Nikon F3t/fm3a vs Leicaflex SL/ Leica R7

Hi

 

Greetings to this forum :)

 

I have a question I would like to post.

 

After having been a long time RF shooter ( have Leicas M2, 3, 4-P, 5, 6 ttl, and 7, and 1 bessa r2a, and an r4m, Leitz, CV, and ZM glass,

kind of 50/30/20 ) I do acknowledge tha sometings simply cannot be done in RFs...

 

So I was considering to venture into the slr world, my options are Nikon f3t/fm3a and eventually an F6 or a digital ff dslr, or Leicaflex

SL/Leica R7.

 

Afaik, Leica R glass is insanely more expensive than Nikkor AIs, Nikkor Ais is forward compatible with Nikon D800, while Leica R is

compatible with Leica R bodies, period.

 

Nikon SLRs will allow me to shoot Zeiss Zf glass, as well as Voigtlander Sl 2....

 

Now, my questions :

 

In terms of "bulletproofness", serviceability, reliability, and of course, IQ, which system would you select... ??

 

Which of these two camera brands / camera models would you bring into a war zone... ??

 

Best regards,

 

Paulo

<p>Neither. I would get (and have) the F100. Not only can it use Ai and AIS glass, it can also use the latest Nikon AF and AF with VR glass. Unless you need the Nikon CLS for flash, you probably would not need the F6.</p>

<p>I believe Steve McCurry used a F100 (among other cameras) on assignment, so it is relatively "bulletproof". And if it does break, at current used prices, simply junk it and get another used one.</p>

<p>For film cameras, IQ is mostly a function of the film and lens; the main part the body plays is in the metering system. The F100 metering system is very good.</p>

<p>Nikon F, F2 ,F5, F6 ,F100, FM2, FM3a would be my choices just pick the one you like best. Are you really going to a war zone?</p>

<p>Steve McCurry also used the FM2. It was the FM2, with a Nikkor 105mm 2.5, and Kodachrome used to get the Sharbot Gula shot, "Afghan Girl," Today my preference would be the FM3a.</p>

Hi gents, thanks 4 your insights :)

 

@Stewart :

 

I have been in some, anyway, I like to travel to weird places, where things like a Government, or Police, or Law are only

meaningless words... Call it "transient states" in Nation evolution.. ..I may ( not sure yet) go to Ukraine in January...and

take some photos there....

 

My long life dream is one day being able to enter North Korea, travel inside, completely unrestrained, shoot lots of photos,

and get out of there, alive and by my own feet preferably... :)

<p>If you're shooting wide open with "standard" lenses, Leica glass barely squeeks out the lead, IMHO, followed closely by Zeiss, then Nikon/Canon (neck in neck depending on focal length). Top of the line glass, I think for your purposes, the results would be almost indistinguishable. The Nikon F6 is horrendously expensive and heavy....I'd go for the F5 (heavy as a brick also but much less expensive than an F6), or a F100 (much like an F5 but lighter, less bulletproof, fewer interchangeable focusing screens) - still a great camera though. With the Leicas you don't get autofocus - I'd go for an F8 over the F7 as they are better bodies, and personally I'd choose a Leicaflex SL2 over a standard Leicaflex. I've personally owned all the bodies mentioned, so speak from personal experience.</p>

<p>I appreciate your demeanor, but North Korea and completely unrestrained shooting is a <em>mission</em> <em>impossible</em> (at least currently). You might want to contact our embassy in S. Korea for more info and read reviews from people that tried something similar. Anyway, you'd have a shadow (and or a driver) assigned to you....and you could be in plenty of doo doo when you point the camera at "wrong" direction. Oh, did I mention that you'd be paying for having this "minder" to be with you ?</p>

<p>My fave is Nikon F2 ( tank) and if you want to combine with optics that surpass Leica, you may want to look at the recent Schneider offerings: 25/2.1, 50/2.8, 90/4.5 macro and 100/2.1...some of these are T-lenses (for transmission). These are esoteric-enough, that you might have to sell your Hummer to be able to afford this level of optics.</p>

<p>Enjoy all those alternative places...and stay safe.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Leica R glass is insanely more expensive than Nikkor </p>

</blockquote>

<p>And not insanely better. The F100 would be my pick for the best in size, weight, features, durability and price. I love the F2 and F3HP as well but you are beginning to get into some real vintage stuff. I own all of these including a Leicaflex Sl and R6.</p>

Hi Louis Meluso,

 

Would you deem leicaflex SL to be tougher and more rugged than the F3hp, or an Fm2n... ??

 

Br

 

Paulo

<p>Several years ago I shot a comparison test roll for Contax, Nikon and Leica each with their 35mm f2.8 lens. Ten shots each on 36 roll Ektachrome. All of the same 10 low-mid-and high contrast landscapes. I compared the frames on a Leica slide projector at about 24x36 on a neutral silver screen. They were all very comparable and adequate. I forced myself to pick one or two that were at least very slightly better than the rest. They were both Contax. After that test I went straight Nikon for 35mm and have not looked back. The F100 is the one body that I have used the most. It is so flexible and compatible, it's almost boring. Just get the premium Nikkor lenses.</p>

<p>If you can find a low miles F3t that would be my choice. It will use any glass made by Nikon up to the series G stuff. But for all out going to work no matter what I would take an F2 with a non metered prism.</p>

<p>I think more Nikon SLR's were in the war zone than the Leica SLR's. There were many Leica RF's in the war zones but not Leica SLR's. <br>

So I say go for the Nikon system.</p>

<p>Having shot miles of film through the Nikon product line, if I had to go somewhere to shoot film where I HAD to get results my choices are the F4s, F2 and F3. I'm not a big fan of AF so all my glass would be AI or AIs. Tough as nails and dead reliable, the rest of the line has some excellent models but these are the three I count on for film use.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>A quick question, Paulo:</p>

<p>Is it necessary for you to shoot film on these adventures? For the things you say you'd like to do, wouldn't you want to shoot digital? You could carry thousands of images on memory cards in your pocket. You could shoot in extremely low light. You'd wouldn't have to change film every 36 images. You could decide later whether you want to render in color or B&W. And you could save an awful lot of money on film and processing costs. </p>

<p>Is it the money? Honestly, any 35 year old camera is going to be a roll of the dice, and mostly unserviceable except in a few select boutique houses. There are 10-15 year-old F3ts out there somewhere. They have an electronic shutter though, and can only do 1/80th without a battery, which can sometimes be finicky. Once you're into the newer all-electronic AF bodies, even the F100, you might as well have a DSLR. </p>

<p>You won't need to buy and carry 100 rolls of film in and out of sensitive areas and protect them from xrays. You can upload your pictures to the web/cloud if you have a laptop, and sell them to the wire services or publish breaking news. You can carry tens of thousands of images on a handful of memory cards. You can have backup copies, in case one copy is seized. </p>

<p>A D3s is a nice piece of kit, if 12MP is enough for you. It's built like a tank. It has a great viewfinder. You can focus manually with it. It handles great. And it works beautifully at the highest ISO settings. The D4 is better, but a lot more money.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Would you deem leicaflex SL to be tougher and more rugged than the F3hp, or an Fm2n</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Heavier, yes. The F3HP (T) is a top flight professional camera system. I was never in a war zone with one but I pounded countless rolls through mine for 13 years, in all kinds of weather, without a hitch. I wear eyeglasses which was part of the appeal of the F3HP to me...great finder. Also it was one of the reason I sold my FM2n with it's short eye point I had trouble seeing the whole frame. Otherwise a good, compact solution.<br>

If you want something with basic controls and real old school, precise, hand built, all-mechanical quality, the Nikon F2, with the plain prism, is where you should look. See my post <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00U6uW">HERE</a>. The Leicaflex doesn't come close.</p>

<p>If you intend to shoot a lot of pictures under harsh conditions in situations where equipment failure would cost you money and a repair service is a long way away, you would be crazy to shoot with any 30-year-old camera. The only possible choice among the cameras you mention is the FM3a, moving to an F6 sooner rather than later.</p>

<p>I have a Leica R6, a normal F3 (not the HP) and a FM2n. Out of these three, for bullet-proofness, I would take the F3; it's a brick. The FM2n next - feels more solid in every way than the R6. Both R6 and FM2 have the obvious advantage of working without a battery, which the F3 can do only with very serious limits.<br>

Going digital does sound a bit more practical - any full frame Nikon will do what you want, and do so admirably. In the current situation, I think the D750 is the most interesting one to consider (though personally, I'd favour the D810 for the way its controls are laid out, but that's more my habit than something the knock the D750 on). The initial investment would obviously be a bit more, and you'd rely on having electrical power frequently enough, but after that, you would be set. Film is not getting cheaper.</p>

<p>I do not yet have a lot of lenses for the R6, while for the Nikons I am pretty well sorted. Yet, that few Leica lenses I have - they do perform absolutely fabulous. They are pricey, but to get Nikons with comparable performance, you're going to pay as well (with some exceptions). I think all in all, it is not making a world of difference in optical performance if you choose the right lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...while Leica R is compatible with Leica R bodies, period.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look up <a href="http://www.leitax.com/">Leitax </a>- it is possible to convert quite a number of Leica R lenses to Nikon F mount.<br>

Another option, not cheap but might fit in with your way of working, is the latest Leica M (typ 240, if I recall well), with the converter for R lenses.</p>

<p>'Which of these two camera brands / camera models would you bring into a war zone... ??' <a href="http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf2/f2/variants/f2titan/">Nikon F2 T</a>: '...the ultimate choice for those who demand a camera that would provide them a level of dependability even being assigned to hell.' - Leonard Foo at MIR.com<br /> <br /> I also like/shoot the FM3a as a compact alternative.</p>

@Luke Raven,

 

I do understand these issues, but... Are dSLRs rugged enough... ??

