Are Nikon RFs for collectors and Leica Ms for users?

Highway 61 said:
Also, what's up with the accessory shoe ? Looks like it was given an hot contact.
Click to expand...
Never noticed that - I never use flash, but I will try it out. Somewhere there must be a Vivitar 283 around that I can plug in. Used to buy these by the dozen from 47 St camera when I was shooting industrial stuff for clients. Used to loose them too. This includes dropping one in a 400 hp debarked at a sawmill and one might still be attached to the inside of a logging truck cab (10ft wide monster truck with a payload of 50 tons of logs).
 
I haven't seen a photographer actually using a Nikon rangefinder (besides myself) or a Leica rangefinder in decades, and I know a heck of a lot of photographers.
 
Tom A said:
Corrected the situation while in japan last month. Numbers match - but it has been modified, F2 advance , "wrong" self timer lever and it does have a titanium shutter. Doesn't really matter - as I am not a collector - just a user.
Click to expand...

... sounds a lot like a "Shintaro-modification" :D
 
It is a camera that has been in Shintaro's hands for awhile - which usually means that it is improved - numbers do match though.
 
Tom A said:
It is a camera that has been in Shintaro's hands for awhile - which usually means that it is improved - numbers do match though.
Click to expand...

My Shintaro BP SP had exactly the same modifications, F2-type advance lever and "wrong" self timer. ;)
 
Platinum RF said:
No I am a user, a Leica user. I have Voigtlander R2c, Contax IIIa and Canon RF. No Nikon RF. But I have Nikon F which is derived from Nikon RF. The Nikon F's layout is inferior to Leica M too. The shutter release is near the back not very user friendly. The base concept of Nikon RF is similar to Contax except shutter is borrowed from Leica. I did try a Nikon SP in store and the rangefinder is kind inferior to Leica M. For these Nikon RF die-hard fans please hold your emotion, I just want to have a constructive discussion.
Click to expand...

Nikon Fs are inferior to the Leicaflex and Leicaflex SL too, I know, I've used them all, but they're still good cameras, with good lenses, and they cost a lot less when new, and as a result Nikon sold a lot more.

I've used various Leica Ms (M4, M5, M6, MP, M7), a Nikon S2, and I've fiddled extensively with a Contax IIA and IIIA -- they're all good cameras with good lenses. It's true the German cameras are built better, with closer tolerances, harder metals, denser parts. On the Contax IIA and IIIA, I've read some of the interior parts were even chromed to prevent wear. Maybe that's a bit of over engineering.

I think the appeal of Nikon rangefinders is the 1.0 magnification, really good lenses, they look pretty, and they're light. And they're reliable but easy to repair. All good reasons, but no one will ever claim a Nikon is better built then a Leica or Contax.

If I still shot rangefinders, given the price point of most of these items, I would have a few of each brand. They each offer a unique user experience.
 
I have stayed away from Nikon RF cameras and lenses until very recently.
I got curious, so I bought a S3 2000 set with the 50/1.4 "Millenium" lens which supposedly is a great lens. I then added a CV 21/4 S and Nikkor 35/1.6 ltm.
 
commentt on Leicaflex inferiority

commentt on Leicaflex inferiority

steveyork said:
Nikon Fs are inferior to the Leicaflex and Leicaflex SL too, I know, I've used them all, but they're still good cameras, with good lenses, and they cost a lot less when new, and as a result Nikon sold a lot more.

Well, "inferior" is kind'a a loose adjective to use in comparing the Leicaflex with the Nikon F cameras. The original Leicaflex is a strange beast with a bright but non-focusing screen except a tiny microprism in the middle. Almost useless for anything but day-to-day shooting. The film advance is a long haul around and the body thick and clunky. Professionals would not touch them. Then the SL came out. I have story about that camera. In 1968, National Geographic decided to do a book on Alaska. The Leicaflex SL was new at the time and Gil Grosvenor was a Leica nut, so he insisted that NatGeo buy a bunch of SLs for their photographers. One of them was George Mobley, the photographer assigned to the Alaska project. So Mobley took a kit of SLs along with a range of Leitz R-lenses, plus a few Nikons and Nikkors to cover the lens ranges that the Leitz lenses could not. By the time the assignment was half over most or all the SLs had stopped working and Mobley had to finish the assignment with his Nikons. Soon NatGeo was back to Nikons.
All the beautiful parts and construction and attention to detail is part of the lure of a Leica. But that does not always translate into a camera that will meet the needs of a serious photographer. The old M-series Leicas (M3, M2, M4) are tough and their design a match for many pros' needs, but the Nikon F and the S series are also tough, and their design appealed to many photographers too. But very few photographers have ever seriously considered the Leicaflex cameras as professional tools.
As for the location of the F shutter release: mechanical simplicity and when you hold the camera correctly, not a problem. Cheers, WES
Click to expand...
 
wes loder said:
steveyork said:
Nikon Fs are inferior to the Leicaflex and Leicaflex SL too, I know, I've used them all, but they're still good cameras, with good lenses, and they cost a lot less when new, and as a result Nikon sold a lot more.

