Two totally different cameras and systems.
I have both.
You wouldn't take an M3 for a safari and you wouldn't take a Nikon F nightclubbing if an M3 were available.
Decide first, on what you are going to photograph and how you want to do it, then decide on the system.-Dick
I liked a M4 with 4 lenses for travel photography. In the great American west a Nikon outfit with longer lenses was better. Zoom lenses would have made the Nikon the best choice more often. As others have noted, it's a matter of shooting style, camera and lens availability, and familiarity with whatever you choose.
How good is your physical conditioning? I own both two Nikon Fs (one with the Tn meter head and the other with the eye level prism) and a DS Leica M3. If you are going to pack a F and a couple of pre Ai Nikkor lenses, be prepared to to deal with a lot of weight. It creeps up pretty fast if you through say four lenses, a body and a meter into the bag and if you plan to do a lot of walking, you might regret your choice of system for the trip.
The M3 with say a couple of Leica lenses (provided you are not hauling a 90 f2 Summicron with you) is a pretty light kit. It all depends what you plan to take pictures of, where you are going, the kind of camera bag you are using and your state of physical conditioning.
Now if you have your heart set on taking the F then just go with two lenses, the Nikkor O 35 f2 and the P 105 f2.5 which is my de facto street kit.
Actually my personal choice for travel is the Olympus OM-1n but I like where you are headed with this. I have a Spotmatic kit with a bunch of SMC Takumar glass and always thought in the back of my mind, get a MX put an adapter permanently on and just run with M-42 lenses.
Originally Posted by Les Sarile
The OM-1 is an excellent SLR and certainly set the trend. The MX was the most successful execution of that with a slightly larger full info VF. The advantage of being able to use a world of lenses - M42 and K mount offers a lot of options!
Despite being an SLR user since the late 1960's I would use my M3, this quickly became my main 35mm camera within weeks of buyin it in the late 1980's.
If I ndidn't take a Leica I'd use a Pentax MX, perhaps and older Spotmatic F. There's no way i'd take a Nikon F, but an FM/FM2 woulod be a good choice in terms of weight & size.
Overall I would have to say I prefer my M3 over my Nikon F.
I much prefer the rangefinder cameras..
It's not the man in the fight; but, the fight in the man.
Both are worthy of being selected for a trip; however, as others have said, it depends on the type of trip.
Originally Posted by Vsanzbajo
If I needed to travel with one lens and one 35mm film body, either the Leica M3 or the Nikon F body with a 50mm f/1.4 or a 35mm f/1.4 would work for me.
If I could travel with two lenses, either body plus the following two lenses would work for me:
85mm or 90mm f/1.4
If I needed to shoot with long lenses, I would take the Nikon F and the following Nikon lenses from my inventory:
Long telephoto lens (400mm f/5.6)
Medium telephoto lens (80-200mm f/2.8 or 180mm f/2.8)
Wide lens (20-35mm f/2.8 or 35mm f/1.4)
On the other hand, if I were going to be scuba diving or shooting around salt water, I would leave both at home and take my Nikonos III underwater camera instead.
Standard safari issue was an M3 with a Visoflex and an enormous [for the day] Telyt, all bolted to the door of a Land Rover. Went out of style in the early 60's, I'm sure.
Originally Posted by budrichard