I don't take to rangefinders so the F would be my pick. I much prefer the slr focusing.
in some of my travels i only had an M+50 on me, in others nothing but an F+50. a few years later, i have no idea which pictures came from which camera...
F or M3 for a trip ...
Interesting question. I have both F and M3.
For any occasion where the shooting requirement matches the capability set of the M3, I would leave the SLR at home. The M3 is a joy to use, and it travels well. People don't seem to notice it so much, nor do they take it so seriously.
If I needed to do things that a rangefinder cannot do as well, then I would take the F instead. It is far more flexible, if somewhat more cumbersome.
It might be a good idea to visualize the images which must be gotten and decide which gear is the best match for getting them in the can.
A Certified Dinosaur
Nikons F, F2, D700, Leica M3, & Kiev 4a
Get an Olympus FTV kit. Light weight, great lenses and easy to use. Yeah, I know I am a majority of one. I actually agree that it depends on where you are going and what you are shooting. But, I generally find unless you need a long tele, both will do the same job provided you know how to use the camera. An M3 with a 50 and 135 makes for a good kit. I'd prefer a M4 as I prefer 35mm vs 50 as my standard shooting lens. I thn can use the 35, 50 and 90 lenses. 135 mm is not a length I generally use. The F is a heavy camera for me and its only advantage would be the metered prism though when I used one, I prefered the WLF. Also, I found indexing the lens to the meter when in a hurry can be a bit frustrating but, then again, I was not an owner, only tried one out for a few days. Decided the Spotmatic and even an Exacta was the better way for me. The F is a workhorse but, for most of my shooting did not do anything that I could not get out of a Leica. To be honest, I also found no advantage of an M series over the CL and the CL is my camera of choice with the 40mm (close to the 35mm) and 90.
Both are great cameras.
Can you only take one?
Which one are you more comfortable with?
Is space or weight a problem?
I like both camera, but I like a slr better than a rangefinder. But, heck, this is not about me and what I would do, what will you do?
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I am going with the F.
Apples and oranges, depending on the type of pictures you take.
I use my M6 often and my F is collecting dust (o.k., my SLR needs are taken care of by other cameras).
Old story: for what an M does well, it can be tops. For what it can't do, an SLR is needed. Of course, ideally you should have both! ;-)
For a trip I'd very probably take the M for its size & weight advantages, unless I really needed longer teles (not too likely on a longer trip).
M6 + 21 +35 & 90mm : 1080 grammes
F(w Ftn) + 20 +35 & 105mm : 1879 grammes
The Ms lenses are also better....
Last edited by Rol_Lei Nut; 10-27-2011 at 03:23 AM. Click to view previous post history.
M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa
Having used both Pentax MX and Olympus OM-1, my choice is... OM-3 :-)
Originally Posted by Les Sarile
Nothing on this earth in 35mm has a viewfinder that compares with an OM-3 or OM-4 viewfinder with a 2-series Lumi-Micron Matte focusing screen though. And I mean that absolutely. It's a bit smaller (but still huge by any standard of today's professional SLRs), but the clarity is something to be experienced. Closest thing I have ever seen was a Leica R9 finder - but it's a distant second.
Your MX looks very pretty with the mounted fisheye though!
Last edited by philosomatographer; 10-28-2011 at 05:26 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Either is better at producing images than most of the photographers who own them. Take the one that's easiest to replace when stolen.
Originally Posted by Vsanzbajo