View Full Version : M6 vs Nikon F80 SLR
windraider
08-19-2007, 22:03
A cautionary tale to those that think a Leica makes you a better photographer.
After having my F80 serviced, I popped in a roll for a day at the playground with my children. Had my newly acquired M6 with me that day too.
The popular AFD 28-105mm nikkor was on the F80 and 35mm & 50mm Summicrons on the M6.
With all the glowing opinions on Leica lenses, I thought that the images from the summicrons would blow the consumer zoom away but was I wrong. Couldn't tell the difference in resolution with Kodak Supra 200 in 4x6 in prints, but the F80's AF & autoexposure sure made a difference in capturing the moment.
Leica lenses definitely have their unique signature (IMO contrast of background/OOF areas are a shade lower than subjects less than 3m away regardless of aperture - thus giving the Leica pop/glow on the subjects?). However this signature is lost when subject is more than 3m away and images were just blah. Doubt Leica lenses will make a difference for lanscapes or architecture - but for a lack of experience don't take my word for it.
Just wondering whether I've should have just stuck with Nikons:bang:
windraider
08-19-2007, 22:18
Another vaunted Leica myth - silent shutter.
I always thought that the Leica's shutter was not really that quiet ( I had a M5 previously - shutter sounds slightly louder than that of an M6). But perhaps after spending soooo much on Leicas (pls don't tell my wife) I was unwilling to admit this. Furthermore it was definitely quieter than my D200 and Olympus OM SLRs (despite that much touted pnuematic mirror dampers).
But my fears were confirmed when my 6 yr old son mentioned that the F80's shutter is way quieter than the m6's. After that I waited till we were alone in the house, sat him down in the bedroom and made him listen to me firing every shutter in my camera collection. The M6 was the second quietest shutter but the winner by a mile is the F80.
For all his efforts my son requested that I leave the F80 for him when he is older.
mfunnell
08-19-2007, 22:28
RF cameras are good for, well, what they're good at. If you need or want auto-exposure you could always use an M7 or a ZI or (my choice) a Hexar RF. If you wanted that and AF and the (theoretically, at least) greater precision of RF focus (and great Zeiss optics) at middle focal lengths you could use a G2. If shutter noise is your real bugbear you could use a Hexar (the AF one, not the RF). Or maybe the F80 really is the camera for you, and RFs (and similar) just aren't your style of camera.
Horses for courses, and all.
...Mike
The results don't surprise me at all. The 28-105 may be called a consumer zoom, but it's definately not the bottom of the line Nikon.. Same goes for the F80.
Leica (and any RF camera for that matter) is deffinately an aquired taste. Is it better? NO. Is it worse - NO. Well, which is it than? I think it comes down to a couple of things - each type of camera is better for a specific task and also some people just relate better or more to some cameras vs others.
I, personally, like all kinds. I have SLRs and RFs and MF and P&S. All have their uses and all I enjoy using. If you only use one system for a long time, I'm sure you could perfect your skill to take a better photo with it in just about any situation. But than again - SLRs are better at Macro and Sports, Others better at something else.
I'd say - while Leica or other RF system can "potentially" make you a better photographer due to the quality and style this system requires, some things are just up to any given person. It's OK to prefer other systems. After all - its all about the final result, right?
I agree with Mark's "horses for courses".
I do like my F80+50/1.8 which for those times when you can't / don't care for all manual exposure and focussing. Like taking photos of over-active kids :)
It's also the quietest SLR I've used and it's nice being able to seperate the shutter/mirror from the windon.
But then, later, you'll realise that the M6 is grand for some other part of your photo taking self and the equilibrium will be restored.
And you'll be happy you have RF and SLR.
drewbarb
08-19-2007, 22:59
While I'm not one of those who can't hear the idea that there could be a better camera than Leica, are you sure you aren't comparing photo-finishing jobs? Lame processing and poor prints can really level the playing field dramatically sometimes.
That said, AF and auto exposure can sometimes do more for your images than any Summicron.
waileong
08-19-2007, 23:47
1. Leica doesn't make you become a better photographer. On the contrary, you become a better photographer to use Leica.
2. It's not easy to tell the difference on 4x6 prints, esp. on negative film. If the lab does the prints for you, you have no control over the prints and so you can't make an apples to apples comparison.
3. It follows from 2 that you must shoot slides to remove variable (ie the lab, in this case), then you might be able see the differences.
4. If you're focusing and trying to match the two arrows for every shot, you're doing it wrong. Unless the light is changing by the minute, there's no reason to keep working the exposure. One lightmeter reading of a gray card is all you need, maintain that exposure till the light changes.
Once you understand more about exposure, you'll know that autoexposure frequently gets it wrong, but the tolerance of negative films makes up for it. With just one reading of a gray card, you can get the correct exposure on your M6 for every shot. And you'll not miss the next shot because you're trying to match the two lighted arrows.
5. Ditto for focus, if you're trying to focus for every shot, you're overdoing it. Learn to use zone focus, esp. with your 35 mm.
AF may seem fast, but once you understand this, your camera will be faster than AF because you don't even need to focus as long as you're within the zone.
6. Leica's are a poor choice for landscape. The tripod hole is off centre, you can't use a polarizer conveniently, you can't even frame precisely, etc.
Bottom line:
Learn to use a Leica the way it was designed. Learn to anticipate the picture (ie both eyes open, able to see what's in and outside the framelines), learn to zone focus, learn to expose, learn to make use of the extremely short shutter lag and shoot at the decisive moment, learn to shoot each picture only once, learn to let go.
Once you can learn all this, you will become a better photographer.
A cautionary tale to those that think a Leica makes you a better photographer.
After having my F80 serviced, I popped in a roll for a day at the playground with my children. Had my newly acquired M6 with me that day too.
The popular AFD 28-105mm nikkor was on the F80 and 35mm & 50mm Summicrons on the M6.
With all the glowing opinions on Leica lenses, I thought that the images from the summicrons would blow the consumer zoom away but was I wrong. Couldn't tell the difference in resolution with Kodak Supra 200 in 4x6 in prints, but the F80's AF & autoexposure sure made a difference in capturing the moment.
Leica lenses definitely have their unique signature (IMO contrast of background/OOF areas are a shade lower than subjects less than 3m away regardless of aperture - thus giving the Leica pop/glow on the subjects?). However this signature is lost when subject is more than 3m away and images were just blah. Doubt Leica lenses will make a difference for lanscapes or architecture - but for a lack of experience don't take my word for it.
Just wondering whether I've should have just stuck with Nikons:bang:
one would not expect to see optical differences using 200 speed film on a tiny print! shoot slide film and print them 12x16 and one would expect to see differences. Might not leap out at you, but shoot your nikkor zoom wide open at say, f4 and then try to leica primes at the same aperture.....
Besides, I use my SLR for shooting kids (so to speak) as I find it the better tool for the job. If you do too, no problem!
If you want to do street photography, you might find the Leica preferable for a number of reasons.
With fine grained film and medium to large prints I would use the Leica every time for landscapes etc, personally.
RFs dont replace SLRs.
waileong
08-20-2007, 00:02
One other thing: if your M6 is louder than your F80, it may be time for a service. I know my M4 makes a delicious and sexy "schick" sound when I shoot, it's soft and it's cloth.
windraider
08-20-2007, 02:17
Yeah I'm new with my M6 & summicrons so I skipped hyperfocusing just to see what the image quality was like when accurately focused - quite good for close ups and in low light. Usually took one exposure reading per scene, but when only one triangle is lighted I get paranoid - maybe the M5's analog needle meter is better in this respect as it shows how far it deviates from the recommended exposure.
Don't get me wrong, I know I didn't do a scientific test to prove that Nikkors are equal to Leicas in resolution or other qualities, its just that the Leica didn't make much of a difference in what it was suppose to excel in - street photography (I presume kids at a playground would qualify as a street scene). I was hoping to show my wife that Leica would give a quantum leap even with cheap fim & print, now I don't even dare show her the photos next to the F80's pics:o
I'll burn a few more rolls thru the M6 to get the hang of it - my pics may not be that great yet but it sure is a fine handling camera.
On the point about shutter sound:
I've tried at least 15 other Leica bodies before I bought one. While definitely quieter than all other SLRs I've handled, I don't think the quietness of the shutter was what attracted me. Actually you must really hear the F80's shutter for yourselves - nothing like a SLR almost a whisper. Tried the AF Hexar once, shutter acoustics didn't strike me as significantly quiet and with a fixed 35mm lense I didn't think it was any different from an Olympus mju - am I missing anything?
windraider
08-20-2007, 02:26
Yeah AF can sometime be a real pain in low light and off-centre subjects.
Otherwise its sweet for the lazy photobug in me and I can always blame the system for missing a shot (actually I'm slow in composing my photos most of the time - but sshh).
Call me conventional but I just love the film advance wind-on in manual cameras. Don't care for motordrives and other automatic film advance contraptions.
Post deleted by posters request
waileong
08-20-2007, 03:36
1. The "recommended" exposure is nothing more than 18% gray. You know that, right?
2. You cannot appreciate image quality with 4x6s. Esp. those printed by workers earning min wage.
3. Yes, you can show better resolution and contrast (resolution, lpm, etc) with your Leica lens, but prob will need a tripod. Handheld camera shake is the great leveller.
Generally, better pictures from Leicas come not from technical qualities , but from better composition, subject and expression. In other words, you can shoot at the decisive moment because of your min shutter lag, you can shoot discreetly because your camera is small and light, you can shoot without flash because your lens is fast, you can shoot creatively because you can open both eyes and anticipate the action.
4. Kids at a playground is "action" photography to me.
Yeah I'm new with my M6 & summicrons so I skipped hyperfocusing just to see what the image quality was like when accurately focused - quite good for close ups and in low light. Usually took one exposure reading per scene, but when only one triangle is lighted I get paranoid - maybe the M5's analog needle meter is better in this respect as it shows how far it deviates from the recommended exposure.
Don't get me wrong, I know I didn't do a scientific test to prove that Nikkors are equal to Leicas in resolution or other qualities, its just that the Leica didn't make much of a difference in what it was suppose to excel in - street photography (I presume kids at a playground would qualify as a street scene). I was hoping to show my wife that Leica would give a quantum leap even with cheap fim & print, now I don't even dare show her the photos next to the F80's pics:o
I'll burn a few more rolls thru the M6 to get the hang of it - my pics may not be that great yet but it sure is a fine handling camera.
On the point about shutter sound:
I've tried at least 15 other Leica bodies before I bought one. While definitely quieter than all other SLRs I've handled, I don't think the quietness of the shutter was what attracted me. Actually you must really hear the F80's shutter for yourselves - nothing like a SLR almost a whisper. Tried the AF Hexar once, shutter acoustics didn't strike me as significantly quiet and with a fixed 35mm lense I didn't think it was any different from an Olympus mju - am I missing anything?
Couldn't tell the difference in resolution with Kodak Supra 200 in 4x6 in prints
Honestly, almost *anything* looks good (or can look good, if exposure and focus are not too far off) on 4x6 prints from a decent minilab. The question is: what does a cropped 11x14 look like? Or, back when film ruled and KM25 was king, what does a slide look like at 12x18 feet?
Just wondering whether I've should have just stuck with Nikons
I use SLRs and RFs side by side, but not often at the same time. I have come and gone and come back again on RF photography over 35 years. It does somethings better, but it doesn't do it all. One thing I found frustrating was young children, though I'm sure better photographers than I can do that well with RFs. For adults, especially relatively intimate photos, nothing touches the RFs still, at least for me. YMMV. Consider persevering.
Yeah AF can sometime be a real pain in low light and off-centre subjects.
Call me a heretic, but the same holds for an RF. It can be a pain in low light, and requires the focus/recompose dance for off-center subjects.
Instead, my (d)SLRs can focus in light where I would have trouble seeing the RF spot double image, and that's without the AF assist on the flash kicking in. With the grid pattern cast by the flash, the AF works in total darkness, or on subjects that have no contrast. And the off-center AF spots mean I don't even have to focus/recompose..
one would not expect to see optical differences using 200 speed film on a tiny print! shoot slide film and print them 12x16 and one would expect to see differences. Might not leap out at you, but shoot your nikkor zoom wide open at say, f4 and then try to leica primes at the same aperture......
Hardly a fair comparisson in my view. Sure, it's reasonable to expect that a $400 zoom won't do as well as a $1000 prime. But the moment you compare similarly priced lenses, you'll find the field leveled..
Hardly a fair comparisson in my view. Sure, it's reasonable to expect that a $400 zoom won't do as well as a $1000 prime. But the moment you compare similarly priced lenses, you'll find the field leveled..
Of course comparing a $1000 prime with a $400 consumer lens is not fair, but the OP compared results from two lenses fitting this description. Similar comments could have been made wrt a SLR prime, I agree.
I happen to see a big difference in shooting great color neg or slide film in brilliant light.
You kind of have to think of it like....you won't really see much of a difference between a Corvette or a Ferrari F50 if you are stuck in traffic.
Leicas are the choice of some of the best photographers in the world for a reason...
Post deleted by posters request
but if the ferrari and Corvette got out into open road, which would you use; a duck or a tea towel?
Handholding is somewhat of a leveller, but only shen shutter speeds are low. When speeds are high, even just 125th with a 50mm optical performance is really quite obvious. Differences are visible slower than that, but depend on how steady you are. Contrast and colour is quite obvious all the time. I have SLRs and do not choose not to use them on the basis of optical performance. some lenses ae great and even when they are not the best around, if they get the job done? Of course if you play to the strenghts of an SLR, a RF will be found lacking more often than not. The converse can also hold true.
kshapero
08-21-2007, 02:50
When in doubt reread waileong (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/member.php?u=767)'s post above.
windraider
08-21-2007, 04:02
Hmm the Ferrari vs Corvette analogy has gotten me thinking:
- if I want cheap & good 4x6in prints (ie cheap film & processing - just the average Joe) no need to get a Leica; or
- does Leica's quality shines thru even in cheap 4x6in prints with good techniques & in critical situations (ie low light)?
I just want to know as I'm usually shooting ISO200 films & printing 4x6in prints at the local photolab - would Leica's resolutions make a diff in your experience? I'm not a pro & my photos are usually for my family album.
In the past I've gotten noticeably better pics with slower/finer grain film on the Nikon systems before but faster film gives more flexibility with zooms. Just haven't got much experience with the Leica to know the diff.
windraider
08-21-2007, 04:14
Waileong - thanks for your detailed contributions.
I appreciate the techniques and situations that bring out the best in a Leica system but was just wondering if there was an inherent & obvious "superiority" in its image making abilities in all situations - I know I'm heavily influenced by all the marketing & rave reviews in all the forums.
Not really into slides due to cost & the need for loupes, but will be trying out my M6 with slower films & the mentioned photo techniques to see if its fits any of my phototaking needs.
Probably just the difference in autofocus vs eye focus.
Also, I try to shoot wide open too much with my RF, with resulting soft images.
Most zoom lenses don't have such a large maximum aperture.
navilluspm
08-21-2007, 04:22
My advice is to sell the Leica M6 and get a Carl Zeiss ZF Planar 85/ 1.4 for your Nikon. I personally do not own this lens yet, but really want to, and am saving up for the used Contax version for my SLR. Here you would have a low light lens for your camera, with wonderful bokeh, that truly would make a difference in a 6x4 print (if you shoot it wide open or close to wide open). Just do some research on this lens. It might very well be a good compromise for you with the type of shooting you are intersted in.
waileong
08-21-2007, 04:42
1. Leica lenses excel wide open. See http://www.dantestella.com/technical/photodo.html and http://www.dantestella.com/technical/conceit.html to understand why. If you want superiority, compare your wide open Leica shots with your wide open SLR shots.
2. However, if you can become a better photographer after mastering exposure, composition, decisive moment shooting, etc. then your pictures will be obviously and inherently superior, for content reasons, not technical reasons.
3. Loupes are cheap these days. Certainly if you can afford a Leica you can afford a loupe. They also scan a lot better than negs, and you can see the colour accuracy of your scan more easily. Once scanned, printing is no different. But shooting slides will teach you a lot more about exposure.
Waileong - thanks for your detailed contributions.
I appreciate the techniques and situations that bring out the best in a Leica system but was just wondering if there was an inherent & obvious "superiority" in its image making abilities in all situations - I know I'm heavily influenced by all the marketing & rave reviews in all the forums.
Not really into slides due to cost & the need for loupes, but will be trying out my M6 with slower films & the mentioned photo techniques to see if its fits any of my phototaking needs.
Echoing the post above, with some of the better Leica lenses I think the difference can be seen even in 4x6 prints. It depends on the specific lens and on your technique and the conditions. The better lenses can really show their edge wide open, against the light (absence of flare) and can yield a really 3-D effect. One of my absolute favorites (not an RF lens, unfortunately) is the 100mm Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R. On paper, some reviewers say it's been passed by more modern lenses, but on film I don't believe it. The 90mm Apo Asph Summicrom-M would be another example, but there are others.
Wide open you just have to be careful with DOF. Quick moving subjects like kids would go in and out of focus IF DOF was shallow.
I don't think anyone needs to question if a Leica lens is not as good as a consumer grade Nikon zoom.
windraider
12-06-2007, 06:53
OK finally managed to trail the M6 vs the F80 with velvia 50 slides inside a church.
All shots are hand held and taken wide open but shutter speeds are different to compensate for difference in aperture - I know not really scientific but reflects real world usage (ie with low max aperture would have to suffer from effects of low shutter speed)
Can you tell the difference?
90mm: 90mm Elmarit v1 @f2.8 vs Nikkor 28-105mm AF-D @90mm f4
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=74686&ppuser=1954
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=74687&ppuser=1954
windraider
12-06-2007, 06:58
35mm: 35mm Summicron v2 vs Nikkor 28-105mm AF-D @35mm f3.5
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=74684&ppuser=1954
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=74685&ppuser=1954
I'm getting "Invalid Attachment specified" for three out of four of them.
But the one I can see is a tiny little scan that is far too small to see any differences (unless it's a small portion at full resolution?)
hans voralberg
12-06-2007, 07:31
Can only see 1 pic and it's bloody small ?
windraider
12-06-2007, 07:33
I'm getting "Invalid Attachment specified" for three out of four of them.
But the one I can see is a tiny little scan that is far too small to see any differences (unless it's a small portion at full resolution?)
Apologies - seem to have problems uploading photos and file size is limited to 300k each.
Anyway have linked to the gallery - feel free to advise me if anyone has a better solution.
hans voralberg
12-06-2007, 08:04
Do you have a flickr account ? Upload bigger pic on there might help because it's like viewing slide without a loupe looking at pics in the gallery
Unfortunately those pictures are far too small to be able to see any difference between lenses - we'd need to see original full-sized high res scans taken from negatives, and the scanning resolution would need to be sufficiently good. Or if those would be too big to post anywhere, we'd need to see full-res samples cropped from the centre and the edge of the frame.
And even then, you've chosen a very poor subject for a lens test. You really need a subject that has a lot of detail, both highlight and shadow, all the way to the edges of the frame. And you'd also need a good range of brightnesses in the image too. Your shots are of a super high contrast subject (bright window or completely black shadow), with no detail anywhere near the edges and nothing close to subtle tonal differences.
nikonhswebmaster
12-06-2007, 08:21
With all the glowing opinions on Leica lenses, I thought that the images from the summicrons would blow the consumer zoom away but was I wrong. Couldn't tell the difference in resolution with Kodak Supra 200 in 4x6 in prints, but the F80's AF & autoexposure sure made a difference in capturing the moment.:
Using 4x6 prints you might have been able to stick with a high end throwaway like the Kodak Ultra Compact Flash, under the right circumstances.
http://images.ciao.com/iuk/images/products/normal/690/product-5347690.jpg
I once stopped a paper oil can assembly line (where they wind the paper) to take a photo where the paper came together. I was the assistant, and helped set up the 4x5 for the photo. The photographer managed to bring empty film holders. So he said, I have to send fred out to pick up some film from our car. I went to a drugstore, bought a throwaway, and quietly used it to make a "record of the setup."
The photo appeared on the cover... everyone loved its grainy quality.
Gray Fox
12-06-2007, 09:05
Interestingly, I made a similar test yesterday with my N/F 80 with a recently acquired 28-80 kit lens ala Ken Rockwell (black plastic, EX condition for $47 from KEH) and my Contax G2 with its 35-70 sonnar ($650 +/- from KEH). Both had Kodak Portra 400 VC rated at 250 in a variety of landscape found objects shot under hazy bright sun. I shot each shot with the same basic aperture and shutter speed with each camera. Finished both rolls and headed to my local Sam's Club for developing and scanning to CD. Came home and viewed the CDs. Even though I tried my best with both cameras, I missed focus on a couple of the G2 shots, but none with the N80. Framing, of course, was a lot easier for me with the SLR, simply because I use them more often. I, too, was surprised that the quality of the images and the views into the shadows seemed about the same with each. I had shot basicly the same shots at the same location (an old grist mill and dam) the day before with my D80 10 mp and the images were much sharper, but did not have quite the shadow or highlight detail of the Kodak film. I guess the bottom line for me here is that if I want a walking around film camera with more image potential than the D80 I need to invest in something like a Fuji GA645Zi, but that will be another project entirely! I found the film rated at 250 to be just about right and under those light conditions the colors did not seem overly saturated.
windraider
12-07-2007, 06:21
OK got a Flickr a/c - here's the 90mms again - Elmarit v1 vs AF-D 28-105
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21636781@N06/2092790959/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21636781@N06/2092790953/
windraider
12-07-2007, 06:25
Here's the 35mm comparision - Summicron v2 vs AF-D 28-105
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21636781@N06/2092808249/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21636781@N06/2092808251/
windraider
12-07-2007, 06:41
And even then, you've chosen a very poor subject for a lens test. You really need a subject that has a lot of detail, both highlight and shadow, all the way to the edges of the frame. And you'd also need a good range of brightnesses in the image too. Your shots are of a super high contrast subject (bright window or completely black shadow), with no detail anywhere near the edges and nothing close to subtle tonal differences.
I see your point - Oh well an excuse to go out and take more photos :D
Anyway if anyone is interested - here are more stained glass pics taken with summicrons & the elmarit:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21636781@N06/?saved=1
hans voralberg
12-07-2007, 07:38
Between the 90 Elmarit and the AFD @ 90mm I think the Elmarit still have a tiny bit more detail, in the green leaves bit.
In the 35mm, I cant tell, because they seems to be differently exposed.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.