Nikon D300 v Leica D Lux 3

If my Leica lensed Panasonic is anything to go by, and it should be as Panasonic make the Leica used internals, I would save the difference or buy a lightweight tripod.

Jono (still have an old FE in the cupboard)

The Leica salesman (he only sells Leica and Panasonic) said the Leica cost more than the Panasonic because
the electonic "engine" was usefully better and because it sported a Leica badge

So I imagine your Panasonic performs to a similar level to the Leica and produces good results. How much better/more-versatile is the Nikon?

At present, I can print photos at A0 size, taken with a Canon EOS 100 on Kodak film and transfered to CD before printing.

Would the Leica and/or the Nikon be capable of capturing and replicating this level of detail?

Cheers

Don

The key here, as you'll know from your EOS, is the lens.

The Leica glass & coatings are superior to the Nikkor lens, but optically the design of the SLR lens is bound to have less compromise than something that was design to fit into a compact.

Given that you obviously already own at least one Canon lens, which you're obviously happy with, it begs the question why you don't simply invest your money in a digital EOS body & keep your lenses & other accessories....

An Eos 450D will set you back under
£600 and give you 12.3 megapixels.

For £1700 you could have an EOS5D with a full-frame 35mm sized sensor... giving you the same field of view as your current lenses offer, so no need to splash the cash on more expensive lenses to get the same angle of view you've already paid for.

For me it'd be a no-brainer... stick with lenses I know & love & go for a 5D... but the's just me.

Will they be as good as you get from 100ASA film....
No.

Especially not if you use E6 (transparency, rather than colour print).

You need to spend a LOT to do that, but all of the items you've discussed will give great results of to A2 size.


For ref... I keep a hand in on this kit.. my father is a pro photographer of 43yrs standing, and I spent 10yrs working in the trade, including 3 years for Fox Talbot, dealing with Contax, Leica, Canon & Nikon on a daily basis, so whilst I don't believe my word is law, I can safely say I know what I'm talking about.


Hope this helps

Mike

Sorry for eavesdropping in on your discussion. I have a Nikon F90X which has enabled me to take some great pictures but I have spent quite some time thinking long and hard about getting a Nikon D300. This will enable me to keep my lenses. However.....I am not sure whether or not to buy a second hand Medium Format Camera instead. I am dithering between the two. I would like the convenience of the D300 but I want the image quality of a slide camera.

I can see myself wrestling with my decision up to the point of handing over my money. Thanks Mike for your input.

Cheers Steve2

Don

The Nikon will blow the Leica into the proverbial weeds. It isn't just the superior Nikon optics (and I would suggest you ought to buy Nikon's better quality glass); but another major factor is the substantially larger sensor - the megapixel count is misleading as the Nikon's sensor is much larger than the current crop of compacts.

I have a d Lux 3, so I have no interest in skewing people's opinions on this. I also suspect that the Nikon will benefit from the latest processing technology which will help reduce the dreaded digital 'noise'.

Having said that, I love my Leica M7 (and Konica rangefinder for that matter) under certain circumstances with Fuji Provia slide film. To my mind, there is still something special about film - long may it continue.

Peter

Steve..... pick your Nikon digital body very carefully.... if you have a bunch of early Nikon lenses that function in Aperature Priority & metered manual on your F90X, you may find that on a digital body (which may not have the mechanical aperature coupling ring) you may not even get metered manual.. you may not have noticed but some newer AF lenses don't even have aperature rings any more!

The D300 is fine for this, but models below are not:


From the D300 specs page:

quote:

Compatible Lenses
1) DX AF Nikkor: All functions possible
2) D-/G-type AF Nikkor (excluding IX Nikkor lenses): All functions possible (excluding PC Micro-Nikkor)
3) AF Nikkor other than D-/G-type (excluding lenses for F3AF): All functions except 3D-Color Matrix Metering II possible
4) AI-P Nikkor: All functions except Autofocus, 3D-Color Matrix Metering II possible
5) Non-CPU AI Nikkor: Can be used in exposure modes A and M; electronic range finder can be used if maximum aperture is f/5.6 or faster; Color Matrix Metering and aperture value display supported if user provides lens data

Don, I'd echo what Peter says about sensors too (I'd have gone further on my earlier post, but dinner was burning).

As a man who owns equal quantities (at varying vintages) of Canon & Nikon SLR equipment I certainly wouldn't pour fuel on the Nikon vs Canon debate... but given that you already own Canon kit I'd definately go for an EOS5D in your shoes, if only to avoid re-buying lenses, flashguns, & re-learning operating systems and operational traits.

Mike

I also have both. Peter is right. Take the Nikon.

I have both, and must admit to being a reluctant fan of the D-Lux3. I bought it for my wife, but find myself slipping it into my rucksac increasingly often on trips.
Perhaps I am weedy, but I find an SLR outfit too big and heavy for treking these days, and I think twice about the M8.
The picture quality from the D-Lux3 is excellent, and when showing photos from trips to friends (admitedly, mainly on their TVs) I often can't remember which of the three types of camera I have used for a particular shot.
So, I'd suggest that your camera choice be determined by your mode of travel and the terrain, and intended subject matter. For example, on a recent wildlife trip, I got far better butterfly photos with the D-Lux3 in macro-mode than the guys with top macro lensed DSLR, simply because I was more mobile and could get the little Leica into more inaccesaible spots without spooking the subject.
The picture quality from the D-Lux3 will never be a "waste of time", and certainly can produce images good enough for publication. That said, if you are taking landscapes and have the strength to get it to the summit, the DSLR will win.

The general census appears to be that a Nikon D300 will blow a Leica D Lux 3 to pieces. So the Leica D Lux is now history for me.

I have a Canon EOS100 with 28/105 Ultrasonic zoom (and a 75/300 Ultrasonic zoom which hardly ever gets used). The shutter intermittently sticks so I haven't used the Canon for over a year.

Instead I have used my daughter's Nikon F80 with Nikor 28/105 zoom, and quite like it.

Both the Canon and the Nikon produce good results with print film and slide film. I tend towards print film simply because its easier these days to get a high-density CD made when the print film gets developed. Its virtually impossible to get a CD made at the same time as developing a Kodak slide film.

I could buy a Nikon Coolscan ? slide scanner for about £500 and scan selected slides. But I thought that digital cameras had now surpassed their film equivalents and that if I moved to the more "modern" technology at the Nikon D300 level I might equal or even better the EOS100/F80 quality I currently enjoy.

The lenses that I have are "good" but I guess no better than the modern ones I mentioned earlier, and might/might-not be fully compatible with current digital bodies.

I guess I am leaning towards the Nikon D300 with the 17/55 f2.8 lens at the moment

Cheers

Don

Don,

One thing I can guarantee you is that your Canon lenses for your EOS 100 will work with all functions of a digital EOS ( although there are specific "EF-S" lenses which work only on certain digital bodies, due to the fact their rear elements protrude back into the camera body, but don't foul the mirror of bodies with less than a full 35mm frame sensor).


Don't know if that helps or not... but an unscrupulous salesman might try and flog you new lenses whichever make you stick with.
The 28-105usm is a classic... Still have mine & won't part with it.

Is your longer zoom a single action (slider) or two action (rotating ring to zoom).


Do you have a Canon Speedlite flash unit too?

quote:

Is your longer zoom a single action (slider) or two action (rotating ring to zoom).


Do you have a Canon Speedlite flash unit too?

The longer zoom has a rotating ring to zoom, very much the same as the 28/105 ie you grasp the barrel and turn to zoom. You turn another ring to focus - although I tended to use the autofocus system. Actually, having written that last sentence, I am going to have check when i get home! - I am no longer certain. Frightening! I will post again when I have looked.

I never bough a flash unit, just used the built-in-pop-up flash.

You will have gathered that I am just an average amaturish user of cameras. The photos are just memory joggers of times gone by, with the odd flash of a half-decent picture now and then. but I wouldn't want these memories to be clouded by badly exposed, fuzzy, poorly coloured pictures. And I still live in hope of capturing one or two "wow" pictures.

cheers

Don

quote:

must admit to being a reluctant fan of the D-Lux3.

Our posts crossed. Perhaps the Leica isn't history.......oh dear!

cheers

Don

So... the lenses are both of the same vintage as the EOS100...

That means they're amongst the best quality (mechanical build AND optics) that Canon made outside of their L series at those focal lengths.

For the D300 fans, believe me, with a blank canvas & cheque to match I'd probably go for that.

The downside of the EOS5D is that it doesn't have a popup flash, which makes the much less expensive EOS40D look more useful... bear that in mind but do look at both ranges.

Critically you should also be looking on here for the most detailed, accurate & objective reviews I've ever encountered:

dpreview

fwiw

I like my D300

just as good as a Point and Shoot - as well as a serious shooter.

Lenses are a bit pricey - but i'm sure that's not a concern for most on this forum.

And I like the ability to use lenses from my old Nikon FM2.

badger

Perhaps the crucial question not yet asked is what you will do with the images the camera takes.

If you are making huge prints then the resolving power of the lens and the pixel count are of prime concern; if you are printing only snapshots you will be hard pressed to discern any difference between the expensive and cheaper system.

quote:

At present, I can print photos at A0 size, taken with a Canon EOS 100 on Kodak film and transfered to CD before printing.

Nigel,

Most of my photos have been taken with slide film and are projected using a Kodak Carousel. Many of these have been saved to CD at the time of development and I use the CD version to produce prints, usually at A4 or A3 size, but occasionally larger up to A0. I have a handful of A1 prints mounted in frames and wall-hung.

If I moved to digital, I would want to be able to project images onto a screen and/or the TV (ie equivalent of the Carausel). Plus I would want to print at A4/A3 with occasional prints at A2/A1/A0.

I would expect to archive images to CD

Cheers

Don

How do you spell carousel ?

Don

Carousel is the correct spelling.

With regards to slides and archiving, I have a Nikon 5000ED with slide feeder which takes up to around 50 slides at a time, automatically fed through and scanned onto my mac. You can get better quality with a pro drum scanner, but really, I can't imagine many times when I would want that level. The Nikon is quite expensive, but great quality and convenient.

Peter

quote:

I could buy a Nikon Coolscan ? slide scanner for about £500 and scan selected slides.

Ah!, the next model up is always tantalisingly better.....

The 5000ED is about £880 at Grays, so....

F80 and current 28/105 lens plus Nikon Coolscan 5000ED scanner versus
Leica D Lux 3 versus
Nikon 300D plus 17/55 lens versus
Canon EOS5D plus existing usm lenses versus............

Cheers

Don

quote:

The longer zoom has a rotating ring to zoom, very much the same as the 28/105 ie you grasp the barrel and turn to zoom. You turn another ring to focus - although I tended to use the autofocus system. Actually, having written that last sentence, I am going to have check when i get home! - I am no longer certain. Frightening! I will post again when I have looked.

My memory still serves me well>

Cheers

Don

Well, all of those options are going to give you great results, it's just which is right for you.

Happy hunting!

I do not know about the Leica, but one thing I know for sure is that even if it's bigger and less convenient to carry around, I've allways prefered to use SLRs. Over the years, I'v owned many Nikon SLRs (FM2, FE2, F4s, F5, F2A) and now I sold all that gear which was loosing value very fast when the better digital cameras came out. The only SLR I kept was the FM2 with my very loud MD-12 motor drive (When i use it, everybody's looking at me as if I would be an alien emerging from the eighties!).

My girlfriend recently bought a D80 and I use it from time to time with my different lenses (amongst which I have an awesome 135mm f2 DC). I think It's very good for the money (1000$ CAD. The good thing about digital cameras is the fact that it does not cost a single cent to shoot. The bad thing about it is the bad light dynamics (blasting whites) in comparison to film. My girlfriend choose a Nikon D80 because you can use almost all Nikon lenses on it, I am now thinking about the D300 for myself but I think I will still wait for the larger DCC (35mm as in the 5D or D3) to come out in cheaper models to make the move. The only reason why I would choose a Nikon is because I already have a couple of lenses.

My friend recently bought a D5. In many ways, it's awesome, if I were you, I'd go all the way with the D5.

Cheers!

I can only speak for my own experience having both a Pentax DSLR and recently bought a Leica equipped Panasonic Lumix TZ3. The Pentax DSLR IST DS2 is light years better than the TZ3 in any lighting conditions - the TZ3 can't cope with huge variations in lighting in single frame, it can't cope with low light, it doesn't offer anything like the flexibility of a DSLR.

On the other hand it is a superb slip in the pocket camera and I now use it far more than the SLR in all sorts of situations, travel, parties etc because it is so compact, fast and simple to use - and most of the time it is good enough.

If it were me though, I'd buy an SLR system that will use your existing lenses and only ever buy a digital compact if I already had a competent DSLR - that way it's my choice when I choose to accept the lower quality results.

Jonathan

Yes, i have a feeling that somehow I will end up with both a (D)SLR and a compact.

I keep trying to pinch Mrs D's Nikon P5000, but she seems to keep it under lock and key and uses it virtually every day. Nice pics as well, ....but!

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Mike1380:
...optically the design of the SLR lens is bound to have less compromise than something that was design to fit into a compact.

Not true. The need to leave clearance for a mirror is a (sometimes serious) compromise for SLR designs particularly for wide angles. Also it is easier to correct for a lens which has to cover the smaller sensor of a typical compact.

FWIW I would prefer the compact unless I could get somebody else to carry it, in which case I would not hesitate in going for the SLR.

Absolutely... where the requirement is specifically for a lens of short focal length.

In fact the majority of SLR lenses below 35mm focal length have to be designed in such a way that their optical centre lies outside the physical construction of the lens... between the rear element & the "film plane"

It is because of this that the Leica rangefinders are still so good at short focal length - their lack of need for a mirror-box allows the lens to be physically closer and this avoids the need to go to such lengths. The resulting simplicity of the M-Series wide-angle lens design is one of the keys to its' phenomenal performance.

Unfortunately this is less of a valid comparison as far too many compacts have focal lengths equivalent to 38mm or above.... thus rendering little advantage over the retro-focal designs of SLR lenses wider than 35mm.. against which most of these compacts are not competing. Those which do offer 28mm equivalency almost always do so as part of a zoom, usually a 3 or 4x zoom ratio... this has compromises involved in engineering the variable focal length, which tend to outweigh the abilities the lens has at its' widest focal length.

Sure, that's a generalisation.... give me a Nikon 28ti, or a Ricoh GR1 and I'll be a happy boy. In fact I still own a Nikon AF600 - an ultra compact 35mm camera sporting a 28mm f/3.5 of astonihing performance - all the better given the fiver it cost me on e-Bay.


Also worthy of note is that compacts employing zooms usually force their hand on image quality in terms of vignetting & fall-off in sharpness towards the edges & corners.

Using an SLR which employs a much larger lens diameter can avoid having to rely on the entire breath of the optical pathway of the lens to render an image, and allows the lens manufacturer to optimise the central optical pathway which is more likely to give best performance with the aperature wide-open.. rather than with narrow-barrel designs where best performance occurs when the aperature is stopped down 3 or 4 stops.



Mike