Changing from SLR to RF

[jaffa_777]

I already shoot rangefinders for medium format and panoramic, but still use my trusty Nikon F3 with 3 quality nikon primes (28/2, 50/1.4, and 105/2.5) as my 35mm shooter. Its a great camera and will never sell it, but it can be a little bulky, heavy and conspicuous to take everywhere everyday.

Apart from the obvious gains of less weight and bulk, better viewfinder etc, people say that the lenses are sharper, and some say lenses like leica and zeiss have medium format qualities about them, and their pictures are noticebly better.

What can I expect to see that is better output wise when using these lenses. What did you see when you changed, or go between one and the other. I am looking at buying a Zeiss Ikon with 35/2 and 50/2 zeiss lenses. (Anyone selling?)

Cheers!

 

[payasam]

If you like what you have, Andrew, and if you intend to keep it, the Zeiss Ikon will be an addition. It will not replace anything.

 

[Anupam]

Medium format it will not be. Switch to RFs for the different experience of shooting rather than visivle difference in picture quality.

-Anupam

 

[wilt]

I agree, primarily ergonomics, not optics, is my experience with Leica.

 

[JonR]

Pick up a Yahsica Electro 35 on Ebay for 30 Euros or so and test it - I would say it is not optics and quality but rather the way of photographing, ease of use and so on.... I have found that the combination of Nikon SLR/DSLR and a RF is perfect.... Different situations - different needs!

/J

 

[jaffa_777]

Yes, I definately agree that you shoot a rangefinder primarily for the experience. However some shots I look at especially from zeiss and lieca, while not medium format quality, have something that I don't see in my slr shots. Now maybe its me wanting to beleive in something thats not there, but I am sure I have read other people saying and seeing the same thing.

I am going to be touring shooting a doco soon with my mamiya 6's. I think it would be wise to take a long a 35mm for shots in lower light and opputunistic shots. However adding the F3 and lenses to the mix adds a lot of weight & bulk so this might be a good excuse to lash out on a rangefinder.

 

[wyk_penguin]

While there is nice microcontrast and resolution in certain very expensive lenses, lerger formats will always win in terms of resolution and tonality simply because of the fact that you have more film to record whatever comes through the lens.

Don't expect a miracle.

 

[Kin Lau]

If you can afford it, then just go for it and try it out.

Leica and Zeiss hold their value very well, so you won't be losing much if you decide to sell it off later.

You might also want to look at the ZF line of SLR lens for the Nikon mount.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[wyk_penguin]

As Dante Stella says, "In the world of DSLRs shooting 8fps, the Leica is like you father's lightsaber, an elegant weapon from a more civilized time."

 

[jaffa_777]

wow, Magus, this is a bold post. Thanks for your thoughts, especially coming from nikon primes. I think I will always have my f3 though. Coupled with my 105mm 2.5 its got to be one of the best manual slrs ever.

 

[Sparrow]

Magus
Did you have a good lunch yesterday?


:angel:

 

[VinceC]

You could also think about putting together a Nikon RF kit that comes close to duplicating your Nikon SLR kit: Nikon S3 or S3-2000 with 50/1.4 ; the 105/2.5 and either CV or Nikkor 28/3.5 (could add a faster 35mm if you'd like, either a CV or Nikkor 35/2.5 -- the excellent Nikkor 35/1.8 is tends to cost $600 to $1,000, a little more expensive than it's Leitz 35/2 equivalent. The other lenses and bodies compare very favorably to the price of Leitz cameras and lenses.

If you do go Leica, the CV 28/1.9 seems to be very highly regarded but is not a small lens. The Nikkor 105/2.5 is available in Leitz mount as well.

 

[VinceC]

And, with all due respect to Magus, the new Nikkor 50/1.4 that comes with the Nikon S3-2000 (the lens was designed in early 1960s but has modern multicoatings) has been tested by several people on this forum side by side with the latest computer-designed Leitz 50/1.4 with no appreciable difference in quality ... some very small subjective differences, but no clear winner in quality.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[VinceC]

Leica, by nature of its slightly reduced viewfinder magnification, is better suited to the 85/90mm focal length instead of the 105mm. (Nikon RF has a lifesize finder).

There is also the well-regarded Canon P -- it also gives a 1:1 lifesize finder and framelines for 35/50/100mm lenses. I've read good things on this forum about fast Canon 35s and 100s.

 

[jaffa_777]

I'll be using the rangefinder for everything that is 50mm and under. Over that and the F3 will be brought along. It so easy to focus accurately with the longer lenses. Magus I would love to buy the 85/1.4 one day, but I find I shoot less and less with long lenses now. 35-40mm has become my favourite length. And a zeiss ikon and a few lenses I think will soon be coming my way.

 

[jaffa_777]

Magus, what are the LCD blocks? Is it where you read the shutter speeds in the viewfinder? Do they need replacing regulary?

 

[VinceC]

>>I'll be using the rangefinder for everything that is 50mm and under.<<

I was going by your enthusiasm for the 105. It doesn't necessarily make sense to carry around an F3 just to shoot one telephoto lens that is also available as one fo the finest RF lenses ever made.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request