akochanowski Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I'm curious what effect the 10.2 MP Nikon D200 will have on the upcoming DM. The reason for that is that up to now, the only DSLR's that I am aware of that could meter MF lenses were the high end Nikons-- Canon's MF lenses were incompatible with the EOS line from the 1980's. Now Nikon has a DSLR with the same general specs as the specs for the DM, 10MP, a CCD sensor,and essentially the same MF capability with all Nikkor lenses going back to the 1980's. The street price for the D200 is about $1700, and a 24/2.8 Nikkor (for a 36mm equivalent) and a 28/2 or a 35/2 (for a 42-52mm equivalent) run about $400 for the pair. I've handled one and it's built like a tank-- it is built on the F100 chassis. Much as I like the 35/2 Summicron etc, there's no way that a DM body will be worth an extra $3000 just to be able to use it. Other than just the fun factor of having something different, is there any reason at all to buy a DM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Canon meters fine in AV and manual mode w/MF lenses. Just not Canon MF lenses :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akochanowski Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 But it's stopped down metering, isn't it? You can't put an Oly MF lens on a D20 and have full AE fuctionality with the viewfinder at widest aperture as if it was on a film body. That is what many of us, well at least me, would like out of a digital rig, the ability to use either AF or MF lenses without a loss of functionality. It was that ability that seemed attractive about the DM, putting aside the price issue, hence my question: would you pay $3000 to be able to expose the same size sensor to Leica vs Nikon glass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 "...and essentially the same MF capability with all Nikkor lenses going back to the 1980's" Oh no, its worse than that. When I buy a D200 I can put brand new, manual focus, Zeiss ZF glass on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I understand that the D200 will give full functionality (matrix metering , aperture etc) with Nikon AIs and Zeiss ZF manual focus lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max_fun Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Why are you comparing an SLR to a rangefinder? This debate had been going on for a loooong time. Why spend $3000 on a Leica M when you can get a Canon/Nikon/whatever film body for a lot cheaper and with lots more features? The arguments for using a rangefinder over an SLR system is about the same for digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 On the D200 I think you have to program the real focal length of any (each) Ais/Manual lens to be used (and it's maximum aperture value). Having done so it is permanently in a menu. Every time you select that lens again just make sure you have instructed the D200 via the menu. After that it has full metering and aperture control as normal. I may be wrong. Perhaps Eric~ can tell us. (He uses the D200) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akochanowski Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 No, Max, it is not at all the same argument. The DM will not have the silent M shutter, it will be the same clickety-clack shutter as is in every other camera body. It will weigh about the same as a mid-range DSLR (the M body already does), its exterior dimensions will be essentially the same, and presumably it will have the same host of customizable settings and parameters that every decent DSLR has. Other than the loss of AF, of course, the sole difference between a DM and a DSLR will be in the viewfinder functionality and in the fact that it will be capable of using M-lenses and producing a file larger than the Epson's 6MP. Trevor, I did not realize you could use the Zeiss glass on the D200. So my question still stands, but is modified, who is going to be willing to shell out $3000 so the glass in front of the CCD sensor is Leica and not Nikon or Zeiss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 "Max Fun , apr 24, 2006; 02:25 p.m. Why are you comparing an SLR to a rangefinder? " Because accelerated depreciation/technical redundancy will be felt far more keenly by someone paying at least 5000 dollars for a digi-cam than someone paying 1500 - 2000 dollars for a D200 or similar. The 5000 dollar camera will halve in value in a year or two and so will the D200. Financial loss to Leica owner = 2500 dollars and to D200 owner maybe 700 - 1000 dollars. The Digi M is not going to be a collectors asset because it will be technically obselete so quickly at greater financial loss. Neither will Leica be the only 'vehicle' for quality manual glass if one can buy new Zeiss Nikon mount for the D200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akochanowski Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 Trevor, you're tempting me. I sold my D20 and have been doing a little looking..... As an aside, after owning the D20 and a couple of lenses for 15 months and shooting about 7000 frames, I recovered about 78% of the cost in the sale. Not bad at all, I expected a bigger beating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrybc Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 FYI I think the Pentax DSLRs will also allow wide open metering with manual focus lenses. The digital M would still have some appeal due to its size and quiet shutter. Of course, I'd never be able to afford one. :-( larsbc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonas_yip1 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 > Other than just the fun factor of having something different, is there any reason at all to buy a DM? Same reason one bought an Leica M instead of (or in addition to) an F100 or whatever SLR. RF vs SLR, just with digital instead of film. Personally, I use both RF and SLR, so I ordered a D200 (but never received it as the overnight-delivery people lost it... different story) to go with my RD-1, and will certainly take a look at the DM when/if it appears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akochanowski Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terence_mahoney1 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 The specifications of Nikons and Canons has not had any effect on Leica previously, why would you suspect it would have any now? Purchasers of the DMR, though having a crop-factor and approximately 2/3 the resolution of the 1DS-MKII, claim it is far superior and froth at the mouth at the faintest challenge to that assertion. So it will be with the M Digital, regardless of how its specifications compare to Nikon and Canon, and in fact, regardeless of how its performance compares to legions of photographers. They will simply be dismissed as incompentent to judge image quality. Tis an old tale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 If the digital M has low noise at high ISO like the Canons, I'll buy one. If the sensor has the same noise issues that the Nikon has, I won't buy one. And so what if it loses resale value over time? That's an issue if you're buying the camera as an investment. If you're buying it to make photographs, it makes no difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 we know what u ment Andy... of all the raw files i've shot, D70, 5D, D200, and D2x, and a dvd full of DMR examples, I like the D200 the best. The D200 high iso noise is comparable to the 5D and is miles ahead of the D2x and DMR. I imagine the D200 will sell like hot cakes if Nikon can get them on the shelves. My concern with the digi m is that it wont be a high iso noise performer. and it better have more than a 1000th top shutter speed with ttl flash. it's 2006... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 "The specifications of Nikons and Canons has not had any effect on Leica previously, why would you suspect it would have any now?" are you kidding Terrance? or do you mean "Nikons and Canons has not had any effect on Leica since the mid '70's"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 "If the digital M has low noise at high ISO like the Canons,..." Since the sensor is smaller, the noise will be worse. But the owners of DM will claim that it is more film-like than the plasticky Canon images and their noise, and therefore better and has more character and quality to it - i.e. glow. We already know the arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akochanowski Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 Eric, there are a number of the D200's at one of my local dealers right now, that's where I handled it. With the 18-70 lens they're $2000. Now you're tempting me too..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akochanowski Posted April 24, 2006 Author Share Posted April 24, 2006 From my 20D experience and all I've read, the high-ISO noise issue for other manufacturers is only relevant at 1600 and 3200. There's no doubt that Canon's forte is the ability to use those speeds. There's also no doubt in my mind that my departed 20D would sometimes turn out some ugly-looking people pix. It was most pronounced where there was a strong light in the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 I am planning on getting 2 of D200 when the banding issue becomes non existent. Everything about the camera is just what I wanted. Canon, Oly, Leica etc do not have the iTTL system that Nikon offers. This alone pushes the D200 over any other, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 "Since the sensor is smaller, the noise will be worse." Nels, the reported digi m sensor, 1.33, should be bigger than Nikon's 1.5 and hence have the ability for less noise than a 1.5 sensor. Perhaps a "in-between" level of performance of ff 5D and a D200? Andy, it'll probably be the last dslr you buy. Probably mine too as I don't use the D2x much anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mingus1 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 any Dslr which is not "full-Frame" is not worth the money.... Leica lenses or not. Sharpness can be digitally achieved with any digital contraption, the out of focus quality however is a totally different issue, this is in my opinion what make leica lenses good. This simply cannot be achieved with 1.x crop factors. Another fact is that digital M's are bound to become unsuccesfull.... has leica ever built anything electronic that actually worked good ? I am a great fan of leica, as long as it doesn't depend/rely on batteries..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross_wilson1 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 "No, Max, it is not at all the same argument. The DM will not have the silent M shutter, it will be the same clickety-clack shutter as is in every other camera body." I would say it is exactly the same argument, and do you know about the shutter for certain? "It will weigh about the same as a mid-range DSLR (the M body already does), its exterior dimensions will be essentially the same," This is another reason some people have favoured rangefinder size over slr size for years until now, it is part of the RF vs SLR argument. "Other than the loss of AF, of course, the sole difference between a DM and a DSLR will be in the viewfinder functionality and in the fact that it will be capable of using M-lenses and producing a file larger than the Epson's 6MP" Sole difference!? You've just mentioned all the things one weighs up when choosing an RF or DSLR, most importantly viewfinder and manual focusing. If they mean nothing to you then there's no choice, get the D200. But for many; Size difference, Lens design, Viewfinder, Basic operation, Manual focus ..are the main points of difference between the two camera types and are all the points argued about. If you're looking for a reason to buy the D200 rather than the digital M, then it'll be all the same reasons faced by some choosing the F100 over the M6. Size difference, lens design, viewfinder, general manual operation, manual focus. The recording format is the only thing the same, same goes for DM or DSLR and F100 vs M6. These are very significant differences to most photographers. I'd buy the D200, then handle the DM when it's available, then sell the D200 if you want the DM, but they will be very different to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 <i>"I think you have to program the real focal length of any (each) Ais/Manual lens to be used"</i> -- you <b>don't have to</b> do that at all... only if you plan to use Matrix metering. <br><Br> <i>"I am planning on getting 2 of D200 when the banding issue becomes non existent"</i> -- it's gone Vivek; I tried my D200 to show banding and I havent been able to do it, even under extreme lighting situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now