From what I've read, it is much easier to design a wide for a RF that has no mirror box to clear then for an SLR. The Zeiss Distagons are reverse telephoto lenses which are much harder to correct for barrel distortion, (retro vs. non retro focus lenses). A good example is the 38mm Biogon on the Hasselblad SWC. FWIW, the Mars Rover Navcams are a Biogon/Hologon hybrid. But you probably know all of this.
Both cameras are fine machines and will suit you well. It is more of a question of how you want to shoot.
Which do you like better? Apples or oranges? Both are excellent, durable cameras and both support excellent optics. The SLR can do many things that are difficult with the RF while the RF has the advantage of being somewhat more nimble. It depends on your style of shooting and your subject matter.
which style is which?
Originally Posted by stevebrot
5x7 Eastman-Kodak kit, under the knife for a bit
4x5 Graphic View / Schneider 180 / Ektar 127
RB67 Pro S / 50 4.5 / 90 3.8 / 180 4.5 / WLF / prism finder / polaback
Random 35mm stuff
Hello Akiva S.
If I am reading your tagline correctly, you have FIVE SLR's. Is that right?
Nikkormat FTN (Chrome and Black), Nikon FM3A (2x Black), Nikon FM, Nikon F2
If this were my problem, I would keep the rangefinder and at least one good SLR from that arsenal quoted above. For me, that would be the F2, as it is the only SLR listed with 100% frame accurate viewing, plus I don't need the AE of the FM3a.
As others said, it all depends upon the kind of shooting you do and do not do.
If I had to reduce my arsenal to ONE, it would be the F2. And that mainly so as to preserve as much flexibility as possible in picture making.
OTOH, if I did not care about telephoto, macro, and a few other things that SLRs do better than RFs, then I would keep an RF. Even though it is more limited in capabilities, I prefer shooting with an RF. Seems more at one with my hands and eyes as I use it.
Good luck with the decision.
Last edited by T42; 01-10-2011 at 11:16 PM. Click to view previous post history.
A Certified Dinosaur
Nikons F, F2, D700, Leica M3, & Kiev 4a
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Since keeping both doesn't cost anything, that can only mean you need to sell one to get some cash.
Originally Posted by kivis
The Zeiss Ikon will sell for more. So keep the Nikon.
It seems to indicate also that he has two FM3As:
Originally Posted by T42
So I think losing one of them is probably the least painful option.
Here's the solution I've just implemented for the same problem: I've kept my SLR body and a 100 mm macro lens and a 2x converter. That does what my new ZI can't i.e. close up and two lengths of telephoto. My initial lens kit for the ZI is 18, 35 and 85 mm. I reckon I've got all the bases more or less covered.
hmm Im a bit puzzled here. Maybe its not for me to know but why can´t you afford to keep both? The money you get for selling an analouqe camera (at least a Nikon) wont last long and speaking about getting Zeiss lenses for either one or the other doesn´t make sense, they cost a fortune.
Originally Posted by kivis
If its about concentrating on one system, one type of camera much depend on what kind of photography you do and which focal lenghts you like the most. If its strictly a money problem then keep the nikon, lenses are cheaper and the system more versatile. Maybe youll give up superior wide angle image quality but would you honestly know the difference if not compairing?
Send from my Electronic Data Management Device using TWOFingerTexting
Technology distinquishable from magic is insufficiently developed