Do I buy a Leica M or a Nikon?

Before I get inevitably lynched by the Leica Taliban, I should add that my favorite mechanical camera remains the Leica R6.2. If said gunman would spot me a few C-bills I would instead get an R6.2 with the latest 35/2-R and send the kit off to DAG for a rebuild before using it.

To get both the SLR and RF experiences you could get a Konica Auto S2 or Auto S1.6 fully overhauled from Greg Weber (gweber@webercamera.com, 402-721-3873) and a Nikkormat FT2 from an ebay seller. The Nikkormat can be sent to Essex Camera Service in Carlstadt, NJ for an overhaul. This will cost about $125. For the lenses you want you could consider a 20/2.8 AIS, a 35/2 AI or AIS, a 50/2 HC, K or AI and a 55/3.5 PC, K or AI. The Nikkormat FT2 takes easily available MS76 batteries and works equally wel with AI and pre-AI lenses. This equipment is capable of excellent results and will cost you very little compared to the Leica equipment. If you use a 50/2 HC, K or AI Nikkor and don't get good results, it isn't the lens.

Just dropping in to toot the horn for a Nikon F2. True, the FM is more like the OM that Edmund liked. I used FM/FE bodies for many years (some of them 'pro'). I eventually dumped them when I succumbed to AF in the '90s.

 

After a little while with AF, part of me wanted to feel some 'metal' again, and I slowly built a collection of F, F2, and F3 bodies. The F3 is the most versatile 'system camera' of those, but there's just something about the way an F2 feels. And the viewfinder just feels so much more 'relaxed' than the FM/FE series.

 

I monitored the Leica forum for a while, as what I liked about shooting with the F2AS and fast glass seemed like it might be better suited to an M of some type. I eventually walked away without experiencing Leica, as I felt like the kit I had was 'most of the way there' without breaking the bank.

The answer to your question probably does not rest in differences in technical quality between these two makes. Both Leica and Nikon currently manufacture excellent cameras and lenses, and have made a number of excellent cameras and lenses over the years. Leica still manufactures manual-control film cameras and lenses. Nikon has recently shifted most if not all of its production over to digital cameras and autofocus lenses. Most models, and most lenses, produced by both firms can be used highly effectively, depending upon the vision and skill of the photographer. The current top of the line Leica aspheric lenses offers somewhat higher optical quality than most Nikon zoom lenses, but skill and care is required to obtain the best results of which they are capable. For most hand-held amateur photography, the differences in quality achieved in actual use are probably not as great as differences shown by technical test results produced under controlled laboratory conditions. The answer to your question is, instead, probably found in what type of photographs you prefer to take, with what focal length lenses, under what types of conditions. If you like to take candid photographs relatively unobtrusively, using lenses between about 28mm and 90mm in focal length, under available light conditions that may include dim lighting requiring lenses with large maximum apertures; if you enjoy photography while traveling and prefer to have a compact outfit; and if you enjoy high quality precision equipment, then you might prefer a Leica. If you frequently use lenses wider than 28mm or longer than 90mm; if you prefer the convenience of zoom lenses, autoexposure and autofocus; if you do not do much shooting under dim light conditions and do not need lenses with large maximum apertures; and if cost is a consideration, then you might prefer a Nikon. If you prefer manual control, and a relatively compact camera, but want the flexibility of an SLR, then a used Nikon FM in excellent condition and some used Nikkor AIS manual lenses might meet your needs. The choice is largely a question of personal taste, so if you live within reasonable traveling distance of a major city where there are photography stores that stock both makes, you might want to visit such a store and take a direct, hands-on look at models from both firms before making up your mind.

<i>Do I buy a Leica Rangefinder (I could afford an MP with one lens for the moment!) or a Nikon system with three modern AIS lenses maybe a <b>20mm</b> 35mm and <b>55mm micro</b>?</i>

<p>

I am not being sarcastic here, but you may have already given the answer to your question... in your question. If you really have the intention or need to shoot very wide as well as close-up subjects given your own references to the 20mm and 55mm micro lenses, then the choice is really Nikon. It is possible to shoot with ultra-wides (FL 20mm or less) lenses on the Leica M of course, but you will need to add an external finder for more accurate framing which in my humble opinion defeats the purpose of owning a small discreet rangefinder. As for macro-photography, there are simply more lens/accessory options in the Nikon system than the Leica M.

I have both Nikon slr's and Leica M.

 

If you go Nikon, F100 is much smaller than the Canon you had and has a better VF then the FM3a, if you want stricktly MF maybe like me you might want an F3HP. the HP finder is the difference you need to focus AIS lenses with ease. I have 50mm f1.2 ais and 28mm f2.0 ais both are easy to focus manually because of the 100% full frame finder and the eye relief of the HP finder. The auto focus cameras that came after the F3HP that have HP finders are the 801s, N90s, F5, F100 and F6. If I didn't have an F100 I would get the F6 in a heart beat. It matrix meters with ais glass and in manual mode is excellent and as well constructed as a Leica. Like the F5 the shutter speed adjust themselves and last I believe 300,000 actuations. Its just a little larger than the F100 which is the best fit for my hand of any camera I ever held.

This has been about as good a Nikon discussion as I have seen even on the Nikon forum. I hope it helped you. I agree you want to do everything from very wide to micro then Nikon slr is good to go with. There are sure a lot of RF'er here that like both slr/rf so that speaks for itself that one does not preclude the other. If you want to carry a small prime lens outfit say 3 primes and 2 bodies then an M system is real compact. If you want to do all in one than an SLR and a 24-85mm zoom is good too.

I suspect the 'improvement' over the Olympus lenses was due to the autofocus and rangefinders put a premium on good eyesight. Since you have the wherewithall to do it, as others I suggest getting both. A smallish Nikon autofocus body such as an F100 and a Leica M6. Try them each for a few months and sell the one you don't care for. At most it'll cost a couple of hundred bucks but you'll be satisfied you have made the right choice. Best of Luck.

<b>Do I buy a Leica Rangefinder (I could afford an MP with one lens for the moment!) or a Nikon system with three modern AIS lenses maybe a 20mm 35mm and 55mm micro? </b><p>Your choices are a rangefinder or a SLR which is I think the bigger issue than the brand name. Did you ever before use a rangefinder? It is much different from a SLR. Can you do a trial use of a Leica before you purchase?

The Leica system has collection value, but most others in modern 35mm do not. Since you are not heavily invested in film at this moment, I would recommend that you look at full-featured P&S digital cameras. They are relatively inexpensive but yield excellent results. With the thousands of dollars saved you can treat yourself to a couple trips etc!

Sony Alpha700 with Zeiss optics.

Get a FM3a or a FM2n with a 45mm f2.8 lens. This set up is smaller than a Leica M with a 50mm lens, and you can use the lens on a D2xx or D3xx series camera with full metering.

Edmund,

 

Why don't you consider the best SLR ever made, namely the Leicaflex SL and the 60 Macro.

 

An Awesome combination.

 

Tony

If you are a film enthusiast and want to go Leica rangefinder - either a Leica M2 or M4 would be my choice. I own them both - and they are NOT for sale. The original M4 represents (IMHO) the apex of Leica rangefinder evolution. Everything that has come after is feature-this or that. . . but no REAL improvemennt on the basic M-series concept.

 

If you want to stay with film in a Nikon - I've used a pair of FE2 bodies with a stable of lenses for more than twenty years. They've been wonderful - and I've experienced only ONE non-battery related failure in that time. Last year - I picked up a Nikon F3HP body. It is the only other Nikon I like more than my pair of FE2 bodies.

The SLR system will afford you greater versatility than the rangefinder system.

If you see yourself:

(1) Staying in lens focal lengths between 12mm and 135mm

(2) Not wishing to do a lot of spontaneous macro or closeup work

(3) Enjoying inobtrusive and low light photography

Go with the rangefinder.

 

I cannot imagine being cameraless . . .

 

Paul

Perk11350@aol.com

I have been shooting for over 20 years.

 

The first ten years I used Nikon SLRs - FM, FM2 and F3.

 

All were great cameras.

 

Then I purchased a M6 with 35mm Summicron and a 90mm Elmarit lenses. I have used the Leica Rangefinder for the past 12 years.

 

Much as I love the Leica package - and I do - it took me close to three years to feel comfortable with the camera and confident about the composition.

 

With the Nikon, 99% of what I see in the viewfinder makes it to the negative. Whereas the Leica, depending on focal distance, can give you more -- or less -- of the image than you saw in your viewfinder, and often (especially on close focus) a composition that is to the right of what you thought you were shooting. Such is the nature of the Rangefinder. Framing is not perfect. Sometimes you lose parts of the composition, and it becomes careful guesswork.

 

For about three years I used the Nikons and the Leica side-by-side, until I felt completely comfortable with the Leica. It now feels like 2nd nature to me, and I would not change it for the world. (My wife uses the Nikons nowadays.)

 

If you go with the Laica, I am sure you will love it too - in time. Just be prepared for a learning curve, and test and experiment so you know best how to compose images.

Is there some good reason that a LEICA R hasn't been mentioned? All the benefits of an SLR plus lenses every bit as good as the M Leica.

M6+35mm.

Less is more.

Try it...you will enjoy it!

-Bob

I don't make my living by photography. I have used many Nikon SLRs over the years (and other systems, including Olympus), and would thoroughly recommend FM2s as versatile and tough. Mine have never let me down. But at the end of the day, they still feel like good, strong, dependable tools for the job, any job I ask of them.

But my Leicas? I love them. If I had to keep only one combo, it would without doubt, be my M4 and 35 'cron.

 

You might want built in metering, you might want auto exposure. You might want to see exactly what you will get on the frame, and you might want to be able to afford a range of lenses for different purposes. But once you have got used to a Leica M, you won't want to part with it.