miklosphoto

<p>this is one of the most common M8 issues. I had three M8s so far, two of them with the line.<br>

If you bought your M8 new, you are ok, Leica will fix it; if you bought it used, you will have to live with it.</p>

<p>I used to be a Canon shooter with a 5D and 1D II N.<br>

When the 5D Mark II came out I was on the verge to ditch both bodies and get the new 5DII.<br>

Did not do it because there was something other new out there: Nikon D700.<br>

I switched to Nikon, exactly because of the same reasons why the OPer does not like the 5DII.<br>

Don't misunderstand me, I am not into the brand war. I know well both brands I owned and used 4 Canons and 3 Nikons. And countless amount of lenses from both sides. Both companies make great cameras and glass.<br>

But, I considered exactly same reasons and made the switch in 2008.<br>

Just my thoughts.</p>

<p>Yes, all the initial reasons why I was trying to justify the d300s got defeated. The d300s is not that much lighter and smaller. And all the "official" high ISO quality specs, IMO are wrong. I had been reading all over the internet that the d300s high ISO performance is only one stop behind the d700. I think that is not true. I would say it is at least two stops.<br>

Nevertheless, the d300s is a great camera, but the d700 is even better. And the price difference is not that big (I got a refurbished d700 for $2100).<br>

Another reason I prefer the d700 is that I love to use a 50mm primes. I found the 50/1.4 is a better lens than the 35/1.8.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for the ideas and comments.<br>

Just to update this thread, I returned the D300s and got a D700.<br>

Many of you said there is no big difference in size and weight so I went for the FX.<br>

Also, having done an extensive high ISO noise comparison, I concluded that the d300s is not just a little bit worse in high ISO. I found a significant difference: at 1600 D700 is perfectly clean and d300s requires noise clean-up. At 3200 d700 has acceptable, hardly visible noise, d300s is really bad.</p>

<p>Guys, thanks for the very constructive answers.<br>

Mike, I agree with you on the better hand-held performance. I actually forgot to mention that in my OP. That is also due to the enormous mirror slap of the D700. On that note, I really like the Q mode on the D300s.<br>

Kent, yes you're right, I do not care about the movie mode.<br>

John, the IQ difference I noticed between the two bodies is only at ISO over 1600. I don't see other difference, and I just wanted to know if others had noticed IQ difference.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>Nikonians out there please share your opinion with me to choose the right body.<br>

First of all, my lenses: 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8<br>

Now, I am trying to decide between D300s, D700 and D3.<br>

I have hands on experience with D300s (currently own) and D700. Here are my observations. Pros for D300s: lighter and smaller body, good balance with MB-D10, I like the crop factor with all the three zoom lenses. (I don't really need 14mm so staring at 21mm is not a disadvantage for me). Cons: the viewfinder is like looking into a tunnel. Pros for D700: viewfinder, high ISO advantage. Cons: very heavy, too big with the grip.<br>

I did not use them long enough to have any difference noticed in IQ under normal lighting conditions.<br>

My first question is, does anyone can name any IQ difference between the two cameras (except noise level at high ISO)?<br>

Second, is it true that the D3 (original D3) has higher IQ then the D700? Or better high ISO performance. Many experts state that the IQs of the two cameras are identical, but then I saw post on the net saying that D3 is better.<br>

If that is correct, I might just get a d300s and a d3.<br>

The D300s for travel and just walking around and the D3 for professional work. (I used D700 for pro work before - but don't have it anymore). The question is do I really need a D3 or just save and get D700 again.<br>

Please if some of you think that I have no idea what i want, spare your criticism. I asking for ideas and opinions.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Hi Tom, here is my take on this.<br>

I have the LEICA SUMMICRON-M 1:2/35 mm ASPH for long time now. I bought a Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 in May, and sold it yesterday.<br>

So these are the only two lenses I can compare, but it should give you an idea about thetwo brands in general.<br>

-Out of focus rendition<br>

I really liked the CV Nokton wide open. Preferred it to the Summicron.<br>

<br /> -Sharpness<br>

Summicron is unbeatable. CV was soft wide open. At f/2 summicron is still slightly better.<br>

-Contrast<br>

Summicron is better, nice contrast wide open.<br>

<br /> -Saturation<br>

Summicron is better.<br>

<br /> -Whether it's best suited for B/W or color photography.<br>

Does not matter. The quality of B/W depends on the film/processing or software conversion if it is digital. Even with a flat CV contrast uou can do awesome things in software when you convert.<br>

<br /> -Handling<br>

CV is to big for my taste on an M body. Summicron 35mm is one of those lenses I call miracle in tiny size. Nevertheless, focusing is also easy on CV.<br>

<br /> -What you personally like or dislike.<br>

Sold my CV, because don't need two 35mm lenses, if you look at my answers above, you understand why.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.<br>

Miklos</p>

<p>I always take both. Now there is another alternative, that is to take a very good film camera (like the EOS 1V) and a good point-and-shoot digital just for snap shots. That way you can save some camera bag space.<br>

For example if I don't want to carry my M7 and M8 I just take M7 and a dlux-4.</p>

<p>I just order a Leica 12012 that is, 21mm, earlier version, plastic, form Adorama Used Department for $145. According many reviews it is still better than the C/V 21mm.<br>

Just thought to give an alternative.</p>

<p>Get the D90, bottomline.<br>

It gives you the same image quality, has more features and you can get it for 899 with a very decent lens.</p>

<p>35/2<br>

50/1.4<br>

85/1.4<br>

105/2.8 Micro<br>

Personally, I like to keep the weight light, therefore I prefer the small primes.<br>

I had the 24-70/2.8 which is a fantastic lens, but because of its size and weight coupled with the already heavy D700, it did not work for me as a walk-around combo.<br>

So I would "glue" the 50/1.4 to the camera and keep the 35/2 and the 105 in the bag. The 85/1.4 stays home for indoor low light portraits.<br>

These are just my thoughts.<br>

Miklos</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dave, you probably have the best solution, but I'd try $1200-1500 and see if some nutball doesn't buy it. Then I'd buy a used F6 or Leica and load it with Kodachrome.<g></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, that's not ever gonna happen. Both me a a friend of mine we bought recently a used - excellent condition - FM2N for $150 and $175 on eBay. They are so cheap that I even deiced to sell mine and get the FM3A instead (for $500).<br>

Jon, if you don't need two cameras, sell both and add a little bit of money and buy the FM3A which is even better than the FM2N.<br>

Miklos</p>

<p>Hi Arash,<br>

yes I have had the same experience since my original post. I basically decided to buy the NX2 licence and using it for every image I print/post. I still use LR to get the images from the memory cards becuse there I can sort/filter/trash much faster. Once I had the images sorted out I do the raw conversion for the keepers in NX2.<br>

Unfortunately I have a two years old MacBook Pro with only 2.3GB RAM which could be upgraded only to 3GB. So I just live with it till my next computer upgrade (not soon - as I heavily invested in Nikkor glass since my I converted to Nikon).<br>

Thank you for the usefull post, it confirmed my own findings that NX2 is the best NEF converter.<br>

Miklos</p>

<p>I have been doing studio photography using both speedlites and monolights for quite some time but watching this DVD I learnt new things. It is a great material even if you are using other than the Nikon CLS.<br>

I would recommend it.</p>

Joe,

I have been using LR since it came out and I like it very much. As I said it is not the fact that I would need to

buy another software what bothers me. It is that I have a state of art - I believe the best on the market -

software which has only one flaw, it can't interpret a file coming from a state of art camera.

Dave did not read my post obviously, where I said that had installed and used NX2 for a while now.

I use a MacBook Pro with all the computing power required by NX2, it is way slower than LR.

Anyway, my question is whether someone successfully integrated NEF with LR and how?

If the answer is that it won't be ever as good as the NX2's NEF conversion I will accept that too and live with

that. And will hope that a future upgrade to LR will fix that. I think Adobe should be smart enough to fully

serve not only the Canon users but the Nikonians as well.

Miklos

I hope my question won't sound dumb for many of you, but I am a new Nikon convert (after almost 10 years of

Canon experience) due to one simple reason: D700.

