Bike Tourist
Well-known
For many years the F2AS was my favorite Nikon. It could do almost anything well. But, this is the 21st Century. No matter how nostalgic I become over the F2AS or M3, I wouldn't trade them for my D810 and M262.
Nikon F2 vs Leica with no meter
- Thread starter besk
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 104
- Views 9K
rumbliegeos
Well-known
This really is an old debate. I own both because they do different things well. My F2 is useful for shooting small things at short distances, and for shooting telephotos longer than 90mm. And as said above, for precise framing. Focusing with wide angle lenses in low light is not its strong suit. My M2 works well for that, and for other kinds of general photography.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Update on my side.
I have F2 for second week and FTn for more than three weeks with me, walking on the streets.
It is still, much more difficult for me to focus with those SLRs, as with any manual focus SLR. Even split prism on F2 is nowhere near my M4-2 RF focusing convenience and how much faster it is for focusing.
F2 shutter speed dial is crap comparing to Leica and so is film advance mechanism. Both parts are crude comparing to my M4-2.
What I like about F2 and FTn? They are dirt cheap. Lenses are dirt cheap as well.
Only plain prism for F2 price sucks, but it is nowhere near how much they want for each focal length VF.
Dirt cheap cameras and lenses, which producing same images as $$$ Leica and $$$ lenses. As long as you are willing to spend time to focus these rigs.
This is why I have 20mm and 28mm F mount lenses. Even 35mm lens is too narrow for street photography I practice with Nikon's SLRs.
I also like how they feel. Heavy, but for some reason it is not difficult to walk with, comparing to my EOS rigs. F2 is heavy, but it is flat, just as M4-2 is. In fact, I have F2 and FTn in the bag with me every day and then I walk with one of the two is on my chest. Some are recognizing them as cameras they have, some are saying how they like these cameras. With Leica I feel like a snob, with Nikon I'm more comfortable. 🙂
I have F2 for second week and FTn for more than three weeks with me, walking on the streets.
It is still, much more difficult for me to focus with those SLRs, as with any manual focus SLR. Even split prism on F2 is nowhere near my M4-2 RF focusing convenience and how much faster it is for focusing.
F2 shutter speed dial is crap comparing to Leica and so is film advance mechanism. Both parts are crude comparing to my M4-2.
What I like about F2 and FTn? They are dirt cheap. Lenses are dirt cheap as well.
Only plain prism for F2 price sucks, but it is nowhere near how much they want for each focal length VF.
Dirt cheap cameras and lenses, which producing same images as $$$ Leica and $$$ lenses. As long as you are willing to spend time to focus these rigs.
This is why I have 20mm and 28mm F mount lenses. Even 35mm lens is too narrow for street photography I practice with Nikon's SLRs.
I also like how they feel. Heavy, but for some reason it is not difficult to walk with, comparing to my EOS rigs. F2 is heavy, but it is flat, just as M4-2 is. In fact, I have F2 and FTn in the bag with me every day and then I walk with one of the two is on my chest. Some are recognizing them as cameras they have, some are saying how they like these cameras. With Leica I feel like a snob, with Nikon I'm more comfortable. 🙂
Can you explain what you specifically are referring to with regards to ‘crap shutter speed dial?’
In my experience the only M dial of any note is the M5’s.
In my experience the only M dial of any note is the M5’s.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I could rotate my M4-2 with light touch if my index finger. In any direction. It is small and elegant. Shutter dial of my M4-2 🙂.
F2 dial is much taller, with much more resistance.
F2 dial is much taller, with much more resistance.
I’ve never owned or handled any M dial that was loose enough to do that...out of hundreds
css9450
Veteran
Focusing with the RF patch ain't no picnic depending on light and contrast, but I thought most people shooting Leicas were just pre-focusing (or zone focusing) anyway? Try those techniques on the F2 sometime; the vintage lenses from that era had a nice long focus throw. You'll probably like it.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Yes. And that is true of the M5 as well.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
For the fun of it I've just handled the M5, the M3 and the F2AS. The former requires light to medium single index finger force, the middle medium, and the Nikon two fingers.
I suppose absent a accepted definition of finger torque, I suspect this debate might go nowhere!
I suppose absent a accepted definition of finger torque, I suspect this debate might go nowhere!
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Zone focusing with Nikon lenses is no go for Leica or any RF shooter as me.
Lens rotates in the wrong direction. But I have 20mm which is non Nikon and they did it right. I ordered same correct 28mm yesterday instead of Nikon 28.
What I like in Nikon mount lenses, none of them as stiff as many RF lenses.
Lenses I have are light and smooth to rotate for focus.
In fact, I prefer short focus scale. The reason to scale focus is to react for the quick happening on the street. Long focus travel is no good for it.
Medium to short is the best. I planning to install focus tab, once I know with which lens I will settle with.
I'm also planning to make 20mm VF plate which will go to F2 prism holder.
These two mods and mirror up will bring me back to normal 🙂.
narsuitus
Well-known
For decades, I used an SLR 35mm system and a rangefinder 35mm system. The two systems compliment each other.
I needed the SLR when shooting ultra wide angle, long telephoto, zoom lenses, macro, perspective control, and fisheye.
I primarily used the rangefinder when I needed the quiet shutter when shooting theatre, golf, street, and recording studios.
Therefore, since size and weight were not that important to me, the relatively quiet shutter was the only reason I would choose one of the meterless M models over a meterless Nikon F2.
Leica M6 & Nikon F2 by Narsuitus, on Flickr
presspass
filmshooter
If you're willing to accept the limitations of either style, both will do the same thing. Want a long lens on an M2? Visoflex II or III and lenses up to 800mm are available. Want a normal-wide fast lens? Nikon has a very nice 35 f1.4. I have meterless Leicas, although I prefer the M6 or the MP. I have an F2 with a plain prism but prefer the one with the Sb meter. The Nikon lenses tend to be more contrasty, but if you use the earlier F2 meters, you can use either Ais or pre-Ai lenses. The pre-Ai lenses are less expensive and the ones I have tame the contrast a bit better.
giganova
Well-known
What a weird question. The M is a rangefinder and hence quite a different beast. Plus, much quieter, smaller body, smaller lenses, lighter, great glass.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have a plain prism Nikon F and a Leica M4-2. Both are excellent cameras and I have excellent lenses for both.
I pick which one I want to use based upon my whim of the moment. And what lens I want to use. The major difference between them in terms of what I see in the negatives all comes down to the different lenses. They're not so different to use, in the hand, and both are capable of making excellent photographs. The Leica is less versatile, potentially, but I have more different lenses for it than I have for the Nikon. So it's a complete toss up.
Neither camera cost me a "lot" of money and, at this point, the Leica and its lenses would return more if I decide to sell it ... But that's largely an academic debate since I have no particular intention of selling either. (I also have a Leicaflex SL and a Leica R6.2 along with a complement of lenses for them, same deal...)
Questions like this are pretty much a bunch of amusing navel gazing anyway. The only reason to have these nice old cameras is because you like them and want to use them. If you like to shoot 35mm film, pick any camera(s) you like along with lenses that you like, and go forth to enjoy it.
G
I pick which one I want to use based upon my whim of the moment. And what lens I want to use. The major difference between them in terms of what I see in the negatives all comes down to the different lenses. They're not so different to use, in the hand, and both are capable of making excellent photographs. The Leica is less versatile, potentially, but I have more different lenses for it than I have for the Nikon. So it's a complete toss up.
Neither camera cost me a "lot" of money and, at this point, the Leica and its lenses would return more if I decide to sell it ... But that's largely an academic debate since I have no particular intention of selling either. (I also have a Leicaflex SL and a Leica R6.2 along with a complement of lenses for them, same deal...)
Questions like this are pretty much a bunch of amusing navel gazing anyway. The only reason to have these nice old cameras is because you like them and want to use them. If you like to shoot 35mm film, pick any camera(s) you like along with lenses that you like, and go forth to enjoy it.
G
I'm not following this.
Zone or scale focus is pre-set, that's what makes it so useful for street shooting. Doesn't matter what the focus direction is, no need for quick reactions, as it's already set...confused...😕
I've never handled an M where the shutter dial could be rotated with one finger, except for M5s.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I think some 🙄 are misleading and confusing zones focusing and focusing at hyperfocal distance where it allows to have maximum DOF.
Here is setting your rig as fixed focus camera at hyperfocal distance, which will works with small apertures and wide lenses only.
And then here is zone focusing. Zone means not entire coverage, but by the zones.
Even with 20mm lens and f4 I have three zones at least. Close, middle and far where it is only in focus. Only one zone is in focus. Short focus throw and focus tab allows quick switching among these focus zones.
With constant practice and using of the same rig, it is possible to zone focus at f2.8 of 35mm lens.
Also some cameras have zones focusing marks. Like Olympus Trip and Smena. One person, group portrait and building. Those are focusing zones icons, marks.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I had M3 DS ELC, M4-P and M4-2. All switchable by one finger. M3 was OK (just more stiff), M4-P was OK only for nearby speeds.
But my M4-2 has least resistance. This is why I'm not in the rush to change it. It has been in service three times, I'd rather send it for service again. Or sell it and use just Nikon. 🙂
OK, for your 20mm, what are the zone ranges? How do you quickly move from one zone to another?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It depends how small the aperture is. Most of the lenses have not only focus scale, but DOF scale depending on the aperture size. Studying correlation of both will tell you how many zones you have.
At F3.8 my 20mm have:
infinity to 2 meters and two meters to 0.8 meter zones. I do use both.
And I do use f3.8 because on my photo walks after work it is dark. It is f3.8 1/30 3200 @6400 dark.
Now, how quick. The quickest method is by focus tab. Normally I prefer f8-f11. With medium focus throw lenses it is three zones. Close, middle and far.
If lens doesn't have focus tab, I add one. To have middle focus zone at 6PM of the focus tab position.
If lens is normal, not Nikkor 🙂 - left is always close, far is always right zone. Leica M or Vivital F lens, doesn't matter.
With Leica and tabbed lens I switch between three zones without looking, during bringing my camera from my chest to my right eye. It is about one second.
Position of the focus tab is the zone. I don't need to look at the lens to switch focus zones, if lens is tabbed well 🙂.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
