The SLR equivalent of a mechanical Leica M

Hi,

The Pentax Spotmatic comes nearest to my way of thinking, then the K1000. Both have meters but so what...

BTW, I think of them all as workhorses.

Regards, David
 
Dwig said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I'm always amazed at the number of cameras that weren't supposed to last that are still around.

And the more I think about it the more I'm convinced it's got a lot to do with how they were looked after and treated. If I spent as much on each of my cameras as I did on the M2 (for example) then they'd all be as good as new, if not better.

Regards, David
 
I agree with David. I've got two OM's, an RTS, XA, and a Vitessa T still going strong. It has to do with how they were cared for.

Oh, and to stay on topic the mechanical OM's are the closest to Leica M's.
 
Since most of the SLRs have meters and Leicas before the M5 do not (with exception of the M4-2 and M4-P) only a few hobbled SLRs can be considered.
Early Nikon F with cloth shutter curtains.
Pentax Spotmatic without batteries or with a broken light meter.
Pentax H1a.

Anything with a vertical travelling shutter is out. A working light meter is out unless we're talking Leica M5, M6, M6TTL or M7. In those cases, a metered Nikon F with cloth shutter or similarly built working Spotmatic would do. Shutters that go higher than 1/1000 disqualify the SLR analogue to the mechanical Leica Ms so no F2, no Pentax LX but the MX would be a suitable analogue to the M6.

Just my opinion.
As for the original question, I'm not sure what it is. Size? Ergonomics? Features? Weaknesses? Lens mount legacy?

I know folks say a Leica M can drive in nails but I put my M4 through hell in combat and after one bad fall it needed repair. I fixed it with a pocket knife, channel locks and a set of jewelers screwdrivers. But it needed ~$800 worth in repair after I got back to the states. So they are not bricks.
The most durable camera I've ever seen is a Nikon F2 which was "tossed" out the back of a C-130 over a site in Afghanistan, buried itself a few inches in the earth then was dug out and worked fine. The whole story is that a recon drop's sled wasn't properly tied down and when it hit the desert floor, everything shattered, laptops, Nikon F4s, Nikon D1s and the only camera that survived was this lone F2.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Since most of the SLRs have meters and Leicas before the M5 do not (with exception of the M4-2 and M4-P) only a few hobbled SLRs can be considered.
Early Nikon F with cloth shutter curtains.
Pentax Spotmatic without batteries or with a broken light meter.
Pentax H1a.

Anything with a vertical travelling shutter is out. A working light meter is out unless we're talking Leica M5, M6, M6TTL or M7. In those cases, a metered Nikon F with cloth shutter or similarly built working Spotmatic would do. Shutters that go higher than 1/1000 disqualify the SLR analogue to the mechanical Leica Ms so no F2, no Pentax LX but the MX would be a suitable analogue to the M6.

Just my opinion.
As for the original question, I'm not sure what it is. Size? Ergonomics? Features? Weaknesses? Lens mount legacy? ... Snip!
Click to expand...

Hi,

That's almost my reaction when I first read the opening post to this thread. And I wondered if all the mechanical M's had the same specification. And if not, then which one should we be matching?

How about, heavy, tough, no meter, horizontal cloth shutter and based on the various versions of the Barnacks and intended to replace them? Then we get (Ta Da!) the Zenit...

Of course it will fail on price, country of origin and ease of film loading but that's life.

Regards, David
 
Graybeard said:
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 Leicaflex certainly feels, in use, like one of Wetzlar's finest. My Nikons, F and F2, do not.
Click to expand...
True but the Nikons simply work! My "F"'s have worked really hard in stressful, dangerous situations.
Banged, dropped, used as shield for "incoming".

The Pentax MX very close tp perfect in small, at expense of strength.
Well worth using, though.
 
Nowhere near the quality of a Leica, but I once got a Zenit-C in trade. Tiny, oh so tiny, SLR.

Unfortunately, the ribbon shutter had some issues and I never got around to getting it fixed :(
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Since most of the SLRs have meters and Leicas before the M5 do not (with exception of the M4-2 and M4-P) only a few hobbled SLRs can be considered.
Early Nikon F with cloth shutter curtains.
Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

M4-2'and M4-p do not have meters.
The Nikon F2 with the meterless de1 head would be a consideration. No batteries required and better ergos than the F.

I'm not sure would describe any rf camera as being able to drive in nails. The rf mechanism is too delicate for that. But from what I have seen Leica Ms are tougher than Zeiss Ikons, Konica RFs etc.
Toughest camera I have by far is the Nikonos V.
 
Hi,

And what SLR compares to the Leica M1, MD, MDa and MD-2?

When you look at the range of M's it's obvious that there just isn't a standard version. Perhaps we should have started by agreeing what was an M and then agreed about what we are comparing; that was the point of my posts.

Regards, David
 
This like a lot of other topics has been debated over multiple times and unless it's just for a bit of fun I can't see the point. If you want an M that is an SLR then get a visoflex.
 
David Hughes said:
And what SLR compares to the Leica M1, MD, MDa and MD-2?

When you look at the range of M's it's obvious that there just isn't a standard version. Perhaps we should have started by agreeing what was an M and then agreed about what we are comparing; that was the point of my posts.
Click to expand...

Dear David,

excellent questions.

To me, it's as follows:

a) all Ms have the M-bayonet mount, hence I'd say SLRs without bayonet mount cannot be «equivalent»; it is a lot more time consuming to mount a M42-lens than a bayonet lens. (And, if we were hair-splitting, we'd allow only four-claw-bayonets ;), but that's quite uncommon among SLRs.)

b) all of them share the aforementioned ergonomics: the shutter release in the middle of the advance lever. (We were talking about mechanical/film Ms, weren't we?)

Hence I must insist: the Minolta SR-series are the closest — or most «equivalent» — from that point of view.



edit:

Minolta%20SR-7.jpg

Minolta%20SR-7%201.jpg

Minolta%20SR-7%20front.jpg

Minolta%20SR-7%20top.jpg

Minolta%20SR-7%20bag.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom