Horatio
Masked photographer
In terms of build quality and optics. Nikon? Canon?
Which Japanese make comes closest to Leica...
- Thread starter Horatio
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 44
- Views 4K
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Close to Leica
Close to Leica
....For me handling always comes into play when choosing cameras. I'd pick a Nikon rangefinder over Canon every time. Strangely though despite decades of using Nikon SLRs..... i never did buy an SP, S2 or S3 ...... but then again i'm interpreting your question in terms of ragefinders, not SLRs
Close to Leica
....For me handling always comes into play when choosing cameras. I'd pick a Nikon rangefinder over Canon every time. Strangely though despite decades of using Nikon SLRs..... i never did buy an SP, S2 or S3 ...... but then again i'm interpreting your question in terms of ragefinders, not SLRs
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I have three S2's. I think they are at least as good as IIIg's. However, I think also - I am not sure - that the black dial S2 is a small step back in build quality. It is however difficult to make quality comparisons. The glass of the viewfinders (on the front) of the S2 scratches easily, but I have never seen scratches on the glass of Leica viewfinders.
Erik.
Erik.
css9450
Veteran
leo mm
Member
I think this is a complicated question; all these companies have been around for 50+ years and have made innumerable excellent camera bodies and lenses.
Many of the biggest differences between Nikon/Canon optics versus Leica optics have to do with inherent differences between rangefinders and SLRs. If you want to control for those differences, you can compare Leica to the old Nikon rangefinders... or perhaps to more modern Zeiss and Konica rangefinders (and rangefinder lenses).
If it's purely a question of build quality, some people believe that the early Pentax SLRs and lenses were beautifully overbuilt in a manner similar to classic-era Leica. Though early Nikon F cameras were not slouches in that regard either.
Many of the biggest differences between Nikon/Canon optics versus Leica optics have to do with inherent differences between rangefinders and SLRs. If you want to control for those differences, you can compare Leica to the old Nikon rangefinders... or perhaps to more modern Zeiss and Konica rangefinders (and rangefinder lenses).
If it's purely a question of build quality, some people believe that the early Pentax SLRs and lenses were beautifully overbuilt in a manner similar to classic-era Leica. Though early Nikon F cameras were not slouches in that regard either.
Horatio
Masked photographer
Closer to the top. I'm thinking rangefinders, not SLRs. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I've always kicked myself for getting rid of my Nikon SP and a suite of lenses but I needed the money at that time. I still own a Leica M4 with DR Summicron, but only for sentimental reasons, in that this is a camera that I took to Iraq and feel that it just belongs with me. I choose to use others though.
Back to the original question though, I'd say Nikon rangefinders are the equal of Leica, and in some respects superior. That is my opinion though, so it may differ from others. Canon are definitely lower on the rung of quality, I feel. I really like the Niccas, in that they really innovated right before they were bought by Yashica.
If we open this up to SLRs (I know the original post is regarding rangefinders) then the ultimate manufacturer is Nikon, with the F2 in its various forms, the finest, most reliable 35mm camera ever produced.
Again, all my opinion.
Phil Forrest
Back to the original question though, I'd say Nikon rangefinders are the equal of Leica, and in some respects superior. That is my opinion though, so it may differ from others. Canon are definitely lower on the rung of quality, I feel. I really like the Niccas, in that they really innovated right before they were bought by Yashica.
If we open this up to SLRs (I know the original post is regarding rangefinders) then the ultimate manufacturer is Nikon, with the F2 in its various forms, the finest, most reliable 35mm camera ever produced.
Again, all my opinion.
Phil Forrest
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Nikon RF cameras from the S2 on came close to Leica quality but Canon also came close to Leica quality with their Bottomloader cameras to the Leica Barnack cameras and Canon had a vast array of great LTM lenses as did Nikkor (in LTM) in the 1950s that made Leitz look old fashion.
For instance, if in 1956 you wanted a 25mm focal length in LTM both Canon and Nikkor had what you want and Leitz did not offer that.
For instance, if in 1956 you wanted a 25mm focal length in LTM both Canon and Nikkor had what you want and Leitz did not offer that.
Forest_rain
Well-known
This thread is really interesting. How are the Nikon RFs better than the Canons? They are a little more expensive used. I'm considering buying a Canon 7, they come a lot cheaper than the Nikon rangefinders for some reason. Is there a reason for this? Canon 7 doesn't have an accessory shoe, but that's trivial for me, but quality/reliability does matter to me.
aizan
Veteran
If we're talking about screwmount, S-mount, and early M-mount, then Canon and Nikon are basically the same build and image quality as Leica.
Things become a bit less comparable in the metered era starting in the '70s. That's when most companies had moved away from rangefinders and Leica was still hanging around. Here we got niche products like the Leitz Minolta CL, Minolta CLE, Konica Hexar RF, Yasuhara, Voigtländer Bessa, and Zeiss Ikon ZM.
Things become a bit less comparable in the metered era starting in the '70s. That's when most companies had moved away from rangefinders and Leica was still hanging around. Here we got niche products like the Leitz Minolta CL, Minolta CLE, Konica Hexar RF, Yasuhara, Voigtländer Bessa, and Zeiss Ikon ZM.
Horatio
Masked photographer
Seems some Canons are rivaling Leica, at least in asking price. There's one for sale in the classifieds for 2300 Euros.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Less Nikon RF cameras were made and sold and even when new, they were priced a little higher compared to Canon. By 1959 Nikon concentrated more on its high demand F system SLR than its slick SP RF camera system. Nikon also nurtured its "Pro" use image in the USA in the 1950s..something the Europeans never fell for or were sold on...pro quality cameras to Europeans in the 1950s were Leica, Zeiss (like the Contax) and Rolleiflex for 35mm and 6x6cm cameras and not the Japanese imitator brands of European designs.
Also Nikon was not a big seller in the rest of Asia as Canon and nearly absent in Europe in the 1950s for various reasons (name infringement with Zeiss Ikon is one reason and high price) and PX stores in Japan seem to sell more Canon cameras in the 1950s to American GIs than they did Nikon, maybe buying price was a deciding factor.
The Canon 7 is a very fine camera and very advanced but it is an early 1960s camera and one that was made in the highest quantity even higher than the Canon P and that is why they are such a bargain and can be picked up in good shape for $200. In many ways it is a more practical and handier camera than the more mythical and legendary neat looking beauty, the Nikon SP.
narsuitus
Well-known
When I was shopping for a high-quality 35mm rangefinder, I only considered the Leica, Nikon, Zeiss, and Voigtländer.
css9450
Veteran
Is that the one with the f/0.95 lens? If so, that lens is bumping up the price considerably.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
If you're comparing the brands at the time when interchangeable lens rangefinder cameras were in their heyday (late 1950s essentially), the Leica and the Contax was what the Japanese brands aspired to achieve and surpass. To photographers in that time period, the fact that Nikon and Canon could sometimes produce lenses of equal merit to Leica and Zeiss was an amazing thing, and few were looking at "long term durability and reliability" with the scrutiny applied in more recent times.
I can't judge myself, really, because at that time my father and grandfather and uncles all had Leica gear, I bought a couple of Leica RFs, and the only Japanese IL RF camera I had at my disposal for a little while was a Nikon S2 that I had for a few months loan from a friend's father. The camera object of design in my generation (late '60s into the early '70s) was a Nikon F Photomic FTn, which my uncle helped me buy in 1969 and which my father was jealous of. LOL!
I at that time, I wanted a Leicaflex SL ... but it was so far over my available budget it might as well have been sitting on the Moon with those similarly unobtainable Hasselblads. LOL again!
Based just on that experience, I'd say the Nikon S2 was a remarkably good camera with a very good lens, but I couldn't say it was the equal of the Leica M3 or IIIf that I had at all. I only ever had the one Nikon with a normal lens, where I had the others with 35, 50, 90, and 135 lenses. And a host of accessories, all of which were beautifully designed and built, and worked flawlessly for what they were.
I still count my Leica M4-2 as the epitome of the ideal RF film camera.
G
I can't judge myself, really, because at that time my father and grandfather and uncles all had Leica gear, I bought a couple of Leica RFs, and the only Japanese IL RF camera I had at my disposal for a little while was a Nikon S2 that I had for a few months loan from a friend's father. The camera object of design in my generation (late '60s into the early '70s) was a Nikon F Photomic FTn, which my uncle helped me buy in 1969 and which my father was jealous of. LOL!
I at that time, I wanted a Leicaflex SL ... but it was so far over my available budget it might as well have been sitting on the Moon with those similarly unobtainable Hasselblads. LOL again!
Based just on that experience, I'd say the Nikon S2 was a remarkably good camera with a very good lens, but I couldn't say it was the equal of the Leica M3 or IIIf that I had at all. I only ever had the one Nikon with a normal lens, where I had the others with 35, 50, 90, and 135 lenses. And a host of accessories, all of which were beautifully designed and built, and worked flawlessly for what they were.
I still count my Leica M4-2 as the epitome of the ideal RF film camera.
G
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
The price is more to do with the f0.95 dream lens than the Canon 7 body.
The common Canon 7 body is the best bargain buy around and very plentiful these days.
Canon 7 body only ---200 dollars is the average price that I seen them sell for & 160 dollars in good shape and non working selenium meter, which was out-dated even in the early 1960s have been seen for sale too.
That speed demon lens is why that camera is priced that way...a very desirable lens if you want to lug around a heavy but rare lens with unique bokeh and light gathering properties. That price is not out of the ordinary for such a cool lens.
Horatio
Masked photographer
That's what I suspected.
Goody
Established
I have a Canon 7 and a P. Both very good LTM rangefinder cameras. The viewfinder on the 7 is superior -- is it as good as a Leica? I don't have a Leica to compare with, so I can't say, but it's a very capable camera and the hinged back on both of these makes them easy to load (like an SLR). The 7 is less pretty than the P, IMHO.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
The viewfinder on the Canon 7 is great...maybe a bit less in quality than on the Leica M cameras but not too far off including the crisp RF patch...and the price on used Canon 7 bodies cannot be beat when compared to the price of used Leica M bodies.
You got to remember very few cameras had projected frame lines and parallax corrected.. and these were for the most part high end cameras...M Leicas, only the Nikon SP and some lower priced oddities late made Japanese Leica copy companies at the tail end of their life, like the Nicca made Yashica YF and the last made rare Leotax G of around 1960.
There were some German and Japanese leaf shuttered cameras too with projected frame lines but they were rare exceptions.
Canon's last two RF LTM cameras were the only ones with the projected VF frame lines of all Canon LTM cameras and the Canon 7 is a bargain buy now price wise...it's only fault is that the VF is very nearsighted to most people with normal vision and was only corrected on the last made Canon 7s .. called by many as the Canon 7sz .
Bolo Kukus
en vacances...
The Contax G. While 'technically' a German camera (a 'distinction' it shares with many Leicas nowadays), it was manufactured for Zeiss in Japan by (?) Kyocera (corrected).
Ergonomically, the Gs are as good as it gets. They handle beautifully, all the controls are int the right places, loading film is a snap and apart from the odd quirk in my G1s that the lens returns to infinity after every shot, for me it works almost to perfection.
Many have complained about shoddy electronics in this camera, but my four get quite a lot of use - I have taken mine to the jungles of Borneo, mountains in Malaysia and Indonesia and the deserts of Central Australia, and as 25 year old cameras,they go on functioning flawlessly, the meters read spot-on and there isn't any 'bleed' in data screens.
It's a pity this line came out at the wrong time, in the mid to late 1990s when the market for rangefinder cameras seemed to be in a dip. That and a somewhat limited range of lenses and accessories (which suits my minimalist approach to photography, but doesn't please the GASholics) meant it had too limited sales and sadly, in the early 2000s Zeiss decided to pull the plug on this product line.
Among many others the actor Richard Gere was (and may still be) a great fan of the Gs and owned at least one or probably more G2s. I make do with the more modest G1s, but if this camera was/is good enough for Richard Gere, it certainly is so for me.
Ergonomically, the Gs are as good as it gets. They handle beautifully, all the controls are int the right places, loading film is a snap and apart from the odd quirk in my G1s that the lens returns to infinity after every shot, for me it works almost to perfection.
Many have complained about shoddy electronics in this camera, but my four get quite a lot of use - I have taken mine to the jungles of Borneo, mountains in Malaysia and Indonesia and the deserts of Central Australia, and as 25 year old cameras,they go on functioning flawlessly, the meters read spot-on and there isn't any 'bleed' in data screens.
It's a pity this line came out at the wrong time, in the mid to late 1990s when the market for rangefinder cameras seemed to be in a dip. That and a somewhat limited range of lenses and accessories (which suits my minimalist approach to photography, but doesn't please the GASholics) meant it had too limited sales and sadly, in the early 2000s Zeiss decided to pull the plug on this product line.
Among many others the actor Richard Gere was (and may still be) a great fan of the Gs and owned at least one or probably more G2s. I make do with the more modest G1s, but if this camera was/is good enough for Richard Gere, it certainly is so for me.
