Nikon f or Leica R?

[AlexMax]

Thanks gents, for all your valuable insights 🙂

I have decided to sell the R stuff, and use the money to help buy myself some Zeiss ZF primes, and some AIS zooms and in the future either an F3t or an F6, or eventually a D800...

My rationale :

Serviceability : Repairing a nikon is wayyy less expensive than doing so for a leicaFlex SL2, or an R7.

Compatibility : Ais glass is forward compatible with everything Nikon Built up to now... while Leica R is a bit of a dead end.

Ruggedness : the guys that go to the Sahara, the Gobi, the South pole, the Amazonian rain forest, war zones, use something dependable, that does not have to be baby seated, stuff like F6, F3t, fm2n...

Bang fot Buck : Leica R glass is awesome in terms of IQ... no doubt about it, but so is Zeiss ZF, ( or Zeiss Contax if i would decide to build up some Contax based SLR gear ... ), but unlike Leica R, Nikons and contaxes are much better SLR bodies. ( despite Contax SLRs probably having the same Ruggedness/Serviceability issues of the Leica R )

Please note : If i were in a collector´s stand point, i would of course keep the R system, and ditch the Nikon system... but i plan to realy use this gear... and i do not see a Leica R7 performing in the same harsh conditions that an F3t, Fm2n or an Fm3a would easily endure... Fm2n was tested to operate at -20 C...

 

[Mark C]

Don't forget that there are some really great Nikkors too. And some for really reasonable prices. The 24/2.8 and 105/2.5 are my favorites that are hard to beat for any price.

 

[x-ray]

My experience is different.
A small fall of a Leicaflex SL from a bag already on the floor, resulted in extensive and expensive damage.
My Nikons are still in service from '71.
Yes the Photomics are toast.
So i set exposure by experience and luck.

The question by OP which should I keep?
Hopefully they are both being used!
Which one is nicer to see with, work with.
Your results, does the Leica lenses really trump Nikon.
They might as you have mostly zooms for Nikon.
My 50mm Nikkor easily matches my Collapsible Summicron.
Nikkor has better contrast, appears sharper.
I like the low contrast of my Summicron..
All your Nikon kit requires is a wide like a 28mm.
A really small expense these days.

I never liked the SL, outdated on arrival.
The Hunchback of Solms 2 says it all.
Monster size, heavy and lacking Auto-Focus at a time,
when all cameras released in last decades or longer, were!

My Nikon kit has required minimum services and repairs.
My Leica M kit lots!
My Pentax kit(predates Nikon in 1971) never reqd. anything, except batteries every few years and a lots of film..:angel:

Here maybe my answer, Keep both!

I totally agree. In the 70's when the SL was in production I traded my M system for 2 SL bodies and 1 MOT and lenses. For a number of years I had used an M's an Nikon F system. To make the story short I wound up regretting my trade. My SL's were constant problems with shutter and meter problems. Even the MOT had issues. In the end I went back to Nokon and M cameras.

You might feel the SL has a higher cool factor but when it comes down to function and a complete system that performs the Nikon F and F2 can't be beat. Nikons will take the toughest use and continue to work. There are tons of fantastic lenses available for little to nothing. If you can't do it with an F you are the problem not the camera.

nikon has been the standard of SLR film gear since day 1. Consider how many pros used Nikon vs Leicaflex. There's a reason for this. I shot hundreds of assignments for major magazines including Life, USA Weekend,Parade and many more with my Nikon F's and F2's.

Nikon glass is fantastic. I still use vintage glass on my DF and still use an F and F2 for film bodies.

 

[Huss]

Nikon glass is fantastic.

Some...

I use Nikon Fs, FM2n and F2 SLR cameras as well as my Leica M (film and digital). The only lenses that matches up to the Leica stuff is my Micro Nikkor 55 2.8 and the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f2. The 105 1.8 AIS is pretty good too...
The main difference (optically; build is much better on my Leica stuff) is the other Nikon lenses need to be stopped down if I'm thinking of key sharpness. With my Leica glass, I can shoot wide open as well as stopped down and not worry about sharpness.

But yeah, Nikon for SLRs , Leica for RF.

 

[teddy]

Too many here passing on incorrect weblore. The SL can be serviced by plenty of people and is a very tough reliable beast!
Will van Manen
Peter Grisaffi
Ton Scherpenborg in nederlands,
Are all more than capable of servicing and repairing these great cameras.
Much tougher than Nikons due to shell and core construction as in M's.

Agreed. Properly repaired and serviced, the Leica SL will outlive you. The SL is an elegant camera with just the things you need for taking photos. A simple spot meter, great finder, solid shutter. Nikon's have better technology, are great too. SL's are inexpensive now. Tough, simple - superb lenses. Unless you are running out of space, or the wife is complaining that you have too many systems, just keep it! 😉

 

[Godfrey]

Thanks gents, for all your valuable insights 🙂

I have decided to sell the R stuff, and use the money to help buy myself some Zeiss ZF primes, and some AIS zooms and in the future either an F3t or an F6, or eventually a D800...

My rationale :
{snip...}

Whatever works for you. There's nothing wrong with concentrating on Nikon stuff, or Leica stuff for that matter.

If you're intent on adding to the system in some major ways, including the potential of expanding to a digital body—which it sounds like you are—it makes more sense to stick with Nikon because Leica R is a discontinued system. That's the only important bit of rationalization, to me.

Good luck with whatever you do. Make great photos!

G

 

[x-ray]

Some...

I use Nikon Fs, FM2n and F2 SLR cameras as well as my Leica M (film and digital). The only lenses that matches up to the Leica stuff is my Micro Nikkor 55 2.8 and the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f2. The 105 1.8 AIS is pretty good too...
The main difference (optically; build is much better on my Leica stuff) is the other Nikon lenses need to be stopped down if I'm thinking of key sharpness. With my Leica glass, I can shoot wide open as well as stopped down and not worry about sharpness.

But yeah, Nikon for SLRs , Leica for RF.

I started shooting Leicas in 68 so I'm very familiar with their glass. IMO there's too much emphasis on sharpeness. There are more things in life than how sharp the image is at 100% on a monitor and viewed at 6 inches. Everyone is entitled to select glass based on what they like but there are other factors in deciding on what optics to use.

Nikon and Leica both have been used to produce some of the finest images in history. Both are excellent and both survived the abuse of combat photography in SE Asia. The SL wasn't there but I would question whether it would have survived. In any case both Nikon and Leica M delivered the goods equally well.

Modern Leica M glass (asph) is very sharp wide open and I owned several including the 35 FLE summilux, 50 Asph summilux and 90 Apo but sold them. They were so sharp they looked artificial and harsh and thats just not my style. I still own the 24 Elmar and will e selling it for the same reason. I much prefer the smoothness of vintage Leica and new Zeiss glass.

If pixel peeping is how you judge an image then don't bother with anything but current M Asph glass.

 

[Huss]

If pixel peeping is how you judge an image then don't bother with anything but current M Asph glass.

My old Summicrons are very sharp too (DR and collapsible).
Darn Leica!

Point being, any Leica lens u pick is going to be great. With Nikon, you need to know which ones to pick. And of course great equipment does not make great images, it's the photographer etc etc
But we are discussing equipment here.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Like the OP, I have both systems. R4s, R5, Leicaflex and 28/35/50/90/135, and Nikon bodies and lots of lenses. I bought the Leicas as pure objects of desire. I got hooked on the feel of those R bodies back when I was in college and couldn't afford them. The Nikons I got to work with and they are in current circulation on a D3. I have too many Nikon lenses to list here . . . not that it couldn't be done, but I honestly don't know what I have off the top of my head. Everything that I want between 20mm and 300mm, which many duplicates at 50, 105 etc. I understand the entertainment value of asking and answering the question, but there really isn't a right answer. Only the OP knows why he built up redundant systems in the first place. And only he can tell us a) whether selling one is really necessary or b) which system will be harder to say goodbye to.

I generally agree with the proposition that it is smart to stick to equipment that can be repaired. I have had an F4's metering prism go bad. I have had an R4s meter and magnets go bad. I have never had any mechanical problem with either a Leica R or Nikon lens. I did once have a rubber grip on a 105/2 DC lens re-attached with adhesive. The repair was so minor my guy didn't even charge for it. I think the Nikon system will give you more flexibility and more choices. But once again, only the OP knows whether that is a good thing.

 

[Contarama]

Would like to add Nikon eye-level finders for F and F2 can sometimes have issues with de-silvering should you decide to get the best Nikon. 🙂

 

[x-ray]

My old Summicrons are very sharp too (DR and collapsible).
Darn Leica!

Point being, any Leica lens u pick is going to be great. With Nikon, you need to know which ones to pick. And of course great equipment does not make great images, it's the photographer etc etc
But we are discussing equipment here.

Not every leica lens is great. Sorry, not so. I've owned two 50 asph summilux and one was manufactured incorrectly and would not focus to infinity. That was confirmed on several new bodies. Also leica replaced my 90 Apo asph because it would not mate and focus correctly with my M9. Sorry but leica has lens variation too.

I had the 1st version 19 for my SL's when they were in production. It was nothing to write home about. The 28 was nothing special either.

Every maker has good focal lengths with some so so and others being fantastic.

I've said for years, if there was a true advantage that one make has then every one of us making a living with our cameras would use them.

The problem with the SL was the body not the glass so much. Bodies were too complex and not particularly reliable. You can get them repaired but they're overly complex and time intensive. I also understand parts are getting scarce for some repairs. A good friend had 3 SL2's he used in his work. He is retired now but was a professor of botany. All three of his meters went out.

 

[steveyork]

I've used the Leicaflex SL camera pretty exclusively since 2008, passing about 150-250 rolls through them a year, and I've never had any type of malfunction. So that's about 1000 rolls of film through 3 cameras w/o problems.

Having used and owned both systems, I much prefer the Leicaflex SL to either a F, F2, and especially an Fm2 with it's squinty viewfinder. In my experience ( with Nikons, Leica, Minoltas, Zeiss, Canon), the glorious Leicaflex SL viewfinder is unrivaled in 35mm. That's reason alone to use one. Add to that the some of the great R optics … and that presents a very strong case.

 

[littleearth]

Nowadays, it's easy to get the Leica R lenses converted to Nikon F mount, so why so many discussions around this.

Nikon F + 50 Cron is one sexy combo !

 

[steveyork]

Leica R and particularly Leicaflex are not easily repairable. The Leicaflex is a great body, but quite big and heavy, and after all these years, not very reliable.

I have used or owned Nikon F, F2 and F3, and Leica R6, Leicaflex, SL and SL2. My favorite by a wide margin is the Leicaflex SL, although any of these tools are capable of great results.

Some internet myths I would like to address.

1. Yes, Leicaflex cameras can be repaired, and many spare parts of still available. Leica sold all the spare parts to techs, including Sherry Krauter. Of course you need to send the camera to a Leica tech to get it fixed.

2. With regard to weight, a Leicaflex SL is actually lighter then a Nikon F or F2 with metered head. It's about the same weight as a Nikon F3 (roughly 740 grams).

3. Most cameras today made in the 60's and 70's will need service to put them in good operation for continued use. After all, they're approaching 50 years of age. In my own use, I've used a trio of Leicaflex SL since 2008, putting about 700 rolls through them, and haven't had any issues. They were all serviced by Sherry Krauter prior to use. So they do seem to be sufficiently reliable for today's film use.

 

[Godfrey]

Old thread... In the years since this thread was current:

- I bought a few more R lenses.
- I acquired the Leica M-P.
- I became annoyed with the Sony A7 after I saw how much better photos made with the M-P and adapted R lenses were.
- I sold the A7.
- I found I didn't like using the R lenses adapted to the M-P, so I started to switch over to using the Nikons more, added a couple of lenses, and added a D750 body.
- The Leica SL was announced, I acquired one.
- Since then, I haven't touched the Nikons at all, use mostly 35 and 75 lenses on the M, and use the SL with my R lenses most of the time.
- I acquired the Leica M-D.
- The Leicaflex SLs and Leica R8 continue to work perfectly.
- I am putting the Leica M-P on the market.
- I am putting the Nikon gear on the market.

I'm glad I had both systems and could evaluate them next to one another, and I'm glad I hunted up all these nice R lenses. Most of the R lenses I acquired cost me in the vicinity of $400 apiece, which isn't much for the quality. The SL is a near-perfect body to use them with, and I still love the Leicaflex SL and R8 bodies.

The Nikon F and F6 bodies are still superb to me. The D750 less so, just never really felt comfortable with it.

onwards,
G

 

[brennanphotoguy]

Sounds like you got to test out a ton of stuff to see what you really want.

 

[Dralowid]

I've probably posted this before.

SL MOT by dralowid, on Flickr

Big lumps of virtually indestructible machinery and dirt cheap for what they are.

 

[Godfrey]

Sounds like you got to test out a ton of stuff to see what you really want.

Yes. "Equipment is transitory; photographs endure."

Equipment in general, and my equipment in particular, has been in flux since I started doing photography in the latter 1960s. There've been periods where I didn't change things much and other period where the technology has changed so much and so fast it was hard not to swap stuff around constantly. The past decade and some has been like that.

But I think the equipment game is reaching a new plateau now, and one that I'm more than happy with for most purposes. Time to spend more time and energy concentrating on photography rather than equipment. 🙂

G

 

[Godfrey]

I've probably posted this before.
...
Big lumps of virtually indestructible machinery and dirt cheap for what they are.

Lovely stuff. 🙂

 

[Calzone]

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.

There is wisdom here.

I'm a big fan of the F2, F3 and now F5, but I happen to own a SL2-MOT that has a clean prism (I had Sherry build me a perfect camera from two SL2's).

The VF'er on the SL2 is great, and the Leica glass is its own look.

Leitax makes a "Almost Auto Aperture" that presents a lever to manually open the diaphram for focusing. If you ever operated a shift/perspective control lens with stop down metering this "AAA" makes shooting Leica glass on a Nikon more flexible so there is a hybred solution, but not as convenient or seamless as shooting Nikon Glass on a Nikon.

I think the Leica glass likes to be shot open or nearly wide open anyways.

Cal