As Good As a Leica M

goodtimes said:
I love the F ! My count is now 43.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a bit akin to William Eggleston:

leicacanon.jpg


We all have our favourites, indeed! 😀

(picture is not mine, comes from this blog: http://blog.grainedephotographe.com/william-eggleston-le-pionnier-de-la-couleur-en-photographie/)
 
I came to Nikons late, after Canon abandoned the FD mount, and worked my way backwards from an F4 through a couple of F3s, some F2s, and two plain prism Fs. All except the F4 still work, but as I age, the weight of a couple of F3s with MD4s can be a burden. But even when shooting rangefinders, there's an F of some description with a 300 f4.5 EDIF with me.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
I want to try Nikon F for a while now, but they are as expensive as M Leica.
I tried Canon and OM already. Not even close to my M4-2.
Click to expand...
Not really. I doubt anyone would offer me a straight swap of a (working) M2 or M3 for a (working) F, even a black one with a plain prism.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Yes, and apples are as good as oranges...

I have both Ms and Fs. They're really quite different.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Ms are expensive. Ms are next to useless with long lenses or macro work. Ms are finicky to load. Fs are bigger and heavier and noisier. Of course, they can do everything an M can do and more.

Personally, I've discovered the joy of the Pentax MX and ME. Both are smaller and lighter than offerings from Leica. Mechanically, the MX and ME are as smooth as the M3 I've used. I get a small Leica-like form factor with the conveniences of an SLR. And they are dirt cheap. I bought two MXs, ME, a couple SMC 50s and a 28 for a grand total $110 CAD. The SMC lenses are no slouches, either.

I simply can't justify the thousands of dollars required to get into an M system when I can get comparable results with a system costing less than a replacement lens cap for a Summicron. The money saved buys a lot of film which is more important than having a red dot on the front of my camera.
 
codester80 said:
Agreed. Ms are expensive. Ms are next to useless with long lenses or macro work. Ms are finicky to load. Fs are bigger and heavier and noisier. Of course, they can do everything an M can do and more.

Personally, I've discovered the joy of the Pentax MX and ME. Both are smaller and lighter than offerings from Leica. Mechanically, the MX and ME are as smooth as the M3 I've used. I get a small Leica-like form factor with the conveniences of an SLR. And they are dirt cheap. I bought two MXs, ME, a couple SMC 50s and a 28 for a grand total $110 CAD. The SMC lenses are no slouches, either.

I simply can't justify the thousands of dollars required to get into an M system when I can get comparable results with a system costing less than a replacement lens cap for a Summicron. The money saved buys a lot of film which is more important than having a red dot on the front of my camera.
Click to expand...

I agree with both of you, if I have to think about a SLR similar to a Leica I don't think about a Nikon F or a Canon F-1 but at a small Pentax.
 
Wulfthari said:
I agree with both of you, if I have to think about a SLR similar to a Leica I don't think about a Nikon F or a Canon F-1 but at a small Pentax.
Click to expand...

I think of the Nikon F3, which has has a lot in common with Leica (horizontal foil shutter, brass covers). Actually, the F3 surpasses any M in terms of how smoothly it advances.

D
 
Am reminded of the photographs of the photojournalist who covered Vietnam in the 1960's and early 1970's. They almost always had at least two (usually more) bodies hanging around their necks-a Leica with a wide mounted and a Nikon F with a 200f4. Again, they seemed to know how to make cameras back then or perhaps we are all just analogue dinosaus.
 
Have just reread this thread and I could not let the comment about the shutter release being in the wrong place go without commenting. If, like me, you spent over four years shooting with a pair of Nikon F's, you would find that it is actually Leica M's that are ass backwards in lens mounting, focusing and the location of the shutter release.

Now, I purchased my first M in 1975 and have owned various models almost continuously since then and luckily we are humans and can be taught. Guess we should be grateful for both examples of great engineering.
 
codester80 said:
Fs are bigger and heavier and noisier. Of course, they can do everything an M can do and more.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. As a user of Fs and Ms, Ms are superior if you need to hand hold your camera at low shutter speeds as there is far less vibration (no mirror to slap). I can get two extra stops with the M vs the F. They also are much better if you use ND filters, as the VF is unaffected, while with SLRs the VF image becomes much darker, making focussing harder.
And being much quieter can be a significant plus depending on where you are shooting.

The Fs - much better with long lenses. Much cheaper. Really easy to use. No RF to go out of whack if your camera gets a good whack.
 
I've seen nikon fs boxed as new cheaper than a secondhand mp, I don't think I've ever paid more than £100 for a nikon f. The last f I bought was for £22 at a local auction with a 28mm pre ai in a box full of m42 lenses. As much as I like my fs I think still my all time favourite slr is nikon f4.
 
Sometimes when traveling "film only" I have in my bag the Leica M7 and the Nikon FM2. Love them both. Correct size for my taste and hands, not to heavy, simple to use. The only "characteristic" of the FM2 which I do not like so much is the shutter sound, honest but for sure not low...ta-clack ...done !
robert
 
Dante_Stella said:
I think of the Nikon F3, which has has a lot in common with Leica (horizontal foil shutter, brass covers). Actually, the F3 surpasses any M in terms of how smoothly it advances.

D
Click to expand...

Well the LX has a titanium horizontal shutter, I agree it has aluminium covers instead of brass but the MX has it (as well as a cloth shutter), it's smaller than a M4 and totally mechanical.
 
My fave camera would be a pre-1965 Minolta SR1s which is more compact and delicate than an SRT and takes a 5omm Rokkor .
I have no idea how it compares to a Nikon F or Leica M , but has always been great too use .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

p.giannakis
Agrrr... AF Nikkor 50f/1.4 delamination
Replies
6
Views
577
Muggins
Muggins
T
Fifty years later courtesy of this message board it's as good as new!
Replies
3
Views
1K
Zuiko-logist
Z
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
Mos6502
Reunion Tour: Miranda S and Fuji Neopan SS.
Replies
6
Views
290
Mos6502
Mos6502
Timmyjoe
Canon A-1 vs Canon AE-1Program
Replies
17
Views
876
Bob Michaels
Bob Michaels
Back
Top Bottom