 

I mean.. Dust in the sensor, because of changing the lenses, damp, shock, vibration, extreme inclement hot/cold...

 

So far I only shot two digitals... An M8, which I sold, ( my ultra wides were no longer ultra wides... ), and a Canon eos

600d, that dies at temps below -15....

 

I know that electronics can be made as rugged and reliable as possible... My Laptop is a Toughbook CF-19 MK6, my

cellphone is an AGM Rock V20... I mean.. These things are virtually indestructible... But I doubt that such resilience and

ruggedness has ever been put in a dSLR...

<p>Wouldn't a Nikon F2 be in the running? No battery, interchangeable finders, built very well and no limit on older lenses. No autofocus but I think that is all you'll be giving up.</p>

<p>I think if you're really considering going to a war zone or its equivalent, including -15 degree temperatures, and such, an all mechanical camera with no battery dependency makes sense. A good meter is nice, but you can survive without it. Manual focus lenses will focus even if they are too cold to move smoothly or if you drop them and bend something. Auto diaphragm lenses will still work, in preview mode or wide open, or manually, even if the diaphragm gets gummy and stops working right. A mechanical shutter will usually work no matter what, if not on one speed then another. I've had a Nikon F out on -20 degree days tramping through the snow, and no issues at all. I've dropped it in the snow, left it in freezing cars over night, and the only issue was a foggy finder. An F2 is newer and a little nicer but it still has the heart of an F. If you're seriously looking for utter toughness, I'd get an F or an F2 and have it cleaned and lubed and checked out, and then get a good quality pocket digital point and shoot that's water resistant, and keep that in your pocket just in case the F2 falls off a cliff.</p>

@Warren Williams

 

Yes, this is an option I would be considering, as a backup body for a hypothetical ( dont know if it even exists.. ) dSLR with

the same level of dependability.

 

Just as a side note :D

 

I graduated in Mechanical engineering with major in dynamic behaviour os materials under high strain rate loading, (

shock wave induced phase transitions, shock wave implosion, self forging projectiles, etc )

 

My first paid work was as researcher in an ordonnance research laboratory which was a spin off. Of my university. That

lab had an ongoing research project with the ONR ( office of naval research, USA) because it is located in a NATO

country.

 

One day, when testing a magneto-cumulative generator in a test site ( this is the kind of "portable" device that one uses to

unleash electric intensities in the range of Giga Amperes, in microseconds and feed it to another such devices, only larger

as a seed current, or to a high power microwave oscillator... ) ...every kind of electronic device, within hundreds of meters

had a soft reset...cell phones, computers, electronic watches, ..you name it.. Those nearer had an electronic hard kill,the

EM field caused dielectric rupture of capacitors in the chips, leading to their permanent damage.

 

Can a dSLR survive such a thing... ???

 

I wonder... :D

<p>Paulo, there are only a few cameras of any kind that one can take anywhere. When they were new, the F, F2, F2t were rugged workhorses. Now they are 35-40 years old. You can only get them fixed in a few places, not all of whom do the "right" fix. It's cheaper most of the time to just buy another film camera. Those old shutters were good, but the newer kevlar and carbon fiber shutters are better and last 3 times longer.</p>

<p>There are some DSLRs that qualify, positively.</p>

<p>If you look in at Luminous Landscape, you'll note that they do yearly photo trips to Antarctica. The Nikon and Canon top-line DSLRs do fine at -40f, and there have been no failures. A lot of people take D800s there. [The 5DII has a well-known vulnerability to moisture on one of the neckstrap eyelets, and fails. I wouldn't even consider the low end Canons.] Steve McCurry has been shooting with a D3 for years. These shutters last 300,000 actuations or more. They are mechanically superb, and made for photojournalism. They have better weather sealing than their mechanical predecessors. These are "everything" cameras.</p>

<p>These are the reasons I recommend the top-end Nikons like the D3s (now reasonably priced for a lightly-used model), and the even-better D4 (now discounted due to the introduction of the D4s). You will surely get shots that you never would have gotten in non-existent light where film hits its limits.</p>

<p>...and with the D3/D4 bodies you can focus manually, which allows you to use the Ai/Ais lenses. That removes another factor of electro-mechanical reliability from the equation.</p>

F6 is an amazing camera if you decide to go with a film camera. If digital, I love the D3s but even used prices are still

relatively high.