ray*j*gun
Veteran
There is a reason pros use and have used Nikon for decades. The other posters have already made many of the points. I have been using Nikon since Vietnam and have dabbled with other brands but never have any other SLR's come close to Nikon on all the areas that matter. As much as I love my Barnacks and my M2 I would never consider any other SLR brand.
nobbylon
Veteran
What was the damage? One fell out of an aircraft and still worked after service so maybe you were unlucky and hence your obvious dislike of the SL.
I have no argument with either make as I still have them both and can see the benefits of either. I'm just interested as to why some are slating the SL because of servicing when there is no issue.
nobbylon
Veteran
Raymond,
At the time the Leicaflex cost around 3x that of a Nikon F so most working photographers simply could not afford them plus a bag of lenses. Mass production made the F the camera to have due cost and availability of service and lenses. In later years add to that the lens vans at major events by Nikon and Canon with support for their systems and no one else got a look in.
I agree that Nikon make the best IMO dslr's and slr's and that's why I buy and use them but that's not the issue. Most here are using old camera's as a hobby and not for professional purpose and when serviced correctly a good SL is easily the equal of an F, it's direct competition here or indeed the pentax spotmatics whose viewfinders in comparison are like looking into a London fog!
Regards john
oltimer
Well-known
I'm with Godfrey on this one as I to have a F2a and Leica R systems, and treat them both equally in quality. I also agree with others about the 28mm in the R system as a must have.
L. M. Tu
Established
One of those systems was built to work reliably for a long time under terrible conditions 
ray*j*gun
Veteran
John,
I am aware of all of that.... I was using a Leica IIIf when they were still being manufactured. The reality however is that (like Honda for motorcycles) Nikon changed everything in 35mm. Certainly if one wants to consider the joy of using wonderful old cameras as I do (God knows I just bought an Argus A2b) the Leicaflex is terrific. However if you want an SLR that is by far the best value including the glass IMO there is no comparison.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Leicapixie,
Not sure I'm reading this correctly. The SL was first delivered in 1968 or so, there were NO autofocus SLRs at that time and only the Konica Autoreflex series SLRs had autoexposure that I recall.
The SL is a weighty lump, but a very fine one. Smooth, solid, lovely to use. And yes, they are much more difficult to find service for than a Nikon SLR ... but there are folks who service them when they need it.
OP: As I said, keep both systems. All you need is a wide for the Leica R mount (the legendary 28mm, the 24mm which is remarkably good but a lot less expensive, the even more legendary second series 19mm ...) and you have a complete kit. The Nikon kit you have has two lovely bodies, there just concentrate on getting the lenses that make them sing.
G
Wulfthari
Well-known
Leica->rangefinders
Nikon(or Canon, or Pentax)-> SLRs
Simple as that.
Nikon(or Canon, or Pentax)-> SLRs
Simple as that.
peterm1
Veteran
My vote would have to go for keeping the Nikon F system. Partly because I am speaking from personal experience - I have both Leica M and Nikon F systems and think they work well together. To the extent that they have to work together which is not very much as they are quite separate entities. The main reason I would advocate for the Nikon F system is that of both economics and quality. There is a huge range of both Nikon lenses and Nikon bodies that are readily available and for the most part in the overall scheme of things relatively inexpensive. The Leica R system undoubtedly a fine marque but it by no means compares with the Nikon F. If you look at what systems were used by say National Geographic photographers my impression is that there were probably a dozen or more Nikon or Canon users for every one who dedicated himself to using Leica. I surmise that part of this might be due to the upfront investment required. But part of it might also be due to the reasoable apprehension that if in the back of Timbucktu or somewhere the chances of having a faulty Leica fixed or replaced is hugely smaller than the chance of being able to pick up a replacement part for a Nikon. Which in any event are built like a brick outhouse and unlikely to go wrong even with the hardest use.
Having said that if you own some R equipment and love it above all else. keep it and use it.
Having said that if you own some R equipment and love it above all else. keep it and use it.
Tejasican
Well-known
Leicapixie,
The camera called the Hunchback was the R8 not the Leicaflex SL. Oddly, the Sony A99 which is very similar in shape was referred to as a beauty. Tastes and conventions change.
Having some Nikon and Leica R gear myself, I fully empathize with the original poster, but until I get through that ongoing process myself, little advice. Sorry.
The camera called the Hunchback was the R8 not the Leicaflex SL. Oddly, the Sony A99 which is very similar in shape was referred to as a beauty. Tastes and conventions change.
Having some Nikon and Leica R gear myself, I fully empathize with the original poster, but until I get through that ongoing process myself, little advice. Sorry.
leicapixie
Well-known
The Hunchback was directed at The R9.
The SL that i've recently seen all had prism problems.
Black patches all over the place.
I wouldn't buy one but if already an owner, enjoy.
I prefer the more pro Nikon bodies, the F, F2, F3.
My F and F3 still in use.
Yes! i was wrong about auto-focus in time period of SL.
TY.
I only used auto-focus in the EOS system.
I hated it with a passion.
It mostly did what it was supposed to do, except poor light.
It then buzzed and whined as it got further lost.
This is some years ago.
I have used other auto-focus and not been at all impressed.
Wonderful.
Shoot both systems, but not together.
The different way of adding or removing lenses, the focusing all different.
The SL that i've recently seen all had prism problems.
Black patches all over the place.
I wouldn't buy one but if already an owner, enjoy.
I prefer the more pro Nikon bodies, the F, F2, F3.
My F and F3 still in use.
Yes! i was wrong about auto-focus in time period of SL.
TY.
I only used auto-focus in the EOS system.
I hated it with a passion.
It mostly did what it was supposed to do, except poor light.
It then buzzed and whined as it got further lost.
This is some years ago.
I have used other auto-focus and not been at all impressed.
Wonderful.
Shoot both systems, but not together.
The different way of adding or removing lenses, the focusing all different.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
The R lenses are different than Nikon F lenses, both in handling and optical characteristics.
In your situation I'd keep both brand, but I'd keep only one body for each. I'd probably sell both Nikon bodies and get an F3. If your Leicaflex SL is pristine, sell the R7. The money from the sale could go towards another R lens.
In your situation I'd keep both brand, but I'd keep only one body for each. I'd probably sell both Nikon bodies and get an F3. If your Leicaflex SL is pristine, sell the R7. The money from the sale could go towards another R lens.
Tejasican
Well-known
I have 2 SL's although the black chrome finder has just a slight yellowish tint, the black enamel is perfect. I must have been very fortunate.
FrankS
Registered User
presspass
filmshooter
There's also the use factor - Leicas focus one way, Nikons the other. It's not a problem as long as you and your hands remember. It's more of an issue if you're carrying an SLR with a long lens and an M with shorter lenses. The focus direction is one reason some pros shot Leicas for rangefinders and pre-EOS Canons as SLRs - they focus in the same direction.
rlouzan
Well-known
"The SL that i've recently seen all had prism problems.
Black patches all over the place"
-The Achilles Hell of Leicaflex bodies is decementing of the pentaprism.
Black patches all over the place"
-The Achilles Hell of Leicaflex bodies is decementing of the pentaprism.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
No one has yet mentioned the main drawback (for me, anyway) about the R lenses. (I'm speaking here of the 2-cam lenses, which is what I mainly have -- the 3-cam ones seem to be quite a bit more expensive.) These lenses use series filters rather than common filter sizes, such as Nikon's 52mm standard. When you can find series filters from Leica, they are quite expensive. I haven't checked, but even if Heliopan or B+W still makes series filters to fit these lenses, I expect they would be quite costly. Filters to fit Nikkors are commonly available.
rlouzan
Well-known
oltimer
Well-known
I have both 2 and 3 cam lenses, but no costly ROMS for my R7. Karen Nakamura put up some info you might enjoy reading.
www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/Lens-R.html
Mark C
Well-known
I have given away boxes of series filters. They're common as dirt and generally sell for right around nothing, but I suppose if you need to order a particular one new right this minute, then you would have to pay what someone was asking. My local store gives them to me to get rid of them.