As a long-time user of rangefinders, I recently bought a few film SLRs to see if I like the experience. I bought the Nikon FM2, Olympus OM4ti, Contax 167mt, and 139q. Their viewfinder is better than my Nikon D850. But, after a couple of months playing around. I could not nail focus the way with a rangefinder camera. Especially with the Contax 35mm 1.4. The split screen seems to have large tolerance. I ended up trade in most of the lenses in exchange for a Leica M-A. I still keep the SLR bodies since I couldn't get much trade in value for them. I kept the OM4ti specifically because I was able to score the 40mm f2 pancake lens.
mikegao wrote:
As a long-time user of rangefinders, I recently bought a few film SLRs to see if I like the experience. I bought the Nikon FM2, Olympus OM4ti, Contax 167mt, and 139q. Their viewfinder is better than my Nikon D850. But, after a couple of months playing around. I could not nail focus the way with a rangefinder camera. Especially with the Contax 35mm 1.4. The split screen seems to have large tolerance. I ended up trade in most of the lenses in exchange for a Leica M-A. I still keep the SLR bodies since I couldn't get much trade in value for them. I kept the OM4ti specifically because I was able to score the 40mm f2 pancake lens....Show more →
Focus accuracy has always been the strength of the rangefinder design, as long as everything is calibrated. SLRs have a better viewing and composing experience, especially if using a lens wider than 35mm or tighter than 50mm. There are many factors that can effect the focus accuracy of an SLR, eg correct seating of focussing screen, alignment of mirror etc. The pro grade cameras seem to be more reliable in this regard.
I have a Nikon Fm3a and it’s my treasured camera.
However I acquired a Leica M6 recently and to my view the greatest difference regarding the two cameras and what can make the Leica more useful and what marks its difference is the possibility of putting my variety of M-mount glass on it plus the fact that new lenses come out every week.
The Fm3a is a better camera in every regard for my taste but the Leica is indeed a bit more gorgeous, a bit of a diva but it takes all those lenses(they tend to be quite small too), so it kinda wins.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
The Fm3a is a better camera in every regard for my taste but the Leica is indeed a bit more gorgeous, a bit of a diva but it takes all those lenses(they tend to be quite small too), so it kinda wins.
I have an FM3a and a Leica (M2-R in my case) and like them both. For me the big advantage of the Nikon is that I can get a lot closer, especially with wide-angle lenses. The Leica's advantage for me is the ability to shoot at much lower shutter speeds with no need to worry about mirror-slap vibrations. Plus if I am shooting B&W film and have a red or yellow filter (or ND filter) on the lens, everything still looks normal through the viewfinder. With the Nikon or any other SLR those filters make the world look really weird, really dark, or both.
On the other hand, it's a lot easier to accidentally take photos with the lens cap on with the Leica, which is why I don't use lens caps anymore except for storage.
bjhurley wrote:
I have an FM3a and a Leica (M2-R in my case) and like them both. For me the big advantage of the Nikon is that I can get a lot closer, especially with wide-angle lenses. The Leica's advantage for me is the ability to shoot at much lower shutter speeds with no need to worry about mirror-slap vibrations. Plus if I am shooting B&W film and have a red or yellow filter (or ND filter) on the lens, everything still looks normal through the viewfinder. With the Nikon or any other SLR those filters make the world look really weird, really dark, or both.
On the other hand, it's a lot easier to accidentally take photos with the lens cap on with the Leica, which is why I don't use lens caps anymore except for storage....Show more →
I spray painted my rangefinder lens caps silver, at least the ones that don't TTL meter, to avoid this problem. They look so damn obvious and ugly that you don't forget to take them off.
brick33308 wrote:
I'm curious about the hype of a Leica M6 over other brands of film camera, particularly the Nikon F3 that I just got and have been shooting with for a few days.
Initial impression of the F3 is that it's solid, mechanically perfect and a pleasure to use. My only criticism of the F3 is that it's not easy to view the LCD metering information.
Setting aside lenses that are available for the Nikon vs Leica, what if anything is better about the M6 over the F3?
This question kinda hurts my head, just completely different cameras imo, Leica Rf vs Nikon SLR
As far as a tech specs answer I think that misses the point, mostly
I don't have an M6, but I have an M4-2. I really liked the F3, but it was bulky and heavy for me. I really prefer smaller film cameras, and with the Leica it's compact, feels great to use, and is just a simple process that I enjoy. F3 is a great camera though. I also use the FE and FG and I've gotten some amazing photos with them.
mikegao wrote:
….I bought the Nikon FM2, Olympus OM4ti, Contax 167mt, and 139q. Their viewfinder is better than my Nikon D850. But, after a couple of months playing around. I could not nail focus the way with a rangefinder camera. Especially with the Contax 35mm 1.4. The split screen seems to have large tolerance. I ended up trade in most of the lenses in exchange for a Leica M-A….
I hear that. I just shot a roll in my gorgeous F3P using the superb Cosina Zeiss ZF.2 35mm f2. The problem with that lens is the focus throw. The throw gets longer as you get closer, which is great as you can be very precise. The problem is at ‘normal’ shooting distances the throw is very short and so a tiny movement changes the focus point by several feet.
So I get more out of focus photos than expected. Actually I honestly expect none to be OOF unless I really mess up - that is how it is using my Ms, but with a manual focus slr it is very different. This situation is reversed when using lenses longer than 75mm on an M vs an SLR.
AF SLRs fix that focus issue. But with manual focus SLRs its a real thing for me.
I hear that. I just shot a roll in my gorgeous F3P using the superb Cosina Zeiss ZF.2 35mm f2. The problem with that lens is the focus throw. The throw gets longer as you get closer, which is great as you can be very precise. The problem is at ‘normal’ shooting distances the throw is very short and so a tiny movement changes the focus point by several feet.
So I get more out of focus photos than expected. Actually I honestly expect none to be OOF unless I really mess up - that is how it is using my Ms, but with a manual focus slr it is very different. This situation is reversed when using lenses longer than 75mm on an M vs an SLR.
AF SLRs fix that focus issue. But with manual focus SLRs its a real thing for me.
Yeah, the Zeiss 35mm f2 has a very short focus throw at normal distance. I didn't realize that until I bought the Voigtlander 40mm f2, but that lens focus is so stiff that end up not using it much even though it is can match the Zeiss' result. Nikon F3hp + Zeiss 35mm f2 is like peanut butter and jelly. It is mechanical perfection.
F3s are nice but I personally love the F2. It's got a wonderful build. You lose aperture program but I don't miss it. If I wanted to shoot fast I'd use an AF SLR. I also have a M4P. the truth is, my negatives from the Leica are consistently shaper and free of camera shake. I find it easier to focus the Leica by a mile and it has no mirror shake. That being said, I have some lenses for the F2 that wouldn't be great on a Leica so there is room for both. As another commenter said, if you can afford a Leica, you can afford both.
mikegao wrote:
..I didn't realize that until I bought the Voigtlander 40mm f2, but that lens focus is so stiff that end up not using it much even though it is can match the Zeiss' result.
Your CV 40f2 is defective. Mine is absolutely buttery smooth - better than my ZF.2 Zeiss 35 f2
Your CV 40f2 is defective. Mine is absolutely buttery smooth - better than my ZF.2 Zeiss 35 f2
I want to cry. I love that lens' result and size. I love the 40mm focal length and that lens is just about perfect. It is just the focus ring. I may buy another copy to see if there are any difference.
I am sure the F3 is robust and it's a fine camera... but I just sent my 1998 M6 in to Yougin and he said that it's the first CLA from leaving the factory in 1998. It was still working fine, but the 1/1000th of a second shutter was off a bit. It works perfectly now. 27 years is a long time for a camera to work, and now that it's been CLA's I'm sure I'll get 27 more which means I'll be 89 years old when i need to send it in again... (obviously kidding.)
But the point is the M6 is pretty robust and reliable machine. Amsterdam Camera Repair is even making 3rd part circuit boards should something go wrong with the meter.
Way back in the 1970’s I had finished my master’s degree in photography, had spent several years teaching photography on the university level and was doing a lot of personal work in photography.. When I was a student in college I used Pentax and then Nikon F’s for 35mm work. I write all this to show I had a background in photography. So in the 70’s I bought my first Leica M4. Eventually I had 2 M4’s and Leica lenses from 21 to 50mm. I liked using the Leicas when I wanted to go wide, or quiet, or something small small and very easy to carry. I even had a small leather belt pouch that would carry an M4 with 35mm lens mounted and an old 90 Elmar lens.
To me the Leicas and Nikon F system I had were equal. Developing my own black and white or using Kodachrome They were equal.
Rangefinder vs SLR is probably the biggest as was well expressed in an earlier post. But I don't think you can put aside the consideration of lenses available for each - that's really the whole point. The bodies are really just basic black boxes with essential (but limited) options. Avoid all noise and influencer-advertising about the 'lifestyle' or 'prestige experience,' the leica is a fantastic build quality but frankly there are a lot of them floating around that get more pictures taken of them than with them. If there are specific lenses you want to use that makes sense to me, leica has some incredible lensing options. But I have also seen incredible images taken with disposable cameras, and many of the greats used 'sub par' equipment according to gear gurus. Ishiuchi Miyako shot Yokosuka Story with a pentax sv/28mm that you could probably buy for 200$ today (added an image from it below). Sometimes being in the place at the time and then doing the legwork in the darkroom is worth more than any gear. I think you have to go with the tool that helps you make the work you want to explore and let that be your guiding light, otherwise you just end up on the gear treadmill consumer highway.
I think we all understand that a camera is just a light tight box etc etc.
So what matters is what will make you want to use your camera. I shoot with everything from Holgas to Hasselblads, 1/2 frame to medium frame, fixed focus to AF, point and shoots to F6s.
Out of all that I’ve noticed the cameras I use the most are the ones I enjoy to use the most. The ones that make me want to hold them, feel them, look for an excuse to take photos because they feel so good to use.
And for me Leica Ms easily are at the top of the list. There is a reason why that basic design has not changed in 70 years.
