Coming home with my tail between my legs! (returning to Leica)

[jeff_rivera5]

Well I've been a very bad boy. In the last month or so, I stated

selling off my rangefinder bodies and leica glass. I picked up an

F3 and fell in love with the view through the finder.

 

Then I got the images back. Now I realize that one can take stellar

sharp images with Nikon gear (The late G. Rowell comes to mind).

But for what I use 35mm for, handheld photography, I find the F3

lacking. The Nikkor lenses need to be stopped down quite a bit to be

sharp, at least two stops (I've tried the 28 f2.8, 35 f2, 100 f2.8

E, and 105 f2.5). And of course stopping down means slower shutter

speeds which is a no no with an SLR. Yes, I can put the thing on a

tripod, but if I'm going to do that, I might as well use the 4x5 or

8x10.

 

By comparsion, my 35 LTM summaron wide open looked better than the

28 and 35 Nikkors at f4. The 50 f1.8 canon and 90 elmar (both of

which I sold!) were also much better wide open than the Nikkors.

 

Bottom line, Anyone want to buy an F3 cheap?

 

Cheers,

[chad_hahn]

Perhaps your mirror is out of whack. I have used many Nikkor lenses wide open and havent' found sharpness lacking.

[steve_chan5]

If you've decided to sell your Nikon setup I'm sure you'll find buyers. On the other hand, if you want Nikon glass that performs well at wide apertures, I'd suggest you try the 35/1.4, 50/1.8 or 50/2 and 85/1.8 or 85/1.4. I doubt that good instances of these lenses would give results worse than your Summaron - unless vibration were a factor.

[matt_m__toronto_]

i've got an f3 with 35,50,85 f2 lenses. the 85 can have a bit of softness wide open if not critical with focus and camera shake, but you should be fine with the others. nikon makes good glass. maybe have the camera checked out, or try another focusing grid? maybe it's not lack of sharpness that you're noticing, but the camera shake? if you're shooting it like a leica, you could be having issues with mirror slap at speeds of 1/30th or below?

[EricM]

is 'bad boy' the right wording? that's an extensive exercise to find a known conclusion. the nikon primes are definitely sharp, just not as sharp. how much for the 100/2.8?

[paul_neuthaler]

Jeff, I use an F3 w/ 24m 1:2.8; 50m 1:1.4; 105mm 1:2.5 -- all are fine lenses. I love my M6ttl with 35mm 1:2 Summicron asph., but Nikon is great as well.

[johann_fuller]

Agreed - if you can see differences between 50mm Canon's and Nikon's you have focusing problem. Mirror position is as vital to an SLR as RF alignment with an M. The Nikon 28mm 2.8 AIS and 105 2.5 are superb lenses.

[wgpinc]

This may seem trollish but I used Nikon for years along with Leica M and I pretty consistently found that while I made many of what I considered good images with Nikon, many of the images seemed muddy and had a different look than the Leica. I finally switched to Olympus OM from Nikon. To my eye the Nikon lenses seemed 'warmer' in color tone. I loved the Olympus bodies with the big finder, small size quieter sound. Three of the lenses were spectacular; the 24mm 2.8, the 50 3.5 macro and the 75-150 zoom, and they all focussed in the same direction as the Leica (Nikon twists in the opposite direction which is confusing if you are using both). I really think Leica blew it when the partnered with Minolta. I would buy an OM4 with Leica glass anytime. The Olympus lenses were not nearly as good as Leica wide open so I switched to Leica R. David Bailey and Dennis Stock managed to make plenty of great images with Olympus. Good cameras and glass are not a replacement for good technique. Steve McCurry gets fantastic results from his Nikons. My favorite quote from him paraphrases to something like 'You travelled all that way and carried all that fine equipment, why not take the extra few seconds to get the focus and exposure correct.' Hiroji Kubota's older books when he was using Leica M and Nikon look to my eye better than his most recent efforts where he used all EOS. I am currently trying to convince myself that I should get rid of my Leica R and ramp up the EOS to include some digital. I've made a lot of what I consider good images with my Canon G3 even though the shutter lag is frustrating, and the finder sucks. People walk in and out of my pictures at times and the compositions rearrange themselves before the shutter fires. Back to Jeff - you probably learned more than you realize with your venture into Nikon. All the good cameras in the world may not help us become good photographers. Do what you like, try new things. What the hell, Gil?<div></div>

[Jim_Tardio]

<i>The Nikkor lenses need to be stopped down quite a bit to be sharp, at least two stops</i>

<p>

If you want to shoot everything wide open, with no depth of field, Leica lenses are sharper wide open than Nikkors. But are all of your photos taken at f2.0 or f2.8?

<p>

<i>And of course stopping down means slower shutter speeds which is a no no with an SLR.</i>

<p>

This is news to me. I shoot hand-held with 20, 35, 50, & 100mm lenses all the time at speeds from 1/30th and faster, all over the aperture range. Rangefinders may extend that range a stop or two, but they're no substitute for good camera technique. If you're shooting with a 90mm Leica lens at 1/15, wide open, hand-held, you're likely to have unsharp photos...rangefinder or slr.

<p>

I don't mean to be a smart-ass here, but comments like these make little sense. You like to shoot "hand-held"...but that does that mean always in low-light levels, wide open? Again, I go back to the depth of field issue. If you're shooting wide open I assume you want all of your shots to have an extremely narrow plane of focus. If that's what you're after, then, yes, Leica lenses are better than Nikon lenses.

<p>

I'd say that 99% of the working pros out there shoot with slrs, and have no issues with sharpness. It's time to get beyond the Leica superiority myth and learn how to use your equipment to get good results...regardless of the brand name.

[al_kaplan1]

Probably 99% of working PJ's who ever shot with Nikon F series cameras and lenses never had a photo appear in print much larger than 5x7. The half tone screen pattern gave the photo whatever ilusion of sharpness the photo had. Most published work really needs very little in the way of super critical sharpness.

[michael_kastner]

I had and used an F3 for 20 years and never had any problems with unsharpness. With my M6, I do have problems with unsharpness. Maybe it's my eyes, maybe Leica makes better lenses than Nikon lenses, but for me it's more the camera type itself and how we use it.

[m_.]

okay, now we are back to say it is the camera that takes pictures. well, i thought we agreed a long ago that it is photographer who takes pictures. :-)

 

i still do love my nikon n80 but the loud sound of f3 was the reason for me to give it up a long ago.

[jeff_rivera5]

The bad boy comment was just being silly.

 

I'm just sharing my experiences, that's all. Yes, the camera needs to be checked. No I don't believe Leica lenses are better than Nikkors, they just may be for me.

 

Jim, I can never shoot that low of a shutter speed. With RF I could go down to 1/30, with SLR I need to be over 1/125 to get consitant sharpness. Maybe I'm lame, but it works for me.

 

My best image (so far) was shot with an old Ricoh Diacord TLR. The camera you use dosen't mean shit.

[jeff_rivera5]

And by the way, I REALLY APPRECIATE having my post title edited. THANK YOU SO MUCH, you're so helpful!

[albert knapp md]

jeff: I know the feeling... I started out with Nikon back in the F

days and then discovered Leica about 6 or 7 years ago. I sold all

of the former and have been most content with the latter.

[Alex_Es]

Strangely, I've just fallen in love with the Nikon F. After using RF for so long it took a little getting used to. I use mine with a waist level finder and the CV meter mounted on the add-on hotshoe. I use only prime lenses on it. So basically I'm treating it like a Leica. I love the craftsmanship that went intot this camera and the very bright and big finder. I'm also amazed how cheap used Nikon lenses are. A 35/1.4 (which I've not bought) goes for 35,000 yen. Nikon Fs with prism finder are now collectors' items and are going for Leica prices in mint condition, unfortunately. Fortunately, if you can stand an F that shows a littel wear they can be had for about 40,000 yen in very good condition.

 

Also, minus heavy metering finders and outfitted with a prime lens like a 50/2 or 35/2 an F is not much heavier or bulkier than a Leica.

 

I find the Nikon F + waist level finder to be a nice companion to the Leicas when I need to go down to the ground.

[alex_lofquist]

I started out with Leicas in college. Took them all over the world. Eventually, went the route of SLR mainly for telephotography, though my failing eyesight did have something to do with it. I then sold most of my Leica stuff as I wasn't using it any more. (I did keep my IIIf/Summicron for nostalgia reasons.)

 

Recently, I have been comparing many older images taken with my Leicas and those with my Nikon lenses. I cannot see any degradation caused by my Nikkors, and as a matter of fact most of my Nikon images are really much sharper! I used lenses from 35mm to 200mm on my Leicas, and 20mm to 500mm on my Nikons (F4S and F5). From this I must surmise that you may have had a problem in optical alignment with the F3.

[._._z]

<i>Then I got the images back.</i><p>

 

This decision came about after seeing results from just a roll or two after previously

regularly using a different type of camera body for an extended period?

[Rob F.]

I'd say the Nikkor f/2.8 28mm holds its own pretty well, even though I like the f/2.8 28mm Elmarit R's color better. I don't know if I could get used to that "+/-" exposure indicator on the F3, though. I like my R6 exposure control the best, and my Nikon FE2 exposure system second best.

[EricM]

How much for the 100/2.8? I'd rather you keep it and figure the sharpness problem though.

[andy_piper2]

"...if you want Nikon glass that performs well at wide apertures, I'd suggest you try the 35/1.4..."</p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=12229284">Really!?</a></p>

 

There are plenty of nice Nikon lenses - but I wouldn't choose the 35 f/1.4 at f/1.4 as the best example of the breed. Nor the 85 f/2 AI/AIS - which would be soft at f/2 even if mounted on Mt. Rushmore at 1/4000th second. I know, I used many examples over 18 years.

[cameron_sawyer]

"If you're shooting with a 90mm Leica lens at 1/15, wide open, hand-held, you're likely to have unsharp photos...rangefinder or slr."

 

Please see the attached, shot at 1/15, M6, 90 'cron at F/2 with inappropriately slow film (Portra NC 160). Try that with an SLR! Takes steady hands, of course.<div></div>

[jeff_rivera5]

Eric,

 

I don't have the 100 any more, when I saw its performance, I sent it back to KEH for the 105.

[johann_fuller]

The slow speed capability of an M is a myth - a big SLR with it's larger mass and fat handgrip is a much more stable platform for low speed shooting. Mirror vibration is much reduced with modern designs and in any instance the action of pressing the shutter is the major factor in camera ovement at the point of exposure. What an RF is good at is showing this movement at the point of exposure ( it's blacked out in an SLR) so you can 'train' yourself to release the shutter without moving the camera.

[Allen Herbert]

big SLR with it's larger mass and fat handgrip is a much more stable

 

Disagree, and i have both. Lets not forget the follow up shots; a clunking mirror does not help, either.