Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,557   Posts: 1,573,265   Online: 1002
      
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 51 to 60 of 60
  1. #51
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Ideally, I'd have one of each. The M3 with a 35, 50, and 90.
    Why, with this lens set, would you prefer the M3 over an M2?
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post
    Why, with this lens set, would you prefer the M3 over an M2?
    Exactly!
    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. #53
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post
    Why, with this lens set, would you prefer the M3 over an M2?
    Well... The Summaron 35 with goggles does look incredibly cool!

    Probably a PITA to mount, though.
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  4. #54
    buzzardkid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Netherlands, 050-ish
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Rol_Lei Nut View Post
    Well... The Summaron 35 with goggles does look incredibly cool!

    Probably a PITA to mount, though.
    Not at all.

    Clicks on just as easy as any other lens without the goggles.


    Regarding the OP's question: I'd take an M3 over a Nikon F anytime. Just posted the Nikon F as my most disappointing camera ever in another thread in this forum: it has nothing over the Nikkormat FTn. My Nikkormat FTn's are black with the early styled full metal lever (identical to the Nikon F), they have a meter in a much smaller finder, and a meter read-out on the top which makes them ideal companions for other camera's that have no meter. It's real easy to use them as a spotmeter wthout having to lift them to the eye.

    The M3 is the summit of mechanical craftmanship. Maybe an Alpa or a Robot Royal 36 could compete, but I really cannot think of any other camera
    Johan Niels Kuiper, www.johanniels.com

  5. #55
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,087
    Images
    159
    The Nikon F is really big and heavy. If I were travelling/sightseeing, it would be way too much to carry around.
    Unless I needed a long telephoto for wildlife or something, hands-down it would be the Leica.

    And frankly, the F is kinda clunky. An F3 or an FE2 is much more my style.
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  6. #56
    kivis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    215
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    8
    I'll take an FM over either except that I have become aperture preferredizied. So give me a Nikon FE and call it a day.
    Akiva S.

    Nikkormat FTN, Nikon F, Nikon FE, Leica M3

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

    My Blog



  7. #57

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by darinwc View Post
    If I were travelling/sightseeing, it would be way too much to carry around.
    One of the locals might help you out with that.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    37
    I see that many of you are owned by their own camera.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    東京
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    212
    I have an M3, two M4's, and an M6. I can't say that they are superior to a Nikon F in any way other than that their winding action is a little smoother, and that they may focus better in low light. But the M cameras are not as reliable, cannot focus closely, and don't allow you to see exactly what the lens sees.

    As far as weight is concerned, an F with an eye-level meter weighs roughly the same as a Leica M. I like to shoot with a 28/2.8 AIS lens, which weighs about the same as a 35mm Summicron, but less than a 50mm Summilux.

    If your goal is to simply take good pictures, then the F is the obvious choice. You can spend the hundreds of dollars you save on good lenses or film.

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    232
    Well, whilst I agree that the Nikon (or Nikkormat in my case) and the Leica (M6 in my case) are almost equally heavy as camera bodies, the minute you start adding extra lenses to the mix the weight and bulk factor starts to favour the Leica. Unless the trip is oriented towards car travel and there's not too much walking around then the weight of the Nikon kit can see you getting more and more reluctant to haul it around.
    Frankly, my own travel kit now is basically the much lighter Bessa R4A for B&W and the Fuji X10 for colourful 'snaps'.
    Leica M6,
    Bessa R4A,
    Rolleiflex(s) 2.8/80, 4/135, 4/55.
    Nikkormat FTn
    Fuji X10

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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