M6 vs Nikon F80 SLR

Hmm the Ferrari vs Corvette analogy has gotten me thinking:
- if I want cheap & good 4x6in prints (ie cheap film & processing - just the average Joe) no need to get a Leica; or
- does Leica's quality shines thru even in cheap 4x6in prints with good techniques & in critical situations (ie low light)?

I just want to know as I'm usually shooting ISO200 films & printing 4x6in prints at the local photolab - would Leica's resolutions make a diff in your experience? I'm not a pro & my photos are usually for my family album.

In the past I've gotten noticeably better pics with slower/finer grain film on the Nikon systems before but faster film gives more flexibility with zooms. Just haven't got much experience with the Leica to know the diff.
 
Waileong - thanks for your detailed contributions.
I appreciate the techniques and situations that bring out the best in a Leica system but was just wondering if there was an inherent & obvious "superiority" in its image making abilities in all situations - I know I'm heavily influenced by all the marketing & rave reviews in all the forums.

Not really into slides due to cost & the need for loupes, but will be trying out my M6 with slower films & the mentioned photo techniques to see if its fits any of my phototaking needs.
 
Probably just the difference in autofocus vs eye focus.
Also, I try to shoot wide open too much with my RF, with resulting soft images.
Most zoom lenses don't have such a large maximum aperture.
 
Maybe a different lens for your Nikon?

Maybe a different lens for your Nikon?

My advice is to sell the Leica M6 and get a Carl Zeiss ZF Planar 85/ 1.4 for your Nikon. I personally do not own this lens yet, but really want to, and am saving up for the used Contax version for my SLR. Here you would have a low light lens for your camera, with wonderful bokeh, that truly would make a difference in a 6x4 print (if you shoot it wide open or close to wide open). Just do some research on this lens. It might very well be a good compromise for you with the type of shooting you are intersted in.
 
??

??

1. Leica lenses excel wide open. See http://www.dantestella.com/technical/photodo.html and http://www.dantestella.com/technical/conceit.html to understand why. If you want superiority, compare your wide open Leica shots with your wide open SLR shots.


2. However, if you can become a better photographer after mastering exposure, composition, decisive moment shooting, etc. then your pictures will be obviously and inherently superior, for content reasons, not technical reasons.

3. Loupes are cheap these days. Certainly if you can afford a Leica you can afford a loupe. They also scan a lot better than negs, and you can see the colour accuracy of your scan more easily. Once scanned, printing is no different. But shooting slides will teach you a lot more about exposure.



windraider said:
Waileong - thanks for your detailed contributions.
I appreciate the techniques and situations that bring out the best in a Leica system but was just wondering if there was an inherent & obvious "superiority" in its image making abilities in all situations - I know I'm heavily influenced by all the marketing & rave reviews in all the forums.

Not really into slides due to cost & the need for loupes, but will be trying out my M6 with slower films & the mentioned photo techniques to see if its fits any of my phototaking needs.
Click to expand...
 
Echoing the post above, with some of the better Leica lenses I think the difference can be seen even in 4x6 prints. It depends on the specific lens and on your technique and the conditions. The better lenses can really show their edge wide open, against the light (absence of flare) and can yield a really 3-D effect. One of my absolute favorites (not an RF lens, unfortunately) is the 100mm Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R. On paper, some reviewers say it's been passed by more modern lenses, but on film I don't believe it. The 90mm Apo Asph Summicrom-M would be another example, but there are others.
 
Wide open you just have to be careful with DOF. Quick moving subjects like kids would go in and out of focus IF DOF was shallow.

I don't think anyone needs to question if a Leica lens is not as good as a consumer grade Nikon zoom.
 
F80 & 28-105 AFD vs M6 & Summicron/Elmarit

F80 & 28-105 AFD vs M6 & Summicron/Elmarit

OK finally managed to trail the M6 vs the F80 with velvia 50 slides inside a church.

All shots are hand held and taken wide open but shutter speeds are different to compensate for difference in aperture - I know not really scientific but reflects real world usage (ie with low max aperture would have to suffer from effects of low shutter speed)
Can you tell the difference?

90mm: 90mm Elmarit v1 @f2.8 vs Nikkor 28-105mm AF-D @90mm f4

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=74686&ppuser=1954

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=74687&ppuser=1954
 

Attachments

  • 90mm v1.jpg
    90mm v1.jpg
    40.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
I'm getting "Invalid Attachment specified" for three out of four of them.

But the one I can see is a tiny little scan that is far too small to see any differences (unless it's a small portion at full resolution?)
 
oscroft said:
I'm getting "Invalid Attachment specified" for three out of four of them.

But the one I can see is a tiny little scan that is far too small to see any differences (unless it's a small portion at full resolution?)
Click to expand...

Apologies - seem to have problems uploading photos and file size is limited to 300k each.

Anyway have linked to the gallery - feel free to advise me if anyone has a better solution.
 
Do you have a flickr account ? Upload bigger pic on there might help because it's like viewing slide without a loupe looking at pics in the gallery
 
Unfortunately those pictures are far too small to be able to see any difference between lenses - we'd need to see original full-sized high res scans taken from negatives, and the scanning resolution would need to be sufficiently good. Or if those would be too big to post anywhere, we'd need to see full-res samples cropped from the centre and the edge of the frame.

And even then, you've chosen a very poor subject for a lens test. You really need a subject that has a lot of detail, both highlight and shadow, all the way to the edges of the frame. And you'd also need a good range of brightnesses in the image too. Your shots are of a super high contrast subject (bright window or completely black shadow), with no detail anywhere near the edges and nothing close to subtle tonal differences.
 
Interestingly, I made a similar test yesterday with my N/F 80 with a recently acquired 28-80 kit lens ala Ken Rockwell (black plastic, EX condition for $47 from KEH) and my Contax G2 with its 35-70 sonnar ($650 +/- from KEH). Both had Kodak Portra 400 VC rated at 250 in a variety of landscape found objects shot under hazy bright sun. I shot each shot with the same basic aperture and shutter speed with each camera. Finished both rolls and headed to my local Sam's Club for developing and scanning to CD. Came home and viewed the CDs. Even though I tried my best with both cameras, I missed focus on a couple of the G2 shots, but none with the N80. Framing, of course, was a lot easier for me with the SLR, simply because I use them more often. I, too, was surprised that the quality of the images and the views into the shadows seemed about the same with each. I had shot basicly the same shots at the same location (an old grist mill and dam) the day before with my D80 10 mp and the images were much sharper, but did not have quite the shadow or highlight detail of the Kodak film. I guess the bottom line for me here is that if I want a walking around film camera with more image potential than the D80 I need to invest in something like a Fuji GA645Zi, but that will be another project entirely! I found the film rated at 250 to be just about right and under those light conditions the colors did not seem overly saturated.
 
oscroft said:
And even then, you've chosen a very poor subject for a lens test. You really need a subject that has a lot of detail, both highlight and shadow, all the way to the edges of the frame. And you'd also need a good range of brightnesses in the image too. Your shots are of a super high contrast subject (bright window or completely black shadow), with no detail anywhere near the edges and nothing close to subtle tonal differences.
Click to expand...

I see your point - Oh well an excuse to go out and take more photos :D

Anyway if anyone is interested - here are more stained glass pics taken with summicrons & the elmarit:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21636781@N06/?saved=1
 
Between the 90 Elmarit and the AFD @ 90mm I think the Elmarit still have a tiny bit more detail, in the green leaves bit.

In the 35mm, I cant tell, because they seems to be differently exposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom