View Full Version : M9 vs D700
kshapero
11-08-2009, 10:57
Two great cameras, but almost $4500 difference.:eek: Can you justify the M9?
kipkeston
11-08-2009, 11:13
Nope but maybe later.
Roger Hicks
11-08-2009, 11:17
Can you justify buying a camera you don't really want anything like as much, just because it's cheaper?
A camera that's completely different in design philosophy, handling, weight and complexity?
Not a hard choice -- if you want the M9 badly enough.
Cheers,
R.
For the size, photographic style, lenses it uses and quality of images. I say yes.
I thought about switching. to either a Canon or Nikon system. While it would be more cash savvy. It really wouldn't be worth the hassle.
kshapero
11-08-2009, 11:44
I am about halfway there in saving up for the M9.
Roger Hicks
11-08-2009, 11:49
I am about halfway there in saving up for the M9.
And if you don't waste your money on a D700, you'll get there...
Cheers,
R.
Apple vs. Oranges. Both are fruit. That's about the only similarity. Same with D700 & M9.
No, the price is obscene, vulgar.
David_Manning
11-08-2009, 12:43
D700 is brilliant...but it's a different shooting style. My own opinion is that for digital cameras, it really can't be beat, especially factoring in the entry price. It's SO much faster to shoot well, and much more flexible, than an RF camera.
On the other hand, I love my M6 because it's so compact but has FF depth of field.
I'm not sure I could live with either one exclusively. For me, the D700 for speed and existing light, a film M for RF-style slow, methodical, surreptitious, thoughtful storytelling.
But at the M9's price point, I couldn't justify it...it would have to be much more camera.
My .02
I believe that no matter what might be said, most of us here would love an M9 but just can't justify the cost/afford it.
A camera that expensive, for what I do, is just irresponsible. But I'm not about to buy a D700 just because I can't swing the M9. Sort of like buying a car because you can't afford a boat.
D700 is brilliant...but it's a different shooting style. My own opinion is that for digital cameras, it really can't be beat, especially factoring in the entry price. It's SO much faster to shoot well, and much more flexible, than an RF camera.
On the other hand, I love my M6 because it's so compact but has FF depth of field.
I'm not sure I could live with either one exclusively. For me, the D700 for speed and existing light, a film M for RF-style slow, methodical, surreptitious, thoughtful storytelling.
But at the M9's price point, I couldn't justify it...it would have to be much more camera.
My .02
My feelings too, I've done a lot of soul searching recently over upgrading the D300 to a D700 or getting a used M8. The D700 won. I have my R2A, and that will last me for quite a while, as I'm sure I'll need to wait a few years before a FF rangefinder becomes as affordable as a D700.
The end results can be much the same but they are very different cameras ... and I can't afford either! The M9 much less though! :p
surfer dude
11-08-2009, 13:17
I would - could - no more justify parting with the money for the D700 as I would for the M9. They are digital cameras. I have a very nice digital Olympus system that cost me less than the body alone price of even the Nikon.
What is it with people falling over themselves to pay outrageous prices for digital equipment, especially 35mm frame size? These bring new meaning to the term "built-in obsolescence". I am consequently lucky enough to possess some very nice film cameras because people sold them off cheaply to get into the latest digital.
To each his own I guess.
helenhill
11-08-2009, 13:31
D700 is brilliant...but it's a different shooting style. My own opinion is that for digital cameras, it really can't be beat, especially factoring in the entry price. It's SO much faster to shoot well, and much more flexible, than an RF camera.
On the other hand, I love my M6 because it's so compact but has FF depth of field.
I'm not sure I could live with either one exclusively. For me, the D700 for speed and existing light, a film M for RF-style slow, methodical, surreptitious, thoughtful storytelling.
But at the M9's price point, I couldn't justify it...it would have to be much more camera.
My .02
makes PURRfect sense to me
Right now I ONLY shoot Film....
but I think the price of an M9 is absurd in Today's Digital World
which is ever changing
Cheers - helen
Ditch the FF digital idea & shoot the m-7. You can shoot/dev a whole lot of film for what a FF camera will cost you. By the time you shoot enough film in the m-7 to justify the monies saved for the digital what shape, or how obsolete will the camera be. What will be the resale advantage of the m-7 over the m-9? (electronics only last so long) good reason to buy an MP instead. If you must shoot digital remember you have the Ricoh that takes great photos.
