KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I think there's a lot to be said for the fact that the difference in ergonomics between the Nikons and the Leica Ms (which is what I assume we're talking about here) is significant, and being used to one system can color one's impression of the other.
But I do think that if someone with no experience with rangefinders were handed an example of each, the Leica would be preferred. Why? Multiple framelines and a really crisp RF patch. Also, no infinity lock -- a "feature" I confess I don't understand. I don't see the focusing wheel as a plus point for the Nikons; after all, to the extent it's usable, it's really not usable at all with lenses that require the outer bayonet (i.e., everything but 50s).
But I do think that if someone with no experience with rangefinders were handed an example of each, the Leica would be preferred. Why? Multiple framelines and a really crisp RF patch. Also, no infinity lock -- a "feature" I confess I don't understand. I don't see the focusing wheel as a plus point for the Nikons; after all, to the extent it's usable, it's really not usable at all with lenses that require the outer bayonet (i.e., everything but 50s).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Fair enough. But still more than I as a user am willing to pay for a camera with a limited choice of lenses which were for the most part, at their best, roughly comparable with their Leica equivalents of 50 or more years ago.
Cheers,
R.
furcafe
Veteran
What's left to discuss? You made it clear that you prefer Leicas, and now you know that some disagree that Nikon RFs are "inferior" & some agree.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, the grease was OK when it was fresh...
This is the fundamental problem, isn't it? That many people compare ill-maintained, jammed-up 50-year-old cameras with newer cameras or with better designs that don't require servicing every few years.
Cheers,
R.
Platinum RF
Well-known
The results count. A set of an S2 with a Nikkor from 1957 impresses even today.
Nikon S2, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, Tmax400.
Erik.
Nice image
Platinum RF
Well-known
There is more, should you oil your Nikon/Contax RF focus helical or not? From Contax repairman, you should leave it dry. However, from the video of Nikon SP 2005 design team they do lubricate the helical thread. Which one is better?
VinceC
Veteran
>>This is the fundamental problem, isn't it? That many people compare ill-maintained, jammed-up 50-year-old cameras with newer cameras or with better designs that don't require servicing every few years. <<
With limited excpetions, the Nikons seldom need servicing. Often, more harm than good can be done by an inexperienced repair person who greases something that was never intended to have any grease, just needed a quick cleaning.
With limited excpetions, the Nikons seldom need servicing. Often, more harm than good can be done by an inexperienced repair person who greases something that was never intended to have any grease, just needed a quick cleaning.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highway 61
Revisited
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Following on to what others have said, I think the Nikon RFs were more a vehicle for Nikkor lenses than an end unto themselves -- and the F was the real breakthrough.
furcafe
Veteran
Ah, so maybe the subject line needs to be changed to something about cleaning/lubricating the focus helical. 
IIRC from speaking to the late Pete Smith, he said that dry works & was the standard practice back in the day, but I don't see why dry graphite like that used in the video wouldn't also work to make it even smoother (& who am I to argue w/the Nikon techs?).
IIRC from speaking to the late Pete Smith, he said that dry works & was the standard practice back in the day, but I don't see why dry graphite like that used in the video wouldn't also work to make it even smoother (& who am I to argue w/the Nikon techs?).
Highway 61
Revisited
Any good photographer should be able to take good photos with whatever camera and lenses, provided that the camera shutter and finder both work well and the lenses aren't dogs.
When it comes to ergonomics it's a question of personal preference only, then any sensible person can get used to some gear with ergonomics found questionable at first handling.
The late famous (and remarkable artist) Jean-Loup Sieff used some Nikon F gear as well as his Leica M gear and even himself couldn't remember which of his masterpiece photos had been taken with which system brand.
For personal reasons I personally prefer my Nikon RF cameras over the Leica M cameras I used to own (and re-sold some years ago) but if I was given a Leica M I would use it again with no problem, and fool would be someone who would find any difference of style from the photos I use to take with my Nikon RF stuff.
Those "this is better than that" discussions cannot be constructive - they all relie upon personal feelings.
If somebody could demonstrate why a film camera having a focal plane shutter from 1s to 1/1000 and supporting interchangeable lenses having some excellent resolving power is "superior" to a film camera having a focal plane shutter from 1s to 1/1000 and supporting lenses having some excellent resolving power, I'd be happy to accept the demonstration results.
But - nobody dit it so far. And nobody will, ever.
When it comes to ergonomics it's a question of personal preference only, then any sensible person can get used to some gear with ergonomics found questionable at first handling.
The late famous (and remarkable artist) Jean-Loup Sieff used some Nikon F gear as well as his Leica M gear and even himself couldn't remember which of his masterpiece photos had been taken with which system brand.
For personal reasons I personally prefer my Nikon RF cameras over the Leica M cameras I used to own (and re-sold some years ago) but if I was given a Leica M I would use it again with no problem, and fool would be someone who would find any difference of style from the photos I use to take with my Nikon RF stuff.
Those "this is better than that" discussions cannot be constructive - they all relie upon personal feelings.
If somebody could demonstrate why a film camera having a focal plane shutter from 1s to 1/1000 and supporting interchangeable lenses having some excellent resolving power is "superior" to a film camera having a focal plane shutter from 1s to 1/1000 and supporting lenses having some excellent resolving power, I'd be happy to accept the demonstration results.
But - nobody dit it so far. And nobody will, ever.
GaryLH
Veteran
I can load a CL faster then my m6. The back on CL is similar to the Nikon RF. the trick w/ the CL was use the neck strap to hang both sides of the camera around your neck while u are replacing film. I have used this trick before while running to catch to my wife after taking a shot a Zion...
The Nikon rf does not have the same setup in terms of the neck strap, but one can still put the back in your pocket while changing. So not quite as ast as the CL, but could still be faster then the my m6, since the bottom needs to be put in your pocket as well and there is only a small flip up film winder to make minor adjustments to film leader positioning.
But at end of they day, if u are really good at film changing, I don't think anyone style will beat the other.
Gary
Last edited:
Kenj8246
Well-known
Looks like this thread is headed where threads of this nature usually head: one camp vs another camp. <sigh>
DominikDUK
Well-known
Roger . Interestingly the Ms don't excel in any single thing the Contax has the more precise rangefinder and focus, most interlensshutter RF are quieter, the Konica's have better parallax correction and the list goes on. Were the Leica excels is compromise it incorporates everything a photographer needs the other cameras might beat it on a single thing but the Leica wins in the overall package. For me the best RF would be Contax with Konica Bright line Viewfinder with frames for more than one focal length.
The Nikon RFs are still superb cameras though
GaryLH
Veteran
Kenj,
Did u expect anything else with a thread title like that personally I can c them both collectible.. Or both users.
I c as many m in prestige condition as beat up users. Personally, I would rather have the beat up user.. Nikon or Leica :angel:
On the Nikon rf, never really liked the knurled focus knob for the 50, always ended up using the lens itself to focus.
Now a days I rarely shoot 35mm film..
Gary
Did u expect anything else with a thread title like that
personally I can c them both collectible.. Or both users. I c as many m in prestige condition as beat up users. Personally, I would rather have the beat up user.. Nikon or Leica :angel:
On the Nikon rf, never really liked the knurled focus knob for the 50, always ended up using the lens itself to focus.
Now a days I rarely shoot 35mm film..
Gary
Kenj8246
Well-known
Well, this one, at least so far, has been amicable. It's difficult, at best, to establish good/better/best to everyone's satisfaction. That's all I meant.
It's difficult, at best, to establish good/better/best to everyone's satisfaction. That's all I meant.Roger Hicks
Veteran
Almost certainly true. Plus, of course, the Leica M is simpler and cheaper to build than a Contax or Contax derivative.
Cheers,
R.
VinceC
Veteran
If I recall correctly, the Associated Press issued a Nikon F plus a Leica M2 to each Vietnam correspondent, thus setting the tone for peaceful co-existance.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
At the risk of introducing politics into the thread, I don't seem to recall peaceful co-existence working very well in Vietnam.
I thought that the "dream outfit" in that era was 2x M (wide and standard) + F (long).
Cheers,
R.