Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/12/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Comparison of DMR to Nikon D800E the cheap nikon 28-80
From: john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster)
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 21:14:08 +0000
References: <80F9701439F20347874CE5E4E03C22E99CB5C0DC@WHIZZMAIL02.whizz.org> <CCDFDD15.27165%mark@rabinergroup.com>

I think you will find that most (all?) on this list who have bought a D800 
model have paid extra for the D800E - as well as it being in the subject 
line/original question.

You have lost me on the $3495.00 lens bit

john

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Also the fact that you are talking about the 800e not plain vanilla 800.
> 
> That irony that I've spent $3495.00 on a lens but can fine hope and 
> happiness
> with a lens on my camera I'd not be able to sell for $34.95 does not escape
> me.
> 
> Mark William Rabiner
> Photography
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
> 
> 
> >
> > That may not sound much difference, but believe me there are few
> > lenses that are up to 36MP.... have you shot with one yet?
> >
> > john
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >> We do get lazy when all our results are 1200 pixels on the long side.
> >> But I am able to view these images as they are taken which is 4256
> >> pixels with my D700.
> >>
> >> I've shot around 900 captures in two for me exotic locations in the
> >> past two weeks with my laptop down I've just seen them for the first
> >> time in the past few days.
> >> I'll post one on the Lug gallery if that's possible full size 4256
> >> pixels and you can tell me what you think.
> >> I'm sure at 7360 pixels across on the long side they'd reveal more.
> >> Not sure it would be a deal maker or breaker or not.
> >> 7360 is what the d800 gives you.
> >>
> >> 4256 Vs 7360 pixels
> >>
> >>
> >> Mark William Rabiner
> >> Photography
> >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> You may get a shock with some of your lenses if you were to shoot on
> >>> a D800E......
> >>>
> >>> john
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>
> >>>> For two solid weeks I've been shooting with a normal zoom nikon kit
> >>>> lens of the pervious film fueled decade.
> >>>> The Nikon 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G
> >>>>
> >>>> On my D700
> >>>>
> >>>> Straight from the dark side:
> >>>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28-80mm-g.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> " The Nikon 28-80mm G is a dinky 7-ounce (190g) plastic zoom with
> >>>> incredibly good performance."
> >>>> " Incredible means unbelievable. The performance of this lens is so
> >>>> good that no one will believe it possibly can come from a lens this
> cheap."
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheap means 50 bucks.
> >>>>
> >>>> " The Nikkor 28-80mm G is one of Nikon's most popular lenses of all
> time.
> >>>> Nikon made over a million and a half of these, so you will find
> >>>> them everywhere. Mine came attached to an N55."
> >>>>
> >>>> I bought an N55 so I could get this lens. I used the camera once.
> >>>>
> >>>> " The front element is a compound aspherical. This means Nikon
> >>>> glues a thin plastic corrector over another spherical glass
> >>>> element, giving the performance of an aspherical lens at a low price"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Mark William Rabiner
> >>>> Photography
> >>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: Aram Langhans <leica_r8 at hotmail.com>
> >>>>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> >>>>> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 09:55:32 -0800
> >>>>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Comparison of DMR to Nikon D800E
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's what I have gathered.  But as you say, expensive, and
> >>>>> indeed
> >> heavy.
> >>>>> One of my prime considerations for lens choice is weight, as I
> >>>>> hike all over with them.  They could be with me for 10 hours in a
> >>>>> day.  I thought the
> >>>>> 35/70 was heavy at one time, but nothing compared to my current
> >>>>> Nikon
> >>>>> 24-120/4 I bought at the last minute to substitute for the 35/70
> >>>>> when I dropped it and broke it a few weeks before a two month
> >>>>> trip, so I needed something.  the 24/120 was lighter and smaller
> >>>>> than the
> >>>>> 24-70/2.8
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Aram
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> From: <grduprey at mchsi.com>
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:54 PM
> >>>>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Comparison of DMR to Nikon D800E
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Aram,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I will try to do it this weekend.  However, I can tell you the
> >>>>>> 24/70
> >>>>>> f2.8 is a real gem of a lens.  Fast focussing, quiet and sharp.
> >>>>>> Also expensive.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Gene
