Highway 61
Revisited
Numbers match - but it has been modified, F2 advance , "wrong" self timer lever and it does have a titanium shutter.
Also, what's up with the accessory shoe ? Looks like it was given an hot contact.
Numbers match - but it has been modified, F2 advance , "wrong" self timer lever and it does have a titanium shutter.
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).Also, what's up with the accessory shoe ? Looks like it was given an hot contact.
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.
It is a camera that has been in Shintaro's hands for awhile - which usually means that it is improved - numbers do match though.
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.
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
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
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.
We can all quote stories. There's the one of the Leicaflex falling from the plane. It still worked after it hit the ground.
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?????
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.
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
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?????
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.
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.
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 😀