Nikon FM2n vs Leica MP for Travel

[Analog Amateur]

Hello everyone. I know that there are tons of similiar threads in this forum but I couldn't find a spesific one which answers my questions. Besides I also want to know your prefence when travelling. I have been always interested in photography. Since I purchased my Nikon FM2n 3 years ago my my interest has been increased. I love its tactileness and its mechanical precision. Now I think, as everybody thought in their lifetime once, to buy a Leica as my ultimate analog tool... the one which will be my companion throughout my travels. I know that FM2n can do that as well, maybe better than Leica. The only 2 things that I don't like about my FM2n are that when I shoot street photography some people can hear the shutter and immediately turn around and the fact that this mechanical marvel isn't made anymore. So in time there will be lesser parts to replace. I shoot landscapes, architecture, street and myself (Yes. I am the guy who adjust the self-timer and runs to the scene for the photo in 2010s) For landscapes and architecture my Nikon is very suitable. 28mm f2.8 is just so good that sometimes I use only that lens for everything. And FM2 also has a self-timer which Leica MP does not. But Leica MP looks really discreet so I can take those natural shots in which people mind their own business.

 

Right now I gathered enough money to buy a Leica MP. But something inside me tells that it is wrong to spend 5000 euros for an analog camera which shoots 35mm and does not even have a self-timer. I love the build quality and the precision of it and how it just can be put into the bag because of its dimensions. But at the same time buying a Hasselblad kit for half of the cost and having it in the bag while carrying my old faithfull FM2n looks such a good idea for me.

 

Some of you would recommend me to buy a Leica M6 but if I will buy a Leica camera I want it to be flawless and I don't like the plastic parts of Leica M6 and I also want my camera to brass gracefully as I use it. I know that MP also has a plastic ISO dial on its back but I must live with that as aside from the special editions of it like titanium version every Leica with a light meter has a plastic ISO dial for some weird reason. And as medium format I know that Rolleis are lighter. But the very much sought after 2.8F and 3.5Fs are too expensive for me. And if they break it will be a very expensive one.

 

What are your thoughts on this matter? Should buy a Leica MP with 35mm ASPH or should I buy a Hasselblad 500 C/M with 80mm lens which will accompany my Nikon FM2n with 28mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.4 (and 105mm f2.5 is on the way). Which would be a better gear for traveling in general? Which analog camera do you carry in your travels?

[SCL]

I've been a Leica owner for 52 years, and ownedand still own a lot of other cameras during that time as well. IMHO the only reason to buy a Leica is to use the Leitz lenses or i you truly want a rangefinder which is excellent. In your case, you don't present enough of a compelling reason to spend the money for a new Leica, or a Hassy. Go with what you already have...it'll do the job just fine. BUT if you have a pocketfull fo disposable cash and GAS...well, you know how to cure it.

[orsetto]

Your starting point is Leica, but then you veer off into Hasselblad, and your feelings about budget are very conflicted. This makes any advice more complicated. My gut instinct tells me you have a reasonably good income, enough to have saved 5000 euro for a Leica MP: if this is something you've really wanted for a long time, and you can afford what it costs, my advice would be to just buy it and see if it is as wonderful as you dreamed. It might be, or it might not. Take it from someone who learned the hard way: sometimes a Leica feels like the answer to your dreams in the showroom, but once you own it for real and use it for your specific photography, you may find it horribly unsuitable. Some of us admire everything about Leica RF, but simply cannot make it work for us.

 

A few other points you touched on:

 

You have been shooting a 28mm lens almost exclusively for three years with your Nikon, but are planning on the 35mm Summicron for your Leica. This will almost certainly lead to disappointment: 35mm is a whole different thing than 28mm. I personally loathe 28mm and almost never use it because I can't stand the angle of view (my glorious 28mm f/2.0 Nikkor sits in the closet year after year). But I love 35mm, which is basically glued to my Nikons for 70% of my work. While the 35mm Summicron is a legendary performer, it became popular on Leicas primarily because it was the widest "good" lens available for many years and it had viewfinder support. The 28mm for RF was slower, didn't have the Summicron "look", and usually required an external viewfinder.

 

But today you can find Leica bodies with built-in 28mm viewfinder: if you go with Leica, get such a body, and perhaps the 28mm instead of 35mm lens. Leica + 35mm is the classic "street" combo, and it would give you a different option from your Nikon BUT at Leica prices it isn't prudent to "try new things" just for the hell of it only to discover you don't like 35mm at all. Far better you buy a 35mm lens for your FM2 and use it for a month before committing to the Leica + 35mm. Be very sure before laying out that kind of money: Leica holds its value, but there is always a significant loss on any resale (commission fees, taxes, etc).

 

As SCL mentioned, the only reason to use a Leica RF is because you love the RF operation and tiny RF lenses. But RF is a big change from SLR, not to be made lightly. Perhaps try an inexpensive vintage Japanese RF like a restored Yashica 35 GSN or Canon GIII 17 for awhile first, to get a feel for how rangefinder viewing/focusing and hyerfocal street shooting will work for you in real life. Also note, we're in 2019 now: if you think people on the street don't know what a Leica is, think again. Doltish hipsters in every city of the world have now made sure nearly everyone knows a Leica is an expensive piece of jewelry, and if someone is pointing a Leica at you odds are they have money. Today, anyone not using a cell phone is suspect: a Leica is smaller/quieter but does not have the invisibility it once had.

 

As far as shutter noise, yes the FM2 is ridiculously loud (the original FM is even worse). It is a mystery to this day why Nikon copied every possible design innovation of the Olympus OM-1 except for the quiet shutter/mirror action: the noise of the FM/FM2 makes it sound cheaply made and is way too loud for discreet photography. You could try one of the other Nikons like the small FG: it has a fantastically large bright viewfinder and quieter shutter action. Or, go in a completely different direction and pick up a vintage Olympus OM1n or OM2n. These have a delightfully smooth quiet shutter/mirror sound (barely louder than many Leicas, totally inaudible on the street (or indoors if theres any background noise at all). Olympus bodies are beautifully built of all metal, the black version will brass nicely if you want that, and most of the lenses are tiny, excellent and even have high-speed premium versions available (24mm, 28mm, 50mm, 100mm). The costs and size are small enough to make carrying an Oly body with lens in your FM2 bag easy: it can be a backup for for discreet situations.

 

Re your Hassleblad/Rolleiflex remarks: these are a completely different format. Learning how to compose for the square frame after using 35mm film exclusively takes awhile, some people never enjoy it. Both are extremely complex mechanically, both cost a king's ransom to service and maintain. In your case, worrying about repair costs seems odd: you could buy a Rolleiflexx and two complete Hasselblads for the price of a Leica MP and 35mm Summicron (and Leica repair costs easily match Hasselblad or Rollei). So it depends on your priorities: do you truly want the big square negative as an option, or is it just a passing thought? Since it is modular, the Hasselblad can kill you with rotating repair costs if you're unlucky (first the lens breaks, then the body, then the film magazine). The integrated Rolleiflex gets overhauled all at once, then remains good for a very long time after (at least 10 years). Hasselblads are more twitchy, and can require service every few years (especially the lenses).

 

Also note the very loud Hasselblad makes the FM2 sound like a Leica M3: its not a discreet camera at all, in appearance or sound, and it jumps in your hand as you fire it: handheld shooting is best at speeds above 1/125th. The Rolleiflex is as quiet and vibration-free as the Leica, down to 1/15th. Neither is optimized for "street" - the standard 80mm lens does not have much depth of field, so you'll generally want to focus carefully, which is a slow operation on Hasselblad. Of course, back in the day Rolleiflex was THE street camera- but times change. Here again, it might be wise to start with a less expensive Yashica D, 12 or 124 (but not 124G), Minolta AutoCord or Ricoh Diacord TLR. See how you like waist level viewfinders and the square format: if you fall in love, then a Hasselblad or Rolleiflex will bring future happiness. If you hate the square, at least you didn't spend a lot to find out.

Edited September 25, 2019 by orsetto

[Robin Smith]

The Hasselblad in my opinion is not a casual travel camera. If you want an MF then I suggest a TLR, 645, Fuji 6x7 or 6x9, Mamiya 6 or 7. Personally I'd keep clear of dual formats when travelling. I have no experience of the Nikon FM2, but if the shutter noise is terrible to you then the OM1 is indeed a great alternative. I would suggest a Leicaflex SL or SL2 as a way of considering getting the Leica look more cheaply, but unfortunately the mirrorless users have inflated the prices of R lenses, so it is only a budget option relative to M Leicas. They are heavy in comparison to the Nikon FM2 or OM systems, but in general fine lenses. In your shoes, if you must have an M, I would not waste your money on an MP, but go for an M6 or M6TTL. As a Leica owner for 25 years, I have moved on to digital, and I think that the prices are so stratospheric these days they are beyond what is sensible: back then they were expensive, but not totally insane. In short I would continue with what you have with the 28/50/105 lenses. Got say that although I loved the results and size of my M kit, I have never felt that rangefinder viewing was such a positive, so I agree with those above who stress that it is important that you like it or can learn to live with it when you are spending so much.

[orsetto]

One final thought: be wary of falling in love with the mystique of a legendary camera instead of the actual camera. It is a common mistake many of us make: we lust after a particular camera system for many years until we can afford it, then jump on it the moment we have the money, only to find out it isn't the best choice for our work. This is especially prevalent with the beautifully-made Leica, Hasselblad and Rolleiflex: they are gorgeous objects to look at and fondle, the glass reputation is faultless, so what could go wrong?

 

Everything, actually. After spending the cost of a good small car for a Leica, you might discover you can't see the difference in lens qualities with your subjects and style, and a far less expensive vintage Canon rangefinder/lenses or newer Hexar or Ikon might handle better for you. For many landscapes and portraits, a Mamiya RB67 is far more versatile and gives 40% more film area than the Hasselblad. The Hassy is certainly a pretty piece of machinery and has those great Zeiss lenses, but the boring black RB67 can run rings around it in many situations (handheld stability, framing, less finicky operation). In TLR, the much-mocked "too big, too heavy" Mamiya C220/C330 system with its interchangeable lenses and built-in macro bellows was the most flexible, versatile TLR system ever offered: I find it the perfect compromise between Rolleiflex and Hasselblad. Is it it pretty? far from it. But it works great, and later models have ultra-bright focus screens (a VERY pricey option for Hassy/Rollei). I settled on Hassy for 6x6 SLR and Mamiya for 6x6 TLR, and find myself grabbing the Mamiya more often.

 

As long as you understand and are honest with yourself about your true motivations, buying a "legend" just for the experience of finally owning it is completely justified. But if you need a different camera specifically for a different feature set or task, be sure to evaluate the "non-legendary" alternatives. The all-time collectible classics are prized for their age and being pioneers, but being first doesn't always mean being best. Many of the later unsung professional workhorse cameras were much improved in practical terms, esp reliability (German and Swedish craftsmanship isn't always so wonderful).

[m42dave]

I also like Orsetto's suggestion of the Olympus OM-1 or OM-2: elegant and quiet, they are nearly the SLR equivalent to a rangefinder, and considerably more versatile.

 

As SCL mentioned, you aren't really giving a compelling reason to get a Leica. Fine cameras and lenses, yes, but in terms of performance-per-dollar (or euro) there are plenty of cameras out there that will do the job just as well for much less. If you want a Leica mainly for aesthetic reasons and have the money to spend...then I guess that is up to you.

Edited September 25, 2019 by m42dave

[Analog Amateur]

I've been a Leica owner for 52 years, and ownedand still own a lot of other cameras during that time as well. IMHO the only reason to buy a Leica is to use the Leitz lenses or i you truly want a rangefinder which is excellent. In your case, you don't present enough of a compelling reason to spend the money for a new Leica, or a Hassy. Go with what you already have...it'll do the job just fine. BUT if you have a pocketfull fo disposable cash and GAS...well, you know how to cure it.

You are right. I don't have enough reason to buy a MP but I do want to have better optics and that corresponds to Leica in 35mm and Hassy or Rollei in medium format. And I must confess: I do love the look of the Ms. I carry around a camera everywhere I go except in my work place and Leicas look really innocent to carry everywhere you go. I love to document things around me and whenever I use a metro or get into a museum an official mistakenly warns me to not to take pictures because he/she thinks that my FM2 is a professional tool and I am a pro photographer of some kind. I think that Leica is more suitable for my everyday life.

 

 

The Hasselblad in my opinion is not a casual travel camera. If you want an MF then I suggest a TLR, 645, Fuji 6x7 or 6x9, Mamiya 6 or 7. Personally I'd keep clear of dual formats when travelling. I have no experience of the Nikon FM2, but if the shutter noise is terrible to you then the OM1 is indeed a great alternative. I would suggest a Leicaflex SL or SL2 as a way of considering getting the Leica look more cheaply, but unfortunately the mirrorless users have inflated the prices of R lenses, so it is only a budget option relative to M Leicas. They are heavy in comparison to the Nikon FM2 or OM systems, but in general fine lenses. In your shoes, if you must have an M, I would not waste your money on an MP, but go for an M6 or M6TTL. As a Leica owner for 25 years, I have moved on to digital, and I think that the prices are so stratospheric these days they are beyond what is sensible: back then they were expensive, but not totally insane. In short I would continue with what you have with the 28/50/105 lenses. Got say that although I loved the results and size of my M kit, I have never felt that rangefinder viewing was such a positive, so I agree with those above who stress that it is important that you like it or can learn to live with it when you are spending so much.

Fuji 6x7 or Mamiya 645 are too in between for my choices. If I would pay that much money I would either get the cheaper medium format to try or just go for the big leaguers :) One of the reasons I want a Leica is because of its portablity and weight so Leicafelx is not an option for me. You are totally right about the cost of a MP. I want to have one but my logic says that it is not logical to spend that much money for it. My logic still tries to comprehend to spend 5000 euros to buy a camera made of brass and plastic while I secretly adore it :D And why do you think that I shouldn't carry different formats for travel?

Edited September 25, 2019 by Analog Amateur

[Analog Amateur]

Your starting point is Leica, but then you veer off into Hasselblad, and your feelings about budget are very conflicted. This makes any advice more complicated. My gut instinct tells me you have a reasonably good income, enough to have saved 5000 euro for a Leica MP: if this is something you've really wanted for a long time, and you can afford what it costs, my advice would be to just buy it and see if it is as wonderful as you dreamed. It might be, or it might not. Take it from someone who learned the hard way: sometimes a Leica feels like the answer to your dreams in the showroom, but once you own it for real and use it for your specific photography, you may find it horribly unsuitable. Some of us admire everything about Leica RF, but simply cannot make it work for us.

 

A few other points you touched on:

 

You have been shooting a 28mm lens almost exclusively for three years with your Nikon, but are planning on the 35mm Summicron for your Leica. This will almost certainly lead to disappointment: 35mm is a whole different thing than 28mm. I personally loathe 28mm and almost never use it because I can't stand the angle of view (my glorious 28mm f/2.0 Nikkor sits in the closet year after year). But I love 35mm, which is basically glued to my Nikons for 70% of my work. While the 35mm Summicron is a legendary performer, it became popular on Leicas primarily because it was the widest "good" lens available for many years and it had viewfinder support. The 28mm for RF was slower, didn't have the Summicron "look", and usually required an external viewfinder.

 

But today you can find Leica bodies with built-in 28mm viewfinder: if you go with Leica, get such a body, and perhaps the 28mm instead of 35mm lens. Leica + 35mm is the classic "street" combo, and it would give you a different option from your Nikon BUT at Leica prices it isn't prudent to "try new things" just for the hell of it only to discover you don't like 35mm at all. Far better you buy a 35mm lens for your FM2 and use it for a month before committing to the Leica + 35mm. Be very sure before laying out that kind of money: Leica holds its value, but there is always a significant loss on any resale (commission fees, taxes, etc).

 

As SCL mentioned, the only reason to use a Leica RF is because you love the RF operation and tiny RF lenses. But RF is a big change from SLR, not to be made lightly. Perhaps try an inexpensive vintage Japanese RF like a restored Yashica 35 GSN or Canon GIII 17 for awhile first, to get a feel for how rangefinder viewing/focusing and hyerfocal street shooting will work for you in real life. Also note, we're in 2019 now: if you think people on the street don't know what a Leica is, think again. Doltish hipsters in every city of the world have now made sure nearly everyone knows a Leica is an expensive piece of jewelry, and if someone is pointing a Leica at you odds are they have money. Today, anyone not using a cell phone is suspect: a Leica is smaller/quieter but does not have the invisibility it once had.

 

As far as shutter noise, yes the FM2 is ridiculously loud (the original FM is even worse). It is a mystery to this day why Nikon copied every possible design innovation of the Olympus OM-1 except for the quiet shutter/mirror action: the noise of the FM/FM2 makes it sound cheaply made and is way too loud for discreet photography. You could try one of the other Nikons like the small FG: it has a fantastically large bright viewfinder and quieter shutter action. Or, go in a completely different direction and pick up a vintage Olympus OM1n or OM2n. These have a delightfully smooth quiet shutter/mirror sound (barely louder than many Leicas, totally inaudible on the street (or indoors if theres any background noise at all). Olympus bodies are beautifully built of all metal, the black version will brass nicely if you want that, and most of the lenses are tiny, excellent and even have high-speed premium versions available (24mm, 28mm, 50mm, 100mm). The costs and size are small enough to make carrying an Oly body with lens in your FM2 bag easy: it can be a backup for for discreet situations.

 

Re your Hassleblad/Rolleiflex remarks: these are a completely different format. Learning how to compose for the square frame after using 35mm film exclusively takes awhile, some people never enjoy it. Both are extremely complex mechanically, both cost a king's ransom to service and maintain. In your case, worrying about repair costs seems odd: you could buy a Rolleiflexx and two complete Hasselblads for the price of a Leica MP and 35mm Summicron (and Leica repair costs easily match Hasselblad or Rollei). So it depends on your priorities: do you truly want the big square negative as an option, or is it just a passing thought? Since it is modular, the Hasselblad can kill you with rotating repair costs if you're unlucky (first the lens breaks, then the body, then the film magazine). The integrated Rolleiflex gets overhauled all at once, then remains good for a very long time after (at least 10 years). Hasselblads are more twitchy, and can require service every few years (especially the lenses).

 

Also note the very loud Hasselblad makes the FM2 sound like a Leica M3: its not a discreet camera at all, in appearance or sound, and it jumps in your hand as you fire it: handheld shooting is best at speeds above 1/125th. The Rolleiflex is as quiet and vibration-free as the Leica, down to 1/15th. Neither is optimized for "street" - the standard 80mm lens does not have much depth of field, so you'll generally want to focus carefully, which is a slow operation on Hasselblad. Of course, back in the day Rolleiflex was THE street camera- but times change. Here again, it might be wise to start with a less expensive Yashica D, 12 or 124 (but not 124G), Minolta AutoCord or Ricoh Diacord TLR. See how you like waist level viewfinders and the square format: if you fall in love, then a Hasselblad or Rolleiflex will bring future happiness. If you hate the square, at least you didn't spend a lot to find out.

Thank you so much for your opinions on this matter. I need to explain myself in some of the thing I said I think:

 

 

Regarding the 28mm: Actually I am 50mm guy. But when I travel I happen to use 28mm more because it takes ''more of the scene''. Sometimes I use it for street at f5.6 as a point and shoot but more often I use my 50mm for my street shots because as you said 28mm is too wide for street. And while I love the 50mm sometimes I feel the urge to go a little bit wider and that's why I am thinking of a 35mm lens. While Nikon has a 35mm, as I researched it on the web nearly everybody tells that 35mm summicron is the gold standart. That's why I was thinking of buying 35mm if I buy a Leica.

 

 

Regarding RFs: I bought a Yashica MG-1 and a Canon QL17. With their leaf shutters and they really helped me to take pictures otherwise I wouldn't get. But the feel of the cameras are nowhere near to the solid built feeling of FM2 so I wanted a better built one which corresponds naturally to Leica. The only thing that makes me wonder is that how much parallax affects the overall image. I can say that I am some kind of perfectionist myself and I love to frame my photos in all of its details but while I was using my Canon QL17 the photos came out pretty good. I felt like they weren't affected by the parallax and I was satisfied with the results. You are right about the hipsters nowadays. Whenever I go to exhibiton and if the photographer used a Leica those guys take photos next to the photographer's camera instead of examining the photos.

 

 

Regarding the medium format cameras: I do want to own one but I don't know when to get. I will definetly buy one someday because I like the notion of a photo with so much detail burnt on to a piece of film which will last about a 100 years if taken care of. I would like to use it for documenting stuff and for landscapes or scenery. I don't plan to use it on street but I plan to buy one and use it for carefully composed photos like portraits of my familiy members or a good scene. So I was asking if I should buy a Leica first and leave the Hasselblad for the future or if I should be happy with my Nikon gear and take a Hassy or a Rollei to improve upon. (Even though it is heavy I may carry it with a tripod for scenery photos as I explained) I would like to have a Rolleiflex 2.8F but I wonder if parallax would affect the image so much or not, in this case in a bigger negative than a 35mm. I may try the Yashica 124 like you recommended.

[Analog Amateur]

One final thought: be wary of falling in love with the mystique of a legendary camera instead of the actual camera. It is a common mistake many of us make: we lust after a particular camera system for many years until we can afford it, then jump on it the moment we have the money, only to find out it isn't the best choice for our work. This is especially prevalent with the beautifully-made Leica, Hasselblad and Rolleiflex: they are gorgeous objects to look at and fondle, the glass reputation is faultless, so what could go wrong?

 

Everything, actually. After spending the cost of a good small car for a Leica, you might discover you can't see the difference in lens qualities with your subjects and style, and a far less expensive vintage Canon rangefinder/lenses or newer Hexar or Ikon might handle better for you. For many landscapes and portraits, a Mamiya RB67 is far more versatile and gives 40% more film area than the Hasselblad. The Hassy is certainly a pretty piece of machinery and has those great Zeiss lenses, but the boring black RB67 can run rings around it in many situations (handheld stability, framing, less finicky operation). In TLR, the much-mocked "too big, too heavy" Mamiya C220/C330 system with its interchangeable lenses and built-in macro bellows was the most flexible, versatile TLR system ever offered: I find it the perfect compromise between Rolleiflex and Hasselblad. Is it it pretty? far from it. But it works great, and later models have ultra-bright focus screens (a VERY pricey option for Hassy/Rollei). I settled on Hassy for 6x6 SLR and Mamiya for 6x6 TLR, and find myself grabbing the Mamiya more often.

 

As long as you understand and are honest with yourself about your true motivations, buying a "legend" just for the experience of finally owning it is completely justified. But if you need a different camera specifically for a different feature set or task, be sure to evaluate the "non-legendary" alternatives. The all-time collectible classics are prized for their age and being pioneers, but being first doesn't always mean being best. Many of the later unsung professional workhorse cameras were much improved in practical terms, esp reliability (German and Swedish craftsmanship isn't always so wonderful).

You are so right about that ‘’Legendary camera dream’’. Actually one the reasons I want a Leica is because it was the original 35mm camera. I love history and that fact really take my interest. As for medium format, if I am going to take a photo in such a big negative I want it to be taken with the best optics. That’s why I was thinking of Zeiss glass rather than the Japanese glass. I know that Japanese glass is no worse but Zeiss has made a biger reputation of themselves than the Japanese.

 

I also like Orsetto's suggestion of the Olympus OM-1 or OM-2: elegant and quiet, they are nearly the SLR equivalent to a rangefinder, and considerably more versatile.

 

As SCL mentioned, you aren't really giving a compelling reason to get a Leica. Fine cameras and lenses, yes, but in terms of performance-per-dollar (or euro) there are plenty of cameras out there that will do the job just as well for much less. If you want a Leica mainly for aesthetic reasons and have the money to spend...then I guess that is up to you.

Well I want the Leica because appearently it is easier to compose a scene in street because you see the outside of the frames and it looks not so aggresive in everyday life while my FM2 looks like a profesisonal tool to everyone. And I really like the look of the Leica :D But as I said in my previous comments, the look and the some of its pros does not justify the price tag for my logic. I wanted to learn your thoughts that if there is anything to consider while buying a tool like that :)

[m42dave]

Well I want the Leica because appearently it is easier to compose a scene in street because you see the outside of the frames and it looks not so aggresive in everyday life while my FM2 looks like a profesisonal tool to everyone.

 

As far as the rangefinder's compositional advantage for street photography (i.e., being able to see outside of the framelines) you don't need a Leica to do that, of course. :) And while the FM2 may look like a professional's camera, the Leica is also an expensive piece of jewelry to hang around your neck. I shoot with cheap Soviet cameras and still get asked if my FED is a Leica...so not exactly discreet. If you want a truly unobtrusive camera with high quality, consider a pocket camera, like a Rollei 35 or Contax T.

Edited September 25, 2019 by m42dave

[BeBu Lamar]

I think you're better forget about the noise problem because I don't think using the Leica would solve your noise problem. The Leica is better in practice in some respects but If you don't think Nikkor lenses are the short coming of the FM2n then on the practical side you should stick with the FM2n. That is for pictures you take. However, in my opinion the Leica is worth its asking price and if you can afford it, it may bring you lots of joy. When you buy a Leica you don't say wow it doesn't have the self timer, it doesn't have the meter etc.. When you buy the Leica you don't pay for the features rather in some cases paying for not having the features.

So in short, I think I would get better images with an FM but I would love to have the Leica.

[James Bryant]

I use several FM2n camera bodies. I use both Nikkor ais and Zeiss lenses for Nikon. If weigh is a major concern I use the Nikkor ais lenses. If maximum image quality is the goal I use the Zeiss lenses. I have a Zeiss Milvus 50mm f1.4 that is my most used lens. One of the advantages of this approach is you could try it without starting a whole new system. I admit that I often have Leica fantasies but so far haven't taken the plunge.

[glen_h]

I second the suggestion above for a Canon rangefinder, especially the later ones like the Canon P.

(The Canon VI and Canon VII are better, and may well be within your price range.)

 

The Canon P has a stainless steel shutter, so no worry about pinholes from sunlight.

It might be slightly louder than the cloth shutters of some Leica and Canon rangefinders.

 

The Canon rangefinders tend to work well without CLA, though for your trip it might be

worth getting one done. You can use Leica LTM lenses on the Canon rangefinders,

or Canon or other lenses.

 

Overall, 35mm is my favorite lens, as some have noted above.

 

I also have an AI 24/2.8 for use with my Nikon SLRs and DSLRs.

I never had a 28mm lens.

[orsetto]

The additional info about your personal photography helps narrow things down, Analog Amateur. Given what you've told us, I think you should probably go for the Leica now (and wait awhile before plunging back into medium format). You primarily want a take-everywhere small discreet 35mm film camera with top-quality small fast 35mm focal length lens: that eliminates just about everything but Leica RF from consideration. I don't know that I would necessarily spend the money for an MP, however: you can get a black M4 variant with some genuine brassing, fully serviced in peak operating condition, for half the cost. Use a small handheld meter or a cell phone metering app. And tho its heresy, consider the Konica Hexar KM 35mm f/2.0 instead of the Summicron: it is really something.

 

Another more-affordable possibility is the recent Zeiss Ikon M-mount body in black finish, which does have built in metering. Combined with a matching Zeiss Distagon-M 35mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2.0 lens, you'd have some extraordinary potential. Or, go back to the most popular Leica of the 1970s: the compact CL with lovely 40mm f/2.0 Summicron. A very handy little camera with a great lens, featherweight (600g with lens) at a cheap (for Leica) cost. Most of them have dead meters,but if you find one that works you'll have a fine TTL spot meter. The similar but electronic-shutter Minolta CLE body is also nifty, and has an excellent 28mm lens option as well as 40mm and 90mm frame lines (the original CL is limited to 40mm and 90mm framelines).

 

The Olympus OM1 or OM2 are easily as portable, compact and discreet as most Leica M bodies but unfortunately the lenses are a bit larger and the Oly 35mm f/2.0 is not the greatest of their lenses. The 28mm f/2,8 and f/2.0 are excellent and small, the 35mm f/2.8 is tiny, slow, decent, but no Summicron. If you have your heart set on 35mm focal length, I'm afraid Olympus fumbles the ball (which is why I gave up everything but my OM1 and 50mm and moved to Nikon 30 years ago).

 

When you add medium format later, consider what is most important to you: interchangeable lenses, or portability of a camera with just the 80mm Planar. If you have no plans at all to go wider or longer, the Hasselblad isn't worth its compromises in noise, weight, complexity, and upkeep costs. An overhauled Rolleiflex TLR is lighter, smaller , more reliable, and more likely to be used. If you want a 50mm wide angle or 150mm portrait lens, you'll need an SLR like the Hasselblad. But as I said earlier, don't overlook the Mamiya RB67 if you'll mostly be doing landscapes. Its 6x7 format with rotating back gives significantly larger usable film area, which somewhat neutralizes the Zeiss glass advantage of the 'blad (and if you stick with the final upgraded K/L lenses for Mamiya, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference at all). Vibration and shock are minimal with the RB67, even on a tripod, while the Hasselblad is a shock-prone clattering cacophony even on a tripod. Of course if you prefer the 6x6 square and plan to print square, Hasselblad is the ultimate 6x6 system.

Edited September 26, 2019 by orsetto

[ben_hutcherson]

If you want a "real" Leica without M prices, there are always LTM cameras. I'd suggest a IIIc or IIIf.

 

In the US at least, a good user can be had for a few hundred-I paid $600 for my IIIc/35mm/50mm(Elmar)/135mm along with an accessory finder and a few other odds and ends.

 

The Leica screw mounts do lack some of the nice features of the M cameras-the rangefinder is separate from the viewfinder, the viewfinder is dim, and it only covers 50mm. There is some crossover in design between the early M lenses and late LTM lenses, so you can still get(older) Leitz optics and actually save some money since they're somewhat less desireable in LTM.

 

The Canon rangefinders were mentioned, and they can also be a good compromise. I consider them basically what Leica could have made if they'd continued with LTM rather than the bayonet mount. Cameras like the Canon IV(there are a bunch of variants with nuanced differences) at a distance are almost indistinguishable from a Leica III, but do things like combine the viewfinder and rangefinder and add several other nice little touches. The Canon 7 series is a beast of a camera(as big as a lot of SLRs) and looks almost comically small when you put something like a collapsible Elmar in it, but there again, it's in the tradition of what Leica could have made. You get a big, bright combined viewfinder/rangefinder with projected frame lines. You just have to manually select them via a dial on the top of the camera, rather than the Leica Ms automatically selecting the lines for the lens mounted.

[orsetto]

BTW, if you end up with some spare change after your Leica purchase, consider getting a Nikkor AIS 35mm f/1.4 for your Nikon FM2. Several posters here recommended it highly a couple years ago in a thread about 35mm Nikon-mount lenses. I resisted it for decades, having been happy enough with the small old-school 35/2 Nikkor-O. But that thread finally convinced me to try one, and I was hooked almost immediately. Its a somewhat variable lens depending on distance and aperture, but when it delivers, it REALLY delivers. And, its the smallest SLR 35mm f/1.4 ever made, with Nikon's standard 52mm filter size.

 

At f/4.0 and f/5.6, it has incredible sharpness and vivid colors: the closest Nikon ever came to the traditional Zeiss "3D pop". f/8 thru f/11 give normal performance for an SLR wide, below that diffraction sets in. f/2.0 is usable and crisp. f/1.4 is loaded with "dreamy" aberrations and vignetting that give a unique painterly look if deployed appropriately (similar to the old '70s-era Leica 35mm/1.4 Summilux). It makes a great landscape/street lens at f/4.0 and f/5.6, even f/8. Bokeh is decent at infinity but a bit crazy/unpredictable at close or middle distances. The lens does have noticeable barrel distortion and chromatic aberration. Despite the flaws, a special one-of-a-kind lens: theres nothing else quite like it in Nikon F mount.

Edited September 26, 2019 by orsetto

[Andrew in Austin]

I have both a FM2n and a Leica M2. The Leica is much quieter in use. No two ways about it. Yep, the shutter sound of the FM2n is definitely a head turner.

 

With that said, since you already own it - take the FM2n along with a 28mm and 50mm Ai-S.

[charles_escott_new]

Dear AA, recently I sold a lot of camera gear and divided the funds up between family and self. This gave me the chance to buy an M6. For £2000 I obtained a TTL, boxed, with all paperwork, in as new condition, with a long guarantee, from the best UK Leica dealer. I do not get a sense of it being more cheaply made. After 2 rolls of film I am thoroughly enjoying it. If you are worried about plastic parts try an M2 or M3. My M2 has been my favourite rangefinder for many years. Can I just say that after 60 years of taking snaps I take very little notice of internet scare stories about camera longevity, the number of faultless cameras I have owned with supposedly terminal problems just around the corner have been legion. I am pretty sure my camera gear will outlast me, film Leicas will outlive all of us, even my M8 staggers on in great style, the plastic film take up on my CL works perfectly roll after roll etc. etc. After buying the TTL a quick internet search revealed that the meter must fail soon and can not be repaired. Want to bet?

Now for a strange bit, when I sold my many cameras ,often bought for very little, over a lifetime, I spent a few evenings going through my collection to have a last chance of keeping back any that I couldn,t part with. The one I removed from sale was a Nikon FM2. Just handling it made me fall in love with it again, so silky, immediately I put a roll through it. It does everything my Leicas can and more. With good glass it is superb. Buy a Leica because you want to, not because it produces better work. Finally, you mention Rolleiflexes. If interested in them there is no need to have an F or a 2.8. A 3.5C would do the same job, and mine haven,t broken in 50 years of use. Thank you for letting me ramble on, I wish you the very best whatever you do, the camera you have and the others you desire are all super pieces of machinery. All the best, Charles

[James Bryant]

BTW, if you end up with some spare change after your Leica purchase, consider getting a Nikkor AIS 35mm f/1.4 for your Nikon FM2. Several posters here recommended it highly a couple years ago in a thread about 35mm Nikon-mount lenses. I resisted it for decades, having been happy enough with the small old-school 35/2 Nikkor-O. But that thread finally convinced me to try one, and I was hooked almost immediately. Its a somewhat variable lens depending on distance and aperture, but when it delivers, it REALLY delivers. And, its the smallest SLR 35mm f/1.4 ever made, with Nikon's standard 52mm filter size.

 

At f/4.0 and f/5.6, it has incredible sharpness and vivid colors: the closest Nikon ever came to the traditional Zeiss "3D pop". f/8 thru f/11 give normal performance for an SLR wide, below that diffraction sets in. f/2.0 is usable and crisp. f/1.4 is loaded with "dreamy" aberrations and vignetting that give a unique painterly look if deployed appropriately (similar to the old '70s-era Leica 35mm/1.4 Summilux). It makes a great landscape/street lens at f/4.0 and f/5.6, even f/8. Bokeh is decent at infinity but a bit crazy/unpredictable at close or middle distances. The lens does have noticeable barrel distortion and chromatic aberration. Despite the flaws, a special one-of-a-kind lens: theres nothing else quite like it in Nikon F mount.

 

I will have to try f5.6 more with the lens. The ones I posted today on film camera week were taken at f11 with the Nikkor 35mm f1.4 ais lens.

[Analog Amateur]

I use several FM2n camera bodies. I use both Nikkor ais and Zeiss lenses for Nikon. If weigh is a major concern I use the Nikkor ais lenses. If maximum image quality is the goal I use the Zeiss lenses. I have a Zeiss Milvus 50mm f1.4 that is my most used lens. One of the advantages of this approach is you could try it without starting a whole new system. I admit that I often have Leica fantasies but so far haven't taken the plunge.

Thank you for your recommendation Mr. Bryant. I may try this approach with Zeiss 35mm focal length for maximum quality in my photos before trying Leica.

I second the suggestion above for a Canon rangefinder, especially the later ones like the Canon P.

(The Canon VI and Canon VII are better, and may well be within your price range.)

 

The Canon P has a stainless steel shutter, so no worry about pinholes from sunlight.

It might be slightly louder than the cloth shutters of some Leica and Canon rangefinders.

 

The Canon rangefinders tend to work well without CLA, though for your trip it might be

worth getting one done. You can use Leica LTM lenses on the Canon rangefinders,

or Canon or other lenses.

 

Overall, 35mm is my favorite lens, as some have noted above.

 

I also have an AI 24/2.8 for use with my Nikon SLRs and DSLRs.

I never had a 28mm lens.

I just found out the Canon interchangable lens rangefinder world after reading the replies in this post. With the combined rangefinder and viewfinder and a smaller body it looks acceptable for me to try. But I am thinking of investing big for this time so I would either extend my Nikon gear with more good lenses or I would just invest in a system like Leica or Hasselblad which has better chance of lasting out. Thanks for the information :)

The additional info about your personal photography helps narrow things down, Analog Amateur. Given what you've told us, I think you should probably go for the Leica now (and wait awhile before plunging back into medium format). You primarily want a take-everywhere small discreet 35mm film camera with top-quality small fast 35mm focal length lens: that eliminates just about everything but Leica RF from consideration. I don't know that I would necessarily spend the money for an MP, however: you can get a black M4 variant with some genuine brassing, fully serviced in peak operating condition, for half the cost. Use a small handheld meter or a cell phone metering app. And tho its heresy, consider the Konica Hexar KM 35mm f/2.0 instead of the Summicron: it is really something.

 

Another more-affordable possibility is the recent Zeiss Ikon M-mount body in black finish, which does have built in metering. Combined with a matching Zeiss Distagon-M 35mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2.0 lens, you'd have some extraordinary potential. Or, go back to the most popular Leica of the 1970s: the compact CL with lovely 40mm f/2.0 Summicron. A very handy little camera with a great lens, featherweight (600g with lens) at a cheap (for Leica) cost. Most of them have dead meters,but if you find one that works you'll have a fine TTL spot meter. The similar but electronic-shutter Minolta CLE body is also nifty, and has an excellent 28mm lens option as well as 40mm and 90mm frame lines (the original CL is limited to 40mm and 90mm framelines).

 

The Olympus OM1 or OM2 are easily as portable, compact and discreet as most Leica M bodies but unfortunately the lenses are a bit larger and the Oly 35mm f/2.0 is not the greatest of their lenses. The 28mm f/2,8 and f/2.0 are excellent and small, the 35mm f/2.8 is tiny, slow, decent, but no Summicron. If you have your heart set on 35mm focal length, I'm afraid Olympus fumbles the ball (which is why I gave up everything but my OM1 and 50mm and moved to Nikon 30 years ago).

 

When you add medium format later, consider what is most important to you: interchangeable lenses, or portability of a camera with just the 80mm Planar. If you have no plans at all to go wider or longer, the Hasselblad isn't worth its compromises in noise, weight, complexity, and upkeep costs. An overhauled Rolleiflex TLR is lighter, smaller , more reliable, and more likely to be used. If you want a 50mm wide angle or 150mm portrait lens, you'll need an SLR like the Hasselblad. But as I said earlier, don't overlook the Mamiya RB67 if you'll mostly be doing landscapes. Its 6x7 format with rotating back gives significantly larger usable film area, which somewhat neutralizes the Zeiss glass advantage of the 'blad (and if you stick with the final upgraded K/L lenses for Mamiya, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference at all). Vibration and shock are minimal with the RB67, even on a tripod, while the Hasselblad is a shock-prone clattering cacophony even on a tripod. Of course if you prefer the 6x6 square and plan to print square, Hasselblad is the ultimate 6x6 system.

You undertsood my intention well. I want that camera that I can take anywhere without any fatigue. I don't think of buying a M4 because I like to have a built-in light-meter in my camera because I also shoot slides. I would like to carry a light-meter only when I need to shoot medium format for scenery.

I didn't search for wide angle lenses for Hasselblad but as I said earlier, I like to use 28mm for scenery photos and startrail photos so if there is a Hasselblad equivalent I would chooce Hassy. But if there is none and if the parallax does not affect the image on the film a lot I can try Rolleiflex. The problem is my only source on this matter is internet and I can't find a lot of trustable sites that sell these equipment. And the ones I know rarely restock these cameras so finding a Rolleiflex in good order is a problem for me. I can find RB67s in my city but they are really big and heavy to carry in a hike.

[Analog Amateur]

BTW, if you end up with some spare change after your Leica purchase, consider getting a Nikkor AIS 35mm f/1.4 for your Nikon FM2. Several posters here recommended it highly a couple years ago in a thread about 35mm Nikon-mount lenses. I resisted it for decades, having been happy enough with the small old-school 35/2 Nikkor-O. But that thread finally convinced me to try one, and I was hooked almost immediately. Its a somewhat variable lens depending on distance and aperture, but when it delivers, it REALLY delivers. And, its the smallest SLR 35mm f/1.4 ever made, with Nikon's standard 52mm filter size.

 

At f/4.0 and f/5.6, it has incredible sharpness and vivid colors: the closest Nikon ever came to the traditional Zeiss "3D pop". f/8 thru f/11 give normal performance for an SLR wide, below that diffraction sets in. f/2.0 is usable and crisp. f/1.4 is loaded with "dreamy" aberrations and vignetting that give a unique painterly look if deployed appropriately (similar to the old '70s-era Leica 35mm/1.4 Summilux). It makes a great landscape/street lens at f/4.0 and f/5.6, even f/8. Bokeh is decent at infinity but a bit crazy/unpredictable at close or middle distances. The lens does have noticeable barrel distortion and chromatic aberration. Despite the flaws, a special one-of-a-kind lens: theres nothing else quite like it in Nikon F mount.

If I decide to stay with my Nikon gear I can definetly try it for 35mm focal length. Thanks for all the suggestions.

If you want a "real" Leica without M prices, there are always LTM cameras. I'd suggest a IIIc or IIIf.

 

In the US at least, a good user can be had for a few hundred-I paid $600 for my IIIc/35mm/50mm(Elmar)/135mm along with an accessory finder and a few other odds and ends.

 

The Leica screw mounts do lack some of the nice features of the M cameras-the rangefinder is separate from the viewfinder, the viewfinder is dim, and it only covers 50mm. There is some crossover in design between the early M lenses and late LTM lenses, so you can still get(older) Leitz optics and actually save some money since they're somewhat less desireable in LTM.

 

The Canon rangefinders were mentioned, and they can also be a good compromise. I consider them basically what Leica could have made if they'd continued with LTM rather than the bayonet mount. Cameras like the Canon IV(there are a bunch of variants with nuanced differences) at a distance are almost indistinguishable from a Leica III, but do things like combine the viewfinder and rangefinder and add several other nice little touches. The Canon 7 series is a beast of a camera(as big as a lot of SLRs) and looks almost comically small when you put something like a collapsible Elmar in it, but there again, it's in the tradition of what Leica could have made. You get a big, bright combined viewfinder/rangefinder with projected frame lines. You just have to manually select them via a dial on the top of the camera, rather than the Leica Ms automatically selecting the lines for the lens mounted.

With your suggestions I now know the Canon rangefinders and Canon IV has particulary taken my interest because of its coupled rangefinder which I really like but I want the best quality I can get in my photos so I would either buy better glass for my Nikon or go for Leica in 35mm.

Dear AA, recently I sold a lot of camera gear and divided the funds up between family and self. This gave me the chance to buy an M6. For £2000 I obtained a TTL, boxed, with all paperwork, in as new condition, with a long guarantee, from the best UK Leica dealer. I do not get a sense of it being more cheaply made. After 2 rolls of film I am thoroughly enjoying it. If you are worried about plastic parts try an M2 or M3. My M2 has been my favourite rangefinder for many years. Can I just say that after 60 years of taking snaps I take very little notice of internet scare stories about camera longevity, the number of faultless cameras I have owned with supposedly terminal problems just around the corner have been legion. I am pretty sure my camera gear will outlast me, film Leicas will outlive all of us, even my M8 staggers on in great style, the plastic film take up on my CL works perfectly roll after roll etc. etc. After buying the TTL a quick internet search revealed that the meter must fail soon and can not be repaired. Want to bet?

Now for a strange bit, when I sold my many cameras ,often bought for very little, over a lifetime, I spent a few evenings going through my collection to have a last chance of keeping back any that I couldn,t part with. The one I removed from sale was a Nikon FM2. Just handling it made me fall in love with it again, so silky, immediately I put a roll through it. It does everything my Leicas can and more. With good glass it is superb. Buy a Leica because you want to, not because it produces better work. Finally, you mention Rolleiflexes. If interested in them there is no need to have an F or a 2.8. A 3.5C would do the same job, and mine haven,t broken in 50 years of use. Thank you for letting me ramble on, I wish you the very best whatever you do, the camera you have and the others you desire are all super pieces of machinery. All the best, Charles

That is why I ask my questions in this forum. I learn a lot of information from experienced gentlemen here. Thank you for your suggestions Mr. Escott.

 

 

Thank you all for these great suggestions. It has been very informative for me :)

[ben_hutcherson]

With your suggestions I now know the Canon rangefinders and Canon IV has particulary taken my interest because of its coupled rangefinder which I really like but I want the best quality I can get in my photos so I would either buy better glass for my Nikon or go for Leica in 35mm.

 

I actually don't currently have any Canon rangefinder glass-all I have now is Leitz glass for it. They are 100% compatible.

 

With that said, Canon rangefinder glass is also excellent. The 50mm f/1.8 in particular is worth your time to try, as it's often inexpensive(you can probably find a good IV with one on it for not much more than a bare body) and performs well.

 

Also, just to nit-pick a bit, but I feel the need to mention it since it's important. You referred to the Canon having a "coupled" rangefinder. It IS true that it is coupled-AFAIK all Leica pattern interchangeable lens cameras have coupled rangefinders. A coupled rangefinder is one where the rangefinder operates with the lens focusing ring. Uncoupled rangefinders exist-they generally require you to line up the coincident rangefinder patch, read the distance off the rangefinder, and then transfer that distance to lens focus ring. On LTM-compatible cameras, there is a cam at the bottom of the lens mount and a "ramp" at the back of the lens. As the lens is racked in and out, the cam moves and the rangefinder patch moves.

 

What distinguishes the Canon IV series and similar models(along with the Leica M) and later from the Leica III series is that on the earlier Leicas, there are two viewing windows on the back of the camera. One is ONLY the rangefinder, while the other is an unobstructed viewfinder. The combined approach is generally preferred since you can both focus and view without moving your eye.

[orsetto]

I didn't search for wide angle lenses for Hasselblad but as I said earlier, I like to use 28mm for scenery photos and startrail photos so if there is a Hasselblad equivalent I would chooce Hassy.

 

Equivalent 28mm coverage for Hasselblad is the 50mm f/4.0 Distagon, preferably the newer CF-FLE or CFi versions with floating element optics. The floating mechanism and performance curve is similar to your 28mm AIS Nikkor, except the Distagon has more consistent quality at both close distance and infinity (the Nikkor is optimized for close and mid distance, not quite as good at infinity).

 

For your Nikon FM2, note that many Leica R lenses can be adapted to it. A company called Leitax makes replacement Nikon bayonets that you can attach to Leica R lenses after first unscrewing and removing the Leica R bayonet. The lens can then focus at all distances on your Nikon, although aperture stop down becomes manual (and metering is also done stopped down). The Leica R 35mm f/2 and 28mm f/2.8 are extraordinary, compact, and beautifully made.

[Jochen_S]

I also want to know your prefence when travelling.

Could we make this discusssion kind of meaningful by stating what we are intending to burn out there and hopeing to bring home?

• If it comes to B&W, I'd try to avoid the questionable joy of composing through my orange filter on an SLR, so I'd be TLR / RF leaning.
  

My manual 35mm SLRs have the really huge advantage of being ridiculously inexpensive now; i.e. they were bread & butter stuff 30 years ago and packing the remote backup layer of glass, I could feel absolutely comfortable leaving them uninsured in my unattended tent or saddle bags, while going swimming, or getting intoxicated somewhere.

For a small fortune sunk in Leica M, I'd want a waterproof bag to take everything with me into the outhouse or under the shower, each and every time, assuming I'd go travelling as cheap as possible and on my own. A "no worries!" camera insurance would be 3.25% of the kit's retail value + VAT; something I'd love to avoid.

 

Travelling with others, I'd worry a bit about the Leica(s) being a tad sluggish. - I'm not swift enough as a mountain hiker to rush in the time it would take me to change lenses once in a while. - Thinking Nikon, I'd lean towards an AF body, capable of handling their 24-120mm VR lens.

 

While I am quite fond of my Ms, I can't comment on the MP. I never warmed up with Leica's (& others') "traffic light" meters. - I prefer analog hands and would love to see my shutter speed displayed too. All in all I am happier with either a hand held meter and my M 3 & 4-P beaters or keeping the digitals on auto everything, as long as possible.

Since framing tends to be a little bit off with the Ms, I don't recommend them for slides shooting (for projection!) until you learned to know, what you are doing.

 

things that I don't like about my FM2n are that when I shoot street photography some people can hear the shutter and immediately turn around... But Leica MP looks really discreet so I can take those natural shots in which people mind their own business.

Excuse me please, might you be chasing myths? First of all: When your shutter gets heared, you have(!) your shot. Film Ms are not inaudible; they are just less noisy than other stuff.

Discreet? - Come on you put a big (or at least "mid sized") black camera up to your eye and point it at people! If it is a little dim, you might even take time to focus it. What is discreet about such? - You have to be quite close with the usual street lenses too! Everybody you are trying to shoot will notice, that you are shooting them. The only advantage a Leica could give you, is radiating peace of mind, because you stopped (the irrational) worrying about your shutter going "bang!". But why not use a really silent leaf shutter or suitable P&S instead?

People I encountered put on their "I'm getting snapped"-grimaces, usually visually triggered and frequently way faster than I'm ready to shoot a classic manual camera.

 

Which analog camera do you carry in your travels?

• Two are one; one is none! (period) On top of that: While Canikon seem to offer somewhat professional service networks; Leica surely don't. Prepare to spend a while without your gem, once it starts bitching.
   
  
• Shooting somewhat seriously B&W: C330, chimney finder, 55 &135mms + Agfa Super Isolette with 75mm in between. Serious overhead might add a C33 + 80 & 250mms. (I'd easily outshoot my darkroom stamina with 35mm. - Bad idea...)
   
  
• Shooting color negs casually: A pair of k-mount beaters, budget 28 (or maybe 24, 35), 50 135.
  
• ditto seriously: M3 & 4-P, CV15 for selfies, ZM21, Konica 35, DR cron, 90/2 (or /4?) 135/4.
  
• Minimalism: Folder with a 50mm.
  
• Slides: I'd like zooms and should upgrade to stabilized Canikon stuff.
  

FTR: My film phase seems mainly history. I

RF vs SLR:

• RF can score touristic bonus points by weiging less and being smaller.
  

Leica MP with 35mm ASPH

is maybe not the best idea for that purpose, looking at Mandler's old spherical Summilux, a compact gem. But an aspherical cron might be smaller than SLR counterparts. CV 15mm, the 90mm Makro Elmar, collapsible 50mms, all are lovely travel lenses in my eyes.

• Critical RF focusing seems to work better for me than trying to do the same on a manual SLR; i.e. hitting focus with a wide open 50/2.
  

So yes RFs can be a fun experience. - Not sure what to say about the longer lenses for them. SLR counterparts are easier to roughly focus to nail some action with DOF, but so called "portrait" lenses can take nice landscape shots too. I do like their FOV and haven't given up dreaming of subjects compliant enough to put that glass to it's intended use.

 

I wouldn't worry about eternally lasting stuff! Do a trip on a time, come home, listen into yourself and make up your mind what you want to do next.

should I buy a Hasselblad 500 C/M with 80mm lens which will accompany my Nikon FM2n with 28mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.4 (and 105mm f2.5 is on the way)...?

I'm no Hasselblad fan. I shot a fairly old one once. - Reloading felt unneccessarily painful. - I am happier doing such on my 6x6 stuff where backs aren't interchangeable. - It feels a tad easier, faster.

I spent a summer vacation or two cycling or walking around with my fixed 75mm lens folder. How many 6x6 worthy* epic shots do you hope to encounter each week? - *=Pardon that question, but since you are bringing the 50mm Nikkor too, the 'blad seems reserved for something special? - What will that be? How rare? Really worth carrying the extra camera?

Why pick a redundant lens? Is 80mm your choice or the red sharpie's suggestion?

I ended shooting just MF, when I shot MF. I might get convinced to bring a 35mm with 21mm along to do some wide shots in between, that nobody really cares about. I can also understand being after something special pre-planned for MF, but if you want the poster of "your group, standing on the Red Square", better look up, if a slightly wide lens might not be more suitable. If sharp portraits of somebody dear are important to you, while the touristic stuff is less, bring a longer MF lens. - A 120mm is all I have for my Pentacon, for example.

Personally I'd keep clear of dual formats when travelling

I'd at least try to shoot into the same narrative, all the time. - Mixing slides and fast B&W isn't the best idea, unless a coffeetable book is your planned outcome.

Which would be a better gear for traveling in general?

Not sure what to say about MF. If somebody wants to gear up these days, I would recommend smallest suitable format, which could be MFT, might be APS C (both digital) and is unlikely to become FF, Leica Ms aside. "Travel" shouts for easy to carry + generating lots of DOF. - If you want blurred background, why struggle to put the Eiffel Tower into it? Its a different way of arguing that makes MF attractive: I want 1/250 sec for handholding, a chance to utilize orange filters to render my sky and despite the needed pretty high ISO also a chance to print bearable 8x10"s. On top of that I value how a 6x6 neg on my clothes line shouts "print me!", compared to feeling lost, when facing several rolls of 35mm.

I'd stay away from slide film with 6x6. Way too huge investment needed to get a show, worth rigging up your projector, together. The absence of film speed would also way too likely shout for a tripod.

I wouldn't go below 35mm with film; smaller seems more expensive. When shooting primes, while travelling with others, I'd love to have a 2nd body in use (and might dream of a 3rd, but that one might turn the trip into a journalistic mission). If a single zoom is an alternative: Use it; sorting multiple rolls of slides from two bodies into chronological order is work.

[glen_h]

My oldest camera memories are my father's Leica If and Canon VI.

 

One result is that I never followed much of the later Leica models.

 

I do remember him explaining to me, when I was very young, how Canon

started out copying Leica. There early cameras have a screw in them that doesn't

do anything, following the same screw from Leica.

 

At some point, Canon went from the cloth shutter like Leica to a stainless steel one,

which avoids pinholes from sunlight focused on the shutter.

(I now have a Canon II with such a pinhole.)

 

But I don't know if Leica also went to a stainless steel shutter.