M9 vs D300 in Arizona?

[dennisbarnett]

<p>It's not really as stupid a question as it sounds. I'm going to the desert, Grand Canyon, slot canyons, etc. next month. I'm thinking about if I should take my M9 and M7 so I don't have to switch lenses when it gets particularly dusty; or my Nikon D300 with the wide-angle zoom and not worry about using two cameras. I would much prefer the quality of the Leica, but I'm wondering if the conditions can become too harsh to use these expensive cameras with the potential risks involved. In either case, I'll be pocketing a small good-quality compact (oxymoron?) as a backup if I need it. What do you think?</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Leicas are not cabinet queens, they're made to withstand harsh conditions. What I would do in your shoes is take the M9 and something like 35 (or your favorite) on it, and the D300 with the wide-angle zoom. Take along some large capacity memory cards, so you can go a long day w/o having to switch in a dusty spot. I would also take a longer zoom (something that goes at least 35mm equivalent to 150-200mm. It's not something one would be using often, but I can almost guarantee you it will come in handy (mostly from the car).</p>

[dennisbarnett]

<p>Thanks, Luis. That makes a lot of sense.</p>

[Brian1664876441]

A friend of mine used an M8 in Iraq for several years. Worst of it: grit under the wheel, made pixel-peeping hard. A CLA would have fixed that.

[richard_f]

<p>For the slot canyons, avoid changing lenses in there if at all possible. The fine dust is floating around in there, even when it "looks" absolutely still. If you can cover/wrap the bodies in a baggie etc, so much the better. This may sound silly, but that dust gets in there without your knowing, and then you can hear it later. Zoom lenses can be big problems too, with their rotating, etc. When you are done with the slot canyon visit, thoroughly clean everything. I am reminded of this every time I zoom the lens on my Canon G9...</p>

[richard_f]

<p>For the slot canyons, avoid changing lenses in there if at all possible. The fine dust is floating around in there, even when it "looks" absolutely still. If you can cover/wrap the bodies in a baggie etc, so much the better. This may sound silly, but that dust gets in there without your knowing, and then you can hear it later. Zoom lenses can be big problems too, with their rotating, etc. When you are done with the slot canyon visit, thoroughly clean everything. I am reminded of this every time I zoom the lens on my Canon G9...</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Put a filter on the lens to protect it against blowing dust and sand. I went to Garden of the Gods with an RTS III and I ended up losing a very expensive protection filter because of the dust and my bad attempts to keep the lens clean to take pictures. </p>

<p>I think the M9 should be able to handle it, but Leica doesn't really build cameras as bulletproof as they used to. I might think about Richard's baggie idea to keep the dust and grit out. Let us know what you decide and how it goes.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>I'd say the D300 is sealed better than the M9 (I do have a D300, though not an M9--but see David's comments about the Leica). Add to that the D300's versatility (zoom, flash, high ISO performance, live view when needed, autofocus), and I would take the D300 and leave the M9 safe and sound to photograph another day, somewhere else.</p>

[jeff_guthrie]

<p>That is the problem with Leica stuff being so expensive, you hate to even use it when conditions are anything but optimal. This is something which should be considered when shopping for gear.<br>

My cameras are not "shelf queens" (which would be obvious, if you could see their battered appearance); they were made to be used, not to be fondled and looked at. If you think your M9 is a better camera which will take better pictures than your D300, then by all means use it, why else did you buy it? <br>

I also have a D300 which is an excellent camera for poor conditions. It is solidly constructed, and very well sealed. Unfortunately, the lenses are not built as sturdily as the camera, but on the other hand, the lenses are relatively inexpensive compared to Leica glass.<br>

If I had to choose between the 2, I would take the D300. Not because I think the images it makes are better than those from an M9, but because with the lenses I have it is the most flexible camera in my kit. I carry the D300 on my trips to west Texas, where the dust gets into everything, but the camera has never had a problem with it.</p>

 

[dennisbarnett]

<p><strong><em>Jeff said: If you think your M9 is a better camera which will take better pictures than your D300, then by all means use it, why else did you buy it? </em></strong><br>

Good question, Jeff. I bought the M9 because I get tired of lugging a heavy set of camera gear around on my travels. I wanted the option of "going light." To buy this camera, I sold an entire Contax 645 system to pay for it. The Contax was a fantastic system, but it was even heavier than my Nikon to carry around, and I figured I would get the equivalent quality with the Leica. Also, neither the Contax nor the Leica would afford me long telephoto shots, so I wouldn't be losing anything with this exchange, but about 30 pounds. Also, I already have several Leica lenses for my M7, which I love.<strong><br /></strong></p>

[Jim_Tardio]

<p>If you want to shoot everything in the 28mm to the 75mm range use your M9. If you want a wider angle and a longer telephoto, along with the mid-range, take the D300.</p>

<p>Rangefinders are inaccurate at very wide angles due to parallax error, and extremely hard to focus in the telephoto range.</p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Dennis,</p>

<p>Use the Leica - you bought it to use it, right? If it doesn't stand up to the odd slot canyon it's not much of a camera.</p>