Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,913   Posts: 1,584,698   Online: 656
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 60
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    657
    Quote Originally Posted by Vsanzbajo View Post
    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.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Dismayed View Post
    I use a Mamiya 7 when traveling . . .
    Congratulations.
    2F/2F

    "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."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Burnaby, BC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    635
    Like Mark, I too, love both. I own both an extensive Nikon system (8 bodies- various F2s, F3s and an F5, as well as some 16 lenses ranging from 15mm to 600mm) as well as a two body (M6s), 5 lens Leica outfit. My weapon of choice, as it were,
    depends entirely upon my mood and what I feel like shooting. For travel, landscape, fine art, sports, etc. the Nikons get the nod; the versatility of the system is unsurpassed. However, for shooting on the street, general "walkabouts" where shooting
    really is not at the forefront of my plans,or when I simply do not feel like schlepping a load, the Leica (often just a single body with my beloved 50mm Summilux ASPH attached) gets the nod. travelling light does, of course, force you to "look a little harder." Here the results will often speak for themselves...

  4. #44
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,678
    Images
    344
    The main difference is that one is an SLR and the other is a rangefinder system. It is of course a matter of personal preference, but for me it would be the Leica. The reason being that the viewfinder allows you to see above, below and each side of your shot, thus providing an aid to composition.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pasadena
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,719
    Both wonderful choices. Some on another thread here recently said something to the effect: use a Leica M for short lens work, and the F for long work - hard to argue with that! They are both superb cameras, but the F is indeed preferable for focal lengths beyond 135mm and for any sort of macro work.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,141
    The OP has asked a question that only HE can answer. He knows what type of photography he will be doing. Neither system is essentially better than the other.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  7. #47

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,990
    uhm! Having decided a long long time ago that SLR was more versatile than RF I would pick the Nikon F. But I would love to have an RF camera for a change.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    東京
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    212
    I have both types (various Leica M models, and an old black eye-level F), and I love them both. For simple ruggedness, ease of use, and dependability, I would have to say the Nikon F is better. My Nikon is 50 odd years old, has never been serviced, and it still works perfectly. All of my Leicas have required service or repairs over the years (rangefinder adjustments, shutter curtain replacements, etc.). I use Summilux/Summicron lenses on my M cameras, as well as some special Canon lenses, and these are better in quality than the Nikon SLR lenses. But, though they are better, they are only fractionally so. For the dollar, you can't really beat Nikon (or other make) SLR lenses.

    Today I played with a beautiful Nikon FM3A. It is an incredible piece of engineering, and Leica has never produced a film camera which comes anywhere close to it. At $600 it is not cheap, but when you compare what it does for that price to a Leica M and what it can do, the Nikon is an all-out bargain. But, beautiful as it was, I still prefer using my Leicas, I am comfortable with their weight, balance, smoothness, and noiseless operation.

    Still, the FM3A is so tempting...

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,679
    The cameras are too different to really compare. In build quality, there isn't as much difference as you might think. The 50/f2 Nikkor H isn't quite a Summicron, but it's damn close. Ideally, I'd have one of each. The M3 with a 35, 50, and 90. I have an F, with a set of lenses and it suits my needs better than the M3. I've had - and worked on - several M3s

  10. #50
    kivis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    215
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by sangetsu View Post
    I have both types (various Leica M models, and an old black eye-level F), and I love them both. For simple ruggedness, ease of use, and dependability, I would have to say the Nikon F is better. My Nikon is 50 odd years old, has never been serviced, and it still works perfectly. All of my Leicas have required service or repairs over the years (rangefinder adjustments, shutter curtain replacements, etc.). I use Summilux/Summicron lenses on my M cameras, as well as some special Canon lenses, and these are better in quality than the Nikon SLR lenses. But, though they are better, they are only fractionally so. For the dollar, you can't really beat Nikon (or other make) SLR lenses.

    Today I played with a beautiful Nikon FM3A. It is an incredible piece of engineering, and Leica has never produced a film camera which comes anywhere close to it. At $600 it is not cheap, but when you compare what it does for that price to a Leica M and what it can do, the Nikon is an all-out bargain. But, beautiful as it was, I still prefer using my Leicas, I am comfortable with their weight, balance, smoothness, and noiseless operation.

    Still, the FM3A is so tempting...
    Right there with you on this thread.
    Akiva S.

    Nikkormat FTN, Nikon F, Nikon FE, Leica M3

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero/

    My Blog



Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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