F3 is a great camera. One of my fave SLR's with an electronic shutter. The benefits of a rangefinder -- any rangefinder -- is smaller lighter, more compact, quieter, generally better wides or at least much smaller wides, and way, way, way less shutter vibration. Leicas are relatively easy to get repaired and have good reliability once serviced. F3's have proved surprisingly durable, though I know nothing about the current repair status or spare part availability. However, I once made the mistake of "pixel peeping" (albeit on film) the exact same shot taken consecutively (same scene, aperture, focal length, lighting, film, development) -- one taken with an old Nikon F and a modern aspherical F mount lens, and the other with an old M3 and equally vintage M mount lens. Zoomed in you could really see the shutter vibration of the SLR. Just my experience. I do think SLR's are generally more versatile, but if you mostly just shoot wides, that's the land of the 0.72 Leica M rangefinder. Having said al that, you can get great pics with either camera system. Both F mount and M mount are good systems to get into because of the availability of old and new lenses. Nikons far more economical.
The SLR w the least shutter shock I've experienced is the Nikon F6. The worst is the Nikon FG and EM. You can really feel the body vibrate with those two and pics taken at speeds below 1/125 will be compromised.
Both are solid cameras and really come down to what you want out of your shooting experience. The F3’s aperture priority mode is definitely a nice convenience, and that solid SLR viewfinder makes focusing and framing feel very direct and reliable. Plus, the metering info is clear and easy to see, which is great when you want to work fast.
The M6, being a rangefinder, makes you slow down a bit and think more about your shots — it’s less about automation and more about skill and anticipation. The quiet shutter and compact size are perfect for street and candid work where you don’t want to draw attention. Yes, you don’t get to see exactly through the lens, but once you get used to the framelines and learn your lenses, it becomes second nature.
Also, don’t underestimate the joy of shooting with Leica glass — the rendering and color character can be very different from Nikon lenses. That said, you’re right, there are plenty of great lenses from Voigtländer and Zeiss that are easier on the wallet but still excellent.
At the end of the day, they’re just different tools for different jobs. If you like the ease and ruggedness of the F3, go for it. But if you want that classic rangefinder vibe and a camera that forces you to be deliberate, the M6 is a gem. Honestly, having both covers a lot of ground.
andrewd01 wrote:
Don’t be fooled into thinking there is anything particularly special about the insanely overpriced Leica M lenses. They are good, but not worth the money. Either go for one of the less popular vintage Leica lenses or go for a modern voigtlander or zeiss lens.
I've been shooting professionally for over a decade now, and in my opinion, this is definitely true. I think it comes down to preference. To me, the Summilux bokeh is sooooo busy, and kind of defeats the purpose of it being out of focus. IMO a Voigtlander lens at 20% of the cost actually looks better. But that's my preference.
When it comes to SLR's vs rangefinder cameras, it also just comes down to a matter of preference. Focusing on them is so different. On the SLR, you get to see the correct field of you, but in a weird way, I find that focusing on them can be a little bit harder, depending on the system. It might be easier for longer lenses, but for 28-50, I think it might actually be easier on the rangefinder cameras.
I sold my film SLR's, and kept the M6, and also invested in an M11-P. But it just comes down to preference. No answer is "correct".
I’ve only had the FM2 and found it enjoyable to use. The Contax RTSiii provides the sharpest film images of any camera that I’ve used. Compared to the Contax brick, the ‘M’ film cameras provide a good compromise of size, ease of use and image quality, but the Zeiss Ikon ZM has a much better/brighter viewfinder than any of my Leica rangefinders. The Zeiss was designed to compete with the M7. The M6TTL provides viewfinder magnification options and this worked for me given that I like wide lenses and I wear glasses. If I were to keep one 35mm rangefinder, it would be the M3 single stroke. No electronics to die and a great viewfinder. Lastly, I’m just getting back to film and I’m favoring 645 rangefinders. The Bronica and Fuji offerings are quite nice. For those that like rangefinders, use a limited selection of wide to standard lenses, these cameras are lots of fun.
bwcolor wrote:
.but the Zeiss Ikon ZM has a much better/brighter viewfinder than any of my Leica rangefinders. The Zeiss was designed to compete with the M7. ...
I disagree with that. I much prefer the VFs in my Ms vs the Zeiss ZM that I owned. It seems the one party trick the Zeiss had was that the VF was bigger. But because it was bigger it made it harder to center your eye which meant the rf patch would flare out very easily.
Adding to that the exposure readouts were very hard to see in bright daylight but worst of all was the fact that the rf patch was not synchronized with the frame lines. So when the frame lines moved as you focused to accommodate parallax, the rf patch did not. Because of this often it was not centered and I found that extremely irritating as when shooting quickly I would use the rf patch to center the image in the frame, knowing that the framelines were at an equidistant around it.
Cosina used a cheaper, less sophisticated RF mechanism than Leica's, and that was the result.
Desmolicious wrote:
I disagree with that. I much prefer the VFs in my Ms vs the Zeiss ZM that I owned. It seems the one party trick the Zeiss had was that the VF was bigger. But because it was bigger it made it harder to center your eye which meant the rf patch would flare out very easily.
Adding to that the exposure readouts were very hard to see in bright daylight but worst of all was the fact that the rf patch was not synchronized with the frame lines. So when the frame lines moved as you focused to accommodate parallax, the rf patch did not. Because of this often it was not centered and I found that extremely irritating as when shooting quickly I would use the rf patch to center the image in the frame, knowing that the framelines were at an equidistant around it.
Cosina used a cheaper, less sophisticated RF mechanism than Leica's, and that was the result. ...Show more →
I remember looking at the Zeiss ZM when they first came out and comparing them to my then current Leica MP. I really wanted to like the Zeiss, but there was something about the viewfinder, where you had to keep your eye directly behind the rangefinder patch or ... I forget exactly what. Enough to make me not consider it. The eye relief was impressive though. I wonder if they discontinued this camera a bit early; seems like it might be a good seller in today's market, maybe.
PhotoKid62 wrote:
I remember looking at the Zeiss ZM when they first came out and comparing them to my then current Leica MP. I really wanted to like the Zeiss, but there was something about the viewfinder, where you had to keep your eye directly behind the rangefinder patch or ... I forget exactly what. Enough to make me not consider it. The eye relief was impressive though. I wonder if they discontinued this camera a bit early; seems like it might be a good seller in today's market, maybe.
I liked my ZM much more than my Bessa R3a - it just was much more pleasant to handle and use. But the film transport failed in my ZM just the same way it failed in my super cheap ($100 new) Bessa L. The plastic gearing started to skip.
Leicas use metal gears. Cosina uses the same cheap plastic gears in the bottom of the rung Bessa L as in the most expensive Ikon ZM.
I would say you do get what you pay for, but now seeing a new film M is $6500, that is b@tsh1t bonkers.
There is nothing there worth that amount of money. I bought my new M6 for about $4k because I arbitraged the FX difference between $ and GBP when GBP collapsed to its lowest point. And even then I felt it was too much but fell for the hype.
