Most "Leica-like" SLR?

Sorry, the Nikon Fs are the antithesis of the Leica. It may have started out being designed from their successful rangefinder, but that rangefinder was a copy of the Zeiss Contax, not the Leica. The Nikon F is a magnificent beast but it is best defined with the word "industrial" when applied to cameras.
 
Not in terms of pure solid build quality but in terms of being diminutive, lightweight, with a great viewfinder and glass: Contax 139 Quartz. It's my primary film shooter now. I don't miss the quirky Leica film loading 🙂
 
Considering the OM-1 is a near perfect fit in a Luigi half case made for the Leica film M I'd have to go with that choice. Though that's not the only reason!
 
swoop said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree this camera is a nice Leica M like digital substitute - apart from the size, that is and the fact that this camera actually takes nicer images than the M8 (IMHO). Several years ago when these were on the way out their price was dropped from over $3000 new to about $1200 AUD. So I took the opportunity to get one. I have never been able to bring myself to sell it. I was tempted to buy the 25mm f1.4 Summilux made for this camera but that lens has held its price at around $1000 and they are seldom seen.

So instead I bought an Olympus 35mm f3.5 macro lens for four thirds as I wanted something a bit smaller than the standard zoom (which itself is an excellent lens). While the Olympus lens is not in the same class build quality wise and has a slow maximum aperture, it is very sharp and looks quite good on the front of this camera - making it a little more Leica M like (although the aperture can only be changed via the LCD screen and a dial on the camera unlike the kit lens that has its own aperture ring).

Never the less its a good lens that works well if something rangefinder like is wanted and you do not mind that its not really a rangefinder all. Here is an image shot with the combo.


Bolero by yoyomaoz, on Flickr
 
As I sit here looking at my Nikon F with a plain prism and a 50/2 lens, sitting back-to-back with my M3 with a Sonnar 50/1.5, I'm struck by how the Leica really isn't THAT much smaller. The weights FEEL about the same. But it's true that the F isn't really Leica-like. Mostly, that's because the shutter release is in the wrong place, near the back of the top deck. Now, they fixed that with the F2, but I don't have one to compare with my M. The F does feel Leica-like in that you know immediately that you're working with a quality instrument. Does anyone think the F2 would fill the OP's bill?
EDIT: Apologies to Clayne, who got there first.
 
Vics said:
As I sit here looking at my Nikon F with a plain prism and a 50/2 lens, sitting back-to-back with my M3 with a Sonnar 50/1.5, I'm struck by how the Leica really isn't THAT much smaller. The weights FEEL about the same. But it's true that the F isn't really Leica-like. Mostly, that's because the shutter release is in the wrong place, near the back of the top deck. Now, they fixed that with the F2, but I don't have one to compare with my M. The F does feel Leica-like in that you know immediately that you're working with a quality instrument. Does anyone think the F2 would fill the OP's bill?
EDIT: Apologies to Clayne, who got there first.
Click to expand...

Nikon F2, absolutely.
 
It's a bit of an odd question. TBH I don't want an SLR that's like a Leica, because that would kind of defeat the point of using one or the other.

The real question is what SLRs are better than a Leica? :angel:
 
peterm1 said:
... Suggestion of the Panasonic L1...
Click to expand...

I agree this camera is a nice Leica M like digital substitute - apart from the size, that is and the fact that this camera actually takes nicer images than the M8 (IMHO). Several years ago when these were on the way out their price was dropped from over $3000 new to about $1200 AUD. So I took the opportunity to get one. I have never been able to bring myself to sell it. I was tempted to buy the 25mm f1.4 Summilux made for this camera but that lens has held its price at around $1000 and they are seldom seen.

So instead I bought an Olympus 35mm f3.5 macro lens for four thirds as I wanted something a bit smaller than the standard zoom (which itself is an excellent lens). While the Olympus lens is not in the same class build quality wise and has a slow maximum aperture, it is very sharp and looks quite good on the front of this camera - making it a little more Leica M like (although the aperture can only be changed via the LCD screen and a dial on the camera unlike the kit lens that has its own aperture ring).

Never the less its a good lens that works well if something rangefinder like is wanted and you do not mind that its not really a rangefinder all. Here is an image shot with the combo. ...
Click to expand...

The ZD 35/3.5 Macro pairs well with the diminutive ZD 25/2.8, makes a great L1 kit that is just a wee bit bulkier than the M9 with two lenses, normal and short tele. The ZD 25 isn't up to the same standard as the Summilux 25, of course, but it is a good performer at a fraction the size and price.

G
 
I liked the L1 a lot, but my vote for Leica M like SLRs comes down to three cameras:

Olympus Pen F .. Half frame, yes, but superb lenses and same small size and shape.

Olympus OM-1 .. Very smooth operating, barely larger than the Leica M, again very very good lenses.

Olympus E-1 .. The lenses are large, but for that silky smooth body operation and quiet, for its simplicity and build quality, it is still the sweetest DSLR I've used. It's output is far far nicer than the measly 5Mpixels implies. One of these with the superb ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5 lenses, the ZD 35 Macro, and an adapted Nikkor-H 85/1.8 is still a kit I won't let go of.

G
 
I do not beleive it is possible to have a SLR/DSLR that is even similar to a Leica M. The whole concept is at variance. A RF is about framing and exact focus. A SLR is about seeing, thru a lens. One is for Taking, the other for Making images.
A number of cameras have been put forward. My experience and with other hard working shooters, that many of them were not reliable.
When i mean hard usage in Photojournalism,Fashion( way more rolls per session), Newspaper and Industrial.In Fashion contrary to modern ideas about film, shoot slower more carefully! Not true in my time.
Using Kodachrome one needed to bracket..
It was nothing for me to expose 20 plus rolls in a Fashion shoot, of a few hours. A friend working on a book, shot a shoe box of 120 film, on a beach, where they had flown and driven, in part of a morning and some into afternoon.I think it was about 40+ rolls.
A Leica may need attention more often, but is mostly repairable.It's less complex as well. The SLR is the more modern concept. The Leicaflex were less popular than the M, for reasons of matching cams required in different models. The R series based on Minolta, simply never fired the buyers.
One error often mentioned is the "large" size of the Nikon-F. It is not larger.
Slightly for mirror box. Without Photomic head, it is the best camera ever manufactured.The lenses were bigger than the Leitz offering, but today's Leica lenses are mostly same sized as earlier Nikkors.All my Nikkors share the 52mm filter size.28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 55Micro-mm,85mm and 105,135mm up to 200mm.The Leica filter thread once 39mm is now all over the place..The AF lenses of Nikon and others, are super-duper huge from my viewpoint.The best camera like a SLR.
The Nikon-F with ordinary pentaprism. Utterly reliable. The Nikon-F2 became as reliable a year after introduction.
Olympus while i liked the size , for me not reliable.Add to that list The Leica R4,Pentax H1~Hv were plain fragile.Olympus Pen-F /FT a total disaster..
The Pentax Spotmatic very close to the Nikon-F. It has some shortcomings.Inaccurate finder(not 100%).
The Pentax ME and MX were beautiful, tiny and largest viewfinders.
In order to make smaller, size more important than body strength.
Like perfect camera bag, it;s a lovely quest.
I own and use M's mostly. I do prefer the SLR, sorry RF fans.
 
Never had any problems with my Pen Fs, didn't own the OMs long enough to find any weaknesses. The Nikon F is a tank, love it, as seems to be the Oly E-1.

What always turned me away on Leica R was simply the cost of the lenses: just too much money.

I don't disagree, though: SLR is not RF, any more than TTL electronic is. I like and use all three, for their different strengths and weaknesses.

G
 
peterm1 said:
When I was shooting film I loved using the early pentax "pre" spotmatic cameras -s1, s1a etc (also known as H1, H1a etc in the USA). These lovely little cameras feel something like a Leica Screw Mount in the hand as apart from the pentaprism they have a similar size and shape. When combined with the excellent takumar lenses they produce nice images. They also do not have metering - very Leica like :^)

http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Pentax_Main.html

http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Pentax_K_engl.html
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree - although the build quality is not the same, my Asahi Pentax S1a is the perfect partner for my M2...
 
I don't really know that an SLR is actually any more complicated than a rangefinder - so long as we're talking about mechanical cameras. The rangefinder mechanism is not really any simpler in practice than the reflex mechanism of an SLR (or at least it hasn't been since it was integrated into the viewfinder). On the other hand a rangefinder should be stronger than an SLR because of the lack of a mirror box, for whatever that is worth.

I agree though that the size matter of SLR is almost comically overblown. The Nikon F is a big camera for sure. But how big is big really? It's barely larger than the Nikon rangefinders: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonmanjiro/3092222266/in/photostream/
It's not like if you packed the S3 instead of the F you could even fit an extra pair of socks in your luggage. Further, even in it's own time scores of SLRs were smaller than the F. Some of the Yashica rangefinders were probably bigger than it too.
 
Bar8barian said:
Most "Leica-like" SLR?
It's got to be the Pentax SV, superb build quality,feels perfect and svelte in the hand,and fitted with the superb Takumar lenses,and the best camera Pentax ever made.
Click to expand...

I agree. The SV is a gem. It seems too difficult or expensive to build a camera these days with the same level of build quality as the best cameras of this era.

In a more recent camera, the Pentax MX feels to me most like a Leica with its size, density, and precision of its control dials.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    56.9 KB · Views: 0
kshapero said:
Yes good choice. Plus I disagree with the OP. A Nikon FE is a mini tank.😀
Click to expand...

Yes, I shot one of these for a couple of years. If you pair it with the original Pana/Leica 14-50 2.8 zoom that came with the camera, it is indeed, a great shooter. I sold it when I moved to mciro 4/3. You can find them for almost next-to-nothing now. The lens still holds value, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom