Most "Leica-like" SLR?

N

NLewis

Established
Local time
4:49 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
185
I'm wondering what you think the most "Leica-like" SLR system is?

I have a Nikon FE, and although it works great, it feels like a tin can compared to my M2. I'm interested in a classic manual-focus SLR system that feels more like a Leica M. I used to have a Minolta X700 that I remember as being more like that.

That brings me to the Olympus OM series. The OM-4 is the most technically capable of the bunch, but what I really want is the feeling of a beautifully crafted machine. I have an old late-1960s Canon SLR that fits the bill, but it is a bit large and heavy, like a Nikon F. Something more compact would be welcome. Electronic shutter is fine with me -- with the mirror flipping up and down, I can't tell the difference between a mechanical and electronic shutter.

Also, I wonder if anyone has an opinion about the Zuiko 50/1.4 compared to other 50/1.4 lenses.
 
NLewis said:
Also, I wonder if anyone has an opinion about the Zuiko 50/1.4 compared to other 50/1.4 lenses.
Click to expand...
If a picture cannot be taken with the Zuiko 50/1.4, then there's no reason to take it in the first place. It's a magnificent lens.
 
Right, seemingly by definition a Leica would be closest to an M2. More specifically, one of the Leicaflex models.

But if smaller and more unobtrusive is what you're looking for, then I'd go with an OM-1 or a Pentax MX.

If "beautifully crafted machine" is the standard, the Canon FT/FTb and FL/breech mount FD lenses really seem to be remarkably well made.
 
Was going to say the same thing, Leica R.

R lenses are sublime, but pretty expensive compared to OM, Pentax......
 
rover said:
Was going to say the same thing, Leica R.

R lenses are sublime, but pretty expensive compared to OM, Pentax......
Click to expand...

They are cheap compaired to M glass. I have to admit, and I've tried Pentax, Olympus, Canon, still got the Nikons that having compaired and used them all I went back to R glass. The results are the same as with M's.
 
I'd split hairs by suggesting Leicaflex SL and SL2 over later R cameras for a Leicalike SLR experience.
The only plastic bit on them, the lens locking tab, will long since have broken off and be replaced by something in German steel....

Michael
 
I believe the designer of the olympus OM-1 was a leica admirer. If you hold an OM-1 or OM-2 next to an M body you will see that a lot of the critical dimensions are very similar. They have the same length of body. If I remember the height and thickness may be similar too. Other details, like the position of the rewind lever, and the fact that the aperture ring on the lenses is in front of the focus ring in stead of near the body are very Leica M like. Olympus even wanted to call the camera the M-1.
In use I found that because the lenses are fatter, I had less space to get rid of the fingers of my right hand, so the feel in use was not the same for me. They also aren't as solid as a leica M, and don't sound the same.
 
OM cameras. OM-2 in my case. Maitani had a Barnack Leica when he was young, and I think it was that inspiration for the OM concept.

OMs are small (about the size of a IIIf--see what I mean?), light, relatively quiet as compared to other SLRs, with a special system to damp mirror slap--an attempt, I think to give them the "no mirror" advantage rangefinders have when shooting at slower shutter speeds.

Finally, the OM viewfinder is bigger and brighter in my experience than most SLR viewfinders (only the Leicaflexes beat OMs out on this point, and not by much), so shooting with an OM is almost for me like shooting with a rangefinder. That's why I call OMs "the rangefinder SLR."
 
Panasonic DMC-L1

It has the same layout as a Leica M if it used SLR lenses.

dmcl1-handson-1.jpg


http://www.dpreview.com/news/2006/2/26/panasonicdmcl1
 
I wonder how SLR can be similar to RF? Let's put aside evolutionary nuances for first SLR models were derived from RF bodies. I mean - whole process and feeling is different except high level statements like [pre]focus-compose-adjust focus-release. Whenever I use SLR I feel it's different from rangefinder.
 
I'm a huge fan of the Visoflex, and used it on my M-2, M-5, and M4-2. But I have moved on from Leica, and will be selling my Visoflex II soon. It works very well for what it is, very underated. Very bright and easy to use once you get used to it.
 
I have never owned a Leica nor had a close acquaintance who had one, so I cannot make any comparisons. I can say the the Fujica ST 801 or 901 are very small and hold up well. Fujinon lenses take a back seat to no others, but are harder to find these days and so their cost is up. From what I recall of the Olympus OM 1 and its lenses, it was good, but I preferred the ST 901 for its electronic auto-exposure shutter. If Olympus OM 1 or 2 are "Leica-like" then I would conclude the Fujica ST were as well.

Not that I think that makes any difference to Leica owners (or me).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom