Huss
Veteran
I have one of those too! bought it on a whim as i think it is the most beautiful slr ever made. bonus is that it introduced me to minolta lenses.
it is really nice to use but is definitely built to a lighter standard vs a Nikon F.
The only thing that kinda bugs me about it is the film advance lever has a longer throw than any other camera i have tried.
mdarnton
Well-known
Well, it's not 43 Fs, but I do have half a dozen Nikon FGs, and my other cameras are Leicas. It isn't a big deal to jump between them, and I like both exactly equally. I landed on FGs because of their compactness and adequate, not excessive, amount of automation and electronic stuff; it's a real tidy camera with everything I need. About every six months or so I switch systems to freshen up my eye, but I don't really have a preference. I used to have a couple of OM1s, and I hated them even when I had them.
wakarimasen
Well-known
Reading this thread, it's clear the passion and fondness that people have for older mechanical and early electronic film cameras. Is it just me, or is this connection entirely missing with modern digital cameras? I have an F3 and am curious about an F2, and the Pentax models that Wulfthari mentions. Can't ever imagine my curiosity being so peaked - in 10 or 15 years time - about a Nikon Coolpix or a Canon Powershot.
dee
Well-known
The Leica Digilux 3 and Panasonic L1 are my digital classics !
dee
dee
wakarimasen
Well-known
Huss
Veteran
Nope.
One for sale on this site as we speak for $125
(no association etc etc)
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...s-50-2f14-2c-105-2f25-2c-105-2f28-micro/cat/3
Pioneer
Veteran
Agreed. Have both and would pick up my M 100 times to once with the F.
In fact...I have done that.
ktmrider
Well-known
I prefer Leica M bodies these days but after getting my Nikon F back from consignment, it was amazing how good it felt. I like focusing it with a "B" screen and 50f1.4 better then my Leica R6.2 with 50f2 Summicron.
Of course, the Leicaflex SL/SL2 are still the kings of SLR's from that era. It has the brightest focusing screen of anything I have ever handled. I have never owned one and that may be my next film SLR purchase. But I already have too many cameras.
Of course, the Leicaflex SL/SL2 are still the kings of SLR's from that era. It has the brightest focusing screen of anything I have ever handled. I have never owned one and that may be my next film SLR purchase. But I already have too many cameras.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It's up to whatever piques your interest. My digital classic is an Olympus E-1, and like others the L1/Digilux 3 are delightful as well. I feel just as close with my M-P typ 240 as I do with my M4-2 as well. The new D750 is too young in my hands to judge yet, but it feels like it will delight me every bit as much as the F and F6 do.
Most digital compacts are a little too compromised to sustain my interest for long, but the Leica X typ 113 has become one of my favorite cameras as well.
There are many, many excellent cameras out there.
G
traveler_101
American abroad
Aside from the joy of using a fine mechanism, what specifically are the advantages of a SLR over a Leica M? It's a better camera for long lenses, I should think, but no one on this thread mentioned going out and about with a 135mm attached.
Pioneer
Veteran
I don't know. I have three of the Pentax *ist D series cameras (such a strange name) and a Pentax K10D that I absolutely love. Although they are digital they have such a film like result that I find it quite difficult to see a difference in some of my prints. As Godfrey says, it sort of depends on your interest. None of these cameras will replace my old Pentax and Minolta mechanical cameras but they have their own charm.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I picked up this F body with the Photomic prism at a yard sale for $10...months later, I traded a Minolta 50mm AF lens, that was given to me, for a plain prism... and I replaced the original screen with the Nikon "J" screen...it's a very nice set-up...
Axel
singleshooter
JChrome
Street Worker
As Good As a Leica M
The focusing advantages set in before 135mm. Anything north of 50 and I'd prefer an SLR. But also because of frame lines.
The Nikkor 135mm f3.5 attached to my F3 is a wonderful combination.
I don't think the Nikon F is as good as an M3. As others have said, it's apples and oranges.
But the bang for your buck of any Nikon F paired with any piece of Nikon glass is off the charts. The bang for your buck in the Leica world isn't as high. The bang is great but the buck not so much.
www.stillthrill.com
The focusing advantages set in before 135mm. Anything north of 50 and I'd prefer an SLR. But also because of frame lines.
The Nikkor 135mm f3.5 attached to my F3 is a wonderful combination.
I don't think the Nikon F is as good as an M3. As others have said, it's apples and oranges.
But the bang for your buck of any Nikon F paired with any piece of Nikon glass is off the charts. The bang for your buck in the Leica world isn't as high. The bang is great but the buck not so much.
www.stillthrill.com
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
And SLRs are useless for wide, exept if you like huge distortions or deal with T&S.
I have tried two cheap SLR kits for the cost of four $20 Leica caps. And let them go.
The only system I would be still interested to try in SLR is F. To see how it handles and lens rendering on prints.
L. M. Tu
Established
A few that are useful to me personally: the immense versatility of being able to attach anything from macro lenses to microscopes, telescopes, short mount or enlarging lenses on bellows, etc., and a viewfinder with 100% coverage - at least in the case of a Nikon F or F2. Such a camera can even be stripped of its prism and, with a prefocused wide angle lens, it can be fired very quickly from different angles without bringing it up to one's face. Just another way of "going out and about."
Godfrey
somewhat colored
SLR compared to RFs are suitable for use with a greater range of focal lengths and
have FAR easier/more accurate close-up focusing and framing capability.
Comparing "two cheap SLR kits" with a top of the line Nikon is like saying, "Oh, those rangefinder cameras aren't worth it. I tried a Holga and thought it pretty crappy, why would anyone want a Leica?"
I love my Ms and prefer them for when I'm using 35 to 75mm lenses. That's the right range of focal lengths for the RF when it comes to ease of viewing and framing, accuracy of focusing. Sure, I can use wider and longer lenses, and the lenses I have that are wider and longer are very nice, but the naturals for me on the M are 35, 40, 50, and 75mm.
The Nikon F (and F6) excel with much wider and much longer, and do well with the same focal lengths as well. My Nikkor 18mm f/3.5 AI-S may not be as outstanding a performer as a Super Elmar-M 21mm, but it's never produced "huge distortions" unless I pointed it incorrectly. It's even easy to critical focus and not overwhelmingly bulky. Similarly, the 180mm f/2.8 AI/AI-S/AF-D has no complement in the M line and produces an image as sweet as my Elmar-R 180/4 or Elmarit-R 180/2.8. I walk around with it fitted to F, F6, or D750 pretty often because it is both handy and excellent.
The RF vs SLR debate is just another bit of religious dogma. Both camera types have their advantages and disadvantages.
G
Huss
Veteran
I picked up this F body with the Photomic prism at a yard sale for $10...months later, I traded a Minolta 50mm AF lens, that was given to me, for a plain prism... and I replaced the original screen with the Nikon "J" screen...it's a very nice set-up...
Congratulations on a killer find!
Wulfthari
Well-known
A lot of people are passionate about mechanical watches, while quarz ones don't have much support.
Plus, digital cameras are disposable consumer's electronics like electro domestics and cell phones, after six months they are obsolete, cameras like the Leicas, Nikon Fs, Pentax KX,MX, K2, LX, Canon F1s were made to last a lifetime and they represented the peak of the technology of the time.