msbarnes
Well-known
How do these cameras compare in terms of feel, build, and ergonomics? Not interested in the optical qualities of the but more of the camera bodies. I'm beginning to realize that camera ergonomics mean more to me than lenses, sometimes. The Leicaflex gets high acclaim and so does the Nikon, but the latter is a better system and value.
This is out of curiousity. I wouldn't be interested in getting a Leicaflex so much because the lenses are too expensive relative to the high quality japanese competitors.
This is out of curiousity. I wouldn't be interested in getting a Leicaflex so much because the lenses are too expensive relative to the high quality japanese competitors.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Pro's :Leicaflex SL still has one of the brightest viewfinders around. Good meter (if it still works). Built like a brick outhouse.
Con's: Almost impossible to get fixed if something goes wrong. Uses a 625 Mercury battery. It is also heavy.
Lens selection is a bit limited (compared to Nikon), but what is available is about as good as it gets!
Nikon F, pro's: plentiful and cheap. Flexible - you can add and remove stuff from the body, change screens, heads, add motor drive if you have the right base plate. Unmatched selection of lenses - if you can imagine a lens, Nikon probably made it! Lenses are still reasonably priced - though the fact that they can be used on DSLR's have started to push prices up a bit.
It is truly an iconic camera - more than 1 million made and repairs are still possible - though Nikon does not support it with parts anymore.
Cons: angular edged body, your hand gets tired holding on to it. You have to remove the base/back to reload. Most Photomic meters are dead!
Nikon F2/SL2 : more money, not as "funky" as the original versions. F2 is easier to load - metered heads might work - and if not, can be fixed in many cases.
SL2. Good camera, heavy and again, if something goes wrong - it becomes a useless paperweight. Fairly easy to find in mint shape - but then you have to use all that film to make it look right.
Con's: Almost impossible to get fixed if something goes wrong. Uses a 625 Mercury battery. It is also heavy.
Lens selection is a bit limited (compared to Nikon), but what is available is about as good as it gets!
Nikon F, pro's: plentiful and cheap. Flexible - you can add and remove stuff from the body, change screens, heads, add motor drive if you have the right base plate. Unmatched selection of lenses - if you can imagine a lens, Nikon probably made it! Lenses are still reasonably priced - though the fact that they can be used on DSLR's have started to push prices up a bit.
It is truly an iconic camera - more than 1 million made and repairs are still possible - though Nikon does not support it with parts anymore.
Cons: angular edged body, your hand gets tired holding on to it. You have to remove the base/back to reload. Most Photomic meters are dead!
Nikon F2/SL2 : more money, not as "funky" as the original versions. F2 is easier to load - metered heads might work - and if not, can be fixed in many cases.
SL2. Good camera, heavy and again, if something goes wrong - it becomes a useless paperweight. Fairly easy to find in mint shape - but then you have to use all that film to make it look right.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Both the Leicaflexes and the Nikons exude a "made on purpose" vibe. Both are heavy and made like a tank. The Leica lenses are top notch, as are many of the Nikons. I used both the Nikon F and F2 professionally. Great cameras. Honestly, though, these aren't rangefinders, and SLR's have improved greatly. I think the F3 is the earliest Nikon I would want (and do) to use these days.
mfogiel
Veteran
Tom A has been very exhaustive. I can say, that in terms of feel Leicaflex SL is even more solid than Nikon F2, however the main advantage would be in the really nice VF.
I would say, that if you think about an SLR with the eyes of a leica shooter, unless you want to be really into long lenses, which I'd think is realm of AF cameras nowadays, what you will want is a 60mm macro, and a 90 and maybe 135 for portraiture.
The strong points of Leica R old school, are the Macro Elmatrit 60/2.8 and Summicron 90/2, plus you also have Elmarit 135/2.8 which is very nice. These lenses at current prices are total bargains. Nikon on the other hand, has a fantastic 105/2.5 QC, not to mention the 105 and 135/2 DC, but the last two lenses will be more expensive than Summicron 90 or Elmarit 135.
If you want to stay on the cheap, look for an F2 with the simple DE-1 prism, the 105/2.5 and perhaps 50/2 HC. If you want to get into Leica R, for me an R4S2 is more logical as a body than a Leicaflex - if it breaks, you just look for another one. I bought a Leicaflex SL2 in beat up condition, and sent it to Leica for a possible CLA - Leica has declined service, and sent the camera to a German repair shop. They wanted 650 EUR for a complete adjustment, which is about 4-5 perfectly working R4S bodies...
Final point - as Wilson has stated above, having a possibility to choose at the same price, I would definitely skip the F2 for an F3 - I still cannot believe I bought mine for 250 EUR, and it was NEW, it still had the plastic wrap on the shutter...
I would say, that if you think about an SLR with the eyes of a leica shooter, unless you want to be really into long lenses, which I'd think is realm of AF cameras nowadays, what you will want is a 60mm macro, and a 90 and maybe 135 for portraiture.
The strong points of Leica R old school, are the Macro Elmatrit 60/2.8 and Summicron 90/2, plus you also have Elmarit 135/2.8 which is very nice. These lenses at current prices are total bargains. Nikon on the other hand, has a fantastic 105/2.5 QC, not to mention the 105 and 135/2 DC, but the last two lenses will be more expensive than Summicron 90 or Elmarit 135.
If you want to stay on the cheap, look for an F2 with the simple DE-1 prism, the 105/2.5 and perhaps 50/2 HC. If you want to get into Leica R, for me an R4S2 is more logical as a body than a Leicaflex - if it breaks, you just look for another one. I bought a Leicaflex SL2 in beat up condition, and sent it to Leica for a possible CLA - Leica has declined service, and sent the camera to a German repair shop. They wanted 650 EUR for a complete adjustment, which is about 4-5 perfectly working R4S bodies...
Final point - as Wilson has stated above, having a possibility to choose at the same price, I would definitely skip the F2 for an F3 - I still cannot believe I bought mine for 250 EUR, and it was NEW, it still had the plastic wrap on the shutter...
msbarnes
Well-known
Thanks.
I looooove all-mechanical bodies. RF's, TLR's, SLR's. I decided to get a Nikon so I'm looking for a Nikon F2 with DE-1 prism. I plan on getting a few lenses: 28mm f2.0, 50mm f2.0, and 105mm f2.5. I'm not really going to buy a Leica because it would cost 10x than an equivalent Nikon system. In the future, maybe, but definately not now. Leica M is enough...I was just interested in the quality of the two camera bodies/systems. Leica lenses I'm sure are top-notch, as well as some of the Nikons.
Kind of off topic but...since you two both mentioned the F3:
Does an F3 still make sense if one were not interested in a meter? I was thinking of getting an F2 for my main shooter and in the future an F4 for motor drive.
I looooove all-mechanical bodies. RF's, TLR's, SLR's. I decided to get a Nikon so I'm looking for a Nikon F2 with DE-1 prism. I plan on getting a few lenses: 28mm f2.0, 50mm f2.0, and 105mm f2.5. I'm not really going to buy a Leica because it would cost 10x than an equivalent Nikon system. In the future, maybe, but definately not now. Leica M is enough...I was just interested in the quality of the two camera bodies/systems. Leica lenses I'm sure are top-notch, as well as some of the Nikons.
Kind of off topic but...since you two both mentioned the F3:
Does an F3 still make sense if one were not interested in a meter? I was thinking of getting an F2 for my main shooter and in the future an F4 for motor drive.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
If you want the classic Nikon experience, get an F with a plain prism. About as old school as it gets.
mfogiel
Veteran
The F3 is just plainly more versatile and better thought out - I think the reason is obvious, as it has incorporated years of feedback from professional F2 users. In terms of solidity, I can perceive no difference, even if the F3 is lighter. It is also a bit more silent than F2, which is one of the loudest SLR's around.
Dirk
Privatier
I have the SL2 and the Nikon F. They are both incredibly well made, with the nod going to the Leica. Ergonomically, I prefer the F. The Leica is a little bit bigger and feels a little more awkward to hold.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
If you truly love the Leicaflex because of the finder, Tamron made an Adaptall 2 adapter for Leica R mount for their Adaptall 2 line of lenses. Many of these lenses were excellent. I have the 28mm and the 135 mm, and they are top notch.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I have the SL and Nikon F/F2
SL:
My main complaint about the SL is the very long throw of the film advance lever, which is really annoying if you are trying to fire off a fast sequence of shots. I'm also not fond of the round corners in the viewfinder. That's more of a personal issue, but there it is.
Be aware that the SL comes with a very, very good and exceptionally bright CLEAR focusing screen. The screen is so good that you can focus anywhere on it, not only at the center. If you want a split prism screen you will have to track one down from an SL2 and have it installed by a service technician.
The camera itself is built like a tank. Seriously. It feels like it was carved from a solid block of steel and rests exceptionally well in the hand. It feels a little like an M that a mirror box has been grafted on to. Maybe a little heavy and bigger than the Nikons. It's one weak point is the cover on the front of the prism, which is not as solid as the rest of the body.
Apparently the SL is a very reliable camera. I read somewhere about a rail enthusiast, who supposedly put400,000 exposures through his.
If it needs to be serviced you need to send it to one of the better Leica technicians like DAG or Kindermann, Sherry etc
F:
As reliable as a hockey puck. I adore my F. An elegant machine for a more civilized age.More compact than the SL. The worst part is that you need to take the entire back off to reload. Also the film rewind lever on early bodies is tiny and a PIA. The viewfinder is good. Not as good as the SL, but that applies to 95% of cameras. The non-metered prism is great, but not very good at keeping dust out. You just need to learn to live with a little dust in your finder. As a shooter the F is great. Perfect size and weight. Personally this may be my all time favourite camera (tied with the M4). Repairs are possible.
F2:
If you can hammer nails with the F, the F2 can hammer rail road spikes. Think of it as a refined F. Maybe the best mechanical SLR ever made. Swing back loading and may other refinements. My biggest complaint is that the shutter is a little on the loud size. The F makes a gentle 'snick'. The F2 is more of a 'clank!'. This is my main SLR. You can still find people who will service this camera. Lenses are plentiful and reasonably priced.
My recommendation: F2
SL:
My main complaint about the SL is the very long throw of the film advance lever, which is really annoying if you are trying to fire off a fast sequence of shots. I'm also not fond of the round corners in the viewfinder. That's more of a personal issue, but there it is.
Be aware that the SL comes with a very, very good and exceptionally bright CLEAR focusing screen. The screen is so good that you can focus anywhere on it, not only at the center. If you want a split prism screen you will have to track one down from an SL2 and have it installed by a service technician.
The camera itself is built like a tank. Seriously. It feels like it was carved from a solid block of steel and rests exceptionally well in the hand. It feels a little like an M that a mirror box has been grafted on to. Maybe a little heavy and bigger than the Nikons. It's one weak point is the cover on the front of the prism, which is not as solid as the rest of the body.
Apparently the SL is a very reliable camera. I read somewhere about a rail enthusiast, who supposedly put400,000 exposures through his.
If it needs to be serviced you need to send it to one of the better Leica technicians like DAG or Kindermann, Sherry etc
F:
As reliable as a hockey puck. I adore my F. An elegant machine for a more civilized age.More compact than the SL. The worst part is that you need to take the entire back off to reload. Also the film rewind lever on early bodies is tiny and a PIA. The viewfinder is good. Not as good as the SL, but that applies to 95% of cameras. The non-metered prism is great, but not very good at keeping dust out. You just need to learn to live with a little dust in your finder. As a shooter the F is great. Perfect size and weight. Personally this may be my all time favourite camera (tied with the M4). Repairs are possible.
F2:
If you can hammer nails with the F, the F2 can hammer rail road spikes. Think of it as a refined F. Maybe the best mechanical SLR ever made. Swing back loading and may other refinements. My biggest complaint is that the shutter is a little on the loud size. The F makes a gentle 'snick'. The F2 is more of a 'clank!'. This is my main SLR. You can still find people who will service this camera. Lenses are plentiful and reasonably priced.
My recommendation: F2
FrankS
Registered User
FrankS
Registered User
steveyork
Well-known
This is wrong. Leica still has most of the spare parts for the SL. You will have to send it to a Leica tech.
steveyork
Well-known
I've used and owned a Leicaflex, Leicaflex SL, Leicaflex SL2, Nikon F and Nikon F2.
Out of all these cameras my clear favorite is a Leicaflex SL, by a wide margin.
Never understood the appeal of the Nikon F. An iconic camera for sure, but in a practical terms not as nice a user when compared to these others. Reliable though.
Nikon F2 -- Nice camera.
SL2 -- Overpriced. Stories of unreliable fast shutter speeds. I took one of these on a trip with an SL. Ended up shooting the SL 95% of the time.
Original Leicaflex -- Reminiscent of an M3/M2. Indeed it feels like an M3 in a SLR body. I find the SL more practical, but these have a stronger meter (albeit not ttl) and are a bit quieter. In fact the quietest SLR I've ever used.
