molsondog
Member
Both, depending on what I'm shooting. For landscapes and other static subjects Nikon DSLR. For urban subjects, people and most anything close up, Leica with B&W film, 35 or 50 Summicron. Different tools for different jobs.
I have just been given a Chinon CE-4 & a bunch of lenses by my father who no longer shoots film any more.
Now, I am a die-hard rangefinder type of guy who has been using RF's for over 20 years. OK I started my photographic 'journey' using an SLR in the early 80's, but I haven't used one since then.
I own a M2 which is my main camera, and I have toyed with the idea of getting another body so that I can easily and very quickly swap between films / focal lengths. Having been given the Chinon it seems crazy not to use it. So I have the idea that as a complement to my M2 I use the SLR as a second body - M2 for the shorter focal lengths, SLR for anything longer then 50.
The question is this - does anyone else shoot with the two formats at the same time - would I find it difficult switching on the fly between the two or is it a case of "never the twain shall meet", either shoot exclusively with an RF or an SLR but not both?
At the same time (in the original post) does not seem always to have been addressed.
Yes, 20-30 years ago I used Leicas and Nikon Fs side by side (which was also, of course, the classic Vietnam war photographers' outfit 40 years ago), with Leicas for 21mm to 90mm, Nikons for 135mm to 800mm. But then, like Damaso, I just found that I preferred working only with Leicas. Of course I lose some pictures where a longer lens would be good, but I just don't bother with those pictures any more: it's quicker, easier and more intuitive to use one system. When I used both, I never found it hard to switch from M to F; just not worth the effort.
I still have a few Fs (and a range of other cameras from 9.5mm to 12x15 inch), but normally, if I'm using another camera, I may take a Leica more as a comfort blanket and a backup than to be used alongside.
Cheers,
R.