The SLR equivalent of a mechanical Leica M

[Ko.Fe.]

Build, size, quality

... meh.

What is "mechanical" in M and SLR? Shutter advance and shutter sound.
I'm not aware of any SLR with same advance level as in M, all SLRs I have tried have it different from M. Shutter sound... On M3 at 1/1000 it is quick kiss, no mirror. On 1 it is rattling of sand, still no mirror.

 

[unixrevolution]

Canon F-1 -- works without batteries, tough as nails, superb lenses.

I disagree. The F-1 is FAR too big and heavy.

I stick by my choice of the MX. As others have pointed out, it was designed to compete with the OMs, and I think it's a better camera. OM, slightly improved. 🙂

If you think an M equivalent SLR should be meterless, leave out the batteries.

 

[unixrevolution]

... meh.

What is "mechanical" in M and SLR? Shutter advance and shutter sound.
I'm not aware of any SLR with same advance level as in M, all SLRs I have tried have it different from M. Shutter sound... On M3 at 1/1000 it is quick kiss, no mirror. On 1 it is rattling of sand, still no mirror.

Of course, no SLR is ever going to be an M, nor is the reverse true. They were asking for a "user experience" standpoint.

It's like threads asking which 35 renders like a certain 50. None of them, because they aren't a fifty! But some of them produce a similar aesthetic.

 

[Graybeard]

The original Leicaflex (sometimes called the "Standard"), second version, is the SLR equivalent of an M4 (M3 if you prefer) equipped with a Leicameter.

The detractors of this camera sometimes describe it as "an M3 with reflex viewing". I believe this description answers the question posed by the OP.

The Leicaflex certainly feels, in use, like one of Wetzlar's finest. My Nikons, F and F2, do not.

 

[BillBingham2]

... meh.

What is "mechanical" in M and SLR? Shutter advance and shutter sound.
I'm not aware of any SLR with same advance level as in M, all SLRs I have tried have it different from M. Shutter sound... On M3 at 1/1000 it is quick kiss, no mirror. On 1 it is rattling of sand, still no mirror.

Nikon F2h was pretty equal in quietness to my M6 when I held one and dry-fired on a few years back. Didn't and still don't have the cash.....

B2 (;->

 

[Godfrey]

I am not a Leica person, but I thought of the mechanical Leica M as meter-less. ...

All Leica M cameras have the M-Bayonet lens mount.
All Leica M cameras have mechanically timed shutters except the M7 model.
Leica M5, M6 + variants, M7, and current production MP have meters built in.

So SLRs with mechanically timed shutters all apply regardless of whether they have a meter.

G

 

[jalLee2001]

I shoot Leica and Nikon. But once I tried the Pentax MX. I liked it more than the FM2/Fm3a which I have owned. The shutter is superb.

 

[Bille]

Always wondered about this one. Which one do people consider the SLR equivalent of the mechanical Leica M's?

There is no equivalent. My gut feeling however says early Konica.

Would love to hear Tom As opinion on the matter.

 

[ktmrider]

Leica R6.2 or Nikon F

 

[BillBingham2]

There is no equivalent. My gut feeling however says early Konica.

I forgot how sweat the early ones were, thanks for the reminder!

Would love to hear Tom As opinion on the matter.

Bill P too please and thank you.

B2 (;->

 

[dtcls100]

I read the OP's inquiry as intended to emphasize the quintessential qualities of a Leica M as an overall package. The qualities that come to mind are simplicity, all mechanical operation, compact size, refinement, uncluttered and simple viewfinder, quiet shutter, and excellent lenses.

When I think of a classic Leica M, I don't necessarily think of extreme toughness (rangefinders can be knocked out alignment fairly easily), large size, heavy weight, LED diodes, automatic exposure, etc.

Viewed in this light, I think Olympus OM-1. About the same size as a Leica M, viewfinder is completely uncluttered (except for very small match needle display), very quiet and well damped shutter and mirror, all mechanical, well built, nice feel, and excellent lenses.

While some have suggested the Pentax MX (also a very fine camera), the light diodes in the viewfinder and less well damped mirror/shutter assembly make it a bit less Leica like IMHO.

 

[thompsonks]

The newest equivalent to Leica handling and ease of use (if you don't get caught up in the menus) isn't a DSLR, it's a mirrorless Sony RX1rII. As soon as I put on a ThumbsUp and a grip, I felt like I had an updated M4 in my hand.

Kirk

 

[tunalegs]

Depends on what you're equating.
Quiet, small, and only useful with lenses 135mm and under: Exa.
Fit and finish, viewfinder: Leicaflex.
Reliability and durability: Nikon F.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Always wondered about this one. Which one do people consider the SLR equivalent of the mechanical Leica M's?

From another perspective, there's a good case to be made for the Canon Pellix. Because it has no mirror slap, and no viewfinder black out, just like a rangefinder, and apart from the meter it's completely mechanical. The Pellix also has certain deficiencies (some of which were improved substantially by Canon years later, with the RT and EOS-1N RS) but that is beside the point. Functionally, it's far closer to a rangefinder than most SLRs.
Cheers
Brett

 

[unixrevolution]

I read the OP's inquiry as intended to emphasize the quintessential qualities of a Leica M as an overall package. The qualities that come to mind are simplicity, all mechanical operation, compact size, refinement, uncluttered and simple viewfinder, quiet shutter, and excellent lenses.

When I think of a classic Leica M, I don't necessarily think of extreme toughness (rangefinders can be knocked out alignment fairly easily), large size, heavy weight, LED diodes, automatic exposure, etc.

Viewed in this light, I think Olympus OM-1. About the same size as a Leica M, viewfinder is completely uncluttered (except for very small match needle display), very quiet and well damped shutter and mirror, all mechanical, well built, nice feel, and excellent lenses.

While some have suggested the Pentax MX (also a very fine camera), the light diodes in the viewfinder and less well damped mirror/shutter assembly make it a bit less Leica like IMHO.

I can totally respect that reasoning, and though i prefer the MX, the OM-1 is still brilliant. but the LEDs are part of why i like the MX more than the Olympus. The OM match-needle meter is much harder for me to see. partly because its not illuminated at all and partly because its in the corner. the k1000 doesnt give me this issue.

 

[charjohncarter]

Pentax SV, on feel and features, though not alas reliability. For me, nothing else even comes close.

Many are throwing in Oly SLRs, that have meters and the OP didn't say which Ms he had in mind. But the Pentax Spotmatic (with feel and features AND reliability) really is like your SV; very much like a Leica M with a meter.

 

[johannielscom]

The Pentax MX.

Almost as small as a Barnack, impressive range of lenses, preview lever (push the self timer the opposite direction) and all mechanical shutter speeds. The battery is just for the meter.

 

[DanskDynamit]

I would say Nikon F.

 

[kshapero]

The Nikon F.

yep, a no brainer.

 

[Dwig]

Bottom line, I'd say the Nikon F is the winner.

The old Pentax models come close, and the pre-Minolta Leicaflex models are good contenders.

OM's, later Pentax models, ... fail my tests. They weren't designed to last the way the early Ms and the F were.