Leica M Build quality vs Nikon F2

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by robert_hooper|1, Apr 15, 2012.

  1. 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.
    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.
    What is your opinion?
  2. mtk


    Hi Robert,
    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!
    Keep shooting!
  3. 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
  4. While I have never owned a Leica, I have NEVER heard of anyone question the build quality.​
    I am not 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.
  5. 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.
    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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
    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.
    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.
  8. mtk


    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.
  9. Top of the line equipment is "top of the line." Having used both and under normal circumstances both are the same in ruggedness.
  10. 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.
  11. I think the way to look at it is tolerances.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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".
  12. 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.
    Both have a high build quality, probably are better cameras than you or I are a photographer.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. In my experience the feel, fit & finish certainly goes to the Leica.
    First a Nikon F2 and it's brass content, pales in comparison to a modern Leica MP which is packed full of brass material.
    Now, Nikon F2 units:
    1. As it relates to shutter performance, are far more accurate and adjustable.
    2. Tolerances for fit are comparably loose, but this is designed for system and environmental reasons.
    3. 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)
    4. Adhesive holding the titanium foil to the alloy barrel and ribs, can and has failed.
    5. Multiple bits of foam employed thorough-out the body are now in failure.
    6. Plastic battery box failure and an array of meter issues.
    Of course they're both great, but with all that said, the feel, fit and finish may go to a Rolls Royce, but I doubt you can compare a RR to the performance of a fine Porsche product...
  18. 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.
    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.
    On other words, in the real world, although the Leica was built to tighter tolerances, the Nikon was probably a more reliable shooting tool.
    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.
  19. 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.
  20. A friend has emailed me asking why I even posted this subject.
    For years I simply assumed the early hand assembled Leica M bodies to be made
    ofbetter materials and assembled to higher tolerances than the Nikon F2, which
    was also hand assembled. Having sold my Leica collection, I now have only my
    Nikon F2 collection to study. After carefully examining one of my better samples
    of a Nikon F2, it occurred to me that it might rival or even surpass the build
    quality of the early Leica M bodies, more than I ever before imagined.
    This post was further inspired by Sover Wong who services only the Nikon F2
    camera and provides step by step photos on a CD of one's camera being
    disassembled and serviced. After viewing one of these CDs, it struck me that the
    interior of an F2 was as impressively engineered and constructed as any early
    Leica M body I had seen internally.
    Close examination of the exterior of one of my minty Nikon F2 bodies leaves me
    equally impressed. Of my once extensive collection, I now have only a Leica M6
    for comparison, and while I personally conclude the two cameras are very well
    made, the Nikon has the advantage in my opinion. The upper and lower plates
    are thicker, and from experience, I know the Nikon chrome is more durable.
    Small levers like the self timer on the Nikon are more robust and solid, but can
    be wiggled forward and backward on the Leica. I remember the Leica M4 levers
    being particularly loose in that regard. Likewise, lifting up on the extended film
    advance lever of the Leica, reveals about 1+mm of play. There is no such play in
    the Nikon film advance levers of any of the six samples I have. All of these
    Nikons and the M6 I mention have seen little use.
    My purpose is not to disparage Leica, but simply to convey my observations and
    see if anyone else has noticed the same thing. After 40 years of not really
    looking closely, I am really surprised at how well the hand assembled Nikon F2
    compares to the Leica M.
  21. Hi Robert ! An interesting & fun thread.
    "the Nikon has the advantage in my opinion. The upper and lower plates are thicker"
    Robert Hooper
    Not sure how you're measuring that Bob.
    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...
  22. 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.
  23. Leica is a Luger; Nikon's a Colt .45 Automatic -- German precision, tight tolerances; American (Japanese in case of Nikon) dependability/flexibility.
  24. Mukul, I referred to this "give" with my statement:
    "Tolerances for fit are comparably loose, but this is designed for system and environmental reasons".

    System addresses the easy interchangeability of the many accessories in the F2 line.
    Environmental relates to the temperature and debris extremes the designers intended the camera still to function in.
  25. You guys are talking way over my head, now. ;-)
  26. 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.
    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.
    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...
  27. "Leica used constantly need service" ?
    "Small bumps can affect the rangefinder" ?
    "rangefinder not that accurate with longer lens" ?
    "The CDS meter on M, dead a few years after purchase" ?
    "a brand new M3, 1,100,000 series with parts lacking in rfdr" ?
    Jason Gold
    ? = Huh?
  28. "Leica is a Luger; Nikon's a Colt .45 Automatic -- German precision, tight tolerances; American (Japanese in case of Nikon) dependability/flexibility."​
    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.
    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.
    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.
  29. Huh-?
    yup. all that and more!
    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.
    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
    Receiving the M3 without all of rangefinder should have warned me. That is when i should have quit..
    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.
    Leica services and technicians and their families again thank you for all your help and hope i made a difference.
  30. yup. all that and more!
    … 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. ...
    Receiving the M3 without all of rangefinder [???] should have warned me. That is when i should have quit..
    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.
    Leica services and technicians and their families again thank you for all your help and hope i made a difference.​
    Unfortunately, I can’t sympathize.
    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 rarely 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).
    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.
    Swapped a M2 body and 50mm lens for a new Nikon-F outfit with all the warranties back in '67. ...​
    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.
  31. 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.
    I haven't put that 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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!
  32. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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".
  33. 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!
    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!
    Just my M3 with three signatures on quality control slip and warranty. Party day!
    Everybody knows my M3 is Ziggy. This long together, he gotta have a name. Sigmund Leitz.
  34. Bill, not Gus. "If anything can go wrong, it will."
  35. 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.
  36. "with ample glasses of wine. Usually in the afternoon" Jason G.
    That explains a lot...
  37. The afternoon parties is typical of Europe! In North America absolutely unknown..
    The work done at the workshops i attended were of the highest order but..
    My Leicas and me are almost inseparable.
    You don't throw away your kid because the diaper is dirty..
  38. 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.
  39. I thought of selling some..until a friend started handling one.. came back to me!
    Doesn't play well with others..will NOT share his toys! It's mine!
    Point is 'nothing is like a Leica'. Not similar, not "like", not almost! It is a Leica or it is NOT.
  40. You are comparing tomatos with potatos.........................
  41. 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!
  42. 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).
  43. 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......
  44. IMHO, I think they're both great camera lines..
  45. 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 !

Share This Page