing to go with film at this point. I hate not having a darkroom and won't invest in a technology (film) that essentially puts big barriers in front of my ability/desire to shoot. Laziness is enough of a factor to overcome.

Mike: Your story about the D700 is not the only one with the same ending that I've heard. So I have decided to NOT buy the D700. What's that old song... "how you gonna keep them down on the farm, after they've seen Pareee?"


Thanks,
Tim

 

[nei1]

Glad that youve kept a toe in the water Tim,one of the few cameras that Im sorely tempted by is the f6.

 

[Jonathon Delacour]

Sad to see the D700 not getting any love (in the Nikon forum, no less!).

I realize I might be happier with the M8's superior image quality, as long as I was willing/able to:
* spend considerably more money on both camera and lenses;
* tolerate Leica's (no longer legendary) service and support;
* shoot at 640 ISO or lower;
* purchase what seems to be the essential accessory for any serious M8 shooter -- a second (backup) body.

I'd also like nothing more than to have a girlfriend who is loving, rich, beautiful, generous, intelligent, kind, witty, forgiving... but I'm old enough to understand that everything in life is a compromise. The D700 is the best photographic compromise I've ever been fortunate enough to own (and I've owned Leica, Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Fuji, Linhof, and Sinar cameras).

To be honest, this whole thread seems (to me) like a joke really. I've struggled all my life to get anywhere remotely close to the "quality" that Eugene Atget, Bill Brandt, Walker Evans, Lisette Model, Robert Frank, Helen Levitt, William Klein, Diane Arbus et al achieved with equipment that was (technically) pathetic compared to what we have available today. Would any of them have accomplished significantly more with an M8 or a D700? I doubt it.

Yet, as a substitute for magical pictures, we settle for this interminable argument about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Jonathon the M8 is no bed of roses either and your points are well taken and well acknowledged by everyone that owns one and well on point. I think I can clarify a little here. What you have in this thread are folks that actually shoot the M8 exclusively and what there issue or wall they are looking at is the D700 image wise does not match up as nicely as the M8 files. i think that is the main counterpoint to the D700 which on it's own is a very capable machine and i don't really seeing anyone saying truly anything different it has it all and Nikon has truly raised the bar on it and all of us would be happy to own one but there is a but in there. For MF shooters like me 35mm has Zero interest anymore and if anything want a M8 because of the image quality for one and two the size weight of having a image maker that comes close to MF. For others it is they have the M8 and all there really buying in a Nikon or canon is capabilities and a lot of M8 shooters are not hard core shooters that need that type of speed about the only thing of interest to them is the high ISO but they also have to work at there images in post a lot more. The lenses from Nikon and Canon and i will get flamed for this are good and some very good but in 35mm that level of glass needs to be high to get the best out of 35mm , Leica and Zeiss are only the two that actually really stand on top of the podium for that. i owned everything and nothing in 35mm impressed me until I got the DMR and/or M8 when it came to glass . Snob yes and actually many of us are when it comes to lens output especially in 35mm where you need the highest resolving power you can get your hands on. I think most people on this forum are what i would classify as discriminate buyers they been down this road before and shot some of the best glass around and when buying something else there expectations are not being meet and wind up selling that system off and for many reasons too.

Now I do disagree with your last comments in a sense that better equipment and as a Pro that better gear makes your life easier to deal with the image than play games with the gear and actually trust the gear to explore the creative. Would it have helped some of the greats. It sure would have because they would have taken the technology present today and used that to there best advantage. Maybe there images would not have been better but getting there would have freed them when shooting to think more and actually use the technology to there advantage and work habits . So yes i still buy the fact that good gear helps the output. Now that comes from someone that is not afraid to work really hard to get a image so it is not the work ethic it is the freedom it helps you.

 

[fotografz]

I'll go against the grain here.

I'd take a D700 over a M8 every single second, of every day, of every month ... when shooting in the real world as opposed to an ideal one.

I'm not talking about all the functional trials and tribulations one has to put up with just to use a M8. I'm talking about getting the shot, first and foremost. I'm also talking about trusting your camera. Or being able to shoot in low light. Or shoot without "specular light" filter reflections in low ambient light. Or getting something fixed without being a brother-in-law to someone at Leica, or working overtime to smooze the service secretary Or selling off all your Goats just to buy one lens

Image quality from the D700 can be every bit as good as the M8s or nearly so ... IF, (BIG IF), one spends as much time as they did zeroing in profiles for the M8. The ZF optics do help and cost a fraction of their Leica counterparts ... but some of the new Nikon glass is pretty stellar for production work.

I do massive amounts of images in the business I'm in, and you get to the heart of it pretty quick. While I would love to shoot every wedding with a MFD camera, I would need the computing power of the Pentagon to process weddings fast enough.

I also did massive amounts of images for years with Canon (5D, 1DMKII&III, 1DsMKII&III) ... the D3 and D700 files do NOT need more sharpening ... in fact it was quite the opposite with every Canon file I ever shot. Waxy and plastic. The 1DMKIII was particularly bad. I tend to think those saying differently haven't spent much time with the cameras and working out the optimal settings for each one.

Nice "fat pixel" 12 meg files without a crop factor keeps it real, the high ISO is clearly superior, and post is manageable when processing a 500 to 800 image wedding every freaking' week. The Nikon Prime lens line up does need help ... but I gotta say my 200/2VR barks with the best, and the new 100/2.8 VR Macro is excellent. The new 24-70/2.8 Zoom is waaaaaay better than Canon's in every way, and there simply is nothing Canon makes below 35mm that comes close to the new Nikon 14-24/2.8.

BTW, if you don't discriminate against film, in my humble opinion, the Nikon F6 including select Zeiss ZF optics is the best all around 35mm system available today, including anything from Leica (and, yes, I've owned and shot with "everything" from Leica.)

Just keeping it real folks ... different needs ... and if my need was just a few shots I'd do snaps with a P&S and the rest with a MFD camera.

 

[PeterA]

TR - I have a D3 with less than 1000 actuations and have owned it and a number of lenses including older Nikon , new auto everything zooms and some Zeiss Nikon mount stuff.

I hardly ever use it. Dont get me wrong, it is a fantastic camera - with many many features and benefits ( most of which I dont use !! ) - if I were buying today I would go for the D700 - because it is a smaller 'package'.

However - I wouldn't spend a buck until you see the S2 - looks like this camera might deliver the compactness and the IQ via high megapixels. But all these MFD cameras require a different approach to shooting - a lot of care is required to get the megapixel benefits - you wont get super sharp unless you use high shutter speeds and or tripod and or lights...and it is easy to get blahh shots if you dont shoot to their strengths.

Everything is a compromise - one way or another. Meanwhile - the M8 used right - delivers..

sorry if I sound like a party pooper:salute:

 

[etrigan63]

I have to agree with fotografz. I have an M8 (love it) and a D300 (workhorse). I shoot the M8 when there is no pressure and I can take my time. With the v2 firmware, my post processing times are shorter. If I am doing a job or traveling, the D300 is my tool of choice, able to quickly adapt to rapidly changing situations. As for low-light, while it is not in the D700's league, it is capable of shots like this:

D300 + 18-200 VR kit lens ISO 1600 handheld. Almost no PP in LR2 (just my personal D300 profiles applied).