David_Manning
Well-known
Hi Everyone,
I currently have a few personal projects I'd enjoy shooting on film. I currently own a very nice FE2 (black) with 50/1.4 and 28/2.8 Nikkors. There are several things I really like about that camera. It's about as compact as an M series, which is nice. It works perfectly, and seems bulletproof. I've replaced the foam seals, which was a nice way to acquaint myself with this machine. Things that make it useful to me are reliability, the ability to shoot in aperture-priority, and a fast 1/4000 top shutter speed for daylight large-aperture shooting.
I had an M6 for a year, and it was terrific. I liked the compactness, reliability, and just plain liked shooting a Leica...I felt more serious. It took some shooting before I was comfortable with viewing the world through a rangefinder window, but I adjusted to the view and enjoyed the challenge.
I've recently been drawn to shooting another M body! Since I have a Fuji X100 and 5DmkII for digital, I'm not willing to pay the extraordinary price of admission for a digital M. I travel quite a lot, and sometimes to places with some city crime, and the thought of having a nice motorcycle's worth of money hanging around my neck or in my hand gives me pause.
Is investing in an M7 a step backwards from the FE2 from a usability standpoint? I've done a lot of reading and research, and know what to look for and what to try to avoid, and it seems like investing in an M7 and a 50/28 setup would be expensive but just generally duplicate what I already have.
Disregarding the rangefinder/SLR difference, is there an advantage to the Leica M7 that I wouldn't have with an FE2? It seems like I'd actually give up a fast shutter and maybe the ability to use a wider lens without adding anything to the camera. My projects are mostly close-in, people and situations...no sports or fast action.
Should a desire to shoot with a Leica again trump what may be common sense?
I'm hoping to spur opinion and personal experience. I'm not a neophyte, so telling me both cameras are totally different is irrelevant
Thanks in advance,
David.
I currently have a few personal projects I'd enjoy shooting on film. I currently own a very nice FE2 (black) with 50/1.4 and 28/2.8 Nikkors. There are several things I really like about that camera. It's about as compact as an M series, which is nice. It works perfectly, and seems bulletproof. I've replaced the foam seals, which was a nice way to acquaint myself with this machine. Things that make it useful to me are reliability, the ability to shoot in aperture-priority, and a fast 1/4000 top shutter speed for daylight large-aperture shooting.
I had an M6 for a year, and it was terrific. I liked the compactness, reliability, and just plain liked shooting a Leica...I felt more serious. It took some shooting before I was comfortable with viewing the world through a rangefinder window, but I adjusted to the view and enjoyed the challenge.
I've recently been drawn to shooting another M body! Since I have a Fuji X100 and 5DmkII for digital, I'm not willing to pay the extraordinary price of admission for a digital M. I travel quite a lot, and sometimes to places with some city crime, and the thought of having a nice motorcycle's worth of money hanging around my neck or in my hand gives me pause.
Is investing in an M7 a step backwards from the FE2 from a usability standpoint? I've done a lot of reading and research, and know what to look for and what to try to avoid, and it seems like investing in an M7 and a 50/28 setup would be expensive but just generally duplicate what I already have.
Disregarding the rangefinder/SLR difference, is there an advantage to the Leica M7 that I wouldn't have with an FE2? It seems like I'd actually give up a fast shutter and maybe the ability to use a wider lens without adding anything to the camera. My projects are mostly close-in, people and situations...no sports or fast action.
Should a desire to shoot with a Leica again trump what may be common sense?
I'm hoping to spur opinion and personal experience. I'm not a neophyte, so telling me both cameras are totally different is irrelevant
Thanks in advance,
David.
umcelinho
Marcelo
I think you've already decided but are looking for arguments to base your decision
You want the M7 because loved the experience of shooting with an M6, and you want aperture priority and 1/4000.... have you considered getting a Hexar RF instead?
Since it will cost less than 1/4th of the price of an M7 you might not have to part with the FE2 and be able to use each when they suit best. The Hexar RF is not an M7, obviously, but features wise you wouldn't be missing anything from the FE2, apart from AF, I guess. its VF is not as good for a 50/1.4 as a .72x vf M7 would, though. But might be worth considering this option instead.
You want the M7 because loved the experience of shooting with an M6, and you want aperture priority and 1/4000.... have you considered getting a Hexar RF instead?
Since it will cost less than 1/4th of the price of an M7 you might not have to part with the FE2 and be able to use each when they suit best. The Hexar RF is not an M7, obviously, but features wise you wouldn't be missing anything from the FE2, apart from AF, I guess. its VF is not as good for a 50/1.4 as a .72x vf M7 would, though. But might be worth considering this option instead.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Keep the Nikon and buy an Leica when you afford it easily as well. They're simply different enough that you'll find situations where one is more convenient or performs more suitably than the other, and why not have the option available? SLRs are generally a bit more versatile due to the through lens viewing precision.
I keep a Nikon F and an Olympus E-1 as my SLRs. I use them primarily with normal to telephoto lenses that have macro capabilities, which is something that RF cameras do not do well. Most of the time, I shoot with either a Leica M9 or M film body, but it is so nice to reach into the cabinet and pull out the F and 105 Macro for some things.
G
I keep a Nikon F and an Olympus E-1 as my SLRs. I use them primarily with normal to telephoto lenses that have macro capabilities, which is something that RF cameras do not do well. Most of the time, I shoot with either a Leica M9 or M film body, but it is so nice to reach into the cabinet and pull out the F and 105 Macro for some things.
G
kxl
Social Documentary
In general, you should be able to shoot at slower shutter speeds with an RF than you can with an SLR.
The SLR would be more advantageous if you frequently shoot longer focal lengths (90 or longer), but if the majority of your needs are met by 50mm and wider then it's more or less about the available lenses.
I have a ZI and an FM3A. I use the FM3A primarily for the 85/1.4 and the 105/2.5, although I am itching to get my hands on a 50/1.2 (just don't have the funds right now).
The SLR would be more advantageous if you frequently shoot longer focal lengths (90 or longer), but if the majority of your needs are met by 50mm and wider then it's more or less about the available lenses.
I have a ZI and an FM3A. I use the FM3A primarily for the 85/1.4 and the 105/2.5, although I am itching to get my hands on a 50/1.2 (just don't have the funds right now).
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
Vics
Veteran
David, I've so much enjoyed the work you've been doing with the FE lately, that I think you should just stay where you are. I can't see any reason give up those high speeds.
Lflex
Lflex
The fm2 and the ais 28/2.8 is an amazing combo. If I went bankrupt and had to sell all my Leica stuff but could keep that combo, I wouldn't shed a tear.
David_Manning
Well-known
This seems to be the illogical argument which outweighs all the other seemingly-favorable reasons to keep the FE2!!!
Seriously, I have no intention of considering any other RF camera besides an M body. I think the Leica M6 that I had at one time did make me feel more serious about my work, and that's a psychological boost. Aside from that intangible, I can't think of really another reason to switch.
By the way, would a 28 and 50 play nice on a .72 finder? I'm a non-glasses wearer.
To add more consternation and indecision, black or chrome?
Peter_S
Peter_S
David,
what about Contax G2? The Planar and Biogon are stellar...
28mm is no problem on the 0.72 M7, neither is 50mm. If you do dish out the money for an M7, get the one with MP finder. And black, definitely.
what about Contax G2? The Planar and Biogon are stellar...
28mm is no problem on the 0.72 M7, neither is 50mm. If you do dish out the money for an M7, get the one with MP finder. And black, definitely.
David_Manning
Well-known
Vic,
Thanks for the nice words.
Peter, I was wondering how long it would take for you to add your opinion!!!
Any reliability problems in the cold, moist conditions where you've been shooting lately? Can you change film with gloves on?
Thanks for the nice words.
Peter, I was wondering how long it would take for you to add your opinion!!!
Any reliability problems in the cold, moist conditions where you've been shooting lately? Can you change film with gloves on?
Peter_S
Peter_S
With the M7 - no problems, not in the cold or in the mountains at all. Changing film with gloves...hm, no, that is not possible. Else - perfect machine (too perfect for me...that is why I may let mine go).
The G2 did not like cold at all, that is why I switched to Ms. Else a robust, solid and fast camera.
One thing...with the M7 I shoot as fast as with the G2, which may not be in line with what you intend to do with a M-system.
mfogiel
Veteran
The M7, particularly when coupled with the latest winder, is a very efficient way of shooting people in the street. If I need to do street with an SLR, I take out Nikon F100.
The basic difference is in seeing the subject. Main advantage will be seen between 35mm and 50mm - 28mm is giving you an almost clear view through an SLR too. Another advantage is in shooting in low light - you can focus with presision, and you gain at least one f stop due to lack of mirror. If you go for it, I would recommend a black body and the Ultron 28/1.9 and Elmar M 50/2.8, both underrated gems.
The basic difference is in seeing the subject. Main advantage will be seen between 35mm and 50mm - 28mm is giving you an almost clear view through an SLR too. Another advantage is in shooting in low light - you can focus with presision, and you gain at least one f stop due to lack of mirror. If you go for it, I would recommend a black body and the Ultron 28/1.9 and Elmar M 50/2.8, both underrated gems.
dave lackey
Veteran
Hi Everyone,
I currently have a few personal projects I'd enjoy shooting on film. I currently own a very nice FE2 (black) with 50/1.4 and 28/2.8 Nikkors. There are several things I really like about that camera. It's about as compact as an M series, which is nice. It works perfectly, and seems bulletproof. I've replaced the foam seals, which was a nice way to acquaint myself with this machine. Things that make it useful to me are reliability, the ability to shoot in aperture-priority, and a fast 1/4000 top shutter speed for daylight large-aperture shooting.
I had an M6 for a year, and it was terrific. I liked the compactness, reliability, and just plain liked shooting a Leica...I felt more serious. It took some shooting before I was comfortable with viewing the world through a rangefinder window, but I adjusted to the view and enjoyed the challenge.
I've recently been drawn to shooting another M body! Since I have a Fuji X100 and 5DmkII for digital, I'm not willing to pay the extraordinary price of admission for a digital M. I travel quite a lot, and sometimes to places with some city crime, and the thought of having a nice motorcycle's worth of money hanging around my neck or in my hand gives me pause.
Is investing in an M7 a step backwards from the FE2 from a usability standpoint? I've done a lot of reading and research, and know what to look for and what to try to avoid, and it seems like investing in an M7 and a 50/28 setup would be expensive but just generally duplicate what I already have.
Disregarding the rangefinder/SLR difference, is there an advantage to the Leica M7 that I wouldn't have with an FE2? It seems like I'd actually give up a fast shutter and maybe the ability to use a wider lens without adding anything to the camera. My projects are mostly close-in, people and situations...no sports or fast action.
Should a desire to shoot with a Leica again trump what may be common sense?
I'm hoping to spur opinion and personal experience. I'm not a neophyte, so telling me both cameras are totally different is irrelevant
Thanks in advance,
David.
I love my FE2. But it is a different camera for different uses. The system allows for tele and macro. You may not need those now but in time you might enjoy it.
The camera and lenses are rather cheap compared to Leica M lenses and for that reason alone is a good reason to have one for those times when it is better to have an old, inexpensive, but highly capable camera to use.
I would look at it as a system decision.
I have found nothing better than my M3. But, I love those Nikon FM, FE, FA, etc. bodies. Like an old pair of jeans.
teleparallel
Established
Again,
Why not a ZI? Biggest and brightest finder(apparently). You can invest in lens, instead in a(very expensive) body. Keep the FE, even.
And from a merely practical point. Everything a leica do, an FE do, and more, such close up, tilt-shift, and more precise filter uses. Even if you don't use these features, it's good they are there.
The only advantages are slow shutter speeds. But you can overcome then, by using 2 sec timer, and eliminate mirror slap. Not usable in every case, but a solution.
If you want a leica, cause it's a leica, that is fine. But you probably need to pass the practical arguments.
Why not a ZI? Biggest and brightest finder(apparently). You can invest in lens, instead in a(very expensive) body. Keep the FE, even.
And from a merely practical point. Everything a leica do, an FE do, and more, such close up, tilt-shift, and more precise filter uses. Even if you don't use these features, it's good they are there.
The only advantages are slow shutter speeds. But you can overcome then, by using 2 sec timer, and eliminate mirror slap. Not usable in every case, but a solution.
If you want a leica, cause it's a leica, that is fine. But you probably need to pass the practical arguments.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Why is this an either/or question? Can you not pick both?
gustavoAvila
Established
Based on my experiences, the "pros" and "cons" of a Leica M over an SLR are:
Advantages:
1) Large selection of superb lenses (this is a huge plus!)
2) Easier to achieve consistent and accurate focus (for FL's <= 50mm at distances > 1m)
3) Less prone to camera shake
4) Can be readily and easily serviced
5) Quieter than an SLR
Disadvantages:
1) Price (this is the biggest negative)
2) Gotta be careful regarding pointing the camera into the sun!
(To be fair, other individuals would be probably add additional "cons" such as framing inaccuracy, inability to handle longer focal lengths, etc. but, for myself, these are non-issues.)
In my opinion, nothing handles the 28/35/50mm focal lengths better than a rangefinder!
Advantages:
1) Large selection of superb lenses (this is a huge plus!)
2) Easier to achieve consistent and accurate focus (for FL's <= 50mm at distances > 1m)
3) Less prone to camera shake
4) Can be readily and easily serviced
5) Quieter than an SLR
Disadvantages:
1) Price (this is the biggest negative)
2) Gotta be careful regarding pointing the camera into the sun!
(To be fair, other individuals would be probably add additional "cons" such as framing inaccuracy, inability to handle longer focal lengths, etc. but, for myself, these are non-issues.)
In my opinion, nothing handles the 28/35/50mm focal lengths better than a rangefinder!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Personally, I'd go for the can of worms...
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
sparrow6224
Well-known
I shoot the M2 and M6TTL w/ MP finder; and the FE, FM2n, and FM3A. These last three are very similar, obviously, same essential body with slightly different features. But the FE/FM experience is radically different from the M6 experience and I wouldn't think of substituting one for the other. Obviously with 50mm lenses you can end up with roughly the same pictures from both; but you wouldn't have gotten there the same way.
I find that regular use of a rangefinder makes me more careful and forces me to see the picture before I put the camera to my face.
An FE2 and plenty of batteries and the AIS 28/2.8 and 50/1.4 is a great travel kit and can be replaced for about $400.
Thing about Leica is, besides that serious boost of which you speak, the lenses are really quite startlingly better.
I find that regular use of a rangefinder makes me more careful and forces me to see the picture before I put the camera to my face.
An FE2 and plenty of batteries and the AIS 28/2.8 and 50/1.4 is a great travel kit and can be replaced for about $400.
Thing about Leica is, besides that serious boost of which you speak, the lenses are really quite startlingly better.
dave lackey
Veteran
How would you like them prepared?
There is a TV show about exotic/extreme foods and I have seen them prepared in a couple of different ways...awful.This thread is pretty close to extreme differences in value of two cameras. Not to mention the systems. I can't quite come to grips with giving up an inexpensive camera for a Leica M7 plus expensive lens. Or any other M body because of the costs and the huge differences of using them, the M system being my favorite by far! Two entirely different animals.
But those worms...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Dave,How would you like them prepared?
This thread is pretty close to extreme differences in value of two cameras. Not to mention the systems. I can't quite come to grips with giving up an inexpensive camera for a Leica M7 plus expensive lens. Or any other M body because of the costs and the huge differences of using them, the M system being my favorite by far! Two entirely different animals.
But those worms...
That's what I mean, really. Might as well choose a can of worms instead of either.
Cheers (& love to Linda),
R.