Livesteamer
11-08-2009, 14:17
I can justify spending lots of money on M6's because they will last my lifetime. I wonder what the life of an M9 will be. Even a D700 is a lot of money to spend for a camera that may only last a few years. This is especially true for an amateur like me. Joe
Livesteamer
11-08-2009, 14:18
I should have added that my M6's, while expensive, can be used and retain their value. What will be the depreciation for digital cameras, both M9 and D700. Joe
Vince Lupo
11-08-2009, 14:29
I have a D700 and love using it for most of my commercial work. As well, I've saved up my money for the m9, so now all I'm waiting for is for the darned cameras to show up.
As far as saving for a camera goes, I had to save up for the D700, so it's really no different (granted, I had to save up a lot more for the M9!). Same goes for my flash equipment, new computer, or really any of my equipment upgrades. I use the D700 every day for my business as a commercial photographer, and the M9 will be the perfect complement to the D700's capabilities. And I'll be able to use all the vintage Leica lenses that I have for both commercial and personal purposes, and have also cleaned out some of my vintage cameras that have been sitting in boxes more than they have been used (plus that's what is primarily paying for the camera).
So it really depends, I suppose, on where something like the M9 (or D700 any camera for that matter) would fit into your photographic life. From a commercial standpoint, it works for me and the present system that I have.....but that's just me.
From what I've read, Leica has committed to supporting the M9 for 20 years, and will offer potential sensor upgrades as they come along.
lightshot
11-08-2009, 14:38
In my life the D700 is the better choice based on usage not on price. We need the D700 for photography work, but have little use for an M9. Maybe some day I will try an M9 and save up to buy one, but in the meantime it was an easy choice for me.
Nikon Bob
11-08-2009, 14:40
Two great cameras, but almost $4500 difference.:eek: Can you justify the M9?
No, I personally couldn't justify the difference and settled for the D700. I just could not see spending the additional money just to be able to use a FF DRF that may or may not be as good as the D700 is. When I want the RF experience I'll just use the film RFs that I have. If you want it bad enough go for it but I'll live with the Nikon.
Bob
From what I've read, Leica has committed to supporting the M9 for 20 years, and will offer potential sensor upgrades as they come along.
LOL!! and at what cost? Intergrated circuits have come a long way but 20 years of carrying around. What about the shutter. Wonder what the cost of a new shutter will cost? This is Leica we are talking about! I doubt the rear display screen will last that long. I'm just looking at possible long term expenses the camera will cost you. New electronics are made to be replaced in a few short years. Thats how companies stay afloat!
daveywaugh
11-08-2009, 14:56
I imagine even 'Leica pros' have a difficult time making the justification. I imagine a LOT of people have gone the D700 route, and spent the extra money on an M6 and loads of film (with money still in the bank). That's probably the best of both worlds. But of course the 'one system' concept is valid, and if digital is required then the M9 is the only real choice. Where's that R5 :-)
Gabriel M.A.
11-08-2009, 15:17
Two great cameras, but almost $4500 difference.:eek: Can you justify the M9?
Toyota Corolla (http://www.toyota.com/corolla/) and the BMW R1200 (http://www.bmwmotorcycles.com/us/en/index.html)
Two great motorized vehicles, but almost $4,000 difference.
Why pay $4,000 for half the amount of wheels, no roof, no trunk, no power wheels, and no power seats.
Why won't anybody show BMW to stop selling expensive transportation when you can also get a perfectly good used Ford Taurus for a fourth of that!
How silly :bang::bang::bang::bang:
ZeissFan
11-08-2009, 15:27
The D700 is a large camera. It's nearly 1 kilogram (995 grams)/2.19 pounds, and that's without a lens.
Add a couple of Nikon's large zooms and an extra battery, and you're probably looking at 6 to 8 pounds easily. Try dragging that around for an afternoon.
Great image quality, but it's about as subtle as a Hummer.
The Leica -- smaller camera (585 grams/19.8 ounces). Add a couple of lenses, and you still have a very portable kit. Downside: No zooms (not an issue for rangefinder users). Plus, it's gonna cost you plenty.
Note that the D700 body isn't exactly an impulse buy at $2,700, while Nikon's top of the line, the D3X, will cost you $7,995 (body only).
The D3x weighs in at 1,220 grams or 43 ounces (2.7 pounds).
What is it with people falling over themselves to pay outrageous prices for digital equipment, especially 35mm frame size? These bring new meaning to the term "built-in obsolescence". I am consequently lucky enough to possess some very nice film cameras because people sold them off cheaply to get into the latest digital.
To each his own I guess.
"35mm frame size" digital cameras can actually produce images as sharp and nuanced as medium format film. 16x24" or larger prints with the most extraordinary detail. And I'm talking about APS, which is SMALLER than 35mm frame size. Of course it does not look just like film, it's different. For normal light levels, the D300 is good enough for me until it breaks, whenever that may be. So I don't see any built-in obsolescence really. Like my Leica film bodies. I just need the d700 for low light color.
antiquark
11-08-2009, 15:34
The D90 is $2000 less than the D700! Can you justify the D700?
The D60 is $500 less than the D90...
The CoolPix EZ123 is $300 less than the D60...
(And so on and so forth.)
b.espahbod
11-08-2009, 15:46
Leica is Expensive :D
I can justify spending lots of money on M6's because they will last my lifetime. I wonder what the life of an M9 will be. Even a D700 is a lot of money to spend for a camera that may only last a few years. This is especially true for an amateur like me. Joe
The M6 will last many moons. The D700 too ..... perhaps
They won't become any less capable than they are now, given a little TLC and the proper maintenance which includes the odd CLA for the M6 and the equivalent for the DSLR D700, whatever that is. Same for the M9 no doubt, although it actually may become even 'more capable', given that we are being told that Leica will 'support' it for many years to come.
I hope that does not include the time spent waiting to take possession of one.
Remember the time we all waited to get our hands on a D200 with the 18-200mm lens? Then it was replaced by the D300 before we could even consider ourselves fully conversant with its functions? Good for some, but frustrating for others. (Canon users can substitute D20, D30, D40 etc.).
The old and not so old film cameras didn't necessarily get too much better from a photographic point of view as time passed, they just got different ...... and photographically many have still not been surpassed.
Back to the original question. Perhaps the D700 is equal in most aspects to the M9, and much better in some important areas, but having said that, I think the M9 will still be a much desired and used piece of equipment when the D700 has gone the same way as the D100, the D200 and probably the D300 did before it.
Looking back I wish I had bought my M3 fifty years ago. it would have saved me a fortune on a bunch of other 'must have' cameras that I owned.
Same with cars I reckon ..... I should have bought that Rolls I once admired in a showroom window. :p
Justify. What do you mean justify? Who do I have justify anything too?
Vince Lupo
11-08-2009, 16:07
LOL!! and at what cost? Intergrated circuits have come a long way but 20 years of carrying around. What about the shutter. Wonder what the cost of a new shutter will cost? This is Leica we are talking about! I doubt the rear display screen will last that long. I'm just looking at possible long term expenses the camera will cost you. New electronics are made to be replaced in a few short years. Thats how companies stay afloat!
How many shutters have you replaced in your cameras over the years? Not that I'm saying that it can't or won't happen, but in the 32 years that I've been using cameras (and I'm talking a LOT of cameras and a LOT of photos, as I'm sure you've probably done too), I can only think of two instances in which I've had to replace a shutter, and neither one was electronic. So I'm not really worried about that too much.
Can't really speak about the electronics - I've had some of my digital cameras and electronic flash systems etc for a number of years and haven't had any problems with them -- here again, not to say that it can't or won't ever happen....it is to be expected, that's for sure. Part of the cost of doing business...
JonasYip
11-08-2009, 18:18
Two great cameras, but almost $4500 difference.:eek: Can you justify the M9?
Like others who have replied, I don't really see the two cameras as alternates to each other, so I'm not sure why I would compare the prices.
But if I were to do so, I "luckily" get to compare not with the D700 but with my workhorse D3 (and D2x <- D1x <- D1) in which case the price differential doesn't look all that bad. Much easier to justify :)
SolaresLarrave
11-08-2009, 18:29
Justify. What do you mean justify? Who do I have justify anything too?
I'm equally puzzled by the choice of words too. Justify? To whom? :confused:
Now, if you mean "to buy without remorse from spending money in something that's just a hobby", then I understand your question.
I did buy my D700 and put me in debt for some months. I didn't have to justify it to anyone: oddly enough, my wife was happy that I got a digital camera to photograph our baby (who came just a few months after it).
As for the M9... Thanks, I can wait for a long time, just as I waited for Nikon to come up with a relatively affordable FX body. Not that I can't justify it (because I don't have to). It's more like I don't see the point.
And, in any case, I can always swing for a used M9 in some 5 years. :)
depending on what comes out next year, i could find it very difficult to justify buying an m9. the nikon d700x/d800 would take care of my medium format quality portraiture and landscape needs, while an aps-c compact would take care of my 35mm rangefinder needs.
I can only say the D700 is great...It's fast, great dynamic range, superb high ISO performance, almost perfect AF and metering. I couldn't justify buying it until I realize how cheap it is even comparing to m8.
I will wait for a cheap m9 but I won't sell the d700.
... while an aps-c compact would take care of my 35mm rangefinder needs.
Which apc-c compact is a rangefinder?
err, close enough for me, especially if it has a built-in optical viewfinder, though unlikely.
BillBingham2
11-08-2009, 19:57
If it was bringing in the money, heck yes. It's would have to be a business decision. The D3 is LARGE to carry all day long and the D700 is only a bit smaller.
From the sidelines of using cameras for fun it's a big no. I'm OK with the small sensor tiny sized cameras. Perhaps once the M11 comes out in November of 2011 the prices of the M9 will be......
B2 (;->
I guess If I was thinking of buying a M9, I could think about the price of the Leica S2. I
could get one lens for the S2, or an M9. That makes the cost for a M9 not too bad in
perspective! Now about getting the body for the S2...
Justify or rationalize?
The former implies some sort of moral or ethical puzzle, which could indeed be the case with a purchase, but my sense is that the question here, since it compares one purchase to another (rather than a purchase instead of a charitable contribution or donation of some sort,) asks whether anyone can rationalize spending the higher price, given a reasonably objective comparison of their functions.
That the M9 should create such a wrestling match should make Leica happy. Imagine being assigned by a company to design a product that would test a customer's will power or powers of rationalization vs. products selling for $4000 less.
Mephiloco
11-08-2009, 21:05
Their film counterparts weren't cheap when new either, and are now for the most part, obsolete. I think people are exaggerating how quickly digital camera become obsolete. My primary digital is a Canon XTI, which came out in 2006. I paid $400 for it in 2007 with the battery grip, 3x 1gb cards, 5 batteries, an all the packaging materials. I'd probably get around that much for it now. The camera is by no means near obsolete to me. Newer cameras have more features, but that's the same with everything. I also have some digital point and shoots that are still usable, but I choose not to use due to poor battery life.
I don't know why if you were a photographer you would blindly stray from digital, considering how the sensors have gotten so much better than they were a few years ago, and to argue that film provides more 'latitude' in this day and age is unfounded. Film stocks are disappearing every year while it's becoming easier and easier to get comparable (in most cases: better) results with digital.
All of that being said, I primarily shoot film, but I'm not naive enough to say it's because it's a better medium. I shoot film because I like the workflow and like developing my own film and I like manual focusing. If someone were to give me an M9, I doubt I would use my M2 nearly as much.
I don't think the M9 is expensive for a digital camera, I think it's expensive for a camera, period. If you're a working photographer I'd like to think it's rather easy to justify the cost of a D700 or a D3 just by the shots you otherwise wouldn't be able to capture without one
I would - could - no more justify parting with the money for the D700 as I would for the M9. They are digital cameras. I have a very nice digital Olympus system that cost me less than the body alone price of even the Nikon.
What is it with people falling over themselves to pay outrageous prices for digital equipment, especially 35mm frame size? These bring new meaning to the term "built-in obsolescence". I am consequently lucky enough to possess some very nice film cameras because people sold them off cheaply to get into the latest digital.
To each his own I guess.
kshapero
11-08-2009, 21:07
Ditch the FF digital idea & shoot the m-7. You can shoot/dev a whole lot of film for what a FF camera will cost you. By the time you shoot enough film in the m-7 to justify the monies saved for the digital what shape, or how obsolete will the camera be. What will be the resale advantage of the m-7 over the m-9? (electronics only last so long) good reason to buy an MP instead. If you must shoot digital remember you have the Ricoh that takes great photos.Greg, thanks for always bringing me back down to earth.
Akiva,
Would you not sell a D700 for the same reasons that you sold your previous digital nikons? The capture quality may have increased, but were you ever really dissatisfied with it before?
I have come to the current belief that my enjoyment and use of photography is more centered around the how it is done than what image I can get from it. I like using a film leica more than a D300 even though the D300 is comparably extremely versatile.
New nikon digital offerings are so tempting to try, but I am afraid that I will not find it satisfactory as I did before whether it be because of the digital part or the SLR part.
I think weather-proofing on the M9 would seal the deal for me.
fleetwoodjazz
11-08-2009, 21:34
Reading this thread I have the impression that most of us want a full frame digital rangefinder but can't afford to buy one.
It is also true to my case.
Maybe we need Nikon or Epson to do something here. I'm very sure that if Nikon manage to build a S full frame rangefinder at about 2000-3000 USD, they would kill Leica.
nobbylon
11-08-2009, 23:27
Reading this thread I have the impression that most of us want a full frame digital rangefinder but can't afford to buy one.
It is also true to my case.
Maybe we need Nikon or Epson to do something here. I'm very sure that if Nikon manage to build a S full frame rangefinder at about 2000-3000 USD, they would kill Leica.
Agreed. However any offering would still have to do what a D700 or D3 can do, high iso wise, for me to consider it. Image quality wise I can't see any advantages at all between most of the top line cameras now. Using film for me was good but as I don't print my own and mainly like colour over B&W find digital so much easier. I found that in a digital workflow, getting an acceptable, to me, image from film through scanning and post process was far more time consuming than using my D700. Paired with some of the iconic Nikkors, the D700 produces some of the nicest images I've seen.
Nikonhswebmaster makes a very good point with his post. I was always aware of how much my MP cost and although I never treated it with kid gloves, always felt that it was an indulgence and that I could do just the same with a £400 beater M2. That was one of the reasons I sold it and got the M2. I still miss that MP but only as an object of desire rather than a camera to take my pictures with.
The D700, on the other hand, although expensive is to me a consumable. I've carried it near enough daily since purchase in May, it's not in a case, I just put it in my work bag, the paint on the top and rear has already gone shiny but I'm not bothered as I'm not looking for any residual or resale value. Not a camera to sit there and fondle, muse over, take pictures of, but a camera that simply enables me to take the pictures I like.
If you can afford it then get the M9 and write the money off. Use it to take pics. If you can't then get the D700 and a few good primes. You won't be sorry or as Roger puts it 'wasting your money':)
Each to their own but I still think Leica and some of their users inc me at some level, can't decide whether we're collectors, fondlers or photographers.
fleetwoodjazz
11-08-2009, 23:48
Agreed. However any offering would still have to do what a D700 or D3 can do, high iso wise, for me to consider it. Image quality wise I can't see any advantages at all between most of the top line cameras now. Using film for me was good but as I don't print my own and mainly like colour over B&W find digital so much easier. I found that in a digital workflow, getting an acceptable, to me, image from film through scanning and post process was far more time consuming than using my D700. Paired with some of the iconic Nikkors, the D700 produces some of the nicest images I've seen.
Nikonhswebmaster makes a very good point with his post. I was always aware of how much my MP cost and although I never treated it with kid gloves, always felt that it was an indulgence and that I could do just the same with a £400 beater M2. That was one of the reasons I sold it and got the M2. I still miss that MP but only as an object of desire rather than a camera to take my pictures with.
The D700, on the other hand, although expensive is to me a consumable. I've carried it near enough daily since purchase in May, it's not in a case, I just put it in my work bag, the paint on the top and rear has already gone shiny but I'm not bothered as I'm not looking for any residual or resale value. Not a camera to sit there and fondle, muse over, take pictures of, but a camera that simply enables me to take the pictures I like.
If you can afford it then get the M9 and write the money off. Use it to take pics. If you can't then get the D700 and a few good primes. You won't be sorry or as Roger puts it 'wasting your money':)
Each to their own but I still think Leica and some of their users inc me at some level, can't decide whether we're collectors, fondlers or photographers.
Agree completely :)
To the OP, I still remember when I first played with the new Leica M9....ahhhh the feeling was better than sex!!!
Surely in real world usage the M9 has to be compared to a D700 fitted with a prime and not a "honking great zoom!" Put a Noctilux on an M9 and a fast 50mm prime on a D700 and how much will the weight difference be realstically ... the Noct is a substantial lens I gather. Whatever speed advantage the Leica setup has will be more than offset by the Nikon's extrordinary high ISO performance.
The only professional work I get is shooting in light that barely allows me to read a shutter dial most of the time ... when it comes time to replace my M8 the stop or so advantage an M9 may give me isn't worth the extra investment. I would have to choose the D700 and live with the extra bulk!
If you can afford it buy it!
Value for money no way, would I buy one no.
I just don't need one, for work I use Canon Mk11s and Mk111s, when I'm not at work I use a G9, if it was half the price was decent up to 1600 iso and was autofocus maybe, who knows!
Which apc-c compact is a rangefinder?
Rangefinder focusing is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The EVIL cameras are the modern equivalent of film rangefinders. Sadly, no one has gotten one right yet, and it doesn't look like Ricoh's is going to be much better. Here is hoping Nikon will get em right.
As to schlepping a D700 all day, it is really not difficult at all except with the very heaviest lenses, vertical grip, and flash. I keep my vertical grip on all the time, but if I am just going out to shoot for fun, I only take a 35-70 2.8. It is not at all a burdensome kit, you can shoot all day with it with no problems. Sure, the camera is heavier, and the lens is heavier, but I don't have to carry a bag, extra film, extra batteries, extra lenses, etc. I just grab my camera and go. I don't even have to worry about filters because I can choose what filtration I want in post.
Also, if you are coming from film to digital, a D700 pays for itself very quickly. If you assume ten dollars for film and processing for each 36 exposure roll, a refurb D700 completely pays for itself in 7560 clicks of the shutter. (It would take over 25k shots for an M9 to pay for itself.) Considering I have taken close to half that in the last not-quite-six months, the D700 is the most economical camera I have ever owned (with the Holga being the least economical camera I have ever owned). Yes, the amount of shooting I do has gone through the roof, but I consider this a good thing, especially seeing as how i have been able to maintain my keeper ratio. Even if I was still shooting the same amount as I was shooting on film, the D700 would still pay for itself a couple times over during the 5 year lifespan I plan on getting out of it before it gets IR converted.
Also, anyone who tells you that you can't do "proper street photography" (whatever that is) with a D700 is a liar.
Rangefinder focusing is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
...
Also, anyone who tells you that you can't do "proper street photography" (whatever that is) with a D700 is a liar.
Oh, who am I to disagree then? I guess the conversation is over!
Oh, who am I to disagree then? I guess the conversation is over!
I challenge you to disagree. I am just not convinced that it is possible.
Saying that rangefinder focusing is a means to an end and not an end to itself does not mean that there is anything wrong with liking rangefinder focusing as a focusing method, but it is not a magic bullet or a holy grail. Pictures are not made better SOLELY because they were made using rangefinder focusing. If your goal is to just go out and twiddle a rf patch around for a few hours, why bother taking the picture?
As to reasons why the D700 might not be suitable for "proper street photography:-
Some say it is too loud. The difference in volume between a D700 and an RF camera is less than the difference in volume between a point and shoot digital (silent) and a Leica. The fact of the matter is that the sound of a D700 isn't going to "give you away" much more often than the sound of a rf camera.
Some say it is too big, too obtrusive. This depends more on the lens you use than the camera. If you are shooting with a 50 1.8 or a 45 2.8, it is plenty unobtrusive. With an ubertelephoto, it can be quite obtrusive, but if you are shooting "proper street photography" with a lens that big, you are doing it wrong. Besides, it is actually easier to get good hip shots from the D700 than it is from a rangefinder, especially when using the vertical grip, because the extra weight tends to act like a self-leveling device, as well as because of the fantastic and fast autofocus that tracks its subject.
Some say it is slower. The only way a Leica is very fast to operate is using a hyperfocal method- presetting your aperture and your focus so the camera basically operates as a point-and-shoot. You can do the exact same thing on any camera, so that argument is null and void. When you want to achieve precise focus and exposure, however, the D700 is MUCH faster.
In addition to all of this, the D700 can keep shooting in low light long after most any other camera has had to add a flash or quit shooting.
kshapero
11-09-2009, 04:21
the D700 would still pay for itself a couple times over during the 5 year lifespan I plan on getting out of it before it gets IR converted.
What does this mean? And how does the D700 work with manual focus lens?
djonesii
11-09-2009, 04:30
I have used a D300, M6, Contax G1, and Panasonic G1 for street shooting, and each one on them fails me in a diffirent way in some situations. If I were really interested in learning the craft of street shooting, I would stick with the Leicas. IMHO, as I don't get a chance to do it as much as I would like, the Pany G1 is best for me, and the contax G1 the worst.
With the Pany, I set the kit lens to about 18mm ( 35mm on 35mm FF sensor ), flip the screen, shoot from the hip, 1/2 press, and listen for AF confrim, then fire. I'm waiting for the 20mm to become more availble in about 6 months, and will add that to the kit.
The M6 is more work, but at the same time, when I get it right, it's just such a pleasure. As I said, it's me, not the camera, if I were to use a RF for all my street work, and shoot a lot, I'd get proficient at RF focusing, I can do it, and most of the time, pretty fast, but not near as fast as the G1, and never from the hip! As I have read, and do believe, there is something special about a CRF for this applicaiton.
As for the hyper focal settings, it's just a matter of studying how to do it, and then applying the correct technique.
The D300 can be made to work for this, just like the Contax, however, it takes more bending of the way that I like to shoot to make them work in the street setting.
YMMV.
Dave
What does this mean? And how does the D700 work with manual focus lens?
I am not sure which bit you are referring to, so here goes-
As to paying for itself, I mean that it pays for itself compared to shooting film. In my calculations, every 36 shots I make with the d700 are roughly ten bucks I don't have to spend on film and processing, so after a certain number of shots, the amount of money i have saved by not having to pay for film and processing is equal to the amount of money I spent on the camera. I expect that I will save several times the amount I spent on the camera over five years.
As to getting it IR converted, after 5 years, once I have bought a new camera, I will send my d700 off to have its built in infrared filter removed, so it will be a full time IR camera.
It works great manual focusing in my experience, although some say that it is hard to manual focus lenses at apertures faster than f2.8 because of the design of the screen. I've not had any problems though.
djonesii
11-09-2009, 04:35
What does this mean? And how does the D700 work with manual focus lens?
The D300 which I own, and the D700 which I do not, but functions the same, work great with MF lenses. They must be Nikon AF mount, and at minium be AI converted, it's a thing abut the linking bits and damaging a tab if the lens is not an AI lens.
The focus confirmation, and AI work if the lens is a true AI lens, and the firmware is desigend to put the correct aperature information in the EXIF if the correctet settings are entered. This is a fully manual process, and must be set each time a lens is changed.
Of course, the D300 applies a crop factor to all lenses!
I shoot the 55 1.2 which has been AI'd, awesome at F2.0 and above, a 28 2.8 which is great from 2.8 on, and an 85 1.4, which very good from 1.8 on.
Not the same drawing as their Lieca counterparts, but still qutie nice.
Dave
I challenge you to disagree. I am just not convinced that it is possible.
...
Apparently if I disagree I'm a liar. So I'd prefer to avoid that thanks.
Apparently if I disagree I'm a liar. So I'd prefer to avoid that thanks.
See, now I am curious as to why you feel it is not possible to do "proper street photography" with a D700.
*pops popcorn for breakfast*
...
As to paying for itself, I mean that it pays for itself compared to shooting film. In my calculations, every 36 shots I make with the d700 are roughly ten bucks I don't have to spend on film and processing, so after a certain number of shots, the amount of money i have saved by not having to pay for film and processing is equal to the amount of money I spent on the camera. I expect that I will save several times the amount I spent on the camera over five years.
...
Rationalization, and your calculations are not generally applicable. If you shoot slide film, they are too low. If you shoot black and white, they are too high. If you shoot C41, then they are also too high ;)
You cannot compare the number of shots on film with digital shots anyway. In the years I had my 5D I shot 30-40k shots. With film, I simply don't shoot that way.
See, now I am curious as to why you feel it is not possible to do "proper street photography" with a D700.
*pops popcorn for breakfast*
What is "proper street photography'?
What is "proper street photography'?
I don't know, but I have seen countless people across the internet claim that it can't be done with an SLR.
I don't see how I can say something is or is not possible, unless I know what that "something" is.
I can tell you that I've done street photography with both a 5D and Leica, and I know where I get better results. The Leica is simply better. For me. And no, that doesn't make me a liar! :)
Nikon Bob
11-09-2009, 04:49
What does this mean? And how does the D700 work with manual focus lens?
The D700 works well with manual focus lenses. If you want to learn how that works here is a link to the owners manual in pdf http://www.nikond700.com/2008/07/d700-user-manual-and-quick-start-guide-online-now/ .
Bob
I don't see how I can say something is or is not possible, unless I know what that "something" is.
I can tell you that I've done street photography with both a 5D and Leica, and I know where I get better results. The Leica is simply better. For me. And no, that doesn't make me a liar! :)
You are correct, that does not make you a liar, because you acknowledge that street photography by whatever definition is not the sole purview of rangefinder cameras- you acknowledge that it can be done with a camera such as the D700. As to personal happiness with methods or images, individual results certainly vary. I personally get better results with my D700 than I did with my Leicas. With the exception of a very few extreme applications, the idea that only camera or style of camera x is acceptable for photographic application y is nonsense.
Buying equipment should be driven by need for an RF or DSLR, not brand, or price (except for not buying what one cannot afford). If we all were honest we would admit that there is not that much difference in the final image that most viewers would perceive whether a Leica, Nikon, Canon or Pentax is used unless a side by side comparison were made. Even then, the judgement would be subjective.
I think there are plenty of stories about famous Leica photographers who used Nikons or some other SLR at various times throughout their careers. For street photography even.
In NYC, I have found people often to be more amenable to being photographed when I am using a big "pro-look" SLR, because they are all itching to be famous or show up in Bill Cunningham's street fashion features or are just plain vainglorious. Of course, with the Leica, I can often take their photo without them registering what I am doing, but I can do that with my Canon digital P&S too. Sometimes though, the SLR makes it more fun. Just sayin'.
My wrestling match is whether a D700 (I have a ton of ancient Nikon fast primes, like a 58mm f1.2 and similar, and the Nikon F4 is my favorite SLR) or a Canon 5DmkII (it will do Nikkors fine with an adapter and stop down metering, & what a great sensor in that thing!)
I also like the 5D's movie quality better. :)
I've watched lots of street photographers in action at some popular destinations in Shanghai. What I observed is that there were two basic types. The first was the in-your-face style, using a smaller focal length lens. The second was the guy who would stand at a distance with a big zoom. It doesn't come as a big surprise (to me at least) which type of photographer used which type of camera.
anyone who says you can't do proper street photography with a 4x5 is a _____.
From what I've read, Leica has committed to supporting the M9 for 20 years, and will offer potential sensor upgrades as they come along.
Hi it's not enough for me Leica must support us for 20 years and replace all parts for free for the same period. As I see with the M8 it's not really the case.
Yvan.
Nothing proper about street photography if it's being done right ;) ... back on topic, I will probably get an M9 sometime after the M11 comes out. I make money using my 5D, the M6 is to practice my art, at this point the expense would be too dear for an activity that is break even at best, no matter how enjoyable it is for me. From an image quality standpoint MF is very impressive, and much lower cost. Lots of good MF gear out there for a decent price.
emraphoto
11-09-2009, 07:57
What's with this $10 a roll business? All in, chemicals and all I pay about $3.00-$3.50 a roll of 24 tri... I mean arista.
For what it's worth the d700 is a brilliant camera. Haven't tried an m9 yet however I suspect it is brilliant in it's own right.
One more thing, anyone who thinks you need a specific type of camera to shoot street well is delusional.
What's with this $10 a roll business? All in, chemicals and all I pay about $3.00-$3.50 a roll of 24 tri... I mean arista.
For what it's worth the d700 is a brilliant camera. Haven't tried an m9 yet however I suspect it is brilliant in it's own right.
One more thing, anyone who thinks you need a specific type of camera to shoot street well is delusional.
I use ten bucks a roll as an average. Home developing Arista premium is going to be cheaper than shooting Velvia 50 and sending it off for processing.
emraphoto
11-09-2009, 08:05
Well you can't shoot street well without tri-x (insert best sarcastic tone here)
emraphoto
11-09-2009, 08:08
I use ten bucks a roll as an average. Home developing Arista premium is going to be cheaper than shooting Velvia 50 and sending it off for processing.
I suppose this demonstrates how relative the math is. For someone who shoots velvia 50 it might make a whole load of sense. For the cheap b+w film crowd not so muh.
I guess my film + processing costs me about $3 a roll. I never really calculated, but its not very expensive.
emraphoto
11-09-2009, 08:32
Yeah, if I had the patience to bulk load I could probably drive that cost down even more.
...
The focus confirmation, and AI work if the lens is a true AI lens, and the firmware is desigend to put the correct aperature information in the EXIF if the correctet settings are entered. This is a fully manual process, and must be set each time a lens is changed.
If you use a few different manual focus lenses on a D700, you can enter the lens data (focal length and max aperture) once for each lens. Then, when you use one of these lenses, you just pick the right one from the list.
You can assign the lens selection to one of the camera's buttons -- I like the second one by the lens (the one that's not the DOF preview button). That way, when you put a different manual lens on the camera, you just push the button next to the lens and turn the wheel to pick the right lens info. Very fast.
Also, for manual focus lenses, the exposure still work fine even if you don't tell the camera which lens you're using. The only extra benefit to maintaining the lens info is that it will show up in the files when you look at the pictures later.
Is there a split prism finder?
katz eye optics make one, costs about 100 bucks for the basic one.
Have to partially disagree here. All of the full-frame dSLR bodies are considerably larger than an M9 body & all of the lenses are larger on a straight focal length + speed basis. Whether that fact is significant to an individual user & his/her ability to take photos is another matter, of course. It's the photographer, not the camera, yadda, yadda, yadda.
All of this was true w/film bodies, too. Personally, I'm a little surprised that manufacturers have only recently been able/willing to start shrinking the workings of a full-frame dSLR into something smaller. I'll consider getting a dSLR when they're the size of a current Rebel or an old OM-1.
Some say it is too big, too obtrusive. This depends more on the lens you use than the camera. If you are shooting with a 50 1.8 or a 45 2.8, it is plenty unobtrusive.
djonesii
11-10-2009, 12:41
My wrestling match is whether a D700 (I have a ton of ancient Nikon fast primes, like a 58mm f1.2 and similar, and the Nikon F4 is my favorite SLR) or a Canon 5DmkII (it will do Nikkors fine with an adapter and stop down metering, & what a great sensor in that thing!)
I also like the 5D's movie quality better. :)
The 55.12 on my d300 is sweet! I cant really justify the canon AF fast 85, so the MF nikon it is .....
Dave
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.