Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/05/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I happen to own both an M9 and a D700, and I must say they are two very different animals. In good light, the M9's files are easily seen as better: crisper, better color, and can blow up really big with no problems. At higher ISO's, the Nikon is not to be topped. And, it is an easy handling camera when a SLR is a better choice. And, not to start a war, but the lenses for the D700, while not the equal of the Leica lenses, are a lot better than those for another big name camera. I wouldn't sell either one. -----Original Message----- From: Dante Stella Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:57 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Ming Thein part 3 - MM vs D800E in B&W Not at all. In bright light, the M9 easily outperforms the D700 with 18 non-aliased MP over 12 with some light antialiasing. The tradeoff is that the D700 is so good at low-light performance that some D700 owners are not going to worry about what an MM can do at ISO 10,000. Ming Thein's dead heat in mono between an MM and a D800E essentially damns the MM with faint praise. Dante On May 27, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Richard Man wrote: > While it's a good point, the Leica M9 has similar price / performance > issue > with, lets say the Nikon D700. So it's nothing new here in that sense. M9 > shooters choose it because of other factor, mainly that it's a rangefinder > and with the advantages that come with it. > > I can say for certain that I would have gotten some images that I did not > get at the Occupy if I had an MM. I cannot say that if I had a Nikon. > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Dante Stella > <dstella1 at ameritech.net>wrote: > >> It's a new version of that lens from the 2000s, but your point is a good >> one. >> >> It's not that an MM holds its own with a 36mp camera. It's that a $3600 >> outfit involving an OK lens is performing at the same level as a system >> including the best 50 ever, costing a total of $16,000, having no color >> capability and allowing no highlight recoverability. >> >> There is no comparison for size/weight, and for some purposes, it's >> better >> to use traditional contrast filters, but still... most people with the >> money to even consider a MM have some understanding of marginal utility. >> >> Dante >> >> On May 27, 2012, at 9:20 AM, "Frank Filippone" <red735i at earthlink.net> >> wrote: >> >>> The lens he tested the 50AA against is the old pancake 45mm lens, isn't >> it? >>> >>> Having said all that, the results for a 40+ year old $100 lens + $3500 >> body >>> compared to a new, SOTA $7000 lens + $9000 body is pretty upsetting. >>> >>> Nikon did pretty well... in fact, for the $12,000 difference in price, >> the >>> image results indicate the 50AA + M9m is way overpriced and outclassed >> on a >>> value for money equivalent. >>> >>> Frank Filippone >>> Red735i at earthlink.net >>> >>> >>> This I did not notice, I must say. I wonder why he didn't spring >>> ~$200 for a 50/1.8 G lens? It really seems a weird 'comparison' to me. >>> >>> Marty >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > -- > // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information