I'd pick the Nikon F if I wanted more capability/versatility and speedier operation. I'd pick the M3 if I wanted to carry a small package. Both are high quality cameras and both companies made high quality optics, so those things would be the least of my concerns.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
Which one do you think is a better camera overall. If you had to pick one for a trip.
Thanks in advance.
I see this is an old thread. But still active, so I'll pipe in.
I love both. Which is the better camera overall? The photography world pretty thoroughly voted that to be the Nikon F. That is largely due to versatility. The Leica is unbeatable at its strengths.
I prefer the Leica in the focal lengths I use most (35 to 50). Because of that I also prefer the M2 (or M4) to the M3.
In spite of my preference for Leica, I think the F would be ideal for a trip if you are talking about 50mm or longer (or even w/24mm). The M3 is fabulous with 50 Summicron, but the Nikon works really well at 50mm too. The one spot where a Leica seriously trounces the F is with 35mm and that is not the strong spot for an M3).
My answer if based on the idea of travel. The Leica is still theft bait. If somebody accidentally steals your F, they'll probably just give it back when they realize what it is. If that is not a concern, I'd choose the M3 w/50mm.