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>> From: "Aram Langhans" <leica_r8 at hotmail.com>
> >>>>>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:01:21 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
> >>>>>> Central
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Comparison of DMR to Nikon D800E
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Would love to see the 35/70 R vs the 24/70 N.  I am considering
> >>>>>> the D600, but will have to replace my Nikon DX 10-24 with
> something.
> >>>>>> In looking at what Nikon has to offer for FF in that range, I
> >>>>>> cringe at every review when they talk about the massive amount of
> >>>>>> distortion, or the edge performance.
> >>>>>> That seems to be universal for zooms with Nikon and Canon and
> xxxx.
> >>>>>> But I have never noticed much with the 35/70 R.  But have never
> >>>>>> done any objective tests.  Hope you have the time to make this
> >> comparison.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Aram
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: grduprey at mchsi.com
> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:50 PM
> >>>>>> To: Leica Users Group
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Comparison of DMR to Nikon D800E
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Frank,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No I have not seen any comparisons of the DMR and D800E.  Can't
> >>>>>> comment on the D800, but I do have a D4, and just off the top,
> >>>>>> the DMR does a fair job against the D4 for an 8? year old design.
> >>>>>> Although I have not made a side by side comparison of images.
> >>>>>> The
> >>>>>> D4 kills the DMR when it comes to high ISO, and kills just about
> >>>>>> anything else in that category.  The D4 is very waterproof, from
> >>>>>> recent experience, where the DMR may not be as good, as I keep it
> >>>>>> out of the rain when I am not shooting, but it has not had any
> >>>>>> glitches when it did get wet, but I worry about the motor to
> >>>>>> camera interface not being too water tight.  They are both heavy,
> >>>>>> pretty close actually, the DMR on the R8 is a bit shorter than the 
> >>>>>> D4.
> >>>>>> Turn on is much slower with the DMR, and so is write speed.  The
> >>>>>> buffer on the DMR is very small, where the D4 buffer is vast and
> >>>>>> you can shoot rapidly with no problem of the camera slowing down
> >>>>>> (great for bird in flight photos), although i would bet Doug
> >>>>>> would out do it with the DMR and a single click ;).  The R8DMR is
> >>>>>> a bit quieter, noise wise, but the D4 beats the D800 or D700 by
> >>>>>> light years in this area.  I prefer the simplicity of the DMR
> >>>>>> controls over those of the D4, although the D4 controls are well
> >>>>>> laid out, when compared to earlier Nikon DSLRs, and definitely
> >>>>>> better than Canon DSLRs.  You can get
> >>>>>> D4 batteries, where the DMR batteries are rarer than Hen's Teeth,
> >>>>>> and must be rebuilt or use an external source if you cannot get
> >>>>>> them rebuilt.  The charge also lasts way longer than the DMR's
> >>>>>> batteries, although they are not cheap by any measure.  The auto
> >>>>>> focus on the D4 is simply AMAZING! It locks on very fast and no
> >>>>>> hunting at all, even in low light, MF with the D4 and older MF
> >>>>>> Nikkors is very good also, as it has a bright view finder (but
> >>>>>> not as quite as bright as the R8 I think).  MF on the DMR is
> >>>>>> getting a bit slow with my 64 year old eyes, but still works good
> >>>>>> in most light levels. Build for both is excellent, but would give
> >>>>>> the D4 a bit of a nod here, due to the previously mentioned motor
> >>>>>> to camera body interface of the DMR.  I will go out this weekend
> >>>>>> and do a side by side image test of the two, probably with the
> >>>>>> 180/2.8 MF Nikkor, and the 180/3.4 R APO lenses (Similar vintage
> >>>>>> lenses), don't have any other similar lenses to compare.  But
> >>>>>> could do a comparison of my 35~70R zoom and my 24~70 AF-S Nikkor
> >>>>>> zoom.  Any thing I have not covered, that you would like to know?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> CHEERS,
> >>>>>> Gene
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>>> From: "Frank Filippone" <red735i at verizon.net>
> >>>>>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 1:22:20 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
> >>>>>> Central
> >>>>>> Subject: [Leica] Comparison of DMR to Nikon D800E
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Has anyone seen a comparison of the DMR and the Nikon D800E?
> >> Using
> >>>>>> Leica glass, of course.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Frank Filippone
> >>>>>>


Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Comparison of DMR to Nikon D800E the cheap nikon 28-80)
In reply to: Message from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] Comparison of DMR to Nikon D800E the cheap nikon 28-80)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Comparison of DMR to Nikon D800E the cheap nikon 28-80)