Considering the SLR dark side

[scottmcl]

Sorry for beginning with an equipment "dump," but it's germane to my current quandry.

I've been shooting RF cameras for about 2.5 years. I started out with a Bessa R and a 50/2.5. Over the years, I've added two M6TTL bodies (a .72 and a .58) along with several lenses: CV 21/4, 35/2.5 LTM Pancake, 50/1.5 and Leica 28/2, 50/2 and 90/2.8 (all current). I also have a little SF24 flash, and various accessories.

I also built up an FM3a based kit, with 28/2.8 AIS, 45/2.8 AI-P, 105/2.5 AIS and 135/2.8 AIS. I built up this kit for the relative economy and good quality of the two longer Nikon lenses, but just "couldn't resist" the 28 and 45 🙂

I also shoot a Nikon D70, and have some AF lenses: 12-24/4 DX zoom, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8.

Various Nikon accessories including an SB800 flash, Wein Safe Sync for using my studio strobes, Stroboframe flash brack, reversal ring, etc.

So my quandry is how many 135 film camera systems am I going to support alongside digital, and a hopefull foray into MF and LF film shooting?

Lately, I found Ive been picking up the FM3a kit instead of the Leica M kit, and increasingly I appreciate its virtues. The FM3a is a small SLR body with a great feature set - DOF preview, multiple exposure, nice focusing screen (but interchangeable), high flash sync and top shutter speed, TTL flash, easy bounce flash with the SB800, shutter and apperture display in the VF and so on.

The FM3a + 45 is about as small, maybe smaller, than the M6 + 50/2. It's as much the perfect "one lens carry around kit." The AIS lenses are larger than their Leica counterparts, but a 3 AIS lens kit fits into the same small domke satchel I use for my Leica M kit.

The FM3a and AIS lenses seem perfectly sturdy feeing, and at their price point, they are less "precious" than the M Kit. I also really like the AIS lenses I currently shoot, each an excellent performer in its own way.

I'm not fond of the 105/2.5 wide open (vs. the Leica 90/2.8), so that's a shortcoming. Also, I do NOT have any fast lenses in my AIS kit, but the advent of the new ZF lenses presents an attractive opportunity to round out my FM3a kit with a few high quality and faster f1.4 lenses - including a presumably good 85/1.4 short tele with decent wide open performance. I don't know how Nikon's 20mm lens compares to my CV 21/4.

So I'm wondering, could the FM3a SLR with a few Zeiss lens additions and the purchase of a 2nd FE2, FM3a or FM2n backup body actually be a better 135 film camera system than my Leica M RF system? As sturdy, more flexible, near equivalent or equivalent optical quality, less expensive in total and so on?


And of course, there is a nice overlap between the FM3a system and the Nikon DSLR cameras, particularly if I get a D200 (which meters nicely with AIS lenses) should Nikon come around to really FIXING the banding problem once and for all.

Selling off my M gear should fund the FM3a system "upgrades" with money left over to spare.

I do like shooting with my M bodies, and the lenses leave little to be desired. But again, I wonder how many 135 film systems are worth keeping, shooting, enhancing and so on. I'm not a collector, I'm a shooter. So I don't get a kick of having oodles of different 135 film camera systems sitting on the shelves.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Scott

 

[aad]

Whoa. My main criteria for new cameras is "no batteries".

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Scott,

It is hard to say anything negative regarding the FM3A. It is a great camera. My wife favors it for travel (me with my Leica CL + 40/cron ... about as compact as one can get in the M system).

The 45mmPancake lens is stellar, sharp across the range, great bokeh. Only problem I see with favoring any SLR system over your M system is that you lose stops. In good light, my wife's FM3A loses nothing compared to my CL. But there are simply situations (such as in museums, bars or any other dimly lit place) where she quickly gives up even trying to photograph, whereas I can still shoot away with my CL and faster lens.

It's a tradeoff, but why not have the FM3A + 45 for daylight shooting backed up by your M with one fast lens?

 

[Nikon Bob]

You are asking the wrong guy here, I am still trying to decide between my M system and my FM2n/FE2 system. Bang for the buck goes to the Nikon system hands down but the M system has some advantages of it's own. I guess it just depends on if you can live without the M system or not usage wise and money wise. It is a closer call than most think, lots of luck.

Nikon Bob

 

[VinceC]

You can cure the low-light problem with a good f/1.4 lens, either 50mm or 35mm. Used AIS Nikkors are very cheap. The 28mm f/2 also has an outstanding reputation, and I've used the AIS 85/2 for a long, long time -- great lens.

The best camera for you is ... the one that works for you. For years I've traveled about with Nikon RFs while my wife sticks with her FM2n (more recently, a Canon digital point and shoot that she adores). I use RFs just because I'm stubborn and different and like their feel and like the challenge of using them even when an SLR would be more suitable. I don't mind carrying one around because they're so small, and I can keep a spare lens in my pocket. But SLRs are more flexible all around. The FM2/3 is the same size as an interchangeable lens RF.

