Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,864   Posts: 1,583,192   Online: 781
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41
  1. #21
    Bromo33333's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    669
    Quote Originally Posted by wilsonneal View Post
    ... I see a real difference between Leitz and Nikkor lenses. It's subtle, but it's discernable. When I look at the pictures I've done with Leica glass they're a little smoother, maybe a little less contrasty (I was using mostly 50's and 60's glass), with a special quality that I like. I like Nikon glass, too, but it seems snappier, less romantic. This may be complete BS and totally psychological, but it's my perception.
    Neal
    I can see that - might be the coatings - or the MTF across the lense apreture. Who knows? You know the Leitz stuff's look is a deliberate exercise kind of the way Cooke optics soft focus lens (a beauty BTW) is deliberate.

    Nice thing is that Zeiss has a couple of lenses for USD $600 appx that goes on a Nikon F mount - making hanging on to my old Nikon even more compelling!

    Agree about the "Leica collector effect" keeping prices high - though it seems to be easing a bit in the digital era on bodies, though their glass seems as high as ever.
    B & D
    Rochester, NY
    ========================
    Quiquid Latine dictum sit altum viditur

  2. #22
    Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oakville and Toronto Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,372
    Images
    311
    I own a Nikon F2 and I played with my brother's Leica R4. I will state right off, both are amazing cameras. I would lean towards the Nikon F2 as it is an almost indestructable camera, can be had for a reasonable cost and will last for generations.

    The R4 is a really nice camera but deep down make Leica a rangefinder for me.

    I have not played with the OM-3(Ti) but that is also another option as Zuiko glass is really nice too speaking as an OM-1 and OM-4 owner.

    Bill
    "Life moves pretty fast, if you don't stop and look around once and a while, you might just miss it."
    Ferris Bueller

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6
    Agree 100 percent! Still have mine also.....built like a tank!...and fabulous selection of lenses available.

    Michael F2AS

  4. #24
    butterflydream's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Korea
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    192
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Bromo33333 View Post
    If you want a particular camera you should get it (sounds like you are attracted the the Nikon F2A). I don't think anything else would be satisfying to you - because you will always be saying "what if" every time you take a picture. I also don't think any of the camera you are considering are bad - all are wonderful cameras.
    You touched the point.

    I and my friend will test each other's camera for a month. I test his Nikon he tests my Canon.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6
    One point in favor of the Nikon is the viewfinder shows 100% of the picture area. That is one reason I favor the F series Nikons.
    Kevin

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Montgomery, Il/USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,309
    I would think that it comes down to whether you want or need the 100% VF, interchangeable finders, fast motor, mirror lockup and a vast selection of lenses. Or. A slightly smaller body Very bright 96% (appx) VF, winder, rather than motor and a limited selection of very fine lenses
    Heavily sedated for your protection.

  7. #27
    Doug Hook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bedfordshire, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    24
    I've never had any F2 experience, or Leica. However, in 1978 I bought a Nikon FM which had been thoroughly knocked about over the years and has never failed. It has however, had a couple of services / clean ups which I think is money well spent. Although it was very much a poor man's F2 or F3 at the time, it is very hard to fault.

    I imagine the F2 to be potentially even more robust, a classic I would have thought? I could well be tempted myself!

    Hope that helps?

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4
    R6 is a delight.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    318
    Hello,
    if you decide for Leica, take the latest model R 6.2, it has 1/2000 sec. The viewfinder of the R 6 is superb and brighter than the F 2 AS. The F 2 is much louder than a Leica R.

  10. #30
    jjphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    147
    I've always considered that kind of thing from the opposite perspective, ie I've chosen the lenses and then a camera I like, not the other way around.

    I've had Nikons for many years, very nice, no issues, but I was happy to replace all of them with Leica R and have never looked back.

    If budget is the main priority then choose Nikon.

    If lenses are the main priority then choose Leica R, but don't waste your time by skimping on the cheapest lenses because the latest lenses are generally superior to the early versions and you do need to be very selective.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin