Nikon F2 to leica M4-2 ?

[stewart_bauchop]

I'm considering trading in a well used nikon f2 kit for a well used

leica m4-2. I am seldom without a camera to hand and the portability

appeals. I would require to use the camera for long periods in poor

weather conditions (mountaineering) so reliability and strength are

issues.

Never used a rangefinder/leica before and the lack of filter

compatibility/DofF info is a concern - any other issues i should

consider for this kind of useage ? Is the M4-2 a poor choice for this

kind of abuse ?

[john_shriver]

What lack of filter compatibility? Rangefinders are in some ways more compatible with filters, since you don't have to look through the darned things. A red 25 filter on an SLR is a real nuisance. On a rangefinder, you just adjust the ISO correctly on your meter for the filter in use.

 

For DoF, all you have is the scale on the lens. True.

 

That said, the M series rangefinders are not abuse proof. I would think that a screwmount Leica (or Canon) rangefiner would be tougher in some ways, although certainly not as easy to use as a M series.

 

You might find that buying a lighter Nikon body (FM3) might be the most practical solution if you want a carry-about camera that doesn't weigh so much.

[Rob F.]

Stewart, the Nikon F2 is a tank, built to take abuse and last. Some Leica M4-2 examples have a poor track record for reliability. This is because there were a lot of design changes in the M4-2 compared to the M4, which it superceded. It took about a year to correct the problems. We have a forum member or two who has had to throw away an early production M4-2 because the repair cost exceeded the value of the camera. Later production examples are fine.

 

A much better bet is an M4-P or an M6. Used M6's are going now, in most cases, for around $950 to $1250. They are a better bet. If you want to go with an earlier camera, then consider an M2 or M4. However, the older the camera, the more risk there is of rangefinder prism problems if it is going to get banged around.

 

So I would say, either get an M4-P or later, or stay with the F2. Galen Rowell did fine with a Nikon, for mountain photography!

[working camera]

Stuart I've been taking Leica Ms into the mountains for about 20 years. A good kit is so compact.. A camera and 4 lenses take up hardly any space compared to an SLR. Which is one of the reasons I too initially swapped over.

 

They take a great deal of punishment. Leicas will continue operating in the wet way after other cameras have given up the game.

 

Rangefinder photography is a totally different animal to SLRs. You'll get used to estimating the DoF after some experience.

 

By filter compatibility I take it you mean polarizing filters. Just one of the draw backs to RF I'm afraid.

 

They are also poor machines for closeup work.

 

The advantage is with an RF you have to have your wits about and that makes you concentrate on your composition and exposure. Thereﾒs a fair amount of anticipating what effects different focal lengths produce. One tends to take this information for granted with SLRs.

 

I'd go for it(well I'd say that because I did go for it) but anticipate some early frustrations.

 

The M4-2 model has a poor rep in Leica user land mostly undeserved IMO.

 

C.

[andyaitken]

The M4-2 is fine as long as you avoid the early 2 batches. There's a simple way to check; serial number starts with 14 = bad, starts with 15 = good. With this caveat there are a few advantages the M4-2 has over the M4-P, most notably more accurate framelines.

 

If your camera gets hard knocks while you are climbing the rangefinder may get knocked out of alignment but you can fix that yourself relatively easily. The M series are pretty tough cameras other than that.

[janne1]

Any camera can and will fail sometime, so better to CLA the camera, and have a backup so all things are covered.

[david_l3]

For years I used a pair of Nikon F2's when mountaineering. They never failed me in all

conditions. I still have one. I also have an M4-2 with serial number 15xxxxx (and other M's)

and have used it for hikes in wet weather and climbing rocks. It's performed well. For

polarizer use and close ups it's not as good as the F2. The rangefinder works well for

shooting outdoor activities. Remember it does not have a light meter like the F2 does.

 

I would keep the F2 until you are sure the M4-2 will perform to your needs. Both are very

capable and wonderful to use. Good luck.<div></div>

[emanuel_lowi1]

I'm not a mountaineer but I shoot regularly in bad weather, extreme cold,

etc. I still use a Nikon F2AS (and an F5) as well as various Leica M

cameras in those conditions.

 

The Nikon loads easier in such conditions and handles better with gloves

on. Its SLR viewfinder eyepiece fogs up and ices up more easily (because

of where it is located, one tends to breath on it too often). Its shutter is

great in the cold. The DoF preview feature is very useful, especially with

landscapes with important foreground detail.

 

The Leica shutter holds up almost as well in the cold. The mechanism of

a Leica M is unlikely to break unless you really abuse it -- it is as tough

as the Nikon in my experience. Reloading the Leica with gloves on is a

pain. Rangefinder focussing is quicker & easier (perhaps not so important

in your situation) but one must rely on the DoF scale on the lenses for

that info -- not a big handicap.

 

The other big advantages of Leica M cameras -- low noise level, discrete,

quick shooting -- are probably not plusses in mountaineering

photography.

 

The Leica lenses are obviously superior, and this is the main reason to

use Leica in the situation you describe. You will see the difference.

 

A Leica M around your neck will never bother you, it is so lightweight

with just about any lens mounted but for the 90/2 and 135mm lenses. A

small bag or fanny pack will hold the body with 3-4 lenses and a few

extras, something you just can't do with the Nikon F equivalents.

[terence_mahoney]

Leicas are like Bentleys and Jaguars (well, at least before they were occupied by the yank forces)...beautifully-made to last a lifetime, with constant servicing and attention. Nikon F/F2 are like Toyotas, made to last a lifetime despite reasonable neglect.

 

Outdoor photography with the Leica M is quite possible, do have a look at the books published by my neighbour over in Cheshire, Mr. Bower FRPS. However the direct-viewfinder takes a fair bit of acclimation when switching over from an SLR. Aside from the obvious lack of visual feedback of d.o.f. the framelines are somewhat of an approximation especially at the subject distancess found in that type of photography. You'll need to shoot at least one film as a test, keeping track of framing for the various focal lengths, to get a feel for how much detail lying outside the framelines will in fact appear on the transparency or negative.

 

If it's strictly the mass of the F2 that's got your knickers in a twist, do stop and have a look at an FM/FE2/FM2/FM3A.

[michael s.]

Agree with Terence. The FM2 or newer (and just discontinued) FM3A will give you slr framing, rugged build quality, less weight and bulk, DoF preview, and a meter ... and best of all you'll get some "free" high quality lenses -- the ones you've already bought. :)

 

On the lenses, depending upon the age/configuration of your Nikkors, some older ones may not be suitable for use with the FM2 or FM3A. You should check.

 

Both FM2 and FM3A require a battery for the meter only. FE2 offers only one (I think one ?) mechanical speed if your battery poops out.

 

No knock on the M4-2, of course. Many use it and enjoy it.

[michael s.]

The "less weight and bulk" comment refers of course to your current Nikon, not to the Leica.

[vic_.]

Stewart, A lot of people say that the M4-2 is the worst Leica M ever produced. You're thinking of trading one of the best Nikons for one of the worst Leicas?

 

If your lenses are still working, consider getting a FM2n. I have two spare ones (like new, one silver, one black) in case you're interested.

 

Keep the F2.

[h._p.]

Given the drop in resale value of film cameras recently, I'd suggest holding on to the Nikon and adding a Leica when funds permit. I find that my M3 and equally old 'F' complement one another very well. They are so totally different, apart from taking the same film size and being equally nice to use.<div></div>

[terence_mahoney]

Now, if you spilt that cappucino and doused both cameras, by the next morning I'd wager ten quid the M3 would be seized up but the F2 would still be operable.

[capocheny]

Stewart,

 

Firstly, if you really insist on doing the trade after reading these postings... then I'd concur

with the one poster who suggested that you keep your Nikon until you get use to the

Leica. Using a rangefinder camera IS quite a bit different than using an SLR.

 

Secondly, Leica cameras are built of sturdy stock... I recall that one went up to the top of

Mt. Everest!

 

Lastly, I also concur with some of the posters who suggested other models of Nikon. You

"already" have the lenses on hand. If you bought a Leica... you'd require replacing all the

lenses you have or, at least, what you'd want to use during your trip.

 

Terrence,

 

"Now, if you spilt that cappucino and doused both cameras, by the next morning I'd wager

ten quid the M3 would be seized up but the F2 would still be operable."

 

What a waste of a perfectly good, well-made cup of cappuccino with its beautiful creme'

on top! :) And touch of cinnamon sugar, of course! :)

 

I'd suggest downing the cappuccino and dousing the cameras in plain ole H-2-0 if you

really want to do the experiment! :)

 

Cheers

[Bill Blackwell Images]

The concerns expressed here for the early M4-2 production models may have been founded 20+ years ago, but these cameras (especially well used examples) will have had their bugs worked out years ago.

 

None of the problems inherent in these cameras were un-repairable; most were repaired at or before the first CLA.

[fjords]

<any other issues i should consider for this kind of useage> Leica focus- to infinity is

right!

[fjords]

wrong?

[mike-images]

Stewart,

 

about 6 or so years ago I ditched a Nikon kit - 2 F3s an F and a good swag of primes. It was too heavy and was becoming a hassle to carry around. I too carry a camera everywhere.

 

I replaced it with a M4-2 and a 35 'cron and a 90 TE. That kit served me brilliantly until I supplemented it with another metered M body and a 50 'lux and a 21. The Leica M is different but it has suited me well. They are tough - mine get bumped and knocked - but they are also precision machinery. If you knock them around you'll have to pay for the maintenance. I use mine at sea and so have athe added worry of salt water.

 

I would suggest that you get a hot shoe meter for the M4-2 if you buy it. I used a handheld Gossen for quite a while and find the the VC Meter II is a much better choice.

 

Best of luck and please let us know what you do.

 

Regards

 

Mike

[inspiration point studio]

When I travel, I carry my Contax 645, Nikon F4 and Leica M6. The M6 is for the long hikes, sturdy and light (relatively speaking). I've used the M6 in -30F weather shooting at the Grand Teton with no problem (although my Sekonic meter went nuts due to the cold). I also used it in the Grand Canyon when the temperature went above 110F. The camera kept on working. However, it's difficult to use with a polarizer (you can do it in conjuction with the meter, but you can't see the end result. And yes, Leica sells a polarizer work around, but it does not work with a 24mm lens). You also can't use any gradient filters, nor does it support DOF viewing. If you use a 24mm lens, you'll need a separate finder also. It's a compromise, what the Leica gives you is the best wide angle lens in a compact and light package, and of course the reward of gorgeous pictures at the end of your trip.

[jimsimmons]

Aaaahhh, H.P., that photo takes me back to one of my favorite photo projects, when those two camera models served me so wonderfully. 35 summicron and 50 f/2 Nikkor did everything I needed for that project.<div></div>

[paul_taylor2]

Two comments: First off, if you use a telephoto more than I, keep the SLR as you will likely have an easier time with the lens' limited depth of field. Secondly, with the increasingly lower values of the film-based equipment, you may get far less value from the SLR toward the purchase of the Leica. If a dealer is doing the trade, he will not want to lose on taking the Nikon as trade.

 

I continue to have my '71 FTN as my primary telephoto and wet weather camera, and the Leica for all else.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I bought a Nikon F2 with working meter Prism; a 105mm Nikkor-PC (non AI'd) mulitcoated; and a 45mm F2.8 GN (Non-AI'd) for 180 bucks on Ebay last fall. I'm going to swap out the Nikon AI ring off one of my Katrina 105's that got dunked in salt water. With Nikon gear going so cheap I sure would'nt trade one of my Leica M3's today.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Over many decades; few cameras are really investments. Many times to time to buy is wel stuff is being dumped as "obsolete". In the late 1960's alot of LTM lenses were dumped, so that folks could buy that dream Miranda, Petri, Mamyia, Ricoh etc.

[natures-pencil]

<P>

The M4-2 has been criticised as being made to poorer standards than the M3, M2, and

M4, but I have been using Leica M's for 12 years now and it seems every bit as solid,

reliable, and nice to use as any other M. Any differences are minute.

<P>

Compared to earlier M's the M4-2 has:

<P>

1. Improved film take-up reel <BR>

2. Improved film rewind mechanism <BR>

3. Ability to take a motordrive <BR>

4. More frames (It has 35/135, 50, 90 - M2 has only 35, 50, 90 and M3 has 50, 90, 135)

<BR>

 

<P>

Compared to the M6 and latest MP the pros/cons of the M4-2 are as follows:

<BR>

Advantages:<BR>

1. Cheaper to buy<BR>

2. Completely mechanical<BR>

3. Uncluttered viewfinder with single frames visible for 50mm and 90mm lenses

<P>

Disadvantages:<BR>

1. No frames for 28mm and 75mm (obviously not a problem if you don't use those

lengths)<BR>

2. Cheaper, less grippy material covering the body<BR>

3. No built-in meter. Actually this is not such a big deal. The usual way tyo use a Leica M

is to keep it set to an OK speed and aperture, and focussed to give a decent range of

acceptable focus for the type of subject you are after. The drawback is that a separate

meter is one more piece of kit that you have to carry - and my Weston meter is bigger and

heavier than the latest crop of 5Mp P/S digital cameras!<BR>

4. Metal eyepiece - this is a serious problem if you wear spectacles. If you leave it as it is it

will ruin your spectacle lenses. If you have it removed and replace with an M6 style

eyepiece it will cost you a fortune. You can get a clip on eyepiece but that puts your eye

so much further back that it is difficult to see the whole of the 35mm frame. There is also

a 3rd party 0.85x magnifier (reducer?) but it creates huge barrel distortion that destroys

half the pleasure of using a Leica M. If you are young you can wear contact lenses, but

when you get to my age the problem with contacts is that they give you back your distance

vision (I am short sighted) but make it impossible to read anything close up!

<P>

For the short-sighted photographer the M4-2 works best with an add-on plastic eyecup

and a 50mm lens, and that is what stays permanently on mine. For my favourite focal

lenses (35mm f/2 non-ASPH and 75mm f/1.4) I use an M6

<P>

Conclusion:<BR>

I recommend a used M6 over an M4-2. On balance the M-6 is more usable, especially if

you are a spectacle wearer, and is not much more costly when bought second-hand

</P>