edmund_kean

Dear Steve Hughes

I completely agree with you about the cost aspect, were it to be a test for comparatively priced products. However, my account was more or less based on what most of the commentators had previously advised (ie try some Nikons and the Leica) in my initial post 01/01/08.

Thanks for your comments.

Edmund

Dear Marek Fogiel

At the time I could locate no used Ikons (I rarely buy things new, except toothbrushes!), I did reflect on your views but in the end I luckily had quite a deal on the used M P.

Thanks for your input.

Edmund

Firstly a very big thank you to all those who took the time to pass on their

creeds and experiences. Before I go on, I should just single out photo.net

member .[.Z (is it short for - Nosey?)for extra special recognition - I am now

reading extensively all and any material I can find on psychology and can

reassuringly convey to you, I am now dealing with my issues and should be, very

soon, back in top form for my occasional candid shot - thank you, thank you,

thank you!

What did I go for?

The shop I used was brilliant. I explained I would like to try some cameras,

they duely arranged insurance and I went off around the town with a used Leica

M P, a FM2n and a F3 all loaded with the same film. Each camera had a 35mm

prime attached and my game was to try and shoot the same scenes for an eventual

comparison back at the shop.

A quick word on how I metered. In the past when using the OM 1, I always

metered on an area of a scene I thought would give the best possible exposure,

but for the sake of the test I, rightly or wrongly, followed the cameras'

information in the viewfinder only altering the shutter speed whilst keeping the

same aperture on each of the three cameras for every individual scene.

Whilst remaining a reasonably important element of a camera's function,

metering, for me, is not the most important. I reckon one can learn and quickly

adapt to the "idiosyncracies" of a camera's meter, unless of course it is

erratic. Moreover on the other hand, relying on one's own judgement can be fun!

More important to me are: How the camera feels (ie balance & weight), Form and

Function of Controls & (most recently since owning the Canon)Results.

To the test - thankfully I did have an assistant to help carry and hand the

cameras to me when required - a bit like a golfer's caddy. To be brief I have

below rated in order MY preference, for MY key areas of function as I

experienced them.

Viewfinder: F3, FM2n, M P

Viewfinder

Info Layout: FM2n, F3, M P

Viewfinder

Focussing: M P, F3, FM2n

So, I found the F3 the most familiar and comfortable, the M P the brightest but

the most odd (do I hear a cacophony of "told you so" from the Nikon touts)and

the FM2n's the most awkward. The problem I had with the FM2n was the film

advance lever sticking into my right eye. Being a left eyed viewer I found this

most uncomfortable. I did however like the metering info of the FM2n and thought

the Leica was a close second and hated the F3 (in manual mode). I instantly

liked the rangefinder's quick focussing system and preferred it to both of the

slower Nikons.

Shutter Speed

Dial: F3, FM2n, M P

A S A Dial: FM2n, M P, F3

Film Loading: FM2n, F3, M P

Focus Barrel: M P, Nikons

Aperture Dial: M P, Nikons

Film Advance

Lever: M P, F3, FM2n

Film

Advancement: M P, F3, FM2n

Film Loading: FM2n, F3, M P

Fim Rewind: Nikons =, M P

So, no clear winner in above fields which I guess was to be expected. One

comment on the shutter speed dial on the M P. As others have stated, I found

it's position to be a bit ridiculous and given the transition from the M6 to the

M7 improved both positioning and size, one would have thought this evolution

would have extended to the M P's development. I liked the definate clicks of

the F3's shutter speed dial, followed closely by both FM2n and the Leica. I

liked the grippy material of the F3's shutter speed dial. The Leica's lens is

beautifully built and a clear winner for smoothness of operation, but film

loading is a bit of a chore to be mastered!

General Feel: F3, M P, FM2n

Again the F3 felt the most familiar, although I am not sure why it should have

done so more than the FM2n. But there is little doubt to me, when you handle

the Leica it seems to intravenously feed it's pedigree and brilliance of

engineering straight into the appreciation and respect area of the brain - I

reckon nothing else could touch it for this. It's the equivalent of a design

and build collaboration between Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Pugin - both

brilliant and beautiful.

(Any other controls which I have omitted have none or little importance to me).

Finally the results:

The Leica exposed most scenes accurately although some of the compositions were

a bit off. The F3 may have had a shutter fault as most scenes were dramatically

underexposed (yes the ASA was set correctly) and the FM2n on the whole generally

very slightly overexposed on most occasions.

The exposure variations encountered on both the Nikons meant the Leica's images

were clearly superior.

I had no hesitations and promptly bought the Leica M P and 35mm F2 asph. I know

there will be a settling down period for me with it, but thankfully I can cope

with change normally with ease, so I don't envisage a protracted period of being

out of sorts with the instrument.

I am not a professional camera reviewer - that is quite clear. I went out and

did this and posted as an update as requested by one contributor to my original

initial question.

Comments are welcome.

PS - Please forgive the British humour/sarcasm at the start of the text.

Ronald

Thanks for your reply, but I am absolutely sure I wish to stay with film. I suppose really what I am looking for is others' experiences with dealing with a similar sort of quandry and how they worked it out. I have been reasearching the pros and cons of different systems for the last month or so and am now completely exhausted by it. Having read so so much, I feel I need a nudge to make a decision by reading a selection of views, thoughts and reasoned arguments.

I would describe myself as a photographer whom enjoys creating images using the

tried and tested rules of composition (most boring to some), occasionally

sneaking in the odd candid when amused to do so. I have never had any urge to

use filters or any other gadjet/gizmo to alter the scene, I merely TRY to

capture a compositionally good photograph of the moment for my own reflection.

For many years I used an OM 1 with a couple of lenses - 28mm F2.8 & 50mm F1.8.

However early in 2007 I thought, albeit wrongly, it maybe time to progress to an

autofocus film SLR and so after a little research I bought an EOS 1V and 28-70mm

F2.8 lens. Now, without a shadow of any doubt, I noticed a distinct improvement

in sharpness over those old Zuiko lenses. Sadly, I soon found the sheer bulk of

an autofocus SLR coupled with a biggish zoom a real problem. I suddenly became

distinctly self conscious and moreover the confidence to shoot the odd candid

rapidly ceased. Using the Canon made me realise I had a real relish for the

mechanical/manual camera and after an eleven month period with the EOS 1V, I

have sold it along with the lens.

Presently I am cameraless, but I am clear in my own mind I do not wish to return

to an Olympus system and so having provided you all a little background, my

question is: Do I buy a Leica Rangefinder (I could afford an MP with one lens

for the moment!) or a Nikon system with three modern AIS lenses maybe a 20mm

35mm and 55mm micro?