And here comes my first cultural shock. After the smooth and friendly Canon - Adobe raw cooperation I faced the a

big drawback when trying to apply the same - very simple - workflow to my NEF files from D700 what I used for CR2

from the EOS cameras. That is, import them to Lightroom and DONE. I used then CS3 to do some post-processing,

mainly applying Color Efex or AlienSkin filters to my images.

I realized that my NEF files are not processed by Lightroom the same way, I must say they just do not look good

in terms of sharpness, saturation, tonal range. I tried the trial version of Capture NX which came with my D700.

Now, there the conversion is what I would expect from D700, images are perfect.

But, even I would not mind to buy the license for the Capture NX, if it was a good software in general, but I

think it sucks. It is very slow and not even close in features to Lightroom.

Could you guys share your 'best practices'?

Here are the things I am not willing to do: shoot jpg, give up LR, give up D700 (-:

Any idea, advice, help is very much appreciated.

thanks

Miklos

I have a question on this set up, using D700 with SB-800 triggered by Pocket Wizards.

My problem is that after some idle time, approximately 1 or 2 minutes, the shutter release won't trigger the

SB-800 but sort of wakes it up and then the second second release does trigger. This is very annoying in studio

environment, that I have to take a shot just to wake up the speedlite.

If the idle time is just few seconds, I do not have this problem. Interestingly, after a minute or two, I

checked whether the SB-800 went in stand by, it did not, the display is on.

I am using both the camera and the flash in full manual mode, but I do not think it has anything to do with this

problem.

Any ideas how to fix this issue?

Thanks for any help, suggestion.

Miklos

I had the same situation, and decided to get the F100. Paid $237 for it last week. I did not want the F5 because of it's size and the F6 is still very expensive.

If you just use film occasionally, F100 will be just fine. But the F4 might be even cheaper.

I got theF100 because I thought it is really not expensive for $237.

Thanks all of you for the recommendations.

I ended up buying the 28-70mm AF-S and found Japan Made 50mm AF f/1.4 at the local camera store.

After I save some money I buy a 70-200mm lens probably.

Miklos

Shun, thanks for answering for me :-)

Actually, my Canon 24-70mm was also sold last night on eBay for $950. And this morning I picked up a Nikkor 28-70mm for $900. I decided to go with a compromise as the 24-70mm would be much more expensive. This way my Canon lens paid for my Nikon.

Then probably I wait out the new 50mm AF-S and save for the 85mm f/1.4.

Miklos

Shun,

my favorite Canon lenses:

24-70mm f/2.8 - I keep hearing that the Nikkor is not as good as the Canon

70-200mm f/2.8 IS - this is awesome lens but I did not use it very often

50mm f/1.2 - don't really need the 1.2, will limit my chioce to decided between the 1.4 and 1.8 nikkors

85mm f/1.2 - the best lens I have ever had

135mm f/2 - the sharpest lens I have ever had

currently I have only the 24-70mm lens, all the rest is sold.

Miklos

Nikon users,

I am just about to convert from Canon as the D700 is more appealing to me than even the new 5D.

I know all the Canon lenses in-and-out but do not know much about the Nikkors. I got though a general impression

that Canon lenses are having a better reputation, that is probably the only one factor what still makes me hesitate.

Anyway I am planning to get a prime 50mm plus another lens. I do portraits, events, parties and usually a lot

kids running around.

Give me please you top three choices of either Nikkors or 3rd party lenses for Nikon.

I am not interested in cheap kit lenses, neither supper wide nor anything more than 200mm. My photography is

between 35 and 200mm.

thanks a lot for any suggestion.

Peter,

I never liked the the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens for it's wide aperture weaknesses. Currently I am using the Sigma EX 50mm f/1.4 which is in the same category as the Canon 50mm L lens. However it is sort of too big, that's why I want to try out the new Planar. I have a Planar 80mm lens for my Hasselblad, and that lens is astonishing, if the 35mm version will be the same quality, it will beat the Canon 50 L lens too.

Unfortunately, I did not hear too much good about the ZF (Nikon) version, I hope the ZE is different and not only in terms of the mount.

Miklos