Moment of madness? Leica to film SLR

Mirror slap, viewfinder black-out, no view outside the frame, iffy manual focus in low light - remember those? Where they among the reasons why you got an M6?

If so, then maybe downgrading your current RF kit to a cheaper RF kit is an idea worth considering. switching from the Leica 35mm to a CV 35/2.5 or 1.4 should already free up a pile of cash. Similarly, you could go from the M6 to a Bessa R2M/A or M2 and pocket the difference.
 
I don't have experience with some of the models mentioned, but do have experience with the OM-1. Really small and light and why I bought one in the seventies. Zuiko lenses are some of the best around. Some third party lenses that come in an OM mount (and other mounts) are good too. The Vivitar Series 1 is a nice set of lenses if you can't find a Zuiko you want for a price you are willing to pay. Of course this applies to any of the other bodies mentioned since Vivitar made mounts for them also.

I'd say go to stores that have used cameras or see if people you know have the models listed above. If you can't borrow one, then see if you can hold them and see how they feel in your hands and if the controls feel natural to you. Also the OM and I suspect most or all of the other cameras mentioned have a variety of viewfinder screens, so you can mate a body you like to a screen that suits you.
 
Vote for Leica R

Vote for Leica R

Mentioned already on the thread but give the Leica R system a good look. I have an 6.2 and it is not much bigger then the M2 and you still get Leica optics which are now much cheaper then their M counterparts.
 
If you had Leica glass, you will want to go for Zeiss glass in your SLR, either via Contax (less expensive & more choices), or via the still-in-production Zeiss lenses for Nikon etc.
 
If you are not using an M6 with a 35,50 and 90, why would you want to buy an SLR? In my opinion, the only reason to have an SLR is for things that a RF does not do well, like macro, portraiture or long tele photography. Personally, for a small camera with great lenses I would go with a Leica R4s2 or RE or R5 or R7 and 90 Summicron, plus if you really want another lens, 1st ver Summicron 50 is cheap and great for portraits too.
 
If you decide to go with Nikon, I highly recommend the Nikon Series E 50/1.8 lens. Very light, small, inexpensive, and produces lovely images. I also have the Series E 100/2.8.. very nice. I understand the Series E 35mm lens is a good one as well, although I've never used one. Check out Flickr for examples from these lenses. Another great lens not often mentioned is the Voigtlander SLII 40mm f/2 lens. Superb images! Cameraquest sells them. They also just got in the new SLII 28/2.8. Haven't tried it yet, but I'm planning to get one if I decide to get back into SLRs.
 
jkrumsick said:
Can you be more specific about the 35's and their issues?
Click to expand...

Yes, the 1.4 is a lens I would like to try one day. Like my 50mm sonnar-c, it is a lens that seems to split opinion though, thus my original comment. The 35mm f2, while a decent enough lens is clearly not in the same league as the 35mm cron, nor would it be expected to be, in fairness.
 
Hi,

I'll add my vote for the OM-1 and mention that the Pentax M range and Minolta X range are under priced and so are the lenses. But they are pleasant cameras to use. My current problem is working out which to keep and which to sell as it's silly having all three, but that's how it goes...

Regards, David
 
Well personally I have been considering (more like dreaming) the opposite of what you want to do. I have an FM2n, 35mm 2.5 E, 50mm f2, 105 f2.5, 35-70 f3.5(not E) and a 75-150 f3.5 E. I've tried the Cannonets and the FSU rangefinders and while fun I wouldn't mind trying a Leica M2 to go with my 40mm Nokton. To be honest though if you are not using the Leica much then you might find you don't make much use of the Nikon gear either. I would suggest that you pick up a cheap FM2 and a lens and try them out before parting with the Leica gear. The Nikon gear is certainly reliable and well made enough to stand up to continuos professional use. It really come down to whether you like using an SLR over a rangefinder. The other option would be a Voigtlander Bessa and a few Voigtlander lenses.
 
hmm, as a person who still shoots Leica and Olympus, and has played a bit with Nikon, Minolta, Contax, etc. I think you're crazy.

It's ok. I think the same thing too sometimes; "oh but it's so expensive and I have so much tied up into it" and I assure you it's a case of the grass always being greener.

at first I tried other 35mm cameras. then I tried 120. all the while trying to find ANYTHING that could displace the M2.

my two greatest disappointments have been a 2.8e planar Rolleiflex and Nikon with their 55/3.5

it's not because they aren't good cameras. because they are. good cameras. but to me, my M2 is a GREAT camera. I can focus it easily, it feels great and the lenses are wonderful.

if you want to free up some cash, trade your M6 for an M2 and your 35 cron for a 35 biogon. or just do one.

for me, in the end, Leica was the king of the hill, though I (sometimes desperately) wanted it to not be so.
 
