Leica M Build quality vs Nikon F2

<p>My opinion based on owning and using Leica-M and Nikon-F, is that the Leica is built to very "correct" tolerances. The Nikon less exact but more than sufficient for the most fastidious user. Leica not used need service. Leica used constantly need service. Small bumps can affect the rangefinder. The rangefinder not that accurate with longer lens, the 135mm. I was better off using my old 135mm Nikkor for a Choir shot at about 65feet. The Leica was not accurate enough. I would have needed to bracket the focus. My Nikons only serviced by being dropped very badly or things thrown at it(or me) in riots and civil disturbances.. My Photomiics on the original F not always OK. The CDS meter on M, dead a few years after purchase. The F2 AS meter usually OK. The very first series of the F2 had some teething problems. All adjusted perfectly. QC! i received a brand new M3, 1,100,000 series with parts lacking in rfdr! Final assembly in my country! No exchange! A far cry from a Japanese company with a fault in delivery of 220 backs in place of 120. I was given a Porroflex finder and a less40% for additional lenses.on a already discounted price of about 30%! A Paramender thrown in! The 120 back supplied free, when it arrived. I added the 180mm and 135mm.<br>

Everybody knows the joke about using Nikon and Leica at same time. The different of fitting lenses, the reverse of focus etc. Yes you can use them together. If one stops working you've always got the Nikon. Sadly very often true for me.<br>

Leica does make some parts available for repairs whereas Nikon destroyed older spare parts banks. Certainly in my original country. I stand on tenterhooks waiting to hear if parts are available for my rewind button on M2...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Leica used constantly need service" <strong>?</strong><br>

"Small bumps can affect the rangefinder" <strong>?</strong><br>

"rangefinder not that accurate with longer lens" <strong>?</strong><br>

"The CDS meter on M, dead a few years after purchase" <strong>?</strong><br>

"a brand new M3, 1,100,000 series with parts lacking in rfdr" <strong>? </strong><br>

<strong><em>Jason Gold</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>? = Huh?</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Leica is a Luger; Nikon's a Colt .45 Automatic -- German precision, tight tolerances; American (Japanese in case of Nikon) dependability/flexibility."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Paul's analogy is probably the best I've heard, omitting only the Luger's overly complex, quirky design that appeals to fans of engineering aesthetics despite being less practical.</p>

<p>About 12 years ago I was switching systems from Canon FD gear and considered both Leica rangefinders and Nikon 35mm SLRs. The Leicas I handled reeked of superb craftsmanship, especially the lenses. The bodies felt unusually hefty for the size.</p>

<p>But after reading everything I could find from experienced folks with various perspectives, the Leica sounded like a system best reserved for people with deep enough pockets to afford the maintenance. That, and my inability to adapt to focusing as quickly with a rangefinder as with SLRs, persuaded me to go with Nikon. And I've always preferred the 1911-A1 design .45 ACP over the Luger for similar reasons.</p>

<p>Huh-?<br>

yup. all that and more!<br>

when rust appeared on a 35mm Summicron, almost new, told it was in a damp area. the sea etc. i lived in semi-arid desert with no humidifiers. Nikon and Pentax asked about similar problem, "Factory fault. No charge repair." Leica faults are always the customer/user. Rust cleaned off by independent service man, never to occur again at 1/10th the asking price at Leica.<br>

Rolex mechanical watches are very similar. Every few years a major service, parts to replace, worn out. If you don't do regular service on Rolex, will not keep any good time, going slower and slower. The longer you wait, the bigger the bill. Leica seems that way to me<br>

Receiving the M3 without all of rangefinder should have warned me. That is when i should have quit..<br>

Swapped a M2 body and 50mm lens for a new Nikon-F outfit with all the warranties back in '67. The Nikon-F and its lenses all never serviced except the 105mm.<br>

Leica services and technicians and their families again thank you for all your help and hope i made a difference.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>yup. all that and more!<br>

… Leica faults are <em><strong>always</strong></em> the customer/user. Rust cleaned off by independent service man, never to occur again at 1/10th the asking price at Leica. ...<br>

Receiving the M3 without all of rangefinder [???] should have warned me. That is when i should have quit..<br>

Swapped a M2 body and 50mm lens for a new Nikon-F outfit with all the warranties back in '67. The Nikon-F and its lenses all never serviced <em><strong>except the 105mm</strong></em>.<br>

Leica services and technicians and their families again thank you for all your help and hope i made a difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, I can’t sympathize.</p>

<p>It seems to me you have an ax to grind - especially when you use words like "always" with regards to Leica products/service and "except" with those of Nikon. Gus would know better than I - he repairs them - but I've owned and used Leicas for the better part of 45-years (new USA, new 'grey', and used) and I've <em><strong>rarely</strong></em> experienced the kind of issues you describe - neither in use nor with Leica service. Leica has, without exception, attempted to make it right by me regardless of whatever issue has come up (and there haven't been many).</p>

<p>Not to undermine any negative experience(s) you may have had with Leica - but they're built (and serviced) to high standards by imperfect human beings, just like Nikon products.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Swapped a M2 body and 50mm lens for a new Nikon-F outfit with all the warranties back in '67. ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>BTW, I made a similar trade - two Nikon bodies (an F2 Photomic and an FM2) and five prime AIS lenses for a Leica M6 classic and a 50mm Summicron. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>My M3, with me since 1972 except for the 2.5 years it was stolen (I spotted it on the street in Manila and got it back) had two Leica CLAs at Leitz Hong Kong before 1986, when I moved home to the USA, two more since then. After the last one, my repair man told me it's adjusted as far as it will go. And the second set of neckstrap lugs is well-worn.<br>

I haven't put<em> that</em> much film through it, but it has given me some of my favorite images ever, using a mix of Canon (19mm f/3.5, 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.5), Nikon (85mm f/2.0) and Leitz (50mm Summilux, 90mm Elmar) lenses. As others have noted, it's a different, more abstract shooting experience than using an SLR. You don't see lens flare, depth of focus, not even exact subject alignment, so the Leica works from a different part of your brain, perhaps a more mathematical area.<br>

The Nikon FTn I bought in 1968 and its lenses have worked flawlessly the whole time, in spite of covering many riots, motorcycle trips, trips across Asia and into jungles and beaches, you name it. The F2s have been just as reliable, remarkably so in that 3 or 4 of my Nikon bodies and about 6 lenses were submerged in sea water for an hour or so, one stormy trip in an outrigger canoe, and all emerged unscathed after being washed out like so many dishes in a men's room sink. You should have seen the looks I got from men who came in to find me running water through my Nikons! 30 years later, they're still fine.<br>

One of the photo magazines back in the '70s, in a piece about Leica rangefinder cameras, wrote that M3s' factory assembly was so labor-intensive that doing it in 1970s US $ would cost some outrageous sum---I seem to recall that it would have been $1500, maybe more! Whether that was true or not, it reflected the hand fitting involved in putting those little gems together.<br>

At UPI Manila, we used to get Nikon F bodies out of Vietnam that were full of mud, right into the top housing, but they still either worked or did after cleaning up. And F2s were better built, in Nikon's response to the superb quality of the purely mechanical Canon F1s. The earliest Nikon FEs were terrible, jamming so frequently that I removed the screws from the bottom plates and held them in place with the motors. When one of them quit, I could spin the thumb wheel of the motor off, drop it and the base plate, flip a gizmo inside the camera, and be back shooting in less than 30 seconds. They, and Nikon's arrogant denial that there was anything wrong with them, caused my move to Canons about 1980, but that's another story.<br>

That was truly the golden age of some of the most beautiful machines that will ever be built by humans. How fortunate we were, and are, to be able to enjoy them!</p>

<p>My first Nikon F models were bought used in 1972. In 1974, I bought a new F2--black with a plain prism. Although both the F bodies were eventually stolen, the F2 was used both recreationally and professionally until late 1991. During that time, it was dented, dunked and, at one point, it was considered damaged beyond repair by my insurance company. I bought it back from the insurance agent and Nikon Professional Services was able to get it working again. It continued to function as good as new for several more years. I still have it. It looks like hell but it still works. During this same period, I also owned and abused several other Nikon F2 bodies. None of them ever quit working although a couple of them were destroyed while on assignment. Of course, at the point they were destroyed, they were no longer functional. <br>

My first Leica was an M4-P sometime in the mid-1980s. I used it for several years professionally but it never suffered the abuse of the Nikons. Years later I bought a couple of M6 bodies that served me as recreational cameras for several additional years. All the Leicas were sold for more than I paid for them. All of them were dependable and joys to use.<br>

While none of my Leicas ever got the serious abuse of my Nikons, I cannot imagine they could have withstood such treatment on a consistent basis and not required frequent maintenance and adjustment. Does that mean they had better build quality? Not really. It just means they are not the hockey pucks the Nikons were. For most normal people who take better care of their equipment than photojournalists, there's really no reason to choose one over the other.<br>

To echo Joe Cantrell's experience, I also became frustrated with Nikon when they introduced the early FM and F3 models. Those early cameras had constant problems. I eventually bought used F2 bodies for their dependability and used them to finish out my career in newspaper photography. As an amateur, I later switched to Canon when I wanted autofocus--as Joe said, "another story". </p>

<p>i do not "have an ax to grind"as stated by Gus. I love my Leica. I also see it for what it is and what it isn't! There is no camera body and lenses of this quality in this small package, so easy to carry around and use.There are those that believe all the hype of "small production, hand adjusted" wonders.Having worked in one of the finest, if not the finest, workshop in the world, in Europe and certainly the world, i have another viewpoint!<br>

The workers all very dedicated to quality were also folks who had to celebrate a "birth of a baby" an old worker coming by..all with ample glasses of wine. Usually in the afternoon. I'm not saying all the work suffered. Nope!<br>

Just my M3 with three signatures on quality control slip and warranty. Party day!<br>

Everybody knows my M3 is Ziggy. This long together, he gotta have a name. Sigmund Leitz.</p>

<p>Bill, not Gus. "If anything can go wrong, it will."</p>

<p>Please be aware of Leica M9. On April 9th 2012 I discovered to my horror that I had a cracked infrared sensor. This created a bubble like anomaly in the sky of my photographs. I travel a lot and had not used this particular camera for some time. The warranty expired on April 9th 2012. Coincidentally...! I took the camera in for repair at Schmidt Marketing (HK) Ltd. They refused to honour my two year warranty. My Leica M9 was originally purchased in New Zealand from Lacklands. Warranty is recognised worldwide, when one travels to foreign destinations. The cost for the repair US$2000 +. Frankly, I am disgusted with the way I was treated by the above. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"with ample glasses of wine. Usually in the afternoon" <em><strong>Jason G.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That explains a lot...</p>

<p>The afternoon parties is typical of Europe! In North America absolutely unknown..<br>

The work done at the workshops i attended were of the highest order but..<br>

My Leicas and me are almost inseparable.<br>

You don't throw away your kid because the diaper is dirty..</p>

<p>I have a Nikon F (meterless) and a Nikon F2 and to go with that a Leica M3. Love them all. Been through it all. The M3 is definitively more elegant to use. Appeals to my sensitive side and the Nikon's to my Monday Night Football side. That being said I will never let any of them go.</p>

<p>I thought of selling some..until a friend started handling one.. came back to me!<br>

Doesn't play well with others..will NOT share his toys! It's mine!<br>

Point is 'nothing is like a Leica'. Not similar, not "like", not almost! It is a Leica or it is NOT.</p>

<p>You are comparing tomatos with potatos.........................</p>

<p>I have had many Nikons and quite a few Leicas. One thing to remember also is that the Nikon F's have clunky mirrors. This seems to be made smoother with different foam. Of course Leica has no mirror, but the F's 100 percent view is hard to not love! </p>

<p>What a fascinating thread! Most of you seem to be or have been professional photographers. I'm just an amateur using a Leica IIIa and an M3. Both have given me some trouble, the IIIa with the rewind sticking at awkard times and the M3 with shutter speeds and rangefinder trouble. I've lived with these problems for years but am finally having them looked after. My SLR experience is with Pentax S1a and Spotmatics; never any trouble with these, including use in the Andes in SA and in East Africa, but neither gives the appearance of being sturdy (which the M3 does). About to receive a Nikon F2; this will be my first experience with Nikon and I'm looking forward to it. Both the Leica (Elmar and Summaron) and the Takumar lenses have been excellent (with the Leica lenses clearly better) and none have ever given any trouble at all. Am also looking forward to trying the Nikkor lenses (however will only be getting a 35mm f2 and a 28mm, size unknown).</p>

<p>What is not sturdy about a Pentax Spotmatic? Pentax is a bit of a modern sad case, but the spotmatic was their high point. I have had metering levers fall off, but that's nothing compared with dropping an M on its rangefinder cowling......</p>

 

<p>IMHO, I think they're both great camera lines..</p>

<p>The one reason to consider this (which is a better built quality ) is physical abuse,built better ,no there is no graph of reference to determine a winner ,be it body or lens , not like if we introduced a plastic camera were the plastic would be a disadvantage, or if it was hand built ,or if both were factory fresh ,or used for a long time , you will see many more Leica's prized and on the self and kept for a investment or a collectors advantage ,while you will see many more Nikon's out in the dirt ,the storms ,the wars , the shooters hand ,being used and in time worn out from the 40 ,50 , 100, years being used, a f may not reach the built of a Leica m3s quality but most certainly a f2 , We will wait the day you own both of these cameras and you too like all of us will still be puzzled which is better and why and with your query you will take it upon you to determine the results with experience and let us know !</p>