Considering the SLR dark side

[Toby]

The advantage of SLR systems is their flexibility -they are pretty good at most things. Rangefinders are excellent at some things but poor or unusable for others - Ive made a conscious decision not spend money on my RF system until I know there will be a suitable digital body to mount the lenses on (the RD-1 has too many "issues"). If you build a nikon system at least you can be sure the lenses will fit a digital system in the future. Having said that every time I've sold equipment to buy other equipment I've ended up regretting it so if you can wait before selling do so

 

[Theo-Prof]

I have an original FM that I got for Christmas when I was about 15. I would not part with it (except in trade for an FM3a). I am new to rangefinders and really like the compactness of the lenses. (I carry my CV lenses, together with finders, in small neoprene cell phone cases.) SLRs do have their role, such as macro and longer lenses, more acurate framing and so forth. I plan to keep both around and suggest that you do the same.

One Nikkor lens that I can highly recommend is the 24 2.8 AIS. This is my most used lens and it is very sharp.

Kevin

 

[GeneW]

The advice you've been given to hold on to the RF gear and delay a decision is wise. What motivates us, in the way of gear, can change and change again. One thing you might want to do is rotate your usage for awhile. Use the SLR exclusively for a shoot or two, then use the RF gear exclusively for the next shoot or two. It's like putting on different mindsets and it gives an interesting perspective on the advantages of each type of camera.

Gene

 

[tkluck]

They'll get my OM-1 when they pry it from my cold, dead hands! That said, what you got is two 35mm systems with rather widely differing advantages and capabilities. No better advice than what everyone else is saying; WAIT! Use 'em both until you're sure. Then perhaps consider mearly paring down (rather than selling out) one or the other.

I've regreted almost every camera I ever sold, lost, spindled, folded, or mutilated over the last 40 years. At this point in my life I keep and find a use even for the cameras I hate. Like the stupid digital I paid so much money for (my son has a better one in his cell phone). Some of them, like the 8mm Bolex, have little more than sentimental value (but it does look splendid in the curio cabinet!)

"...stuff from any left eyed old fartbag who has rubbed his greasy nose to the film door for many years."
my stuff ain't for sale.

 

[telenous]

I 've just chanced on this older thread, and since I have two M cameras and the FM3A, I 'll just add my thoughts. The point I want to make is quite general and it applies equally well to any rangefinder/SLR combo, I should think.

The FM3A is an absolute joy to use, the controls are in many ways very similar to those on Leica. The body is as sturdy and camera deserves its cult following if not for any other reason but for the hybrid shutter alone. The strength of the system is the array of longer lenses (and macro), exactly where rangefinders seem to have a weakness. Both the 105mm f2.5 and the 85mm f2 Nikkors that I use are superb lenses. The normals and the wider angle lenses are not bad at all (although I prefer what's on offer from Leica). But the FM3A cannot replace the Leica when it comes to available light and discreetness. The usual problems that lead some of us to Leica and all the othere rangefinders are there with the FM3A. The mirror slaps like a hammer, it causes vibration and so you need to use faster speeds exactly when you need the most the slower speeds. On the other hand, the 1/4000 s top shutter speed of the FM3A is fantastic if you want to shoot at wide apertures during the day. For these reasons, I find myself taking the FM3A during the day, loaded with some slide film; and the Leicas, loaded with some B&W film, when I expect to be indoors or with little light.

To summarize the point, the two systems have complementary strengths: low light and wide angle and normal lenses for Leica; daylight, longer lenses and macro for the SLR. I do more of the former than the latter so if I had to keep one of the two systems I would stick with my rangefinder.

 

[Kev T]

When I started down the DSLR path, most of my Nikon bodies went along... F4, F100, and F2a, but I kept my FM-2T...

Now I'm waiting for the dM to complement my existing DSLR which will certainly need replacing by no later than 2008, I'll still keep and use the FM-2T and maybe pick up a used FM-3a as well!

Kev