Out of all these cameras my clear favorite is a Leicaflex SL, by a wide margin.
Never understood the appeal of the Nikon F. An iconic camera for sure, but in a practical terms not as nice a user when compared to these others. Reliable though.
Nikon F2 -- Nice camera.
SL2 -- Overpriced. Stories of unreliable fast shutter speeds. I took one of these on a trip with an SL. Ended up shooting the SL 95% of the time.
Original Leicaflex -- Reminiscent of an M3/M2. Indeed it feels like an M3 in a SLR body. I find the SL more practical, but these have a stronger meter (albeit not ttl) and are a bit quieter. In fact the quietest SLR I've ever used.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I don't get the excitement about the F3. I just don't really like the ergonomics, and it's got only the one speed with no batteries. The on/off switch is an ergonomic joke, to say nothing of the finder illumination button. The FE is better.
As for the four cameras under discussion, the two Nikons' meter design is prone to the jumpiness issue. And as someone mentioned above, the FTn (and earlier) metered finders on the F are often found dead these days. You can use the cameras with no meter, but that's a lot of extra weight and bulk to haul around. The shutter button placement on the F is not great. The F2 is a wonderful camera to use if you've got a working meter -- really nice viewfinder. Both Nikon viewfinders give 100% coverage, which I don't think the Leicas do.
The two Leicas are very nice cameras, though the SL2 is really quite hefty. It's true about the higher shutter speeds on the SL2 being prone to problems -- and there's no permanent fix. The finder is quite nice on both the SL and SL2. The SL2's is a little nicer in terms of the match-needle display, but the SL's is quite acceptable. I'm not wild about the semi-spot metering of these cameras; Nikon's center-weighted approach is better for most uses. I agree that the wind lever throw on the SL is too long, but the way the camera feels in the hand makes up for that.
Only the F2 takes non-obsolete batteries. As for the lenses, I have the older 2-cam Leitz lenses and they're great, but they generally require series filters, which is a big pain. And the two Leicas require a circular polarizer -- pricier. There are on the other hand any number of Nikkors that really are as good as the Leitz lenses, and certainly Nikon provided many more lens options than Leitz ever did.
I'd give the nod to the F2, SL, SL2 and F in that order. But I'd be plenty happy with a fully working F.
As for the four cameras under discussion, the two Nikons' meter design is prone to the jumpiness issue. And as someone mentioned above, the FTn (and earlier) metered finders on the F are often found dead these days. You can use the cameras with no meter, but that's a lot of extra weight and bulk to haul around. The shutter button placement on the F is not great. The F2 is a wonderful camera to use if you've got a working meter -- really nice viewfinder. Both Nikon viewfinders give 100% coverage, which I don't think the Leicas do.
The two Leicas are very nice cameras, though the SL2 is really quite hefty. It's true about the higher shutter speeds on the SL2 being prone to problems -- and there's no permanent fix. The finder is quite nice on both the SL and SL2. The SL2's is a little nicer in terms of the match-needle display, but the SL's is quite acceptable. I'm not wild about the semi-spot metering of these cameras; Nikon's center-weighted approach is better for most uses. I agree that the wind lever throw on the SL is too long, but the way the camera feels in the hand makes up for that.
Only the F2 takes non-obsolete batteries. As for the lenses, I have the older 2-cam Leitz lenses and they're great, but they generally require series filters, which is a big pain. And the two Leicas require a circular polarizer -- pricier. There are on the other hand any number of Nikkors that really are as good as the Leitz lenses, and certainly Nikon provided many more lens options than Leitz ever did.
I'd give the nod to the F2, SL, SL2 and F in that order. But I'd be plenty happy with a fully working F.
presspass
filmshooter
I have, and shoot, F, F2, and F3 Nikons. The F and F2 have plain prisms. While they're not as bright as the F3, they are easier to focus. Doesn't make sense, but it works with my eyes.
nobbylon
Veteran
I've had multiple F's and F2's (still have an early F2 Photomic) and multiple F3's and still have two SL's, I sold my SL2.
Best MF camera by far is the SL purely for reason already stated. Viewfinder is incredible. Focus just pops in and out anywhere on screen. If anything they are more fixable than F or F2's. Damage or split the shutter curtains on the NIkons and you might as well throw them away. Cloth curtains replaceable on SL and SL2. Plenty of good people around to fix and service if and when necessary. CRR LUtom, Will van Manen and Ton Scherpenborg to name just 3!
For Nikon F and F2 there is no better than Sover Wong in the UK.
SL feels the most solid of them all and is the only MF SLR I use now. I prefer the meter over the NIkons.
My SL2 never had a problem with the 2000 speed having been serviced and never left wound for a period before using.
They are all great cameras but the SL is the nicest to use because of that viewfinder.
F3 undisputed reliability but I'd still take an SL over it anytime.
Taking pictures is all about seeing and for that one needs the best view. The SL wins every time and until one compares side by side it's difficult to comprehend how good that SL viewfinder is.
Best MF camera by far is the SL purely for reason already stated. Viewfinder is incredible. Focus just pops in and out anywhere on screen. If anything they are more fixable than F or F2's. Damage or split the shutter curtains on the NIkons and you might as well throw them away. Cloth curtains replaceable on SL and SL2. Plenty of good people around to fix and service if and when necessary. CRR LUtom, Will van Manen and Ton Scherpenborg to name just 3!
For Nikon F and F2 there is no better than Sover Wong in the UK.
SL feels the most solid of them all and is the only MF SLR I use now. I prefer the meter over the NIkons.
My SL2 never had a problem with the 2000 speed having been serviced and never left wound for a period before using.
They are all great cameras but the SL is the nicest to use because of that viewfinder.
F3 undisputed reliability but I'd still take an SL over it anytime.
Taking pictures is all about seeing and for that one needs the best view. The SL wins every time and until one compares side by side it's difficult to comprehend how good that SL viewfinder is.
Vics
Veteran
I think you can shoot the Leica R lenses on the Nikon cameras via adapter http://www.leitax.com/leica-lens-for-nikon-cameras.html. just thought it'd be nice to muddy the waters a bit...
dreamsandart
Well-known
revived old thread, but fun to talk about
If used to be said you buy a Leica so you can 'put the lenses on the front.' Which was somewhat true, and the only drawback being the lens selection, although enough was limited in comparison to the Nikon system.
When I got into professional press work in the mid 70s no-one used Leicaflex for this. First was the expense of Leica, lens selection as mentioned, all the add-ons available for Nikon (finders/screens, drives… ) and the fact everyone else used Nikon and the accumulated/group knowledge that went along with that fact.
But I bucked the trend and had Leicaflex gear. The one lens Nikon couldn't duplicate was that beautiful optics and fast to use sliding tube 400mm for sports.
Both cameras are tough as nails and built like a tank, but the Nikon probable still had the better well deserved reputation for dependability (never had any problems with my Leicaflexs myself).
Leicaflex; Very Bright finder - I had one custom fitted with a ground glass screen along with the standard micro-prism version, great 'selective' spot meter, fit my hands the way I liked, solid/heavy quality feel built and operation. I sold my last Leicaflex SL awhile back, but if I got another SLR film camera these days it would still be a Leicaflex for its feel and quality, they are a 'beautiful camera to look at - and yes the lenses.
If used to be said you buy a Leica so you can 'put the lenses on the front.' Which was somewhat true, and the only drawback being the lens selection, although enough was limited in comparison to the Nikon system.
When I got into professional press work in the mid 70s no-one used Leicaflex for this. First was the expense of Leica, lens selection as mentioned, all the add-ons available for Nikon (finders/screens, drives… ) and the fact everyone else used Nikon and the accumulated/group knowledge that went along with that fact.
But I bucked the trend and had Leicaflex gear. The one lens Nikon couldn't duplicate was that beautiful optics and fast to use sliding tube 400mm for sports.
Both cameras are tough as nails and built like a tank, but the Nikon probable still had the better well deserved reputation for dependability (never had any problems with my Leicaflexs myself).
Leicaflex; Very Bright finder - I had one custom fitted with a ground glass screen along with the standard micro-prism version, great 'selective' spot meter, fit my hands the way I liked, solid/heavy quality feel built and operation. I sold my last Leicaflex SL awhile back, but if I got another SLR film camera these days it would still be a Leicaflex for its feel and quality, they are a 'beautiful camera to look at - and yes the lenses.
Flat Twin
Film Shooter
Just interested,
Does the SL2 have the the same excellent viewfinder that the SL has, as mentioned in the above posts?
Simon
Does the SL2 have the the same excellent viewfinder that the SL has, as mentioned in the above posts?
Simon