Nikon F2 vs Leica with no meter

giganova said:
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!
Click to expand...

I don't know about that... I have an M2, Pentax MX and Olympus OM1n (all serviced and in very good condition), and the viewfinders in the two SLR's are just as bright as the M2 as long as you're using a fast (ish) lens.
 
So I own many cameras. Including a fm2, fe, fe2, f2, f, f3, f4, f5, Leica m3, m2 (sold), m4, m4-2 and m9(sold) I would say as far as quality of cameras go the nikon f2 is the closest thing nikon came to the m3. The nikon f2 in my opinion is more reliable but much much heavier. the m cameras are more quiet than the slr nikons. the m3 is more precisely built. and m mount glass I hate to say is often better quality.
 
rf focusing in low light, the ability to see that your flash fired, centered flash shoe(which is imporant if you dont want a corner of your frame dark in widish lenses)
 
A long time ago a photographer whose work I admired told me that if you're shooting wide to normal focal length lenses, the Leica M will give better results than an SLR. Partially because of focus issues, but mainly (according to him) because the rear element of the lens is closer to the film surface in a Leica M than it is with any SLR. Less dead air the light is passing thru from the rear element to the film emulsion.

From my own experience, images made with 21mm, 28mm, 35mm & 50mm on my M are more pleasing to my eye than the same focal lengths shot on my Nikon F.

That being said, probably because I grew up shooting an SLR, something about the shooting process of the SLR syncs with me better than the shooting process with a Leica M, although that is slowly changing.

My 2¢ worth.

Best,
-Tim
 
Deardorff38 said:
Ko.Fe. "I have no idea who would use these Viso things today"
Vince Lupo, (RFF regular) for example.. https://images.app.goo.gl/AkJvwxk7tJwV9Mug7
The 65 Elmar is a killer lens.
Click to expand...

Ko.Fe. said:
Turns elegant Leica into ugly apparatus. Is it status priced or user priced?
Click to expand...

You're right, that particular one linked above is really ugly. This one is much nicer :)


Filter Turret2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

And how could you forget this nice compact outfit:


400mm f5.6 Telyt by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

Look up Douglas Herr if you want to see some incredible photos made with these big Visoflex lenses.

Since I was mentioned in a post, I happen to like Visoflexes and all kinds of other weird Leica things - I've been using Leicas for almost 40 years, so if I particularly choose to use a Visoflex and its associated lenses, really who cares (I'm sorry that some consider it to be archaic and hideous. Ah well.). And I've used many Nikons for almost 40 years, and I enjoy using them as well (unfortunately, I've never owned an F2). Really whatever floats your boat is fine by me - I don't think there's any one or 'correct' way to get a photo that pleases you. And as some have mentioned here, once you get the hang of it, the Viso is quite enjoyable to use. The 65 f/3.5 is a gem of a lens and quite versatile, as is the 12.5cm f/3.5 Hektor. And really, someone has to put these now unappreciated, forgotten Leica items to use, so why the heck not.

And just for clarification, that particular one in both photos above isn't a Visoflex -- it's a Camcraft Z-Housing. Big difference.
 
Timmyjoe said:
A long time ago a photographer whose work I admired told me that if you're shooting wide to normal focal length lenses, the Leica M will give better results than an SLR. Partially because of focus issues, but mainly (according to him) because the rear element of the lens is closer to the film surface in a Leica M than it is with any SLR. Less dead air the light is passing thru from the rear element to the film emulsion.
Click to expand...

A lens designed for an RF doesn't have to clear the mirror, which gives optical designers more flexibility so the rear of the lens can be much closer to the film plane. This results in less distortion than with lenses that must clear the mirror, especially with wides.

Use these same RF lenses (that are close to the film plane) on mirrorless digital, however, and this can result in smearing and color shifts; this doesn't happen with film. The light hits the sensor at oblique angles.

SLR lenses on the other hand are generally not prone to this effect, as the light is directed more perpendicular to the sensor.
 
I use my F2 like a rangefinder camera, with the Nikkor 2.1cm/4 and mirror lock-up.
 
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...

Two additional, real benefits comes to mind: Less shutter vibration. Allows at least two stops (or more) of slower, hand held speeds. Mechanical Nikon SLR's have a lot of shutter vibration. The mechanical SLR with the least is the Leicaflex series. An electronic shutter, like an F3, will have less vibration though.

Also, the sheer availability of "affordable" modern M mount optics from makers such as Cosina. That's a real draw tto.

Just an elaboration -- a lot of the rangefinder crowd -- like many of the SLR crowd -- gravitate to the 35mm focal length, and these lenses for a rangefinder are very small, light, compact, especially compared to an SLR. You mention size in general, but lens size specifically is an appeal. An plain prism F2 + lens is a lot bigger then the rangefinder equivalent.

Rangefinders do have drawbacks too, like MFD.

Of course, all this with the caveat that great pictures can be taken with any camera and lens. Light is more important then equipment.
 
splitimageview said:
I've never handled an M where the shutter dial could be rotated with one finger, except for M5s.
Click to expand...

All mine can, even my latest M-A.

But it only matters if they have a built in meter, so you can see the changes in the VF. If there is no built in meter, why would it matter? You're setting the exposure before you bring it to eye, and APART from the mighty M5, there is no M Leica, film or digital, that shows the shutter speed in the VF.
 
dourbalistar said:
The M7 shows the shutter speed in the VF, but (stupidly) only when in aperture priority mode.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, so do the digital Ms. But none do in manual mode apart from the Leica M5.
And why on earth not with the M7 and Digital M Leicas?
 
dourbalistar said:
The M7 shows the shutter speed in the VF, but (stupidly) only when in aperture priority mode.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Then in manual and with Leica I remember (for same reason as ISO and f) which shutter speed it is set on. I could set speed without looking then.
I could set film M at any speed without looking, simply because it stops at B :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom