Digital M In Light Of Nikon D200

[cabophoto]

Since 1991 I have used Leica M6 rangefinders almost exclusively. Last year I finally took the plunge to digital, in the absence of a decent digital rangefinder (yes, I know about the Epson RD-1) first with Nikon D70 bodies, now with two D200 bodies. My fear was that the switch from rangefinders back to SLRs would mess up my way of shooting. Well, fortunately it didn't and I'm quite happy with the D200's. To me, my portfolio at http://www.cabophoto.com/download/CubaPAE.pdf (all Nikon D200 with the 20/2.8 AF-D Nikkor) doesn't seem that different from my M6 work.

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[vivek iyer]

<left><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4376094-lg.jpg"></left>

<p>

APS-C Ultraviolet capture (yeah, 1.5X crop sensor).

[cabophoto]

Vivek,

 

I think the banding issue is over. My first D200 (I received it on Dec 17th, the first day the D200 was available over here) had no banding at all. In mid-February I received my second body, which did show some banding. Nikon fixed within two days (I dropped off the camera at the German Nikon service center on a Tuesday and it was back in the mail by Thursday).

 

Carsten

[akochanowski]

It's sometimes hard to believe that some participants in this forum actually read anything before they begin typing. Ross, I started the thread by saying that a DSLR which (1) has the same size and type sensor as the projected DM, (2) can focus manually just like the projected DM, but which (3) actually costs $3000 less than the projected DM (4)apparently now exists. I was and am curious whether Leica fans (and I am one) would pay out $3000 more to keep Leica glass in front of the sensor of a digital M.

 

 

It was not an argument to buy one or another-- although one now exists and the other does not, which would make even that argument hypothetical. I've existed pretty happily for a couple of years with a DSLR, an SLR and an M, and can appreciate how/where they all differ.

 

But I am still curious, who here would pay $3000 to put Leica glass in front of their 10MP CCD sensor over Nikon or Zeiss glass, even accounting for a difference in the viewfinder?

[vivek iyer]

Yaron and Carsten- Thanks.

[bruce_rubenstein]

For those considering a D200 with MF lenses keep in mind that the standard viewfinder screen isn�t very good for manual focus. I find it a little hit or miss with a 105/2.5 shot wide open unless I use the focus indicator. The good news is that Katzeye makes a screen with a spilt image range finder and works much better for manual focusing (according to the folks that have used it).

[terence_mahoney1]

<i>"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"?</i></p>Put another way: Leica has not paid any heed to the specifications of other marques, has not given a whistle that technology has passed them by, and why would anyone expect them to start now, sinc the loyal fanciers continue to line up with cash in hand for each successive product introduction and maintain staunchly that Leica is irrefutably superior.

[cabophoto]

Bruce,

 

I found that the Nikon viewfinder magnifier for the D200 (DK-21M, if I remember correctly) helps with manual focus.

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[mingus1]

... Yes my point exactly .... ....

 

Not the best of "Bokeh" now is it ?

[terry_rory]

"..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.."

 

The digital sensor will not change these properties at all. You will still be using the same lens and it will retain whatever properties it already has. DOF is the same no matter whether you stick it in front of a sensor or a film. Does the OOF properties change when you slightly crop a print?

[nasmformyzombie]

<i>terence mahoney , apr 24, 2006; 03:59 p.m.<br>

"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"?<br><br>

Put another way: Leica has not paid any heed to the specifications of other marques, has not given a whistle that technology has passed them by, and why would anyone expect them to start now, sinc the loyal fanciers continue to line up with cash in hand for each successive product introduction and maintain staunchly that Leica is irrefutably superior.<br><br></I>

Reportedly, the M digital shutter is the same as the R8/R9, which means maxmium 4000/sec speed. I would be really surprised if it is something different. Not that I'm defending Leica digital--- for those for whom cost is a concern, the Nikon DSLR mated with Nikon MF lenses and the new Zeiss ZF lenses looks to be a far better buy.

[skip_williams]

<i>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</i><p>

The Olympus E-1 meters fine with my Manual Focus Zuiko lenses. It does, however, require stop-down metering, which I believe is identical to the Nikon implementation. Other adapters are available for the E-1 and other E-System cameras to use Contax/Yashica, Nikon, Leica R, Leica Visoflex, Pentax M42 Screw Mount, Pentax K, Minolta MD, Rollei SL, Exakta, and Topcon lenses.<p>

 

Skip

[vivek iyer]

<i> The Olympus E-1 meters fine with my Manual Focus Zuiko lenses. It does, however, require stop-down metering, which I believe is identical to the Nikon implementation.</i>

<p>

Nikon lenses do not need any adaptors to use with the D200 and there is no need for exposure compensation either. So it is different.

[terry_rory]

"It does, however, require stop-down metering, which I believe is identical to the Nikon implementation."

 

Not sure that is true of the D200. I think it has the little aperture arm/lever necessary that the D50 and D70 dont have.

[akochanowski]

No, my understanding was that the D200 does NOT require stoppped-down metering with Nikon MF lenses. Stopped-down metering is a PITA; I've done it on a 20D and it's not worth the trouble unless you shoot flowers in your backyard or bridges on a tripod and have an hour to fiddle around. From what I've read, the aperture flange on the Nikkor MF lenses is fully engaged so all the aperture metering functions are preserved.

[robert meier]

Carsten -- Your Cuban portfolio is stunning! Very beautiful, especially the backlit and silhoutte images. I think your jump to Nikon digital has been a good thing. Bob Meier

[terry_rory]

A real test will be a print swap between D200/Nikon AI-s/Zeiss ZF users and Leica M Digital users. (Screen jpgs a few hundred pixels across will not prove anything.)

 

Eric~ , you are good at arranging print swaps! Fancy doing that one?

[ross_wilson1]

Andy,

 

Max wrote:

 

The arguments for using a rangefinder over an SLR system is about the same for digital.

 

You replied:

 

No, Max, it is not at all the same argument.

 

It's sometimes hard to believe that some participants in this forum actually read anything before they begin typing. Isn't just Andy.

[EricM]

Andy, this is as good as I get.<br><br>

<center><img src=" http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/d200_tests/images/D200%20tests%20001.jpg"></center><br><br>

br><br>

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/d200_tests/images/D200%20tests%20002.jpg"></center><br><br>

 

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/d200_tests/images/D200%20tests%20003.jpg"></center><br><br>

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/d200_tests/images/D200%20tests%20004.jpg"></center><br><br>

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/d200_tests/images/D200%20tests%20005.jpg"></center><br><br>

 

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/d200_tests/images/D200%20tests%20007.jpg"></center><br><br>

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/d200_tests/images/D200%20tests%20009.jpg"></center><br><br>

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/d200_tests/images/D200%20tests%20008.jpg"></center><br><br>

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/d200_tests/images/D200%20tests%20010.jpg"></center><br><br>

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/d200_tests/images/D200%20tests%20011.jpg"></center><br><br>

 

 

 

 

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/d200_tests/images/D200%20tests%20012.jpg"></center><br><br>

 

 

<center><img src="http://www.ericmilner.com/photos/d200_tests/images/D200%20tests%20013.jpg"></center><br><br>

[max_fun]

<i>It's sometimes hard to believe that some participants in this forum actually read anything before they begin typing. Ross, I started the thread by saying that a DSLR which (1) has the same size and type sensor as the projected DM, (2) can focus manually just like the projected DM, but which (3) actually costs $3000 less than the projected DM (4)apparently now exists. I was and am curious whether Leica fans (and I am one) would pay out $3000 more to keep Leica glass in front of the sensor of a digital M.</i>

<p>

Andy, you're sounding like you'd never used an M before. Let's take apart some of your arguments:

<p>

1. The D200 is a 1.5x sensor and the DM will have a 1.3x sensor. If all things are the same with the DMR, it would also have a 16 bit a/d converter ala medium format digital backs, instead of the 12 bit converter found in just about all other DSLRs.

<p>

2. Manual focusing with the D200 is nothing like manual focusing on any rangefinder. Especially when you're trying to focus in a dark environment with a slow lens (try finding a wide angle DX lens faster than f/2.8), the rangefinder is just so much better.

<p>

3. Leica has always been a few times more expensive than anything else out there, be it the R or M, and the performance gained has never been commensurate with the price difference (depends on who you ask I guess), so there's no difference here. Leica is not for the faint of heart and light of wallet.

<p>

4. This is the only point you're right on. If you want the digital rangefinder experience, you have to get a R-1Ds, or an M with a scanner. No DSLR will give you the rangefinder experience.

<p>

Now for other points not yet said:

<p>

1. The DM will be about the size of the M, and the lenses... will remain the same, so you'll never find a DSLR that can match the DM for physical size (with the lens), especially not a clunker like the D200.

<p>

2. Yes, the DM will not have a cloth shutter like the film Ms, but it will still be mirror-less, so you'll not have the loud mirror slap sound. Honestly, the loudest noise from an SLR is from the mirror (try it with mirror lockup), so even with a metal shutter, the DM will be more silent than a DSLR. Frankly, even the film Ms aren't the most silent cameras around (honour will have to go to shutterless digicams), but is still quieter than all the SLRs I'd used before.

<p>

3. Along with no mirror, you'll be able to hand-hold your shots much better than with a DSLR for better low-light performance.

<p>

These are some of the differences between using a DM and a D200, and much of it is the same for any rangefinder and SLR.

[Uhooru]

Trevor, you are correct about how the D200 uses older lenses. You program them in the first time used and then the camera remembers the setting. You then have full metering, including matrix metering for thoses lenses. Quite nice feature.

[eliot_rosen1]

"Digital M In Light Of Nikon D200"

 

Let me understand this. Because Nikon makes a DSLR that has some similar specifications to the digital M but is cheaper, Leica should hardly bother. There is no good reason for buying a Leica digital M camera other than the "fun factor".

 

Well for years Nikon has made film SLRs better specified than the Leica M film cameras. I guess Leica shouldn't have even bothered with these.

 

I could care less about the D200. I'm not invested in Nikon lenses nor do I have any more desire to own a digital blobflex than I did to won a film blobflex. The premise of this thread is inane.

[akochanowski]

Thank you, Eliott, I stand humbled before your wisdom. Your latest monograph in Aperture was a transcendental photographic experience. Forgive me.

 

Eric, thank you, I take it these are uncorrected?

 

Max, I understand your points but disagree that they make the slightest difference in getting any sort of picture you could conceive of attempting with small-format equipment. So would you buy a DM?

[vivek iyer]

As much as I am inclined to buy/use the D200, I have to agree with Eliot (!#@), "The premise of this thread is inane."

[EricM]

Andy, yes, straight from RAW with smart sharpen, 1.7/135 applied.