Nikon F2 vs Leica with no meter

besk said:
I own a nice Nikon F2 with plain prism and with a Maxwell enhanced F3 screen fitted.

Other than having a quiet shutter and being a little smaller it keeps me wondering why someone would choose one of the meterless M models over a Nikon F2.

Your opinion would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

I have, and use, both Nikon F2's as well as Barnack Leicas, Leicaflexes, and the M series. I've been known to use a Pentax.

I strongly prefer rangefinder cameras. With my aging eyes (I'm well past 70) most SLR screens present a focus problem to me in anything but full sunlight. Not so with RF Leicas (even to include my IIIa's (with new beamsplitters)). I can work with the split image VF/RF in the Leicaflex SL2 or the R6 but my M6 is the one I take for travel with an M3 back in my shoulder bag.

Good light all-
 
While my F2 is my favorite Nikon, it pretty much sits on the shelf these days. I much prefer a rangefinder to an SLR so end up grabbing my Leica MP or my Canon VI-T when I want take pics.

Jim B.
 
Might depend upon your visual preferences/weaknesses. I find it much easier to focus a rangefinder than an SLR (and I used many Nikons during the 1970's). I use Leica because that's what I have owned since the 1970's. I like the Leitz M-series lenses--that's the only reason to justify the cost of a "lens-holder"---i.e., camera body.

Never had much use for in-camera meters (when shooting film, which is most of the time). Whenever I needed accurate light measurement, I used any quality hand-held meter with excellent results.
 
I use either F2 or Leica M according to whim. The Leica is for casual walking around town. F2 for slower, more deliberate photos mostly of static subjects.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

experts who researched this decades ago concluded <= 90mm was rangefinder accuracy. >= 90 is slr accuracy. Has to do with separation of segments.
As you proceed longer , best to use a screen made for that focal length for optimum ease of use.

As aside, plain screens in Leitz Viso 2 & 3 are superior to any Nikon screen. Trying to find a decent one is hard.
 
Ronald M said:
As aside, plain screens in Leitz Viso 2 & 3 are superior to any Nikon screen. Trying to find a decent one is hard.
Click to expand...

I have no idea who would use these Viso things today. It is just as practical as using of the penny-farthing for daily commute.
 
Does not surprise me that most of us would prefer a RF on a site called Rangefinderforum.

I for one would rather have a excellent camera for 150$ than be concerned about wether a Leica is better at 10 times that price.

I’ve shot both, and there is no reason I would argue between optics. Nikon makes some bang up glass that has never been cheaper. Leica makes equally great glass that has never been more expensive.
 
I will have to try a penny farthing but my commute is just over 7 miles so I'll probably stick with the Honda or the pickup. They're probably going to be quicker getting to fires during the day. Meanwhile, a Visoflex ii or iii will be in the bag with a 200 4.0. Once you learn how to use it, that combo is nearly as fast as my F2 and 180. Antiquated? Sure, but it will get the job done.
 
The “Viso thing”, is archaic, combersome, inexpensive, precision made, incredibly good view screen, a ‘system’ accessory. IF you’re willing to put in the TIME it can do many many things. From extreme closeups to the back of a 6” Refractor ....F8, 1200mm. I went to set mine up the other day for some 135 Hektor work on a few Blue Jays....Grrrr. The dual cable release had gummed up somehow.
 
Btw, the older, slower.etc. Viso ii has a really nice adjustable viewfinder that makes focusing even easier and more precise. Get a iia and it even has an instant return mirror. Makes it easier to use while trying to balance on the penny farthing.
 
Last edited:
What a like abut rangefinders is that the viewfinder shows you more than what will be on the negative. Plus, the simple optical viewfinder is much brighter. Makes framing so much better!
 
B-9 said:
Does not surprise me that most of us would prefer a RF on a site called Rangefinderforum.

I for one would rather have a excellent camera for 150$ than be concerned about wether a Leica is better at 10 times that price.

I’ve shot both, and there is no reason I would argue between optics. Nikon makes some bang up glass that has never been cheaper. Leica makes equally great glass that has never been more expensive.
Click to expand...

Leica glass quality is often self imposed illusion. I went through it by myself.

Just as with Leica, it doesn't have to be Nikkor on Nikon. IMO, one of the best and it is F mount 50mm lens, is Helios 81H. It wipes the floor with Crons on bw flim.
 
Recently I took my original Nikon F out for a spin. My favorite view screen is the "B" which does not have a rangefinder spot or micro prisms. I had a 55f3.5 Micro Nikkor mounted and was having a hard time focusing (or a lot harder time then I remember from the 1970's). Now, I don't wear prescription glasses (I should but they are always destroyed it seems) but do use reading glasses. Well, I started shooting with +2 diopter reading glasses in place and like magic, focusing problems cured.

I don't have to wear glasses with an M2 or similar rangefinder and the main reason to put up with Leica's outrageous prices is the viewfinder. However, the Nikon F can do so much more it is obvious why it took over the field of photojournalism in the early 1960's and why it is still my favorite SLR. I owned a F2 for a few years but I had already quit professional photojournalism by then to pursue a career in aviation so I never bonded with the F2 compared to the thousand rolls of 35mm I put through the F as a working press photographer.

Nothing wrong with owning and using both as many here do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom