bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Regarding the original poster's question ... in my humble opinion, this is like asking "which is better? vanilla or chocolate?"
I have used a couple Nikon F-series bodies, and I also own a Leica M7. I use the M7 a lot more, but that's only because I like the tactile experience of using it over other systems. I don't psychologically think it makes me a more "serious" or "better" photographer. Most of my photos still suck. I'm a hobbyist anyway, so I just shoot with the system I like.
That being said, the M7 drives me nuts sometimes. I think the film loading is fussy. It eats expensive lithium batteries too often for my liking. It doesn't function well in cold weather (but not many cameras do). The 1/1000th top shutter speed has occasionally been a frustrating limitation.
Ultimately we all have our own tastes and ways of shooting. I agree with another post earlier -- why does it have to be an either / or proposition?
Gently-used Leica M7's have been coming down somewhat in price lately, at least since I bought mine 2 1/2 years ago. You can get a good condition body for not TOO much cash, and still have money left over for a decent lens.
Why not just try one out? See if you like it. The worst that could happen is you'd re-sell it, and maybe lose/gain a few bucks depending on whether the used market on M7's has changed.
One caveat: I can walk around in public with an old Nikon F-series body on the street, and nobody has ever commented on it. But when I walk around with a Leica, several times people have noticed it. It's got "bling" factor, which may or may not be desirable depending on where you're shooting.
I have used a couple Nikon F-series bodies, and I also own a Leica M7. I use the M7 a lot more, but that's only because I like the tactile experience of using it over other systems. I don't psychologically think it makes me a more "serious" or "better" photographer. Most of my photos still suck. I'm a hobbyist anyway, so I just shoot with the system I like.
That being said, the M7 drives me nuts sometimes. I think the film loading is fussy. It eats expensive lithium batteries too often for my liking. It doesn't function well in cold weather (but not many cameras do). The 1/1000th top shutter speed has occasionally been a frustrating limitation.
Ultimately we all have our own tastes and ways of shooting. I agree with another post earlier -- why does it have to be an either / or proposition?
Gently-used Leica M7's have been coming down somewhat in price lately, at least since I bought mine 2 1/2 years ago. You can get a good condition body for not TOO much cash, and still have money left over for a decent lens.
Why not just try one out? See if you like it. The worst that could happen is you'd re-sell it, and maybe lose/gain a few bucks depending on whether the used market on M7's has changed.
One caveat: I can walk around in public with an old Nikon F-series body on the street, and nobody has ever commented on it. But when I walk around with a Leica, several times people have noticed it. It's got "bling" factor, which may or may not be desirable depending on where you're shooting.
leicapixie
Well-known
The blinking dot, the eating of expensive batteries, the film loading affected by the "feelers" for ISO all would make me crazy! Well more crazy..
Selling your Nikon at this time, will get you NO money. None. Film cameras are going for $10 to $50 with lenses here in Toronto. A pro SLR like F3 maybe $150.So it's keep your Nikon.
Go rather for an MP or better priced M6. I am severely disappointed with my "black" M6. Wearing makes it look really lousy. Tacky.
Nothing "feels" like a Leica, nothing "sees" better than a SLR.
I cannot see my 28mm frame. It's a joke when folks say they can see, if something is entering the frame! Even with 35mm frame a sloth would be a speeding bullet, in order to make adjustments.
No matter what anyone says, proves or shows, there is no CURE for a Leica want. Good luck.
My last roll with M3 proved i can't see horizons, have dubious ideas of focus, exposures? what exposures! Sure shooting was satisfying, the result beyond poor. Waste of film.. My F3 used on same day was perfect, even with shots when i forgot it had film inside! So well made, impossible to "feel" if film is being dragged along.
Lenses. I think my Nikon lenses are better made, less chance of getting hazy and color coatings that are truly scratch proof.Leica may be a tad better, but price now only for Banksters and people selling hard drugs.
Selling your Nikon at this time, will get you NO money. None. Film cameras are going for $10 to $50 with lenses here in Toronto. A pro SLR like F3 maybe $150.So it's keep your Nikon.
Go rather for an MP or better priced M6. I am severely disappointed with my "black" M6. Wearing makes it look really lousy. Tacky.
Nothing "feels" like a Leica, nothing "sees" better than a SLR.
I cannot see my 28mm frame. It's a joke when folks say they can see, if something is entering the frame! Even with 35mm frame a sloth would be a speeding bullet, in order to make adjustments.
No matter what anyone says, proves or shows, there is no CURE for a Leica want. Good luck.
My last roll with M3 proved i can't see horizons, have dubious ideas of focus, exposures? what exposures! Sure shooting was satisfying, the result beyond poor. Waste of film.. My F3 used on same day was perfect, even with shots when i forgot it had film inside! So well made, impossible to "feel" if film is being dragged along.
Lenses. I think my Nikon lenses are better made, less chance of getting hazy and color coatings that are truly scratch proof.Leica may be a tad better, but price now only for Banksters and people selling hard drugs.
David_Manning
Well-known
Thanks everyone for the differing opinions. Thank you especially to Helen, with such kind words 
As I think about it more on the practical side, keeping the FE2 and both lenses would certainly make it easier to fund the film workflow. The M7 is totally an emotional desire, which is not a bad thing necessarily.
*Heresy alert* I think the FE2 will probably be more reliable in the long run over the course of the projects. When I received the Nikon in the mail, it had been sitting for quite some time. I popped in a battery, roll of cheap C41, and it worked like a champ. I ended up replacing the door seals which were gooey, but I think it's quite a machine.
Maybe someday for another M body.
As I think about it more on the practical side, keeping the FE2 and both lenses would certainly make it easier to fund the film workflow. The M7 is totally an emotional desire, which is not a bad thing necessarily.
*Heresy alert* I think the FE2 will probably be more reliable in the long run over the course of the projects. When I received the Nikon in the mail, it had been sitting for quite some time. I popped in a battery, roll of cheap C41, and it worked like a champ. I ended up replacing the door seals which were gooey, but I think it's quite a machine.
Maybe someday for another M body.
akitadog
Established
Hi,
Having both Nikon and Leica M systems I will leave you with these thoughts:
I have a Nikon F3HP for Film use and a D600 for digital. I also use a Zeiss ZF 50mm F1.4 lens on both these camera bodies. Excellent Image quality with both. the D600 currently is being used more for Video, although it makes great still images as well.
The Leica system consists of an M4-P and two Zeiss ZM lenses. 35mm F2.8 and 50mm F1.5 Excellent Image Quality from all the Zeiss lenses.
The Leica M system is my preferred choice when I want to shoot film, although I also use the F3 at times. For Digital I only have the D600. Great camera, but heavy with the Zeiss lens. Good when one day I can afford a 200 or 300mm lens.
The M4-P with the 2 Zeiss lenses is compact, and fairly light. When travelling I prefer this system. No batteries to worry about except for my Gossen light meter, and that lasts at least 1 year. Film is easy to carry and mostly worry free. Leica's are great in the cold and rain etc. Never had a problem with them.
Would love to get an M7 but don't have the money.
As much as you like the Leica M cameras, The Nikon will serve you well and is much cheaper. you may want to look into Zeiss ZF lenses. They are very nice lenses with great Image Quality. I sold all my Leica lenses and bought my Zeiss lenses, with money left over to but the D600. No regrets.
Regards,
Akitadog
Having both Nikon and Leica M systems I will leave you with these thoughts:
I have a Nikon F3HP for Film use and a D600 for digital. I also use a Zeiss ZF 50mm F1.4 lens on both these camera bodies. Excellent Image quality with both. the D600 currently is being used more for Video, although it makes great still images as well.
The Leica system consists of an M4-P and two Zeiss ZM lenses. 35mm F2.8 and 50mm F1.5 Excellent Image Quality from all the Zeiss lenses.
The Leica M system is my preferred choice when I want to shoot film, although I also use the F3 at times. For Digital I only have the D600. Great camera, but heavy with the Zeiss lens. Good when one day I can afford a 200 or 300mm lens.
The M4-P with the 2 Zeiss lenses is compact, and fairly light. When travelling I prefer this system. No batteries to worry about except for my Gossen light meter, and that lasts at least 1 year. Film is easy to carry and mostly worry free. Leica's are great in the cold and rain etc. Never had a problem with them.
Would love to get an M7 but don't have the money.
As much as you like the Leica M cameras, The Nikon will serve you well and is much cheaper. you may want to look into Zeiss ZF lenses. They are very nice lenses with great Image Quality. I sold all my Leica lenses and bought my Zeiss lenses, with money left over to but the D600. No regrets.
Regards,
Akitadog
Yes, it very well may. I'm happier / more comfortable when I photograph with a camera that I really like. I believe if I'm happier / more comfortable, I will make better photos generally speaking. That said, there are times when a DSLR could be a better tool for me... but I just don't enjoy them, so I don't bother.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
hepcat
Former PH, USN
If you're shooting with one camera while wondering how you'd go about making the same image with different camera, you should probably be shooting with the camera you're thinking about rather than the one you're using.
David_Manning
Well-known
When I had my M6 the only lens I had was a 35mm, and the viewfinder (.72) was great.
As I research more, it seems like frame lines might be the deal breaker for the M7 for me. There seems definitely a give-and-take to using a 28/50 combo. With a 50, you only use a small portion of the VF, with a 28 you lose the ability to see outside the frame lines. I was even comparing frame lines for bodies like the Ikon or Bessa.
On the FE2, there is no FOV problem or question, obviously. I like the fact that whatever lens you put on, that's what you're seeing. No additional accessories if I choose to shoot a 24mm one day, or throw an 85mm on for a nice tight portrait (which I actually don't anticipate...it's my least-used lens on my 5DmkII).
These are obvious facts to RF shooters, but seem a bit "limiting" to someone who shoots SLRs quite a bit. I really WANT to say the M7 would be better for me...oh, I really do...but it's so hard to ignore the flexibility that the FE2 offers (aside from the fact that I already own it).
I appreciate the opinions and views of everyone who has taken the time to reply.
As I research more, it seems like frame lines might be the deal breaker for the M7 for me. There seems definitely a give-and-take to using a 28/50 combo. With a 50, you only use a small portion of the VF, with a 28 you lose the ability to see outside the frame lines. I was even comparing frame lines for bodies like the Ikon or Bessa.
On the FE2, there is no FOV problem or question, obviously. I like the fact that whatever lens you put on, that's what you're seeing. No additional accessories if I choose to shoot a 24mm one day, or throw an 85mm on for a nice tight portrait (which I actually don't anticipate...it's my least-used lens on my 5DmkII).
These are obvious facts to RF shooters, but seem a bit "limiting" to someone who shoots SLRs quite a bit. I really WANT to say the M7 would be better for me...oh, I really do...but it's so hard to ignore the flexibility that the FE2 offers (aside from the fact that I already own it).
I appreciate the opinions and views of everyone who has taken the time to reply.
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
The ability to use Leica glass. I prefer it to anything else I've used.
It's very much a blondes vs brunettes thing, though. Your mileage may vary.
dave lackey
Veteran
David, seriously...the Leica experience is one to not miss out on...I own two FE2s and an M3. FE2s are very comfortable for me and quite versatile but they are so cheap, there is no reason to sell them. The Leica M bodies, on the other hand, are expensive but the glass is super expensive IMO and well worth it.
Again, keep the FE2. The money you get from selling it and the lenses is a small fraction of getting into an M7 and good glass!
Which do I prefer? The Leica M by far! But I love the FE2s and will not part with them.
skahde
V for Victory!
FE2 and several FM2 have been my main cameras since 1990 and also had a Leica M4P and M6 for some years and I completely agree about the difference in lens-performance. However, I kept taking the better photographs with the SLRs although I felt quite comfortable with the rangefinders and got rid of the Leicas. So sharpness isn't everything but when you are used to Nikkors, a pair of recent summicrons is an experience you shouldn't deny yourself.
But by all means keep the Nikons.
dave lackey
Veteran
FE2 and several FM2 have been my main cameras since 1990 and also had a Leica M4P and M6 for some years and I completely agree about the difference in lens-performance. However, I kept taking the better photographs with the SLRs although I felt quite comfortable with the rangefinders and got rid of the Leicas. So sharpness isn't everything but when you are used to Nikkors, a pair of recent summicrons is an experience you shouldn't deny yourself.
But by all means keep the Nikons.
For some reason, I would love to have a brace of FM2n cameras, one in black and one in chrome. I suppose that is because I could never afford them in the 80s. But I was and am smitten by them still.
Soeren
Well-known
How much film, chemistry and paper will the price of a M7 + lenses buy you?
If you lust for a M7 buy one. Thats really the only reason youll need. The SLR vs RF and pro/con discussions are of little use when suffering from GAS
Best regards
If you lust for a M7 buy one. Thats really the only reason youll need. The SLR vs RF and pro/con discussions are of little use when suffering from GAS
Best regards
Soeren
Well-known
BTW I love the ZF 25 f/2,8 regardless which Nikon body I use with it. Id like a ZF 35 f/2, ZF 50 f/2 and a ZF 100 f/2 too.
Best regards
Best regards
David_Manning
Well-known
My apologies...I'm resurrecting an old thread...my own old thread.
So my question, to throw another grenade into the discussion:
I now own and enjoy an M9, but it's louder than I'd like, and has actually locked up a few times while shooting multiple frames quickly (not a situation I find myself in very often at all). Would an M7 shooting experience be any different? (not referring to the back end film/digital workflow)
So my question, to throw another grenade into the discussion:
I now own and enjoy an M9, but it's louder than I'd like, and has actually locked up a few times while shooting multiple frames quickly (not a situation I find myself in very often at all). Would an M7 shooting experience be any different? (not referring to the back end film/digital workflow)
taemo
eat sleep shoot
if you want to keep shooting digital RF, the only choice is to go to an M240.
the shutter sound is a lot more quiet.
but regarding the M9 and M7 experience, yes they are very similar.
although the M9 VF has smaller magnification .68 vs .72, also obviously no winder but other than that AE mode will be identical.
one thing for sure, the M7 will be a lot more quiet than the M9.
the shutter sound is a lot more quiet.
but regarding the M9 and M7 experience, yes they are very similar.
although the M9 VF has smaller magnification .68 vs .72, also obviously no winder but other than that AE mode will be identical.
one thing for sure, the M7 will be a lot more quiet than the M9.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
This is very old goble of worms to be reopen.
Any old style mechanical SLR is annoying to me.
I gave up for free last one yesterday. Just back to have only EOS Rebel as SLR for once in while, it used to be main camera for my family for five or so years.
M9 shutter is different from M7. And M7 has film advance lever.
Any old style mechanical SLR is annoying to me.
I gave up for free last one yesterday. Just back to have only EOS Rebel as SLR for once in while, it used to be main camera for my family for five or so years.
M9 shutter is different from M7. And M7 has film advance lever.
Peter_S
Peter_S
Used M8s and an M7...the M7 is quieter, also more so than the M6 (albeit the difference is marginal).
That said, I would not call the M7 a "quiet" camera.
That said, I would not call the M7 a "quiet" camera.
Dwig
Well-known
more like "ancient" than merely "old"
I can't comment on the noise level, but with the M7 you have to stop shooting every 36 exposures to reload where the M9 can shoot a significantly larger number of exposures before it needs to be "reloaded" with a new card. This can be a big issue for some users and trivial for others.
David_Manning
Well-known
I'm sentencing myself to shoot ten rolls of film in the FE2 to make sure I'm willing to work with film again...that's the first question I think I need to ask myself...before considering an M7.
I just get excited seeing M7 prices coming down on the 'Bay.
I just get excited seeing M7 prices coming down on the 'Bay.