NIKON vs. LEICA image quality.

[lachaine]

My, we certainly are defensive about our leicas and about 35mm, aren't we?

[nick_w.]

I don't understand why people believe the Leica M is better for documentary work.

The documentary work I most admire is when the photographer has become intimate

with his/her subjects. When your subjects already know they're being photographed it

doesn't matter if you have a stealthy Leica M or a hefty Nikon F5.

[david_chananie]

This has been a long winded thread to which I'll add a zephyr. Notice how many photojournalists use Nikon or Canon gear and how few use Leica gear. There are reasons for that. Next, very few photojournalists today use film. Most newspapers in the US have gotten rid of their ability to process film. Next, many times photojournalists are expected to transmit photos from on site back to the newspaper, using electronic means. Next, newspapers do not require very high resolution images because the printing process for newspapers is relatively coarse. Next, very few pjs can do without having to use longer glass for a number of assignments, for example, sporting events, political events. Next, consider the environment you'll be operating in. A number of the embedded journalists in the conquest of Iraq had difficulty from the dust in using their electronic gear, whereas pjs who used all mechanical gear fared much better. Similarly, will you be operating in very cold environments? Finally, for a historical note, David Douglas Duncan used a Nikon 50mm lens on a Nikon body for his photograhs during the Korean War. Hope this helps.

[ricardoyamamoto]

Medium format is out of question. I own Rolleiflex. For me, compared to my 35mm, it compromises my mobility and agility.

 

Photographic skills are the most important thing, but it misses the point here. I just wish to know your opinions about lenses quality and its consequences.

 

DIgital is out of question. I want grains in my photographs.

 

I think I will follow most folk's advices and keep my Nikons. The money I will save for not buying Leicas I can use with films, materials, information, travels and projects.

 

Thank you all for your priceless help

[lorenzo_ward1]

Late answer but I know both systems. People are right there is no meaningful technical difference, more a matter of taste. Here is my experience for your review.

 

Leica: Good quality build, but not exceptional as people make it. Once you get used to the system you can shoot with what looks like an amateur kit in low light. I use an M6 with a 35mm/1.4 and with a 400ISO film you can get most shots without a flash. The 90mm/2.8 lens I have is stunning and delivers superb quality portraits (see my page of old Greek lady shot with that lens hand held). So you get very good quality lenses and a simple kit that is light to carry around; the camera around your neck and a spare lens in a pocket. With this you get 98% of the situations.

 

Nikon: I use F100 with a 24-85mm zoom and a flash DX800. It is a superb machine that delivers competent pictures when you head is not engaged; i.e. you can rely on the P mode to select everything and get the shot. The small zoom I have is very good if you use transparencies and allows you to add a polarizer where needed. If you are looking for prime lenses to compare to Leica's I have little to add as the matter becomes too technical for my competence. I see little differecne in the results. In fact I use a Nikon where I need to add a fill flash to flatten the scene contrast within the boundaries of the film I use; typical exampke is portraits where you can add a touch of light to enliven the eyes.

 

again it is a personal choice but I use Leica for strolling around and moving about easily. I prefer Nikon when the addition of flash or filters is required.

 

good luck

[claude_batmanghelidj]

Buy an EOS 100 or Elan, the original version. It is very silent, you can use Nikon and Leica lenses on it with an adapter. That should solve all of your problems!

 

That is what I ended up doing. EOS is superior to Nikon in terms of backwards compatibility with todays cameras. The Nikon digital cameras force you to use chipped lenses, the Canon can use all of your un-chipped lenses with an adapter.

[antbs]

I have a large set of Nikkor lenses as well as a Leica M3 and M6. But for your particular use, since you already have the Nikon, I would make a completely different suggestion. Recently I bought a used Konica Hexar AF. I love it. Yes, it has a single fixed lens (35mm f/2) and a relatively 1/250sec max shutter speed (I use a ND filter to compensate). But the Kexar lens is really extraordinarily sharp, and the stealth features of the Hexar (almost silent) and very very fast on the autofocus, as well as the very modest and anonymous look of the camera have allowed me to take pictures I could not have gotten on my other cameras. You can get one on eBay for $300-500. For photo-journalism I'd try one of these before investing in a Leica.<div></div>

[antbs]

I have a large set of Nikkor lenses as well as a Leica M3 and M6. But for your particular use, since you already have the Nikon, I would make a completely different suggestion. Recently I bought a used Konica Hexar AF. I love it. Yes, it has a single fixed lens (35mm f/2) and a relatively slow 1/250sec max shutter speed (I use a ND filter to compensate). But the Kexar lens is really extraordinarily sharp, and the stealth features of the Hexar (almost silent) and very very fast on the autofocus, as well as the very modest and anonymous look of the camera have allowed me to take pictures I could not have gotten on my other cameras. You can get one on eBay for $300-500. For photo-journalism I'd try one of these before investing in a Leica.

[nicholas_westberg]

1. Very little- Leica makes better lenses than anyone, but the only real-life difference is the disgusting amount of money that separates the two.

 

2. It never does. True, if you take the same photos with the same settings in the same light with both Nikon and Leica setups, you'll discover some differences in sharpness especially in wide apertures. The difference ends there, it doesn't serve any practical purpose. It's also worth mentioning that there are definite advantages to Nikon over Leica.

 

3. If I were you I would seriously consider the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8. It outperforms every prime in it's neighborhood and it's built like, well, a Leica.