Dump the Leica gear.

If you want an incredibly reliable, high-quality, forwards- and backwards-compatible system, go Nikon/Nikkormat.

If you want an incredibly reliable, backwards-compatible system, go Pentax screw.

Otherwise, if you don't mind an idiosyncratic, obsolete, limited system, adored by its fans but quite cheap because others have seen the flaws, there's plenty of choice. Olympus is good but I'd prefer Topcon or Exakta. Others might recommend Minolta.

Then, if none if it suits you, go back to Leica...

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Im sorry but your Olympus comments are so inconsistent with my observations that now I find the need to point out that when I asked you some time ago you did say to me that you have never really used it yourself.

Olympus is a limited system? Well, that would be news to most I suspect. Olympus has all of the SLR essentials; flashes, motor drives, macro, bellows, super tele, user replaceable focus screens, telescope and copy capability, etc.

In addition, I've owned an FTn. It's a joke compared to an OM-1. It might be tough, but it's crude and the viewfinder is just not in the same league either in coverage or magnification.

And then you have this second hand story about how the OM lenses just aren't that good. Well truth be told I compared my OM 50/3.5 against a Nikon AI-s 55/3.5 and other than the Nikon being better at 3.5 in the center and having more pleasing OoF, the OM lens is actually superior in resolution and handling. Is there a lens that shows vintage Nikon's stuff better?

Idiosyncratic and obsolete? Sure. Limited? Not really. Inferior to Nikon? Don't think so.

OP I post this so that you might take this away from it: you have to try it yourself. don't believe anyone on the internet, myself included. just try it yourself.
 
OM ... idiosyncratic? 😱 One of the most intelligently designed SLRs ever made IMO and far more intuative in it's operation than any Nikon.

Them's fightin' words Mr Hicks ... in Australia we'd have you out in the carpark in a flash! 😀
 
redisburning said:
Roger Im sorry but your Olympus comments are so inconsistent with my observations that now I find the need to point out that when I asked you some time ago you did say to me that you have never really used it yourself.

Olympus is a limited system? Well, that would be news to most I suspect. Olympus has all of the SLR essentials; flashes, motor drives, macro, bellows, super tele, user replaceable focus screens, telescope and copy capability, etc.

In addition, I've owned an FTn. It's a joke compared to an OM-1. It might be tough, but it's crude and the viewfinder is just not in the same league either in coverage or magnification.

And then you have this second hand story about how the OM lenses just aren't that good. Well truth be told I compared my OM 50/3.5 against a Nikon AI-s 55/3.5 and other than the Nikon being better at 3.5 in the center and having more pleasing OoF, the OM lens is actually superior in resolution and handling. Is there a lens that shows vintage Nikon's stuff better?

Idiosyncratic and obsolete? Sure. Limited? Not really. Inferior to Nikon? Don't think so.

OP I post this so that you might take this away from it: you have to try it yourself. don't believe anyone on the internet, myself included. just try it yourself.
Click to expand...

crazy_straws.png

(xkcd 1095 "Crazy Straws")
 
Thanks for the info and diversions! I might see if I can get a cheaper nikon body and a 50mm ai-s lens to see if I like the look of the pictures and then if I do make the change over after that.
 
I own both a Contax Aria with 45 mm pancake lens and a Leica R8. Would opt for contax reason being the obvious... zeiss lenses but also the great camera bodies.

Contax camera bodies have same lay out so jumping from Aria to RX to AX is painless
 
David_Manning said:
I did this exact same thing, in a bit more roundabout way...M6 to Nikon FE2.

I added a fantastic Nikkor 28/2.8 and 50/1.4, and spent $400 in total.

A friend of mine and I were discussing this. He bought the same kit and capabilities in a Leica. He got an M7 (aperture-priority shooting) with 28 and 50. He spent a LOT more. Pros for Nikon...1/4000 shutter. Pros for M7...quieter shutter.

That's petty much it.
Click to expand...

That's not been my experience. I owned and still own MF Nikons and Nikkors, including 20/4, 24 and 28/2.8 AI-S, 35/2, 50/2, 55/3.5, 105/2.5 and 105/1.8, 200/4 AI-S and others I've forgotten. I also own a M3, plus pre-asph. Elmarit 28mm 2.8, Summicron 35mm v.4, Summicron 50mm v.4. The Nikkors, while good and some excellent, do not give the same image quality, whether in color or B&W, as the Leicas. In fact, depending on your level of discrimination, it's world of difference in the subtle areas that can matter so much. I wish you were right; I could surely use the cash!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom