This could have read M9 and 50 lux and I wouldn’t have had a clue:-)
It’s all about the image and this “moment” with that subtle colour palette and light means Peter you are still with us…the Nikon hasn’t turned you into a pumpkin ;-)….
You know, I toyed with the idea of delaying announcing the switch in gear, and just continuing to post images, just to eliminate any bias from viewers’ minds. I was that confident that I’d found a combination of gear that would approximate what I was getting with my Leica combo (and, as you’ve seen over the last two days, some people appear to be almost upset that I’ve moved on… it’s weird).
However, in the end, I decided I was too lazy to strip away the EXIF data from every image.
Thanks Andrew. I may not have turned into a pumpkin, but my gear has suddenly taken on the proportions of one!
—Peter.
Totally agree, signature look beautifully intact and world still turning…. 😉
Thank you Sir.
Well that’s a compliment to you Peter. You create images that resonate with people. However I won’t be going out to change over my Monochrome for the moment 🙂
On another note the other 50mm lens that is getting a very big wrap is the Sigma Art 1.4. Not that you are going to do anything, just interesting this space has some great contenders.
Yes, I briefly considered that one.
I think it is inevitable that a switch or experiment like this will produce some unhappiness in some quarters. But, cameras and lenses, like much else, are merely tools put to imagination and vision’s purposes by a person. That said, however, the combination of the 800E and Otus has to be simply one of the very best most capable set of tools available.
Still it’s a BIG change. Returning after several years to seeing only what the lens sees will take, I think, some getting used to, but at least you’ve done it before successfully so it’s not entirely learning new tricks. I presume you will be manually focusing and Nikon doesn’t give you much help there, particularly hand held. The “arrow” rangefinding at wide apertures is quite, for me anyway, a challenge. But again my eyes I suspect are part of that problem.
I’ll be interested to see how this progresses. I actually felt as if you were making good progress with both the M240 and MM experiments as well, but in the end the choice of tool is multifaceted. These first images with the 800/ZO are encouraging and I will enjoy following as you sort out the inevitable compromises that this system asks (I think every system demands some).
You were making so many really wonderful images with the 24 Summilux, I’d be surprised if a wide angle didn’t find itself attached to the front of this 800 pretty soon.
I’ll end my “gear” comments where I started…”ain’t we got fun?!”
Don’t start choosing my lenses for me, Greg! I’ll wait and see on this one. For now, the 55 Otus will need to be tamed, as well as the D800E. Fortunately, Spring is here, and with it come more photographic opportunities 🙂
This looks slightly less digital and more film-like than your M9 pics, but there is not a lot between them really.
However, the images of the M9 have their magic. D800 did not have.
I agree, the magic is … sorry this my personal opinion …
The picture is nice, correct, sharp, but it is not the CCD.
This ‘magic’ stuff is really more for dilettantes and hobbyists. Danny Lyon used a Nikon F and a Leica and anything else he could get his hands on. Susan Meiselas used a Leica for her Nicaragua project (as a Magnum photographer.) She’s lately used a Canon 5D III for projects. Both of them are recognized for their work and not for the cameras they might choose to use. The content of the images themselves eclipse the tools the authors may have employed. These are only two examples, but it’s certainly not unusual in the context of the history of photography. Compelling and important imagery has been made with a wide variety of photographic tools. We know this but yet we still seem fixated on the gear.
This Peter guy is making images that are identified by his own approach to his subject matter (and his own choice of subject matter), which is how one can identify a “Peter” photograph (and not by the camera/lens used.) I want to recognize a “Peter” photograph because it was made by “Peter” and not by a specific camera and lens. And looking at all of his images on this website, I do see a series of “Peter” images (and not images made by a particular camera or lens.) And that means to me that he has begun to transcend the ‘gear’ as a means of identifying his images.
I would not feel the need to reply to your comment, but I find your opening sentence very dismissive of the people who comment here and potentially of Peter himself, because you missed the fact that he himself has a strong belief on the effect of the camera (type of sensor more specifically) and lens to the final image. So I think your opening sentence was unnecessary.
Secondly, you may be confusing form with content. Peter’s work has a specific visual language that has a profound effect on the form of the image (low dof, use of light tonalities etc). The discussion is, if his choice of gear may affect the form, not the content.
Having said all of the above I agree with your last point, but please give more credit to the other people who write here.
Peter, first of all I truly wish that you enjoy your new camera/lens and that helps you continue to develop your skill and produce amazing images.
But, I have to add that on one level as someone that follows your blog I feel a bit disappointed. I know it sounds terrible, but in my mind I had you as the person who is almost invisible to the people around him, and you were capturing these little moments of life (as I think you call them) without affecting them too much by observing and recording them. I may be wrong, but that was my impression.
Now I see you there with a big camera and lens, capturing the same moments but in a way that will affect them. I feel something may be lost.
Also, I see the images you posted from the new camera and for me they lack something, especially in the transition of tones. They do not feel the same. I will wait to see more images of course.
I see that you made an observation that you were surprised that a few people were negative about your camera/lens choice. You should not be upset about it, I think you are lucky that you have people who care about you and your work, and they are brave to be honest with you and tell you how they feel. After all, your work has personal meaning for you, but also gets more meaning and purpose because of the people that follow you.
I really hope you will prove me wrong and that your images will continue to have the “magic”.
I am not upset in the least.
In fact, it validates what I was trying to accomplish with my Letter to Leica ( http://photographsbypeter.com/2013/11/16/an-open-letter-to-leica/ ). The thing is, only 200+ of you signed it, even though 5,000 visitors viewed my equipment change post. So, I guess most of you are happy with your CMOS Leica M240 cameras, or your other CMOS cameras. Leica can safely stay the course…
For me, however, CCD will always be better.
As for capturing the “quiet moments”, I believe people forget I’ve held on to my M3. My D800E will be used for those moments too, but I wanted a camera that would not fail me at critical times (my kids’ performances, client photo shoots, etc.)… like my M9 did. I just reached a point where I became fed up with (the lack of) Leica quality assurance.
The honest comments, as you can see, have appeared without interference from me. As long as comments do not contain personal attacks, or offensive language, or are irrelevant, I let them pass. I actually do value your input, so please keep commenting…
Finally, I know this current gear will produce different images, perhaps inferior images, but after 36 hrs of ownership, I’m not ready to give up on it yet, and — far from upset — I’m somewhat amused that people are ready — so quickly — to declare my move a failure. In some ways, the criticism motivates me to prove you all wrong.
You have to remember, I share my experiences freely in this blog (successes and failures), and I post a photo nearly every day. At the end of a year, I’m happy if I can produce one image — CCD or not — that withstands the test of time, and meets the approval of my own critical eye.
—Peter.
Thank you for your reply. I understand about the reliability.
I look forward to observing your journey and see where it takes you.
Hey Peter, i was researching the Mamiya rz67 and stumbled into your site. Im glad i did! Really digging your images. This Nikon and Zeiss combo looks awesome. Thanks
The Mamiya RZ67 kicks major you-know-what. I love it. Wait until tomorrow’s post… I found something for it that I’ve been looking for ever since I picked up the camera.
Welcome aboard John… and thanks.
—Peter.
Peter, I think if you would have posted the D800 photos without mentioning you had changed equipment I bet you would have gotten few…if any posts saying that you posts lacked that Leica or CCD magic.
A wealth of scientific literature about bias in the context of blinded vs. non-blinded investigations would support your contention. However, I too claim to see a difference, so I can’t be a hypocrite about it (even though I suspect you’re correct).
Thanks Cory.
Peter makes a very good point here, anyone who has the opinion that his M9 CCD photos are better, should ideally be signing his ‘open letter to Leica’. I personally would like to see the M-E line continue and develop into an alternative to the CMOS M for those who don’t require live view and prefer the CCD look, however Leica need a reason to do this. They won’t stop their CMOS offering in the M, and rightly so, but it would be nice to have a choice.
i would be star struck to sign a letter that might also offer leica an alternative…Foveon sensor. But as crazy as that sounds, its just a thought i am sharing here and i am not alone.
I think it’s healthy to change equipment on a regular basis. It’s not necessary in the slightest, but it does make things a bit more fun. BTW I enjoyed the guessing game (though I’m posting in 2015).
There is usually more than one right answer to a problem, even within a given system. What I don’t appreciate is those who think they know better than everybody else trying to tell us things which are not so or debatable. An EM-1 will take different photos to a Hasselblad loaded with Kodachrome, etc. But I’m not asking for a lollipop for pointing out the obvious.
Prosophos 
Those tags on the side read D800e, etc, etc…….
This could have read M9 and 50 lux and I wouldn’t have had a clue:-)
It’s all about the image and this “moment” with that subtle colour palette and light means Peter you are still with us…the Nikon hasn’t turned you into a pumpkin ;-)….
You know, I toyed with the idea of delaying announcing the switch in gear, and just continuing to post images, just to eliminate any bias from viewers’ minds. I was that confident that I’d found a combination of gear that would approximate what I was getting with my Leica combo (and, as you’ve seen over the last two days, some people appear to be almost upset that I’ve moved on… it’s weird).
However, in the end, I decided I was too lazy to strip away the EXIF data from every image.
Thanks Andrew. I may not have turned into a pumpkin, but my gear has suddenly taken on the proportions of one!
—Peter.
Totally agree, signature look beautifully intact and world still turning…. 😉
Thank you Sir.
Well that’s a compliment to you Peter. You create images that resonate with people. However I won’t be going out to change over my Monochrome for the moment 🙂
On another note the other 50mm lens that is getting a very big wrap is the Sigma Art 1.4. Not that you are going to do anything, just interesting this space has some great contenders.
Yes, I briefly considered that one.
I think it is inevitable that a switch or experiment like this will produce some unhappiness in some quarters. But, cameras and lenses, like much else, are merely tools put to imagination and vision’s purposes by a person. That said, however, the combination of the 800E and Otus has to be simply one of the very best most capable set of tools available.
Still it’s a BIG change. Returning after several years to seeing only what the lens sees will take, I think, some getting used to, but at least you’ve done it before successfully so it’s not entirely learning new tricks. I presume you will be manually focusing and Nikon doesn’t give you much help there, particularly hand held. The “arrow” rangefinding at wide apertures is quite, for me anyway, a challenge. But again my eyes I suspect are part of that problem.
I’ll be interested to see how this progresses. I actually felt as if you were making good progress with both the M240 and MM experiments as well, but in the end the choice of tool is multifaceted. These first images with the 800/ZO are encouraging and I will enjoy following as you sort out the inevitable compromises that this system asks (I think every system demands some).
You were making so many really wonderful images with the 24 Summilux, I’d be surprised if a wide angle didn’t find itself attached to the front of this 800 pretty soon.
I’ll end my “gear” comments where I started…”ain’t we got fun?!”
Don’t start choosing my lenses for me, Greg! I’ll wait and see on this one. For now, the 55 Otus will need to be tamed, as well as the D800E. Fortunately, Spring is here, and with it come more photographic opportunities 🙂
This looks slightly less digital and more film-like than your M9 pics, but there is not a lot between them really.
However, the images of the M9 have their magic. D800 did not have.
I agree, the magic is … sorry this my personal opinion …
The picture is nice, correct, sharp, but it is not the CCD.
This ‘magic’ stuff is really more for dilettantes and hobbyists. Danny Lyon used a Nikon F and a Leica and anything else he could get his hands on. Susan Meiselas used a Leica for her Nicaragua project (as a Magnum photographer.) She’s lately used a Canon 5D III for projects. Both of them are recognized for their work and not for the cameras they might choose to use. The content of the images themselves eclipse the tools the authors may have employed. These are only two examples, but it’s certainly not unusual in the context of the history of photography. Compelling and important imagery has been made with a wide variety of photographic tools. We know this but yet we still seem fixated on the gear.
This Peter guy is making images that are identified by his own approach to his subject matter (and his own choice of subject matter), which is how one can identify a “Peter” photograph (and not by the camera/lens used.) I want to recognize a “Peter” photograph because it was made by “Peter” and not by a specific camera and lens. And looking at all of his images on this website, I do see a series of “Peter” images (and not images made by a particular camera or lens.) And that means to me that he has begun to transcend the ‘gear’ as a means of identifying his images.
I would not feel the need to reply to your comment, but I find your opening sentence very dismissive of the people who comment here and potentially of Peter himself, because you missed the fact that he himself has a strong belief on the effect of the camera (type of sensor more specifically) and lens to the final image. So I think your opening sentence was unnecessary.
Secondly, you may be confusing form with content. Peter’s work has a specific visual language that has a profound effect on the form of the image (low dof, use of light tonalities etc). The discussion is, if his choice of gear may affect the form, not the content.
Having said all of the above I agree with your last point, but please give more credit to the other people who write here.
Peter, first of all I truly wish that you enjoy your new camera/lens and that helps you continue to develop your skill and produce amazing images.
But, I have to add that on one level as someone that follows your blog I feel a bit disappointed. I know it sounds terrible, but in my mind I had you as the person who is almost invisible to the people around him, and you were capturing these little moments of life (as I think you call them) without affecting them too much by observing and recording them. I may be wrong, but that was my impression.
Now I see you there with a big camera and lens, capturing the same moments but in a way that will affect them. I feel something may be lost.
Also, I see the images you posted from the new camera and for me they lack something, especially in the transition of tones. They do not feel the same. I will wait to see more images of course.
I see that you made an observation that you were surprised that a few people were negative about your camera/lens choice. You should not be upset about it, I think you are lucky that you have people who care about you and your work, and they are brave to be honest with you and tell you how they feel. After all, your work has personal meaning for you, but also gets more meaning and purpose because of the people that follow you.
I really hope you will prove me wrong and that your images will continue to have the “magic”.
I am not upset in the least.
In fact, it validates what I was trying to accomplish with my Letter to Leica ( http://photographsbypeter.com/2013/11/16/an-open-letter-to-leica/ ). The thing is, only 200+ of you signed it, even though 5,000 visitors viewed my equipment change post. So, I guess most of you are happy with your CMOS Leica M240 cameras, or your other CMOS cameras. Leica can safely stay the course…
For me, however, CCD will always be better.
As for capturing the “quiet moments”, I believe people forget I’ve held on to my M3. My D800E will be used for those moments too, but I wanted a camera that would not fail me at critical times (my kids’ performances, client photo shoots, etc.)… like my M9 did. I just reached a point where I became fed up with (the lack of) Leica quality assurance.
The honest comments, as you can see, have appeared without interference from me. As long as comments do not contain personal attacks, or offensive language, or are irrelevant, I let them pass. I actually do value your input, so please keep commenting…
Finally, I know this current gear will produce different images, perhaps inferior images, but after 36 hrs of ownership, I’m not ready to give up on it yet, and — far from upset — I’m somewhat amused that people are ready — so quickly — to declare my move a failure. In some ways, the criticism motivates me to prove you all wrong.
You have to remember, I share my experiences freely in this blog (successes and failures), and I post a photo nearly every day. At the end of a year, I’m happy if I can produce one image — CCD or not — that withstands the test of time, and meets the approval of my own critical eye.
—Peter.
Thank you for your reply. I understand about the reliability.
I look forward to observing your journey and see where it takes you.
Hey Peter, i was researching the Mamiya rz67 and stumbled into your site. Im glad i did! Really digging your images. This Nikon and Zeiss combo looks awesome. Thanks
The Mamiya RZ67 kicks major you-know-what. I love it. Wait until tomorrow’s post… I found something for it that I’ve been looking for ever since I picked up the camera.
Welcome aboard John… and thanks.
—Peter.
Peter, I think if you would have posted the D800 photos without mentioning you had changed equipment I bet you would have gotten few…if any posts saying that you posts lacked that Leica or CCD magic.
A wealth of scientific literature about bias in the context of blinded vs. non-blinded investigations would support your contention. However, I too claim to see a difference, so I can’t be a hypocrite about it (even though I suspect you’re correct).
Thanks Cory.
Peter makes a very good point here, anyone who has the opinion that his M9 CCD photos are better, should ideally be signing his ‘open letter to Leica’. I personally would like to see the M-E line continue and develop into an alternative to the CMOS M for those who don’t require live view and prefer the CCD look, however Leica need a reason to do this. They won’t stop their CMOS offering in the M, and rightly so, but it would be nice to have a choice.
For those still interested, you may still sign it (sign in the comments section): http://photographsbypeter.com/2013/11/16/an-open-letter-to-leica/
i would be star struck to sign a letter that might also offer leica an alternative…Foveon sensor. But as crazy as that sounds, its just a thought i am sharing here and i am not alone.
I think it’s healthy to change equipment on a regular basis. It’s not necessary in the slightest, but it does make things a bit more fun. BTW I enjoyed the guessing game (though I’m posting in 2015).
There is usually more than one right answer to a problem, even within a given system. What I don’t appreciate is those who think they know better than everybody else trying to tell us things which are not so or debatable. An EM-1 will take different photos to a Hasselblad loaded with Kodachrome, etc. But I’m not asking for a lollipop for pointing out the obvious.