Do I need a D800E if I have an M9 and Leica lenses? I am confused.

[David Watson]

Sounds like an odd sort of question but there is method in my madness.  In a sense the question is hypothetical but I wonder why we need 36MP when Leica can do such a good job with 18MP

Now I have noticed that the Leica files can be scaled up to quite large sizes very cleanly.  I am thinking that this is because (a) there is no AA filter and (b) the Leica lenses deliver extremely sharp high contrast images.

Purely in terms of seeing a large sharp print why would I need a D800E?  I know that there are other characteristics such as colour and look which might dictate a preference for a particular camera's output.  There are also considerations associated with long lenses (not good on rangefinder cameras) and the need for live view and so on which would affect a decision.  In fact I have already ordered a D800E for just those reasons but not on the grounds of image quality or file size.

I also use a Hasselblad H4D60 - nice camera with lovely colours - but  I find myself picking up the M9 whenever I can use it in preference to the Hassie. 

[DeeJay]

I am the same. I have an M9 and it is my camera of choice now. Over my P65+ system.

I would be very surprised if the Leica were to be outshone by the Nikon. It's the lenses that are really close to perfect.

[Josh-H]

Yes,  just imagine if we could bolt S2 lenses to a D800E. Now that would sing.....

[DeeJay]

Well I hope the 800E is better than the 800 as I just saw the samples and was rather underwhelmed.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

If you are satisfied with your Leica than you obviously don't need a Nikon. You may also consider that a Leica M10 may show up, sooner or later.

Regarding lenses it's more complex. I'd say there is little doubt Nikon also has quite a few very good lenses and there are Zeiss lenses for Nikon. Some of the Zeiss lenses are said to be very good (the 100/2 macro, the 21/2.8 and possibly the 24/2).

Now, the Nikon D800 has twice the resolution compared to the Leica and that would give a noticeable improvement, as long as the lenses hold up and the better lenses will do that quite nicely. The Nikon comes with either an OLP filter or without.

I recently found a test shot suitable for measuring MTF on the Leica M9. I compared it to Sony Alpha 900 image from the same site. The M9 has much higher MTF at Nyquist, meaning it will have significant aliasing, which means both fake contrast and fake detail, both can make an image perceivably better. The M9 reaches Nyquist around 3500 while the Sony is limited around 4000. If you compare MTF at 3500 the Sony and the Leica are pretty close. So the Leica will produce better fine detail contrast at the pixel level, but the Sony will match it if both are enlarged to the same size.

I have not seen any decent raw images from the Nikon D800/D800E and even if I had I would need a new version of ACR/Lightroom to analyze them. But I'm pretty sure that they will outperform the M9 and the Sony I have comfortably.

Erwin Puts has comparison images from the M9, S2, Nikon D3X and Sony Alpha 900 (and he ranks M9 last of the four):

http://imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page176/s2part4.html

D3X:

M9:

A900:

So my guess may be that the leading 24 MP cameras can match Leica M9 if they use the best lenses and I'm pretty sure this will keep up with the next generation. My expectation is that if you can make an excellent 30x40 print with the M9 than you will be able to make a 60x40 print of similar quality with the Nikon D800e.

I recently made a similar evaluation of three genaration of Sony cameras, all APS-C, namely the Alpha 700, Alpha 55 and the Alpha 77. It seems that resolution increases linearly with the square root of MP on those cameras, indicating the lenses keep up well with sensors. Corner performance may be another thing. The Alpha 77 would have 54MP at full frame, by the way.

Regarding color, it depends mostly on processing but also on the CGA (Color Grid Array). I presume that the design of the CGA is a compromise. If the RGBG filters in the CGA are steep   the camera may reach more saturated color but may have problem with differentiation of colors. I guess that some CGA design are optimized for color separation and some others for high ISO.

I have seen a pair of test shots by Miles Hecker where he made pictures with his Pentax 645D and a friends D3X, he even posted the raw files. To me those two cameras produced different colors and I couldn't get them to match in Lightroom. I don't know which was the correct color but I preferred the Pentax 645D for sure. The Pentax uses a Kodak sensor and I guess that the CGA could be similar to the Leica. See this discussion: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50977.0

Best regards
Erik

Sounds like an odd sort of question but there is method in my madness.  In a sense the question is hypothetical but I wonder why we need 36MP when Leica can do such a good job with 18MP

Now I have noticed that the Leica files can be scaled up to quite large sizes very cleanly.  I am thinking that this is because (a) there is no AA filter and (b) the Leica lenses deliver extremely sharp high contrast images.

Purely in terms of seeing a large sharp print why would I need a D800E?  I know that there are other characteristics such as colour and look which might dictate a preference for a particular camera's output.  There are also considerations associated with long lenses (not good on rangefinder cameras) and the need for live view and so on which would affect a decision.  In fact I have already ordered a D800E for just those reasons but not on the grounds of image quality or file size.

I also use a Hasselblad H4D60 - nice camera with lovely colours - but  I find myself picking up the M9 whenever I can use it in preference to the Hassie.  

[BernardLanguillier]

http://imx.nl/photo/leica/camera/page176/s2part4.html

D3X:

M9:

It seems to me that the M9 is simply out of focus. Now, this is probably representative of the expectations you can have when shooting a viewfinder camera in the field in various illumination levels without live view or tuned AF.

The truth is that the actual pixel count of the M9 when factoring in the average inaccuracy of the focus is probably closer to 14 mp than to 18 mp. Although in this present exemple it is probably around 6 mp worth of information.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes the idea of bad focus occurred to me, but the author stated that focusing was careful and he normally uses focus bracketing. Also the author is a well known expert on Leica lenses. Of the tested cameras only the Nikon D3X has live view which I regard to be most useful for pin point focus.

Best regards
Erik

It seems to me that the M9 is simply out of focus. Now, this is probably representative of the expectations you can have when shooting a viewfinder camera in the field in various illumination levels without live view or tuned AF.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Pingang]

Sounds like an odd sort of question but there is method in my madness.  In a sense the question is hypothetical but I wonder why we need 36MP when Leica can do such a good job with 18MP

Now I have noticed that the Leica files can be scaled up to quite large sizes very cleanly.  I am thinking that this is because (a) there is no AA filter and (b) the Leica lenses deliver extremely sharp high contrast images.

Purely in terms of seeing a large sharp print why would I need a D800E?  I know that there are other characteristics such as colour and look which might dictate a preference for a particular camera's output.  There are also considerations associated with long lenses (not good on rangefinder cameras) and the need for live view and so on which would affect a decision.  In fact I have already ordered a D800E for just those reasons but not on the grounds of image quality or file size.

I also use a Hasselblad H4D60 - nice camera with lovely colours - but  I find myself picking up the M9 whenever I can use it in preference to the Hassie. 

The love of camera and the love of photography and have to deliver a job (lovoing the job) is different.  NOT ALL H4D60 onwer (I use P65+ on H4X) can do better image than those who shot M9 (plus bagful of lenses), and NOT ALL M9 owner (plus bagful of lenses) can do better image than the one use Canon G12. There are many camera system in the world, they all sell except some sell more and some sell less, but they all go to the consumer eventually produce images of varies quality, regardless the kind.  If we only judge by the sharpness and shadow noise of an image then we can probably burn most of the picture books from those masters. I have my M9 last use may be a few months ago not because it is not good but because all the camera I am using now are all good, in different way.
But will I get a D800E, sure, not to replace the M9, but most likely will use a lot more, until the next exciting one comes.  In digital, we are at the end dealing with pixels, today's 22million pixels produce better quality (at pixel level) than those from 6million pixels many years ago (except digital back, may be). I believe the sensor makers are doig better as it goes, not worse.

Pingang

[DeeJay]

The love of camera and the love of photography and have to deliver a job (lovoing the job) is different.  NOT ALL H4D60 onwer (I use P65+ on H4X) can do better image than those who shot M9 (plus bagful of lenses), and NOT ALL M9 owner (plus bagful of lenses) can do better image than the one use Canon G12. There are many camera system in the world, they all sell except some sell more and some sell less, but they all go to the consumer eventually produce images of varies quality, regardless the kind.  If we only judge by the sharpness and shadow noise of an image then we can probably burn most of the picture books from those masters. I have my M9 last use may be a few months ago not because it is not good but because all the camera I am using now are all good, in different way.
But will I get a D800E, sure, not to replace the M9, but most likely will use a lot more, until the next exciting one comes.  In digital, we are at the end dealing with pixels, today's 22million pixels produce better quality (at pixel level) than those from 6million pixels many years ago (except digital back, may be). I believe the sensor makers are doig better as it goes, not worse.

Pingang

Well said.

It's learning which tool is right for the job and applying your knowledge to the task at hand.

For me, the days of using a multi purpose camera is over.

[theguywitha645d]

Sounds like an odd sort of question but there is method in my madness.  In a sense the question is hypothetical but I wonder why we need 36MP when Leica can do such a good job with 18MP

Now I have noticed that the Leica files can be scaled up to quite large sizes very cleanly.  I am thinking that this is because (a) there is no AA filter and (b) the Leica lenses deliver extremely sharp high contrast images.

Purely in terms of seeing a large sharp print why would I need a D800E?  I know that there are other characteristics such as colour and look which might dictate a preference for a particular camera's output.  There are also considerations associated with long lenses (not good on rangefinder cameras) and the need for live view and so on which would affect a decision.  In fact I have already ordered a D800E for just those reasons but not on the grounds of image quality or file size.

I also use a Hasselblad H4D60 - nice camera with lovely colours - but  I find myself picking up the M9 whenever I can use it in preference to the Hassie. 

No, you don't need a Nikon nor 36MP.

Pixel resolution has nothing to do with print size--an 8x10 viewed at 10" looks exactly like a 16x20 viewed at 20" and a 32x40 viewed at 40" and you do not need to do any pixel interpolation. So if you Leica gives you great images, the Nikon will not change that.

An SLR is not a rangefinder. The tool matters.

Is there a reason for more pixels, yes, just as there is a reason for finer grain film. It will impact the look. But the most resolving power is not always the answer--there are plenty of folks shooting Tri-X because they like the result, not that your Leica does anything as bad a Tri-X, but choice on technical criteria is not really on a linear scale.

I think we are reaching a interesting point with digital cameras. We have really hit a point where resolving power is giving diminishing returns, at least in real world viewing conditions--pixel peepers have their own fun, and good luck to them. There are really a fine cameras being made today. They take fine images. Is the next batch of cameras really going to make significant improvements? Here at Lula we can get wrapped up in the minutia, but why sweat the small stuff. If the only thing going for my photography is systemic MTF, then I think I am going to have to find a new field.

[wildlightphoto]

Yes,  just imagine if we could bolt S2 lenses to a D800E. Now that would sing.....

You can put Leica-R APO lenses on Nikon bodies 

[johnkraus]

There are so many aspects to this question, of course there is no one right answer. Some reasons you might want the D800 E as well as M9-

- The nikon lens lineup, there might be focal lengths and lenses there you want and can't get with Leica.
- Being able to use SLR
- Nikon's Flash system
- Nikon's autofocus system
- Live View

The list is endless. Perhaps if you get it down to one specific type of shot you could get some useful perspective.

[Ellis Vener]

"Pixel resolution has nothing to do with print size--an 8x10 viewed at 10" looks exactly like a 16x20 viewed at 20" and a 32x40 viewed at 40" "

No it doesn't and it is silly to say so. If you really think that looking at an 8 x 10 inch print at a ten inch viewing distance is the same experience as looking at a 32x40 inch print at forty inches then there is something seriously wrong with your perceptual faculties. The two are completely different  different experiences.

[theguywitha645d]

"Pixel resolution has nothing to do with print size--an 8x10 viewed at 10" looks exactly like a 16x20 viewed at 20" and a 32x40 viewed at 40" "

No it doesn't and it is silly to say so. If you really think that looking at an 8 x 10 inch print at a ten inch viewing distance is the same experience as looking at a 32x40 inch print at forty inches then there is something seriously wrong with your perceptual faculties. The two are completely different  different experiences.

Well, I would say your comment is silly. I would recommend you to learn about the concept of standard viewing distance. Of course it would be better if you read what I said--I did not refer to "experience," whatever that means.

[Ellis Vener]

"I would recommend you to learn about the concept of standard viewing distance. Of course it would be better if you read what I said--I did not refer to "experience," whatever that means."

I know all about  the technical definition of "standard viewing distances" but how often do you actually hold an 8x10 print ten inches from your face to view it and for how long?

By "experience" I mean actually doing things in the real world - in this case looking at prints of various sizes in the way most people look at them. I suspect the average actual real world instead of pixel peeper distance is more like 15 to 20 inches for an 8x10 to 11x 17 inch print. Next time you are reading a magazine check the approximate distance you hold it from your face. By experience I also refer to how much a print dominates our angle of view and hence our experience of it as an object that we are taking in, or beholding.

When it comes down to evaluating prints at the end of the day  I'll come down on the side of sensual experience every time over a mere technical definition.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My view is that we print large to be able to show small detail. The viewing distance is mostly decided by the viewer, unless the viewperson is hindered by the viewing environment. In a typical gallery its is quite possible to walk up to a print. It's the same with paintings. We seldom look at large paintings at close distance, but can move in to check details or enjoy the artists brushwork.

The standardized viewing distances discussed in television and theatre settings are much based on the need to keep distance so the pixel pitch of the projected/displayed image is kept below the resolution of the eye. The IMAX and OIMNIMAX theaters have much larger screens with relatively close sitting, and therefore use medium format movie film. Each frame on IMAX is about 6x7 cm (i think).

Another view is that for perspective correct viewing the viewing distance would be focal length times magnification. So I have a pano shot with 22 mm lens on APS C. My print is 50x100 cm, and it was shot with the camera in vertical position. So the correct viewing distance would be 500/23.5 * 22 = 468 mm or around 0.5 m. Looking at the image from 2 m is nice, but looking at 0.5m the viewer sees the image in correct perspective, it's like being there, an immersive experience.

Another observation is that a photographers viewing distance is limited by the length of the nose. I think it comes from the late Bruce Fraser.

Best regards
Erik

"I would recommend you to learn about the concept of standard viewing distance. Of course it would be better if you read what I said--I did not refer to "experience," whatever that means."

I know all about  the technical definition of "standard viewing distances" but how often do you actually hold an 8x10 print ten inches from your face to view it and for how long?

By "experience" I mean actually doing things in the real world - in this case looking at prints of various sizes in the way most people look at them. I suspect the average actual real world instead of pixel peeper distance is more like 15 to 20 inches for an 8x10 to 11x 17 inch print. Next time you are reading a magazine  By experience I also refer to how much a print dominates our angle of view and hence our experience of it as an object that we are taking in, or beholding.

When it comes down to evaluating prints at the end of the day  I'll come down on the side of sensual experience every time over a mere technical definition.

[Schewe]

Another observation is that a photographers viewing distance is limited by the length of the nose. I think it comes from the late Bruce Fraser.

Yep...I was there when Bruce said that...kinda, pretty much true, too, unfortunately.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

There is some point to what theguywiththe645D says, but he ignores the fact that the older part of the population does not have the accommodation of eye sight as the young. Older people often wear collective glasses, so what is comfortable viewing distance may also be affected by eyesight. For my part, I'm myopic so I can look at images at short distance without glasses, it's like have a loupe built in. And yes I have 20/20 vision with glasses.

The other observation I may make is that 6MP is probably perfectly good for 8x10" prints viewed at 25cm, so I cannot really see the reason any guy with a 645D would spend 10-20kUSD on an equipment, unless they would print large and view close.

Best regards
Erik

"Pixel resolution has nothing to do with print size--an 8x10 viewed at 10" looks exactly like a 16x20 viewed at 20" and a 32x40 viewed at 40" "

No it doesn't and it is silly to say so. If you really think that looking at an 8 x 10 inch print at a ten inch viewing distance is the same experience as looking at a 32x40 inch print at forty inches then there is something seriously wrong with your perceptual faculties. The two are completely different  different experiences.

[aboudd]

No.

[BernardLanguillier]

Yep...I was there when Bruce said that...kinda, pretty much true, too, unfortunately.

This may explain the Japanese liking for high resolutions. 

Cheers,
Bernard