What would you take: F or M3?

kshapero

kshapero

South Florida Man
Local time
10:10 AM
Joined
Mar 27, 2006
Messages
10,044
Going up to Virginia for some serious Appalachian Trail hiking this week. Rugged terrain and unpredictable weather (at least it is cooling off this coming week). Will definitely be a quiet nature vacation of vistas and interesting trail culture. Should I bring my really wonderful like new M3 and 50mm Cron or my slightly beat up Nikon F (although it does have a new Griptac body covering on it) with my old Nikkor 50/1.4? Interestingly they both weigh about the same. They both have their qualities which are legendary.
What would you do? I am seriously torn between the two.:confused:
 
Your M3, and baptize it from "like new" to "slightly beat up". You will not regret it, unless you need to keep your M3 crisp for financial reasons.
 
That depends on if you ever plan on selling the M3. Just keep in mind that the slightest scratch or ding on your M3 will decrease its value from the "like new" status, down to "excellent" status or worse, meaning your price will drop anywhere from 30% to 60%. Not saying that money is all that matters, but if you keep the M3 as a collector's item, then it is something to consider.
 
I would probably take the F. I am not afraid of using a new camera in a poor environment (my X-Pro is already missing paint, and I've managed to break off the lens hood), but few cameras are as good for hiking or rough use than the F.
 
I would take the F with the Summicron:D

Seriously, for landscapes, I might prefer SLRs, but the Nikkor 1.4 is no match with your summicron.
Take a Nikkor f/2 or better, a micro nikkor 55 2.8, some delta 100, an orange filter, and you're good.
 
Nikon F, no doubt. And that is coming from someone who solely uses M2 for daily photography. Why? Simple, for just throwing in a rucksack and taking pictures on a backpacking trip a already scuffed F just makes a lot more sense. And say what you will about the ruggedness of Leica M, a Nikon F will take more knocks and still be in spec. Your question seems to imply that you worry about your near-pristine M. Just go backpacking and let the F ride along.
My two cents... Greetings, Ljós
 
The F.....no question. Tough, easier to load, great glass, and less valuable. Your more likely to miss a shot trying to protect the M3 and that would suck.
 
Take the F. Because you are most familiar with it and critically, the 50 f1.4 will focus to 18 inches with accurate framing for those close detail shots you will surely want to take.
 
F.. 30 years long this camera was in the tankbags of my motorcycles.. camps.. mountain tops.. freezing temperatures to 40C seashores.. Not serviced yet except I replaced the foams and seals. Take the prism out, lay down with a 20-24mm lens to have some unique perspective.. or use it waist level. It's a most rugged camera I used and I love to use also my R-lenses on it via Leitax adapters (and on the D800E I received this week..:) )

Do you want an inexpensive but sharp and fine bokeh lens for the F ? The 50/2 Non-AI..
 
This is a very good question. The answer depends not on the camera but on the lenses available. If you only have one lens for each then it does not matter. But, for scenic photographing a wide angle lens is essential and to capture images that are in the distance a telephoto lens is necessary. Given those parameters I would go with a 24/28 and a 90/135 (even longer here). Ask yourself which camera provides those options. If you have them for both cameras it does not matter.
 
if you haven't called your homeowner's insurance company to add your Leica I would definitely take the F.

If you aren't familiar with the M3 or haven't tested it thoroughly for accurate focus I would definitely take the F.

When there is a possibility of rough going I will take an SLR. I like my M2 a lot, like A LOT, but I don't have a hard case for it. If I were getting paid to take pictures and had it budgeted to buy a new body then of course I would take the M2.
 
Sooo afraid you lot. "amagad, what if it get's a scratc?"

File-larry_burrows.jpg


If it can go to the Vietnam war, it can go effing hiking ;-)

Infact, kshapero should take the M3 now just to prove the nay-sayers wrong! Be an example! :D

Larry used a bunch of Nikons too, I know.
 
kshapero said:
Going up to Virginia for some serious Appalachian Trail hiking this week. Rugged terrain and unpredictable weather (at least it is cooling off this coming week). Will definitely be a quiet nature vacation of vistas and interesting trail culture. Should I bring my really wonderful like new M3 and 50mm Cron or my slightly beat up Nikon F (although it does have a new Griptac body covering on it) with my old Nikkor 50/1.4? Interestingly they both weigh about the same. They both have their qualities which are legendary.
What would you do? I am seriously torn between the two.:confused:
Click to expand...

The F, of course, why would you take an M3 hiking? :)

Hiking=Landscape/tele shots. Zooms. All kinds of lens choices.

M3 does not do those as well. At least, mine doesn't.
 
Forget about protecting the M3 ... just take the better camera for the job, which logically in this case would be the F.
 
Thanks all. Decided on the F with a Voigtlander 40/2 (does great closeups and is small). Now should I throw in the Nikkor 105/2.5 (very beat up but glass is perfect). Uh oh, now it starts......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom