What will a Leica M user experience...

[steveyork]

if they go to Nikon rangefinders? I'm thinking principally here of the limited edition models.

I've used M6s and now MPs for the last 15 years as a reference. I got into Leicas when only they were making rangefinders, and I'm way past the name association thing. I shoot mostly C41 print film; a lot of B&W and a little color. I pretty much stick with the 35-50-90 focal lengths, although I picked up a used 135 for an upcoming trip to the Galapogas. Most of my subjects, however, are people. I wear glasses.

Anyone have any ideas what I would experience if I made the change?

 

[payasam]

Unfamiliarity, for one thing. The weight of a meter in the hand, for another. Perhaps, after some time, bemusement and regret.

 

[NIKON KIU]

You'll experience a 50mm lens that rivals any 50 from Leica.
You'll exprience a meter-less camera.
You'll experience a 50 year design that's so time-less it still holds it's own.
You'll experience single hand camera operation.
You'll experience things don't turn as usual. 😀
You'll experience longer focus base.
You'll experience less lens choices.
You'll experience more challenge than you've experienced before.
But for the most parts you'll experience a step backwards.

I would experiment if I was you but I suggest you stick to your Leica.

Kiu

 

[Tom A]

Having been a dedicated M-user for 50+ years, I did add Nikon Rf to my arsenal about a decade ago. Mainly because I was curious about the system and wanted something different - as well as a system that did not involve "work" for me. Anytime I use a M camera - that usually means testing a winder, grip, softie etc.
The Nikon is different - but similar too.
Great viewfinders, particularly the S2 and to some extent the S3. "Back door" loading - though you have to figure out what to do with the back when reloading!
Some of the classic great Rf lenses. The 50f1.4 even in its earliest version rivals Leica's any day. They are also smaller, more compact lenses in the 25/28/35/50 range - and gets rather "muscular" in the 85/105 range!
It turns backwards from the M - but it has a very long throw - 270 degrees. A bit slower than the M, but also a more precise focus point. I suspect that the reputation for some of the Nikkors has more to do with this pin-point focus than anything else.
The fact that there are less lenses is better for GAS attacks. They are either reasonably priced (28/35/50/85/105/135) or so expensive that you wont even consider them (21/4, 25/4/50f1.1/85f1.5/105f4).
Initially, I would get one body with the 50f1.4 (S3 Millennium and the matching lens) and see how it works out. Dont switch the system in it's entirety at the start.
If you do a lot of people shots with medium long lenses - also get a 105f2.5 - no better portrait lens made and great as an allround landscape lens too (S3 has the finder for it built in).
Dont try to mix while shooting. I have found that using the M's and the Nikon Rf's at the same time results in a lot of "refocussing" as you keep forgetting which direction it turns.
It is stlll a reasonably priced system. For what a MP costs new, you can get a good Nikkor kit. A couple of S3's or even a S3/SP, 35f2.5, 50f1.4, 85f2 and the 105f2.5.
Another factor to consider: Over the years I have found that my Nikon's stays in shape better than my M's. Less problem with viewfinder/rangefinder alignment, less problem with shutters and I have never had an advance/rewind give up them.
Parts, if you need repairs, are scarce though and few tech's around for service.
Also, be warned: Nikon Rf's are highly addictive! I started with a S and a S2 and a couple of lenses. Now my stash of bodies rivals my M2 "herd" and as for lenses - almost as many as the M-system - including a couple of "collectible's" (25f4/105f4).

 

[thomasw_]

Tom A -- I am very curious about two lenses for Nikon Rfs; the 2005 35/1,8 and the Millennium 50/1,4. From the very few images I have seen, the 2005 35/1,8 renders a special look. But other than its having new coatings, what else can you tell me about it. Is the Millennium much the same as its ealier variant but with coatings?
I ask because of I am thinking of purchasing a S mount 50. Also thinking of a Zeiss S mount 50/1,5 sonnar. Trying to decide....

Thanks,

 

[jonmanjiro]

Thomas, allow me to jump in here with a few comments 🙂

The original W-Nikkor 3.5cm f1.8 from the 1950's uses "Lanthanum (La) -based glass convex lenses to improve spherical aberration and curvature of field, significantly enhancing both sharpness and image flatness." This is a key point because the use of Lanthanum is now banned. So the Nikon engineers must have used another type of glass to achieve the correct refractive index. A slight difference maybe, but a difference nonetheless. The 2005 version is also of course multi-coated.

The Millennium 50/1.4 is a multi-coated reissue of the Olympic Nikkor 50/1.4 released in 1962 toward the end of the Nikon RF production run. This lens got the name the Olympic Nikkor because it was around in time for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. The Olympic Nikkor is expensive and fairly hard to find collectors item these days. The optical formula is Gaussian as apposed to the earlier and much more common Nikkor-S 5cm f1.4 lens which is a Sonnar formula. From what I've learned from Japanese websites, the Olympic Nikkor has a reputation for rendering colour photos with a slight magenta tint due to its single coating.

 

[Tom A]

Thomas, I find the 2005 35f1.8 extremely sharp and with a medium to high contrast (multi coating probably does this). The original 35f1.8 will give any non-asph Summicron 35's a good run. It is more flare prone ( again coating does effect that). Still really good resolution.
Both are good @1.8. with the 2005 appearing a bit 'snappier" due to the coating.

The Millennium 50f1.4 is just plain one of the great 50's. In that speed range I think the only competitor is the Asph Summilux 50! Personally. I dont like the "bottle" neck design of it. Feels "funny" in the hand.
I find that for a 50 and the Nikkor I use the C-Sonnar more. Nice and compact, great look to the negatives. It might not have the "bite" of the Millennium 50 - but I like the way it "draws" on a bl/w negative.

I have, for some inexplicable reason at least 6 Nikkor 50f1.4's - some old chrome ones, some black ones, as well as the Millenium and the C-Sonnar - and a Menopta 53f1.8 that has been "Sweeney'd" by Brian. They are all remarkably good. Contrast gets lower with older ones, which is not all bad for black and white. Sharpness and resolution is all above most other lenses from that time.
We are off to Japan in March for 8 days and Shintaro has dug up a couple of Canon 7's for me and a 50f1.4 Canon. That is probably the only lens that rivals the Nikkor's from that era. Had a tendency to be bit 'crunchy" in aperture and focus though. Dont know what color the 7's are as Shintaro has had them in his hands for a while!

 

[maddoc]

Just two weeks ago I have met with RFF member jonmanjiro it Tokyo and he brought his SP 2005 with 35/1.8 (new type) and I brought my Millennium Nikkor-S 50/1.4 to try with the SP. I normally only use film Leicas (all of them) and was keen to experience the "Nikon RF feeling". 🙂

Compared to my Leicas the SP feels and handle rather different but the VF is a great design (except that the RF is not that contrasty in dim light) with the separated VF for 50mm (and RF) and the other FL. Film-loading I found more difficult (where to put the back of the camera ?) and the handling of the lenses needs getting used to. Since the complete lens body rotates, setting the aperture is a little fiddling especially with the short 35/1.8.

The quality of the Millennium Nikkor-S 50/1.4 is outstanding, much better than my former Canon 50/1.4 or 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH already at f/1.4. I have taken some BW photos with the 35/1.8 (Double-X) wide open and found it to perform better than my 35/1.4 pre-ASPH.

If you can afford keeping the M Leicas, I would highly recommend to give the S3 2000 or SP 2005 with one of the above mentioned lenses a try, you won`t be disappointed. 🙂

 

[Pablito]

from my limited experience, the Leicas are easier to focus in low light. The Nikon handles like a Nikon F, the body layout is identical. I never had a problem with where to put the back while changing film. You gotta do something with the Leica baseplate too. But the Leica RF patch works better for my eyes.

 

[thomasw_]

Thanks a lot Jon, Tom, Gabor and Pablito.

Jon - Is the current Zeiss S mount sonnar similar in its behaviour/rendering to the ZM variant? I think you have one?

Gabor, I will be keeping my "go to" M stuff 🙂 The reason I am interested in the Nikkor-S 50/1,4 is that I want something special in a 50 for my nikpn RF. In M mount I already have a lux asph, which is a planar variant I think; so I was hoping the millennium 50 would be a great sonnar to compliment the lux. But it sounds as though the millenium 50 is a lot like the lux asph albeit gaussian...hence my interest in the zeiss s mount sonnar.


For now I am going to shoot a lot with the 35/1,8 2005.....until I decide I want to obtain a 50 for my Nikon RF. From all accounts, the 35 has much to offer.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Thomas, except being supposedly optimised for f1.5, the Zeiss S-mount Sonnar is optically identical to the ZM variant.

With regard to the often discussed "focus shift", in actual usage of the Zeiss S-mount Sonnar I haven't noticed any to the point where the target of focus is out of focus. Maybe the long focus throw of the Nikon helps here because I did experience the occasional problem with a ZM variant optimised for f2.8, and later optimised for f1.5.

 

[Phantomas]

Oh my god! The above pictures give me such a GAS rush. Must stay sensible, having Millenium 50/1.4 really adds huge value to owning an S3, that Sonnar looks so sexy, esp on an SP.

On topic - I'm not an M shooter but do use other RFs and other camera types. I found 3 "discomforting" things about S3 - the little lever that you need to depress to unlock the lens to focus, the fact that, as mentioned above, the whole lens rotates making it trickier to change the aperture and the weak RF patch (that I'm looking to contrastify). Other than that it's a great great camera that instills confidence with superb built quality.

 

[Tom A]

Thomas, once the Olympic mayhem is over, you should head over to Kits one day and I will bring a selection of lenses for you to try on the Nikon's and M's. I do have the C Sonnar's in M and SC mount, the Millennium 50 and also a full complement of VC's SC lenses! Stephen has a great deal going on right now, a 50f1.5, 50f2.5 (sweet lens) and the 85f3.5 in a package for $500!!!!!

 

[thomasw_]

Tom, That sounds fantastic!

 

[fbf]

I love the sp2005. I have gone through many bodies: s2,s3,s3 2000,sp and now the new to me sp2005. It works great for all my lenses. I use the 35/1.8, 50/1.4 millennium most often. I recently acquired a black 85/2. It is a beautiful piece and the size/weight balance is perfect on the sp so I sold the 135 and 105 lenses.
Now, I am just waiting for a cheap set of the 25mm w/ finder...

Jon brought me into this...He is responsible !!! 😀

 

[splitimageview]

I really like having the two separate viewfinders on the SP, this way the longer focal lengths aren't compromised. They are life-size, something no Leica viewfinder offers. If you like 105 or 135 this is a big plus, but it's also a big plus for 50 and 85 too.

 

[VinceC]

Been mentioned above, but I can't emphasize enough -- the Nikons have lifesize 1:1 finders for 50mm and longer lenses. It's like shooting through a clear window instead of a miniature viewfinder. This makes short telephotos a dream, and even the 135mm is easy to compose and focus with extreme accuracy.

 

[BillBingham2]

Steve (and anyone else),

I did the switch a few years back and with one exception have been able to find any lens I wanted for my Nikon RFs. I started with an S2 and then upgraded to an S3-2000. I did this because the SLR systems I liked to use (Nikon or Olympus) did not focus or adjust aperture the same direction as Leica M lenses did. I had a good stable of Nikkor glass for the Leica but when I used both SLR and RF switching was a bit of a pain. Now it should be noted that I tend to adjust aperture, shutter speed and/or focus as I bring the camera to my eye. Switching was easy but finding the lenses I loved too a bit of time. I did not have LOTS of money so my S2 kit was a CV 25/4 and Nikkor 50/1.4 and 105/2.5. When I switched to an S3 I initially got a CV 35/2.5 but then found a 35/1.8 Nikkor (the old one). I also got a 50/1.4 M, which as many have said here it if not the, one of the top three 50mm lenses of all time.

While I could get one hand operation of my Ms with several different 35/40mm lenses I had over the years, true one hand operation is best had with a Nikon RF (Contax too). I am able to shoot one hand with anything wide and even my 50/1.4. I can not stress how important this is to me. My favorite light weapon is a Vivitar 192/292 or a 283. I got lazy and used a 283 with a remote sensor on the accessory shoe and the flash held in my left hand. I was able to get very acceptable flash results by get the flash the he11 away from the camera (3 feet or so at the end of the left hand). With my Ms and a 'Cron I was OK using my right ring finger or pinky to focus, but with the dial on my Nikon RF I was much faster and thought about what I was doing a LOT less. IMHO on camera flash gives way to flat lighting.

The only lens I wish I have for my Nikon RF is the CV 15mm. You can get it for F mount but converters (F to S mount) are hard but not impossible to find. You don't have the range of different manufactures coming out with new glass (Zeiss, CV, Pentax, Komora) but the stuff there is out there is really really good. In many cases (e.g. 35/1.8, 50/1.4 M, 105/2.5) it is world class.

Built in metering was not big deal to me, I got very used to it and have a Sekonic L-318 which is perfect for my needs. The only accessory I really miss is a Rapid Winder which I had on both Ms (6 & 4-P). My favorite soft shutter release (Nikon AR-1) fit on both S2 and S3 perfectly and switching from bottom loading to removing a back (like the old Nikon F) was to me a step up in ease and speed.

Another thing I have to point out is the 50mm syndrome. I never had a 50mm lens (other than a 55/3.5 macro) before, never really liked the focal length on my SLRs or my Ms. Never really liked the feel of them so I never got one for my Ms. I found that I enjoyed the 50mm focal length on my Nikon Rangefinder. It was fun and combined with a 25 I was mostly in heaven for lots of rolls. On the S3 I had three of the best lenses ever made, the 35/1.8, the 50/1.4 M and the 105/2.5, for me it was camera heaven.

I never regretted switching over from the Leicas to my Nikons. The plusses for me way out weighed the few negatives. I love the single hand operation and the feel of the shutter release.

Hope this helps.

B2 (;->

 

[jonmanjiro]

I love the sp2005. I have gone through many bodies: s2,s3,s3 2000,sp and now the new to me sp2005. It works great for all my lenses. I use the 35/1.8, 50/1.4 millennium most often. I recently acquired a black 85/2. It is a beautiful piece and the size/weight balance is perfect on the sp so I sold the 135 and 105 lenses.

I did the exact same thing once I got a black 8.5cm f2! As amazing as the 10.5cm f2.5 lens is, it is somewhat on the large and heavy side, but the black 8.5cm f2 is perfect 🙂

Jon brought me into this...He is responsible !!! 😀

mwahahaha hahahaha 😛😀

 

[Neare]

I think you also get to experience better photography just by using a Nikon RF.

It's sort of like GAS Adrenaline.