While having the battery run out is a bummer, it's even more of a bummer to run out of film, and I've run out of film a lot more often than batteries. Also, doesn't the FM3 work without batteries?

 

[ChrisN]

My immediate thought is - why not keep and enjoy both kits? Why does owning several kits make you a "collector", and what is wrong with that anyway? If you need the cash, sell whatever gives you the least pleasure to use. Otherwise, enjoy using the gear you've worked hard to afford and acquire.

I've got a lot of money, time and effort invested in fishing gear, but I haven't been fishing for months. I'm not planning to sell it off any time soon, because I know the time will come when I again have the opportunity and the inclination to use it. For me the same applies to cameras and photography.

 

[scottmcl]

Whoa. My main criteria for new cameras is "no batteries".

The FM3a works perfectly fine without batteries. It has an electronically controlled shutter for AE, but all shutter speeds are available without a battery as well. Pretty cool, huh?

I have two Sekonic meters - the little Twinmate is always in my bag and a 358 light meter I use with studio strobes.


Scott

 

[julianphotoart]

I like the M and I like the FM3a. I have taken both on trips plenty of times. The M allows me to shoot discretely, it allows me to take shots handheld at slower speeds, it lets me use great lenses, and I don't need to worry about mirror slap for tripod/extended time shots. The FM3a lets me use a PC lens, lets me see exactly what I'm shooting, lets me use my LensBaby, it lets me use great lenses (from Non-AI all the way to AF-D), and lets me use long lenses. It does not have mirror lock-up, which is a bother sometimes and makes me use the M for tripod shots of between 1/4 sec. to 2 sec.

They're equally enjoyable for a different set of reasons. It's fun to use both.

 

[ch1]

I'm not immediately familiar with the FM3 but I have three F3's (one at each residence) and love them. I also have a couple of F5's and F100's some Nikkormats (FTN, FT2 and two ELs) along with assorted lenses, flash units, tele-extenders etc.

Digitally I use a D70 (in NY) and a D100 (in AZ).

I guess you can understand then why my first RF was a S2 and now the kit includes R2S, S and, for some unexplained GAS attack, a Contax IIIa (which can use my Nikkor/CV "wides").

So I guess I am not one to offer advice on what to DISPOSE of - if you don't have to dump any gear in order to feed the baby - why do so? 😕 😀

 

[scottmcl]

The FM3a does have a nice self-timer mirror pre-flip. Not as convenient as MLU, but it does the trick.

 

[scottmcl]

Another issue for me is that I have hand tremors. Needless to say, I don't shoot 1/15 or slower with my Leica M cameras.

 

[kmack]

I do like shooting with my M bodies, and the lenses leave little to be desired. But again, I wonder how many 135 film systems are worth keeping, shooting, enhancing and so on. I'm not a collector, I'm a shooter. So I don't get a kick of having oodles of different 135 film camera systems sitting on the shelves.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Scott

LOL... wrong place to ask that question, the most common answer will be "Keep Both".

If you can afford it, keep both. If not, you answered the question already, the Nikon is the camera you pick up with greater frequency, that is the tool you prefer. If you need or want a smaller kit you can pick up a Bessa T and keep one or two of your favorite M lenses.

 

[yossarian]

Scott, I've openly admitted here that I've never been a big Nikon fan. However, I
think the FM3A is one of the most brilliantly executed cameras ever and has not been
getting the credit it deserves, being overshadowed by all-auto film and digital SLRs.
No doubt we will never see another camera with its unique dual shutter functions, which to me make it historically significant and even collectible. More to the point, it
has many of the virtues people appreciate about Leica Ms--as many as any SLR can
have.
I think the FM3A will be reconsidered in the future and eventually be recognized for
the technical accomplishment of the shutter. If only Nikon had changed their "meter
on" system so it didn't require the advance lever to be at the stand-off position. I
shoot using my left eye and simply can't operate the camera conveniently. But for
that, I'd have bought one the day they hit the market.
To sum up, the anti-Nikon guy is suggesting that you keep all your Nikons. You should probably heed the advice of the others and keep the Leica kit, too. I don't
see that you're lacking anything important. Unless you need liquidity, hang on to
all of it.
Just one opinion.

Fred

 

[lmd91343]

Scott,


I understand your dilemma. I have THREE 135 systems: rangefinders; Pentax SLRs; and Canon SLRs

For 35 years I've bought and used Canon SLR equipment. I must have 20+ Canon brand lenses and a handful of other high performing lenses. I have an 85mm/f1.2 "L", a chrome nose 35mm/f2.0, "L" class zooms, many other excellent primes, and arguably the best "normal" lens the 55mm/1.2 ASPH. I have several top level cameras including: (2)T90; (3)F1N(ae finder); F1n; and FTb. I can take excellent photos with the Canon stuff. With the right film and technique, I have made 24"x36" enlargements that show the finest detail.

SLRs are great. You have a much wider selection of lenses. Parallax problems don't exist, you get WSIWYG! No finders to misplace. Macro photos with bellows, looong telephotos, fast motor drives, and changable focus screens, you can do anything. Wow, you have WSIWYG spot metering.

However, when I carry my F1N, people notice it. I can't put it in my pocket. It is almost impossible to go "stealth". Candids are impossible. And the equipment is HEAVY!

With rangefinders, nobody notices them. You can slip them in a pocket. Candids are easier. RFs are more challanging on an intellectual level. Metering is different. Framing is not WYSIWYG, even with moving frame lines. You even need to remember to take the lens cap off. 😉 I like this greater intellectual challange. It is more satisfying. It also slows me down. The slower I go, the less automatic I become, the more I enjoy. As I slow down, more time is invested in each shot. Each one becomes more valuable. I spend more time in composition and studying the light. I make better art.

Of course there are somethings you need to use an SLR for, however I am more likely to pick up a RF when I walk out the door.

Keep both sets. Your needs will change from day to day and year to year.

 

[jonasv]

The FM3a's shutter is brilliant, just brilliant. I don't think there are a lot of cameras that could operate without a battery, have 1/4000th top shutter speed, and 1/250th flash sync. Actually I don't think there are any such cameras.

If you don't like the 105/2.5 wide-open, I would most certainly recommend the 85/2 AI (a step up would be the f/1.4 version, which is very affordable unlike it's AF-D counterpart). I have both, and they are very different lenses. The Zeiss 50/1.4 might also be a very good buy if it has better bokeh than it's Nikkor equivalent - excellent lens that one - sharp, fast, lightweight - but horrible bokeh.

In the end it just comes down to what suits you best. If you can't handhold a Leica at 1/15th or slower, I think a big part of the rangefinder attractiveness goes lost. But sound is still a big difference - will you ever be in a situation where you need to take photos real quiet? The FM3a isn't very loud, but well, it still suffers from slapping-mirror-syndrome.

 

[Doug]

I'd echo the "keeping it" suggestions. If you're out of the Leica "phase" for a w hile, not a problem, just set that system aside for a while. You may well be back later with new ideas. I like to say I'm not a collector, just an accumulator. Certainly there's more gear here than I "need", whatever that actually means. Fifteen Pentaxes, for starts, in four lens mounts and three film formats. Several 645 rangefinders, Olympus Pen Fs, plus the various Leica and other 35 RFs. Just because you have several systems doesn't mean you have to use keep them equally active. 😉

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The Nikon SLR and Leica RF system complement each other well.

What version of the 105 do you have? What don't you like about it wide-open? The earlier Sonnar design has slightly different out-of-focus characteristics than the later version.

A fast 50 on the Nikon's will fill that gap. A used FM2, FE2, or FA will give a good backup. If you do not need 1/4000th, FE's and FM's are cheap.

If you are going to put the Leica M stuff up for sale/trade, post it here. You will probably regret getting rid of it later.

Of course if having a Nikon and Leica system is too much for you, you could sell the Leica's and buy Nikon RF's for low-light.

 

[taffer]

What Brian said, a Nikon (or whatever brand) SLR system compliments a RF one and viceversa. The 35mm SLR is the tool if for instance you're shooting a static subject and you need no parallax error at all yet it's 'light' and portable enough to be easy to carry where needed without too much hassle.

As a personal experience, I use two Nikon F2's, very good mechanical beasts that you can have for next to nothing nowadays if compared with what they went for some years ago.

Not to speak of lenses, my pre-AI 105/2.5 + 24/2.8 + shipping ran me $100.

IMHO, the SLR is far from being dark 🙄

Oscar

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

If you want true low-light ability with the FM3A, consider getting a AIS 50/1.2, it is a stellar lens, markedly finer bokeh than the 50/1.4, and not discernibly larger. 1.2 gets you very creamy tonality, 1.4 sharp, by 2.8, I can't distinguish it from the 45P.

 

[Bertram2]

So I'm wondering, could the FM3a SLR with a few Zeiss lens additions and the purchase of a 2nd FE2, FM3a or FM2n backup body actually be a better 135 film camera system than my Leica M RF system?
Any advice greatly appreciated.
Scott

Both systems are quite close to each other indeed concerning style of shooting and functionality.

If you feel you really don't need both then you are the one who solely can decide which design you like more , which is better for you to work with. I personally would not need both either and would maybe sell one set.

I f that would be the Leica set I'd replace it , if at all, by a 35mm camera with a totally different (different from SLR) kind of functionality which could be considered as a real alternative to the FM3a.

This could be a all-auto AF SLR from F80 to F6, with one top class travel zoom mounted, it could be a tiny P&S with a top prime lens, or a Yashica GSN/Canonet, an old but mint Voigtländer folder or a Bessa L plus a 15 and 21 or whatever else, in any case tho anything which exceeds clearly the FM3 for certain purposes and thus beeing a real and useful alternative.

Before I'd sell one of the systems I would think about it for a while, at least 3 months so, better more. Leave the one you want to sell on the shelf and don't touch it any more, and then first decide if you really want to get rid of it for ever. Buying back is expensive, and buying back used stuff is sad, because it is not yours but stuff from any left eyed old fartbag who has rubbed his greasy nose to the film door for many years. 😉

bertram