Well, "inferior" is kind'a a loose adjective to use in comparing the Leicaflex with the Nikon F cameras. The original Leicaflex is a strange beast with a bright but non-focusing screen except a tiny microprism in the middle. Almost useless for anything but day-to-day shooting. The film advance is a long haul around and the body thick and clunky. Professionals would not touch them. Then the SL came out. I have story about that camera. In 1968, National Geographic decided to do a book on Alaska. The Leicaflex SL was new at the time and Gil Grosvenor was a Leica nut, so he insisted that NatGeo buy a bunch of SLs for their photographers. One of them was George Mobley, the photographer assigned to the Alaska project. So Mobley took a kit of SLs along with a range of Leitz R-lenses, plus a few Nikons and Nikkors to cover the lens ranges that the Leitz lenses could not. By the time the assignment was half over most or all the SLs had stopped working and Mobley had to finish the assignment with his Nikons. Soon NatGeo was back to Nikons.
All the beautiful parts and construction and attention to detail is part of the lure of a Leica. But that does not always translate into a camera that will meet the needs of a serious photographer. The old M-series Leicas (M3, M2, M4) are tough and their design a match for many pros' needs, but the Nikon F and the S series are also tough, and their design appealed to many photographers too. But very few photographers have ever seriously considered the Leicaflex cameras as professional tools.
As for the location of the F shutter release: mechanical simplicity and when you hold the camera correctly, not a problem. Cheers, WES
Click to expand...


The Leicaflex SL wasn't a systems camera. You can't even change the focusing screen. Compared to Nikon, the marketing was lousy, it was heavy, and it was much more expensive. And, of course, the Leicaflex arrived 8 years later then the Nikon F (11 years for the SL). Now reliability is hard to judge, but Nikons do have reputation of being reliable. These are really the reasons why the Nikon F dominated the market (reliability on a budget).

But having used both for a very long period of time, the better user, hands down, is the Leicaflex SL. The viewfinder is a thing of beauty. Every photographer should shoot at least one roll of film with an SL and a 90; your jaw will drop. The shutter speed dial is far more convenient, as is the metering display. it's quieter. Less camera shake. Generally, a Leicaflex can be shot about a stop faster then a corresponding Nikon (because of the braking system), which makes a lot of difference for available light photography. I could go on.

I'm not saying the Nikon F is bad, it's a good camera, but few will use both and then walk away saying they prefer the Nikon (unless, for example, they want a different focusing screen).

The original Leicaflex was geared to the rangefinder audience. And if you come from rangefinders, then focusing with only a central spot of microprisms is intuitive.

As far as reliability, I've used the Leicaflex models for about 8 years and run about 150-250 rolls of film a year. Not much, amateur usage, but I've never had a problem.

We can all quote stories. There's the one of the Leicaflex falling from the plane. It still worked after it hit the ground.
Click to expand...
 
The Nikon RF's are eminently usable, countless stories about them working without repair/adjustment after 30-40 years in storage.
when you buy an old Leica, how many times have you heard, "after a CLA, it will be great"

As an owner of both, one of the main differences is lens availability and choice. while there have been a few new S mount lenses in the past 10 years ( Nikon Re-issue, Zeiss Sonnar-C 50, Skopars) there has been continuous issue of Leice and M mount lenses over the past 50-60 years - so the choices and temptations are manifold.

also - I'd posit that some of this is peer pressure related, I've been to RFF gatherings where everyone has Leicas and I have a couple Nikons, it's almost as if to join the club and be one of the guys, you need a Leica (preferably both LTM and M)

in short, despite not having been updated in 50-60 years, the Nikon RF cameras are enjoyable to use and there are good lenses out there, either old or new.

don't hesitate to use either Nikon RF or Leica, after all they were made to be used and to last a long, long time
 
steveyork said:
wes loder said:
We can all quote stories. There's the one of the Leicaflex falling from the plane. It still worked after it hit the ground.
Click to expand...

Regrettably it required repair: The Leica Solms museum has an SL2 MOT on display, with Motor and 35mm Summicron, that survived a 25,000-foot (7,600 m) fall from a Phantom II fighter jet. It was battered but in one piece, and deemed repairable by Leica

I would like to know HOW it was dropped.

Unless yours was a different plane?????
Click to expand...
 
My experience as a collector and an amateur photographer over the last 35 years, is that Nikon RF are every bit as usable as Leica RF, and both have become ridiculously pricey due to collector / hipster passion...

Nikon lenses are MUCH more hardy, if fewer in type / iteration... how many Nikon RF / F lenses does one see for sale with "cleaning marks", "haze", and other glass issues ?

The first "real camera" I ever saw / used was my Dad's Nikon S, so I can't say that I find anything "unusual" about them ergonomically.

Most of my Leica experience is with LTM (my LTM "daily driver" being a 1934 III kit, having seen nearly five hundred rolls put through it), but I've had the loan of a friends M-3 DS for the last two years, and have put several rolls of film through it.

I found the M-3 cumbersome to use at first, taking quite a while to get used to... mostly the meter-linked shutter control; loading is better than a screw-mount, but not as easy as the Nikon.

The one advantage I will concede to the M-Leica is the integral frame-lines, but then I have not had the opportunity to try a nice Nikon SP.

They are both darned fine cameras; frankly, I can't justify the expense of Leica M bodies / lenses when the Nikon RF will do just as well (at least in my hands) for less $$$.

The very first Nikon RFs, before the 24x36 film gate may have had some fit & finish issues, but from the S onward, they are quite fine.
 
DanOnRoute66 said:
I haven't seen a photographer actually using a Nikon rangefinder (besides myself) or a Leica rangefinder in decades, and I know a heck of a lot of photographers.
Click to expand...

If you ever slide up here to Toronto, you can come prowl the streets with me and then you'll see someone using Nikon rangefinders in the twenty-first century, and you'll get to know another photographer.
 
I was a Leica user for years and one day my M4 shutter went, I decided to sell it and
I picked up a good used Nikon S3 and I really like it, it is different than the Leica but
that part of the charm of it.

Range
 
Range-rover said:
I was a Leica user for years and one day my M4 shutter went, I decided to sell it and
I picked up a good used Nikon S3 and I really like it, it is different than the Leica but
that part of the charm of it.

Range
Click to expand...

Then you have to buy new lenses too. Leica M is easy to repair, even a trained money can do it.
 
ChrisLivsey said:
steveyork said:
Regrettably it required repair: The Leica Solms museum has an SL2 MOT on display, with Motor and 35mm Summicron, that survived a 25,000-foot (7,600 m) fall from a Phantom II fighter jet. It was battered but in one piece, and deemed repairable by Leica

I would like to know HOW it was dropped.

Unless yours was a different plane?????
Click to expand...

The story is that the guy had to blow the canopy and jump. The camera looks a bit bent but it could have been fixed according to Leica. It did land in sand and brush - but after falling 25000 ft it probably did not matter.
As for Nikon F's versus Leicaflex - you can still get a F fixed if needed - but the cost to replace a shutter on the Leicaflex usually exceeds the value of the camera! The SL Mot's are probably one of the most over designed cameras ever. To the point that Leica lost about 900 german marks on everyone they made (900+). I have had them and used them - but they are heavy. Screen is second to none though - even today.
Click to expand...
 
Tom A said:
ChrisLivsey said:
The story is that the guy had to blow the canopy and jump. The camera looks a bit bent but it could have been fixed according to Leica. It did land in sand and brush - but after falling 25000 ft it probably did not matter.
As for Nikon F's versus Leicaflex - you can still get a F fixed if needed - but the cost to replace a shutter on the Leicaflex usually exceeds the value of the camera! The SL Mot's are probably one of the most over designed cameras ever. To the point that Leica lost about 900 german marks on everyone they made (900+). I have had them and used them - but they are heavy. Screen is second to none though - even today.
Click to expand...

Wonder if that was a personal camera? In my Navy days (1974 - 1979) the RIO's carried Beseler Topcons. I worked in the CV-IC (Intel Center) which had its own photo lab and we analyzed the images they brought. F4s were in the process of being phased out in favor of F-14 Tomcats - think Top Gun :D
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom