BillBingham2
Registered User
Timmyjoe
Veteran
David, just saw this thread. From my own experience this is what I found. Working on a long term project, for many years shot with Leica M6TTL and 50 Lux. Changed camera systems last year and working on the project a couple months ago, shooting with Nikon FM2n & F3HP w/50 f1.2 AIS & 28 f2.8 AIS. Just not happy with the Nikon results compared to what I was getting with the Leica. Finally went back to the Leica M6TTL, an M3, w/50 Lux & 28 Elmarit to wrap up the project this month. Happy with the results again.
It's the glass. As good as the Nikon glass is, it can't stand up to the Leica glass.
It's the glass. As good as the Nikon glass is, it can't stand up to the Leica glass.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
As a long time Nikon user and someone who's owned an M6, M6TTL and M4-P down the years, I can only agree with Timmyjoe that the glass is probably the biggest difference. I love my Nikkors but there is something about many of the Leica (and Voigtlander) lenses I've used which is very different.
Whether that difference equates to "better" is a matter of personal choice and has been the subject of a lot of debate down the years. If you deem it to actually be "better", then the cost becomes a factor and you then need to decide whether the differential in perceived quality is justified.
For me, it wasn't. I'm certainly not criticising the Leica and Voigtlander lenses I've owned and used as these have almost certainly been amongst the finest and most beautifully made lenses I've been privileged to use. However, I have concluded that I am more comfortable with an SLR than a rangefinder. I sill keep a IIIf RDDA with a couple of lenses for fun but anything I want to shoot "seriously" takes me down the 35mm SLR route or to my Hasselblads.
You have to make up your own mind but a decision making process based on perceived quality differences in comparison with the alternatives and budget isn't a bad starting place. Then again, you might think "sod it" and buy an M7 because you just like it.
Whether that difference equates to "better" is a matter of personal choice and has been the subject of a lot of debate down the years. If you deem it to actually be "better", then the cost becomes a factor and you then need to decide whether the differential in perceived quality is justified.
For me, it wasn't. I'm certainly not criticising the Leica and Voigtlander lenses I've owned and used as these have almost certainly been amongst the finest and most beautifully made lenses I've been privileged to use. However, I have concluded that I am more comfortable with an SLR than a rangefinder. I sill keep a IIIf RDDA with a couple of lenses for fun but anything I want to shoot "seriously" takes me down the 35mm SLR route or to my Hasselblads.
You have to make up your own mind but a decision making process based on perceived quality differences in comparison with the alternatives and budget isn't a bad starting place. Then again, you might think "sod it" and buy an M7 because you just like it.
taemo
eat sleep shoot
from my GAS experience, the only way to cure your M7 itch is to actually get one.
ZI or RF or it's digital brothers M9 and M240 would be nice alternatives but still not an actual M7.
shoot with it for a couple of weeks or months, if you like it great otherwise you can most likely sell it for how much you paid for or lose $100
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
I cannot see how. The M7 and FE2 are two distinctly different tools. Apples and oranges.
What advantages do the M7 have over the FE2?
Quietness of shutter operation
Quality of the lenses which translates into image quality
Durability
Reliability
Regarding the wide lens issue - the M7 has frame lines for the 28mm focal length. In my experience, the 28mm is adequately wide enough for the kind of photography you do (close-in, people and situations). I regularly use a 21mm and guesstimate where the frame lines will fall in my images; I don't care much for the EVF that I have for my M-P. It doesn't take long to learn to gauge where the 21mm frame lines will fall when using a rangefinder that has a maximum angle of view based on the 28mm lens.
This can be accomplished with a film M, too; I will use my 21mm on my M4-P without a shoe mounted viewfinder. The results are not as immediately viewable, that's all.
It may be "common sense" - or it may not be; it all depends on how you look at it. The "common sense" approach to photography can be found in Consumer Reports magazine. Follow their "common sense" advice and you will be shooting with a $500 digital camera that has a sensor the size of a newborn baby's pinkie finger nail. After all, that $500 camera is "good enough" for the masses.
Leica M cameras and lenses are about passion, plain and simple. There are two kinds of people who buy Leica M: (1) Wealthy people with more money than photographic talent who want the status that comes with the Leica M, and (2) people who have a deep and abiding love of photography and image making - an unbridled passion and obsession for photography and what it means to them and does for them and are willing to make sacrifices to own and use Leica M cameras.
Some professional photographers fall into group 2, but most pro photographers do not. Most pros look at things from a cost vs. revenue perspective and decide that Leica M does not produce enough revenue for the cost. Most pros use Canon, Nikon or Fuji gear because it is good enough to satisfy their clients who write the checks.
People in group 2 use Leica M for the same reason Joshua Bell owns and plays the $4 million Gibson ex Huberman Stradivarius, which was made in 1713: Unbridled passion.
Only you can decide if you have that kind of passion for photography. Sometimes "common sense" is devoid of sense, leaving us with only the common. JMHO but I say if you can buy the M7 without selling a kidney or any other body parts or letting your children go hungry, if you have an unbridled passion for photography, buy the M7. Fortunately, the M7 is considerably more affordable than Joshua Bell's Stradivarius.
In the end, we live only a few short decades. There is no glory in being the richest man in the cemetery.
BillBingham2
Registered User
While this was important a decade ago, you can now pick up several great film SLRs for a low price that IMHO make durability less of an issues.
Also, to my surprise the FEs seem to be holding up better than I ever expected.
Perhaps the latter show how much validity you should give the former.....
B2
Huss
Veteran
As a preface, I shoot with 6 different Leica M bodies (with Leica and CV glass) and 6 different Nikon bodies (with Nikon and CV/Zf glass)
1/Quietness of shutter operation - yes Leica is much quieter and has less vibration (mirror slap in the SLRs).
2/ Quality of the lenses which translates into image quality - wide open definitely. I don't have any concern about any of my Leica glass being soft wide open. Most of my Nikon glass needs to be stopped down for counting bricks. The Zeiss Makro Planar 50 ZF and Micro Nikkor 50 and 60 2.8 are the equivalent of Leica glass. The CV 40 f 2 is very very close. But I have found that my leica glass is much more leicaly to flare than my ZF and Micro Nikkor glass.
Once you stop down (5.6 and further) I do not notice any difference in 'quality' between any of the lenses.
3/ Durability - Nikon all the way. Nothing Leica has ever made is close to the durability of my Nikon F, F2, F6 and I would include FM2n.
4/ Reliability - maybe a tie as long as we are talking about the mechanical Leica cameras.
Coming from a user of both systems.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've been shooting with Nikon SLR and Leica RF gear, side by side, for the majority of the past 50 years, with many forays to other gear as well. The same focal lengths do render differently with the Leica lenses vs the Nikon lenses, no doubt about it, but even between different models, versions, and examples of the same focal length*in the same brand there are variations.
I like both equally, and enjoy their differences. I've collected a nice little set of favorites in each*mount that play well off each other. The hallmark of the Nikons is the versatility—I'm much more comfortable shooting with 18mm and 28mm because the viewfinder shows me what I'm getting more clearly, likewise for 90mm and up; and then there's macro too. The Leica RF for me works particularly well with 35, 40, 50, and 75mm lenses, although I have both wider and longer for it just like I have those focal lengths for the Nikon too.
Both have made many many many top notch photographs for me over the decades.
G
Timmyjoe
Veteran
One other thing I wanted to mention. For me, which system I use has to do with how I'm comfortable working. When I am doing "personal projects", they usually involve spending time and getting close to the people I am trying to do a story about. For me, using the Leica M body is a more natural flow (compared to using my Nikon SLRs). The way I work with the M (presetting exposure and pre-focusing), allows me to only have the camera in front of my face for an instant or two as I am interacting with folks. When I use an SLR, the camera doesn't disappear for me as much as an M camera does. Again, this is just my experience.
I am always happier with the images I get with the M cameras over the Nikon SLRs when I'm doing more intimate personal work, because the M cameras just disappear for me. YMMV.
I am always happier with the images I get with the M cameras over the Nikon SLRs when I'm doing more intimate personal work, because the M cameras just disappear for me. YMMV.
giganova
Well-known
Quietness: the M7 is definitely more quiet! But is that worth shelling out $4k more than an FE2/FM2?
Quality of lens: one f/stop down, and there's no difference that you could see on film. On a 30+ megapixel sensor camera you could see it, but not on film.
Durability: no difference. The FE2/FM2 are among the highest quality cameras ever made.
Reliability: no difference. You can always buy a second Nikon as a backup since they are so cheap. Actually, for a $4,400 M7, you could buy 25 FE2 cameras ($175)!!
Size/Weight: no difference at all.
There's another argument to be made for the Nikon system: if you travel a lot, would you feel comfortable having a $6k Leica camera+lens dangling around your neck in the suburbs of Philly, Mexico City, or on a windy sandy beach? Would you take pictures or keep the camera in your bag because you are afraid something might happen to the camera? How would you react if your camera gets stolen or damaged? Not a big deal on a Nikon: I always keep a mega-cheap EM as a backup in my bags which I got for $15 in mint condition off Ebay. The pictures look exactly the same as pictures taken with an FE2/FM2 or an M7 for that matter. Perfect backup camera! It's the glass that matters, not the body, and AI-S lenses are wonderful.
Another disadvantage of the M7 is that you won't see exactly though the viewfinder what you'll have on film. With my FE2 and a grid focusing screen, my pictures look exactly how I framed them. No cropping in post.
If I were you, I'd brush aside all these logical arguments against/for any camera. Make your decision based on your desires and whether your wallets gets you there.
So here's my suggestion: shoot a few rolls of film with an FE2. Then go to the Leica store and borrow an M7 for an hour (they'll let you do that) and shoot a few rolls rolls of film!
giganova
Well-known
How is that different on an SLR?? If I shoot people, I do zone focusing and have my exposure pre-set. I just lift the camera to my eye for a brief instance. No difference whatsoever between rangefinder and SLR. An FE2 is just as large and weights just as much as an M, too, so there's no difference there either.
The only difference is how loud the shutter (it's actually the mirror) is. The FE2 is LOUD and obnoxious, so you can't take pictures of people without them noticing!
Timmyjoe
Veteran
No difference whatsoever between a rangefinder and SLR!!! Seriously?
You mustn't have much experience working with either if you can't see the difference between them.
giganova
Well-known
I just explained how: zone focusing, pre-set exposure, you lift your camera for a brief moment and press the shutter. No difference. I have shot with both.
dave lackey
Veteran
Hmmm ... 25 Nikon FE2 cameras. Or..9 Nikon FM3a, or 7 Nikon F6, or 2 Nikon F2 Titans, or... holy crap!
I will never give up my Nikon compact F bodies.
But if one wants an M7, go for it, use it a year or so and keep it or sell it. The experience is worth it.
Buy and use the camera you love! Life is short, it is later than you think!:angel:
I will never give up my Nikon compact F bodies.
But if one wants an M7, go for it, use it a year or so and keep it or sell it. The experience is worth it.
Buy and use the camera you love! Life is short, it is later than you think!:angel:
Robert Lai
Well-known
Lens differences ARE visible between the RF lenses and the SLR lenses, at all stops. I'm thinking primarily of distortion. The Nikkors that I've shot with from 50mm and wider all have barrel distortion. Some - very noticeable e.g. 50mm f/1.2, 50mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 24mm 2.8.
Women that I've known don't want me to take their picture with the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 "because it makes me look fat".
The superiority of the rangefinder glass - even vintage glass like the 35mm f2.8 Summaron - is the complete absence of distortion.
Then, try carrying a kit of 3 lenses. You'll quickly see that the Leica outfit is a lot easier to carry around.
Women that I've known don't want me to take their picture with the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 "because it makes me look fat".
The superiority of the rangefinder glass - even vintage glass like the 35mm f2.8 Summaron - is the complete absence of distortion.
Then, try carrying a kit of 3 lenses. You'll quickly see that the Leica outfit is a lot easier to carry around.
Spicy
Well-known
Just trying to remind people that this thread is quite old and the initial FE2/M7 debate has looooong been settled. That isn't to say that it's not a worthy debate, but I just think it's funny when people chime in with their $0.02 and there's no way it'll benefit the person asking the inital question. I suppose it may benefit someone else thinking about the same thing at some point in the future, but I've done it a few times (posted my thoughts on a long-settled discussion) and felt a bit of an idiot when I realized I was 6 years late or whatever -- just a function of the way the forum is organized.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Spicy, read THIS thread from where and why and who has restarted it.
You'll feel as twice of idiot. Guaranteed.
You'll feel as twice of idiot. Guaranteed.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
You're right, it is an old thread, but it doesn't seem that the debate is settled, since the OP is still debating whether to get the M7 or not. He has contributed to this thread a number of times in the last few days, asking similar questions to his original.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I have and use both systems (Nikon SLR, Leica M). I love both. I will keep both, and keep using both as long as I'm able. The reasons have been spelled out many times in this thread. I highly recommend the OP also be a user of both systems. Get the M7. Keep the FE2. Use each to their respective strengths. You'll be happy. Very, very, happy .
Now, somewhere above it was recommended to get a Nikon EM for a backup body in your Nikon SLR system. Fully agree! I used to have a couple EMs and some low-end lenses (e.g., Quantaray zooms) for those windy/sandy beaches, or trackside at the muddy motocross races, or *inside* the ring at the bullfight. The EMs were cheap, but surprisingly reliable and tough. Kept my FE2, F2A, FM2 out of danger. ...and the Quantaray zooms? Well, since CA was really bad I used B+W film. They were soft as heck, even at f11 or 16, but with action shots with panning it didn't seem to detract. Flare: that was a feature, a creative effect.
.Now, somewhere above it was recommended to get a Nikon EM for a backup body in your Nikon SLR system. Fully agree! I used to have a couple EMs and some low-end lenses (e.g., Quantaray zooms) for those windy/sandy beaches, or trackside at the muddy motocross races, or *inside* the ring at the bullfight. The EMs were cheap, but surprisingly reliable and tough. Kept my FE2, F2A, FM2 out of danger. ...and the Quantaray zooms? Well, since CA was really bad I used B+W film. They were soft as heck, even at f11 or 16, but with action shots with panning it didn't seem to detract. Flare: that was a feature, a creative effect.
David_Manning
Well-known
And here I am again!!!
I really do appreciate everyone's opinions.
I've spent the last few hours uploading recent family photos from my Fuji X-T1, which for all intents and purposes shoots like a compact SLR (through the tunnel), and comparing them to family events I've photographed with the Leica M9. The Fuji/SLR-style images are well-framed, well-exposed, and have a terrific thin DoF (when needed). The M9 images...well, they're beautiful, and intimate, and I enjoyed using an RF.
The RF experience (talking about an M7 here) is still definitely preferred, but it's nice to have fast shutter speeds (1/4000 vs 1/1000 for the film cameras).
As a side note, casual portraits made with the X-T1 and a 23mm (35mm equiv) look beautiful now that the firmware allows wide-open shooting in full daylight. I could shoot F1.4 at 1/32,000 and the photos looked like some MF images I've made (645 anyway). I still prefer the RF shooting experience. I don't really use long lenses either.
I think the M7 may happen at some point, and luckily I won't have to rid myself of the FE2 to do it.
I'm just *slightly* concerned about blinking red lights in my VF...
I really do appreciate everyone's opinions.
I've spent the last few hours uploading recent family photos from my Fuji X-T1, which for all intents and purposes shoots like a compact SLR (through the tunnel), and comparing them to family events I've photographed with the Leica M9. The Fuji/SLR-style images are well-framed, well-exposed, and have a terrific thin DoF (when needed). The M9 images...well, they're beautiful, and intimate, and I enjoyed using an RF.
The RF experience (talking about an M7 here) is still definitely preferred, but it's nice to have fast shutter speeds (1/4000 vs 1/1000 for the film cameras).
As a side note, casual portraits made with the X-T1 and a 23mm (35mm equiv) look beautiful now that the firmware allows wide-open shooting in full daylight. I could shoot F1.4 at 1/32,000 and the photos looked like some MF images I've made (645 anyway). I still prefer the RF shooting experience. I don't really use long lenses either.
I think the M7 may happen at some point, and luckily I won't have to rid myself of the FE2 to do it.
I'm just *slightly* concerned about blinking red lights in my VF...