Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
Not meaning to draw any heat here, I'm a newb to the Rangefinder world and need to learn these things. I'm not new to photography, just the RF side of things.
I've got a lot of reading to do here on this forum and so far it's been great, but this is a question that I would really be interested in hearing your thoughts on, especially since this forum seems to cover all the brands.
So, what's the difference? A Leica M looks like a Nikon SP looks like a Zeiss Ikon looks like a ....
I'm sure there are subtle differences in the visuals, and I'm aware of the TTL on later models, but aside from those little things, what's the dif?
P^)
I've got a lot of reading to do here on this forum and so far it's been great, but this is a question that I would really be interested in hearing your thoughts on, especially since this forum seems to cover all the brands.
So, what's the difference? A Leica M looks like a Nikon SP looks like a Zeiss Ikon looks like a ....
I'm sure there are subtle differences in the visuals, and I'm aware of the TTL on later models, but aside from those little things, what's the dif?
P^)
principe azul
Ian
http://cameraquest.com/classics.htm
Nikon has a different mount... among the M-mounts there are differences in RF baselength, viewfinder magnification... newer cameras have indoor plumbing.
Nikon RF has a much smaller selection of lenses to play with. Bessas, Leicas, the Zeiss Ikon and the Hexar RF all have access to a huge range of lenses. The differences among Leica-mount cameras are nowhere near as great as the differences between, say, a Nikon F and a Nikon F6. They all work pretty much the same, but some are better with wider or faster lenses, some have higher top shutter speeds. That's it, really. And even then there isn't really a photo you could take on one camera that you couldn't take on another, unless you have to have 1/4000 for the shot or you have to focus at 0.7m. The only reason to worry about the differences is that they're not cheap.
Nikon has a different mount... among the M-mounts there are differences in RF baselength, viewfinder magnification... newer cameras have indoor plumbing.
Nikon RF has a much smaller selection of lenses to play with. Bessas, Leicas, the Zeiss Ikon and the Hexar RF all have access to a huge range of lenses. The differences among Leica-mount cameras are nowhere near as great as the differences between, say, a Nikon F and a Nikon F6. They all work pretty much the same, but some are better with wider or faster lenses, some have higher top shutter speeds. That's it, really. And even then there isn't really a photo you could take on one camera that you couldn't take on another, unless you have to have 1/4000 for the shot or you have to focus at 0.7m. The only reason to worry about the differences is that they're not cheap.
principe azul
Ian
Oh, and early Leicas and a few cameras like the Bessa L and Bessa R are screwmount, so can't take M-mount lenses. M-mount cameras can take screwmount lenses with an adaptor. So M-mount cameras are more versatile.
uhligfd
Well-known
The real difference between cameras of any manufacture is made by the one who is handling it, the brain that sees what to take, the experience the taker has, etc.
Then come the slight differences of ease in handling, reliability, sharpness of lenses, bokeh, etc of the gear itself. But the main diff is you, the shooter.
So, get off the gear wagon, do not worry about a thing, but instead just perfect your art and shoot with what you have. And enjoy!
Then come the slight differences of ease in handling, reliability, sharpness of lenses, bokeh, etc of the gear itself. But the main diff is you, the shooter.
So, get off the gear wagon, do not worry about a thing, but instead just perfect your art and shoot with what you have. And enjoy!
BillBingham2
Registered User
Pirate,
For me it has to do with handling pure and simple. I can not live by RF alone. Some times I like to reach out and take a picture (long telephoto). It was a pain having lenses on my SLR of choice (Nikon/Nikkormat) focus and adjust fStop a different direction from my RF. I like to adjust my camera as I bring it up to my eye so having to think which camera am I grabbing and which way means what was a PAIN In The A55.
Now the fact that the S2/3/P handle very much like a Nikon FTn makes my life very easy. They are pretty close to a Nikkormat FTn/3 and F2 also.
Lens wise the only thing I'm missing is a 15mm CV as I need a Nikon F to S adapter. I can run it on my F, but I prefer flexibility.
There is no doubt there are TONS more lenses for M as you can adapt LTM with ease. If you love the look of ZM glass you have not option, if you are a bit more flexible you can find some world class glass for Nikons in a few focal lengths (50, 35, 105). There is a reasonable amount of CV glass still out there available new, just a question of if you like it.
There also is a difference for folks who wear glasses and use diapters and such.
B2 (;->
For me it has to do with handling pure and simple. I can not live by RF alone. Some times I like to reach out and take a picture (long telephoto). It was a pain having lenses on my SLR of choice (Nikon/Nikkormat) focus and adjust fStop a different direction from my RF. I like to adjust my camera as I bring it up to my eye so having to think which camera am I grabbing and which way means what was a PAIN In The A55.
Now the fact that the S2/3/P handle very much like a Nikon FTn makes my life very easy. They are pretty close to a Nikkormat FTn/3 and F2 also.
Lens wise the only thing I'm missing is a 15mm CV as I need a Nikon F to S adapter. I can run it on my F, but I prefer flexibility.
There is no doubt there are TONS more lenses for M as you can adapt LTM with ease. If you love the look of ZM glass you have not option, if you are a bit more flexible you can find some world class glass for Nikons in a few focal lengths (50, 35, 105). There is a reasonable amount of CV glass still out there available new, just a question of if you like it.
There also is a difference for folks who wear glasses and use diapters and such.
B2 (;->
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The British Journal of Photography summed it up pretty well for me. They said that if Zeiss, Voigtländer and Leica were all made by one manufacturer, the price difference would still pretty well sum up the differences in features (e.g. ease of metering, auto-selection of frames), build quality and 'feel'.
I've used all of them, and currently have examples of all of them. I'd sum up the differences as:
Voigtländer: incredible value for money, superb cameras.
ZI: More features, longer RF base, much better viewfinder.
Leica: A luxury version of the ZI, with longer life, better ergonomics (for me, anyway) and an even nicer feel.
Cheers,
R.
I've used all of them, and currently have examples of all of them. I'd sum up the differences as:
Voigtländer: incredible value for money, superb cameras.
ZI: More features, longer RF base, much better viewfinder.
Leica: A luxury version of the ZI, with longer life, better ergonomics (for me, anyway) and an even nicer feel.
Cheers,
R.
ferider
Veteran
On RFF, we love to emphasize the differences, but compared to an SLR the RFs you mention are truely all very similar. Cameraquest.com is a good website describing different RF features.
The Nikon vs M/LTM mount mentioned by PA is probably the biggest gap between the different models.
What do you want to shoot ? In particular the M/LTM mount gives you access to hundreds of lenses, some very old classics, and some of the most sophisticated optics ever designed (making obvious differences in the output).
Cheers,
Roland.
The Nikon vs M/LTM mount mentioned by PA is probably the biggest gap between the different models.
What do you want to shoot ? In particular the M/LTM mount gives you access to hundreds of lenses, some very old classics, and some of the most sophisticated optics ever designed (making obvious differences in the output).
Cheers,
Roland.
jmkelly
rangefinder user
I take pictures that are equally good or bad (depending on your point of view) no matter what camera I have in my hands. I got into collecting cameras for their various esthetics and quality of build. to me, it is just a marvellous intellectual/emotional tactile experience to hold and use:
a 1956 Leica M3 compared with a 1998 M6,
a 1939 Zeiss Contax II, compared to a 1952 IIa, compared (?) to a 2006 Zeiss Ikon,
and even a 1954 Nikon S compared to a 1957 S2.
Clearly for me (and I suspect for more than a few other RFF members) the difference between the various manufacturers is about more than practicing to make better photographs.
a 1956 Leica M3 compared with a 1998 M6,
a 1939 Zeiss Contax II, compared to a 1952 IIa, compared (?) to a 2006 Zeiss Ikon,
and even a 1954 Nikon S compared to a 1957 S2.
Clearly for me (and I suspect for more than a few other RFF members) the difference between the various manufacturers is about more than practicing to make better photographs.
ZeissFan
Veteran
Each of the cameras operate slightly differently and have a different feel. Some love the Leica, while others swear by their cameras.
It's a bit like the Canon vs. Nikon vs. Olympus vs Minolta vs. Konica vs. Pentax debate that used to prevail in the film world and continues to a degree in the digital world.
One thing is for sure: Any of the standard 50mm lenses in the rangefinder community will kick the pants of a modern-day "kit" zoom lens.
It's a bit like the Canon vs. Nikon vs. Olympus vs Minolta vs. Konica vs. Pentax debate that used to prevail in the film world and continues to a degree in the digital world.
One thing is for sure: Any of the standard 50mm lenses in the rangefinder community will kick the pants of a modern-day "kit" zoom lens.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
It's like comparing a Strat, a Tele and a Les Paul - they all have six strings, but the feel totally different.
Pirate
Guitar playing Fotografer
A Strat, a Tele, a Les Paul.... I guess I'll have to try all of them- a Leica, a Nikon, a Zeiss....
Tom Diaz
Well-known
Yes, very good points, and I also think Roger Hicks's post is a very good summary. I have also used all of the M mount cameras, and the most important thing is that all three introduce you to the world of rangefinder shooting, with the film of your choice and with any of a very large array of amazing lenses.
I personally think the Zeiss Ikon is the one to start with if you are new to all this. It's a modern camera, a cut above the Voigtlander in build quality, with a much better viewfinder, and it uses all the same fine M mount lenses.
I also own a Nikon mount camera (a Nikon S). It is certainly a classic and makes great pictures. There are fewer choices of camera bodies--far fewer--and also fewer choices of lenses if you want new ones. (See the Voigtlander R2S stuff at cameraquest.com, because that's pretty much it for newer technology in this mount.) From cameraquest you could get a really good deal on a Nikon-mount kit, but you would not be able to expand it much with new lenses.
Anyway, prepare to have a great time with any of these machines, so long as you get a camera body in good shape and a good lens or two.
Tom
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
One way to put this in perspective is to imagine one who has always been into Leica, Nikon, Zeiss, Canon, or Zorki RF. To this person, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta, Konica, SLRs or dSLRs will also look the same, and will appear to have nothing different...
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
A Strat, a Tele, a Les Paul.... I guess I'll have to try all of them- a Leica, a Nikon, a Zeiss....
Sounds par for the course with you.