Leica M Build quality vs Nikon F2

<p>I am curious as to whether Nikon F2 build quality matched or surpassed the build quality of the Leica M bodies built generally during the same time. The Nikon F2, (1971-1980), was the last camera body Nikon assembled by hand, and has mostly brass gears. I believe the Leica M4/M5 were the last hand assembled Leica cameras which also had brass gears. Production stopped for both the Leica M4 & M5 in 1975.</p>

<p>Having owned many of both the early Leica M and Nikon F2 bodies , it is this layman's opinion that the hand assembled Nikon F2 is build every bit as well as the early hand assembled Leica M bodies.</p>

<p>What is your opinion?</p>

<p>Hi Robert,<br>

While I have never owned a Leica, I have NEVER heard of anyone question the build quality. I am a classic Nikon owner myself. Considering that the "F" series was and is designed as the flagship/professional models...I would think them outstanding no matter what they are compared to!<br>

Keep shooting!<br>

Mark</p>

<p>used M2 and M3 alongside several F2 variants for a long time. sold the Ms eventually, kept the F2s. i can't tell you much about build quality (frankly, i don't even know what it might mean--tight-fitting parts? play's good in this dusty world) but the nikons were simply more reliable and felt more reassuring, no matter what the job; i never had the patience for babysitting the Ms with their brittle finders, leaky shutters and three-handed film change</p>

<blockquote>

<p>While I have never owned a Leica, I have NEVER heard of anyone question the build quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am <strong>not</strong> questioning the build quality of early Leica M bodies, Mark. Rather, I am comparing the build quality of early Leica M bodies to the Nikon F2 body.</p>

<p>Perhaps best, Robert, not to speak of the abstract but of something real like total life or interval between routine maintenance jobs, both expressed in numbers of exposures. Your question, as phrased, is more easily answered by engineers than by users.</p>

<p>The Nikon F shutter was a copy of the Leica M shutter. Had its leaks -- for it must have had them -- been plugged by the time the F2 came out?</p>

<p>The early Leica Ms had rubberized cloth shutter curtains. The Nikon F2 had quilted titanium foil curtains from the start. Never heard of a leaky F2 curtain, except from damage like sticking a finger or foreign object through it. You could quickly burn a hole in a Leica shutter curtain simply by inadvertently pointing the camera at the sun with the lens cap off.</p>

<p>Except for the first 100 or so the F also had titanium foil shutter curtains also. But matters not, the mirror in most SLR's was down all the time anyway so focused sunlight could not reach the curtain material. My OM-1 has rubberized silk curtains but unless I leave the mirror up there is no problem with burning the curtain.</p>

<p>It seems Leica's are more subject to damage from impact than a Nikon F / F2, more stuff to get misaligned. That said they were used by a lot of working photographers in the 50's~80's, presumably because of their ruggedness. </p>

<p>Did you ever see that picture of Garry Winogrand's last M-4 on the Cameraquest site? The pattern of the sprocket holes can be seen in the pressure plate! And the chrome looks like it's worn through on the ends of the body. More Leicas suffer from disuse than overuse.</p>

<p>Sorry Robert, didn't mean that as it sounded. I questioned how that was going to sound once I posted it. What I meant to say is that the Leica quality imho is relatively unquestioned. Hope that sounds different.<br>

Thanks,<br>

mark</p>

<p>Top of the line equipment is "top of the line." Having used both and under normal circumstances both are the same in ruggedness.</p>

<p>I'm talking about materials and workmanship. For instance, it's not uncommon for the vulcanite covering of a Leica M4 or earlier M body to be cracking and falling off. This is not so with the Nikon F2 leatherette in my experience. The leatherette covering of my very first Nikon F2 from 1971 is still intact, and rarely do you ever see this robust Nikon covering ever failing.</p>

<p>I think the way to look at it is tolerances.<br>

On the Nikon F or F2, what has to be precise to focus accurately? The distance from the lens to the film has to be the same as the distance from the lens via the mirror to the focusing screen. That's it. <br>

On the Leica M, the flange-to-film distance has to be correct, the lens has to be properly collimated, the infinity setting of the rangefinder has to be correct, the rate (gain, slope) of the rangefinder has to be correct (for close focusing), and the movement of the focusing cam on the lens has to be correct for the actual (not nominal) focal length of the lens. All these tolerances are cumulative, so EVERY ONE of them has to be more accurate than the one tolerance on the Nikon F or F2.<br>

Everything else is apples to apples. Both have to have the lens perpendicular to the film. The shutter speeds have to be accurate. The apertures have to be accurate. The meter has to be accurate.<br>

Autofocus SLRs are more complicated in this respect than manual focus, since there's three distances that have to be the same, lens to film (or sensor), lens to focusing screen, and lens to focusing sensor. Think about that, and you realize why mirror-less cameras with contrast detection autofocus are attractive to manufacturers -- no focus calibration is needed at all. The lens simply "is" as far from the sensor as it "is".</p>

<p>This type of theoretical discussion could go on for years, pointlessly. The Nikon is an abject copy of an earlier Leica regarding it's shutter.</p>

<p>Both have a high build quality, probably are better cameras than you or I are a photographer. </p>

<p>The build quality of the Leica's were a level better as The M3, M2 and M4's were pretty much the top of the mechanical camera age for quality of machining. The German guild system still can boast the finest machinists in the world. The Nikon F and F2 were also fabulous and built like tanks and really well made, but the M's are a bit better. Get a M3 in your hand that's in good shape and an F and run a roll of film through them and see if you "feel" a difference.</p>

I never shot the F2 as I was almost exclusively a Canon shooter. I have three Canon F1 models - one is the original and

best built, the other two are the later early 1980s. The first F1 is similar to the Nikon F2 in build ( they were direct

competitors) and has the milled from a solid block feel you get from a Leica. I think it is difficult to compare the build

quality as they had slightly different objectives. The canon build is not as refined as a Leica build. The Leica is slightly

smoother feeling in use. However, the canon is almost certainly more rugged. I have used my F1 s in all sorts of

extreme conditions and I have never had a single issue with any of them - they just keep on shooting. Drop an f1 in the

snow in -40 and it keeps working. I once had one fall down a mountain (in a backpack) almost 2000 feet. The slope was

probably 65 to 70 degrees and mainly talus (scree). The F1 suffered from dents on most of it's corners but almost 25

years later that body still works fine. If I remember rightly the popular photography test of one of the F1 models included

taking it in the shower for 45 minutes (and this camera was not sold as being waterproof). I think that any of these bodies

from the late 1970s has great build quality but there are differences in the objective of the manufacturer. The early Nikon

F bodies (I only ever worked with the F3) and Canon F1 s were built to endure a hard life with a lot of physical abuse and

little care. The Leica was engineered to be more of a "quality" product. So for quality of engineering I would say the

Leica wins. But for durability and reliability these old Canon and Nikon bodies are hard to beat. Indeed probably the most

robust body I have ever used (and I still own one) is a Nikonos - I am sure you can drive a car over this body without

damaging it.

<p>I'm still using an M4 bought in 1970. During that time I've had several Nikon F and Nikkormats require servicing, repairs, or replacement. The Leica has more smoothness of operation that is apparent when used alongside the Nikons. The reliability of the Nikkormat has been comparable to the Nikon F.</p>

<p>If they are sent to me, I shall take time off from my busy schedule and subject a Leica M5 and a Nikon F2 to my special destruction-testing-in-actual-use. In view of my relative youth, a 50-year programme can easily be managed. However, I shall accept the samples only if they come with the lenses I want.</p>

<p>In my experience the <em>feel, fit & finish</em> certainly goes to the Leica.</p>

<p>First a Nikon F2 and it's brass content, <strong>pales</strong> in comparison to a modern Leica MP which is packed full of brass material.</p>

<p>Now, Nikon F2 units:</p>

<ol>

<li>As it relates to shutter <strong>performance</strong>, are far more accurate and adjustable. </li>

<li>Tolerances for <em>fit</em> are comparably loose, but this is designed for system and environmental reasons. </li>

<li>With age, the plastic & leatherette has been progressively getting hard/brittle along with shrinkage. (Keep in mind that in order to conduct a full C L A, one must peel a majority of the leatherette off) </li>

<li>Adhesive holding the titanium foil to the alloy barrel and ribs, can and has failed. </li>

<li>Multiple bits of <strong>foam</strong> employed thorough-out the body are now in failure. </li>

<li>Plastic battery box failure and an array of meter issues.</li>

</ol>

<p>Of course they're <em>both</em> great, but with all that said, the <em>feel, fit and finish</em> may go to a Rolls Royce, but I doubt you can compare a RR to <strong>the performance</strong> of a fine Porsche product...</p>

<p>In their time, both were very effective photojournalistic tools and used interchangeably by many. I personally have used both over the years, although I was never a photojournalist.</p>

<p>The M3/2 bodies were made to the tightest tolerances of the time - tighter than the Nikon, I would say. But when the rubber meets the road, in similar 'rough' photojournalist shooting conditions, the Leica M might have an RF wacked out of alignment, while the Nikon would remain unaffected.</p>

<p>On other words, in the real world, although the Leica was built to tighter tolerances, the Nikon was probably a more reliable shooting tool. </p>

<p>Although I believe this to be true, I still own - and occasionally use - a Leica M2. My Nikons were sold away long ago. While the Nikon is 'tougher', to me the M2 is simply a more elegant shooting tool producing more 'elegant' results compared to the Nikon.</p>

 

<p>I am a Leica M fan; MP, M6 and M8. I started photography 40 years ago with an F2. I still have it, alongside F4 and F6. While it is a total world of fun and joy having an M in hand (its feel, weight, sound, etc), its quality does not even go to the neighborhood of an F2. Leica is great, like a Benz, only, and only, if you super take care of it like playing with flower. F2 is a workhorse. It is a masterpiece of engineering, while M is an artform.</p>

<p>A friend has emailed me asking why I even posted this subject.</p>

<p>For years I simply assumed the early hand assembled Leica M bodies to be made<br>

ofbetter materials and assembled to higher tolerances than the Nikon F2, which<br>

was also hand assembled. Having sold my Leica collection, I now have only my<br>

Nikon F2 collection to study. After carefully examining one of my better samples<br>

of a Nikon F2, it occurred to me that it might rival or even surpass the build<br>

quality of the early Leica M bodies, more than I ever before imagined.</p>

<p>This post was further inspired by Sover Wong who services only the Nikon F2<br>

camera and provides step by step photos on a CD of one's camera being<br>

disassembled and serviced. After viewing one of these CDs, it struck me that the<br>

interior of an F2 was as impressively engineered and constructed as any early<br>

Leica M body I had seen internally.</p>

<p>Close examination of the exterior of one of my minty Nikon F2 bodies leaves me<br>

equally impressed. Of my once extensive collection, I now have only a Leica M6<br>

for comparison, and while I personally conclude the two cameras are very well<br>

made, the Nikon has the advantage in my opinion. The upper and lower plates<br>

are thicker, and from experience, I know the Nikon chrome is more durable.<br>

Small levers like the self timer on the Nikon are more robust and solid, but can<br>

be wiggled forward and backward on the Leica. I remember the Leica M4 levers<br>

being particularly loose in that regard. Likewise, lifting up on the extended film<br>

advance lever of the Leica, reveals about 1+mm of play. There is no such play in<br>

the Nikon film advance levers of any of the six samples I have. All of these<br>

Nikons and the M6 I mention have seen little use.</p>

<p>My purpose is not to disparage Leica, but simply to convey my observations and<br>

see if anyone else has noticed the same thing. After 40 years of not really<br>

looking closely, I am really surprised at how well the hand assembled Nikon F2<br>

compares to the Leica M.</p>

<p>Hi Robert ! An interesting & fun thread. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"the Nikon has the advantage in my opinion. The upper and lower plates are thicker" <br>

<em><strong>Robert Hooper</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure how you're measuring that Bob.<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

In fact the two top plates of the F2 are relativity thin and bendable. Not so with the capsule like top of a Leica. Plus the removable baseplate on the Leica is an unyielding "billet"; contrast that with a removed Nikon F2 baseplate which is easily twisted...</p>

<p>Robert, I don't know if rigidity of parts is always a virtue. Usually mechanical components are designed to have a little "give", a little flex. It is not necessarily sloppy workmanship or too loose tolerances. Gus might have something to say on this matter.</p>

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

<p>Mukul, I referred to this "give" with my statement:<br>

"<em>Tolerances for fit</em><em> are comparably loose, but this is designed for system and environmental reasons</em>". <br>

<br /><br>

<em>System</em> addresses the <strong>easy interchangeability</strong> of the many accessories in the F2 line. <br>

<em>Environmental</em> relates to the temperature and debris extremes the designers intended the camera <strong>still to function in</strong>. </p>

<p>You guys are talking way over my head, now. ;-)</p>