kshapero
South Florida Man
I have both (F is the unmetered prism) and love them both. Contemporaries of each other and similar but oh so different. Funny how the Leica commands the price cause that F is like a tank. All good.
Nikon F vs Leica M3
- Thread starter kshapero
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 4
- Views 3K
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
The price difference was there from the off. In the sixties, a M3 with the Summicron was the same price as the F with the 1.4 lens.
I had a F and M3 together for a while and they made rather a nice couple. 🙂
I had a F and M3 together for a while and they made rather a nice couple. 🙂
Robert Lai
Well-known
Both were produced in large numbers, but one is a Leica and the other isn't. I'm not trying to be facetious.
I've been selling off a lot of my camera gear lately. The Leica items have good demand and good resale prices. Nikon film SLRs sell at a big loss - unless Ti or some other rare feature is involved. The manual focus lenses by Nikon still keep value well, but they weren't in the Leica price territory to begin with. They have also lost value in percentage terms, in comparison to the Leica lenses. The only Nikon items that seem to have elevated in price are the Coolscan scanners.
As for the cameras themselves, the M3 is probably the more refined feeling camera. The angular corners of the F make it feel a bit more industrial. Also, everything on the Nikon is backwards compared to the Leica - the shutter speed scales are in opposite directions, as well as aperture and lens focus directions.
I've been selling off a lot of my camera gear lately. The Leica items have good demand and good resale prices. Nikon film SLRs sell at a big loss - unless Ti or some other rare feature is involved. The manual focus lenses by Nikon still keep value well, but they weren't in the Leica price territory to begin with. They have also lost value in percentage terms, in comparison to the Leica lenses. The only Nikon items that seem to have elevated in price are the Coolscan scanners.
As for the cameras themselves, the M3 is probably the more refined feeling camera. The angular corners of the F make it feel a bit more industrial. Also, everything on the Nikon is backwards compared to the Leica - the shutter speed scales are in opposite directions, as well as aperture and lens focus directions.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
I suppose Leica gear has always been priced higher, and has held its price a lot better than Nikon. How many Fs were made? I'm guessing at least 1 million, so 5 times more than the M3.
Interesting to me too how Contaxes (and other Zeiss Ikon cameras) do not hold their value. Is that really due only to the fact that they're out of business and so there's no longer support for their products? Certainly in their heyday, Contaxes were as expensive as Leicas, and probably even more highly regarded.
Interesting to me too how Contaxes (and other Zeiss Ikon cameras) do not hold their value. Is that really due only to the fact that they're out of business and so there's no longer support for their products? Certainly in their heyday, Contaxes were as expensive as Leicas, and probably even more highly regarded.
wes loder
Photographer/Historian
Values of Nikon vs Leica
Values of Nikon vs Leica
I always felt that the Leica controls were backwards, rather than the Nikon's, but I guess that depends on were one started.😛
Comparing current price values of Nikon Fs with the M3s is like comparing oranges to pears. Two different cameras. There were and are a lot more Nikon Fs than Leica M3s. Unless their serial numbers are in the really early range, Nikon Fs are not considered collectors' items, nor are later lenses. There are just too many of them, almost all still in working order. Leica M3s may be used by a few photographers, but most sell as collector items at collector prices.
If you want to do a closer comparison, check the sale prices of Nikon SP and S3 cameras and their lenses vs. the Leica M3. Here you have comparable cameras and the prices tend to be high in both cases. Some Nikon RF equipment goes for higher prices than equivalent Leica gear. Collecting is what drives up the values and Nikon RF collectors can be just as willing to pay higher prices as Leica collectors.
As for the Contax … None were ever as user-friendly as the M-series Leicas or the later Nikons. Most of them still around seem to need at least CLA. Zeiss abandoned its RF camera system in a way that Leitz never did. Many factors to examine. I do not know exactly why, but I do know that even rare Zeiss stuff tends to go for a lot less money than either Nikon Rf or Leica equipment. WES
Cheers, WES
Values of Nikon vs Leica
I always felt that the Leica controls were backwards, rather than the Nikon's, but I guess that depends on were one started.😛
Comparing current price values of Nikon Fs with the M3s is like comparing oranges to pears. Two different cameras. There were and are a lot more Nikon Fs than Leica M3s. Unless their serial numbers are in the really early range, Nikon Fs are not considered collectors' items, nor are later lenses. There are just too many of them, almost all still in working order. Leica M3s may be used by a few photographers, but most sell as collector items at collector prices.
If you want to do a closer comparison, check the sale prices of Nikon SP and S3 cameras and their lenses vs. the Leica M3. Here you have comparable cameras and the prices tend to be high in both cases. Some Nikon RF equipment goes for higher prices than equivalent Leica gear. Collecting is what drives up the values and Nikon RF collectors can be just as willing to pay higher prices as Leica collectors.
As for the Contax … None were ever as user-friendly as the M-series Leicas or the later Nikons. Most of them still around seem to need at least CLA. Zeiss abandoned its RF camera system in a way that Leitz never did. Many factors to examine. I do not know exactly why, but I do know that even rare Zeiss stuff tends to go for a lot less money than either Nikon Rf or Leica equipment. WES
Cheers, WES
Similar threads
