panos.v Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.3 #15 · Is Leica a good alternative to Nikon | |
youie wrote:
Hi all,
The title of the thread may be a little misleading, because it could be another camera brand. But I always was "interested" by the Leica brand.
Let me explain, I'm a Nikon fan, I have been shotting Nikon for several years. I appreciate top quality optics, but I'm not getting any younger. At the beginning I was using DSLR's, that I found quite "big" . When Nikon introduced the mirrorless option, I thought to my self, finally I will be using top of the line line optics but in a small form factor. But it turns out, the best in class glass comes in a quite big form factor, just think about the 50mm 1.2, or the 85mm 1.2.
So, that's were the Leica comes in the picture, I have been researching a lot lately about the Leica, specially the Q3, or the Q43.
Besides being very expensive, the Leica cameras bring into the equation, a very good camera set up with excellent optic lenses.
So, I was wondering how many of you think the Leica system would be a very good alternative to the Nikon system?
Thank You....Show more →
Which Leica? The Q? The M? The SL?
There is no equivalent in Leica to dSLRs with an optical through the lens finder.
There is no equivalent to Leica's rangefinder in Nikon digital.
The SL is the "equivalent" of Nikon's FF Z cameras.
The Q is its own thing, a FF fixed lens camera.
So, I would say, the M is not an equivalent of anything, most people (not all) will have M alongside another system. The M cameras only make sense with lenses up to 90mm...135mm is a stretch. Above that you're adapting lenses for something that doesn't make sense. You cannot do macro. It doesn't have AF. So what do you want from it?
Also, while in the M you can get your 50/1 or other such fast lenses, in my opinion they make absolutely no sense. The system is best used (ie most comfrotable, compact, enjoyable) with f/2 lenses, if anything because nailing manual focus with a rangefinder at f/1.4 or faster is not easy at all. Not impossible of course but at the very least a very different shooting experience vs fast and accurate AF at f/1.4 with your Nikon.
On to the Q...I have no personal experience and never had any interest because it is a fixed lens camera of a focal length I'm not interested at a size that is just too big. Unless you're using your Nikon with a single lens, it just isn't a contender.
Which leaves the SL. There are plenty of reviews, you can weigh the pros and cons of the price vs capabilities vs AF vs this that. You will pay a lot more money to carry a lot of weight for f/2 lenses vs your Nikon. Super tele? Nope. What do you shoot anyway?
It really depends on what you shoot, how deep your pocket is and how much you want to pay for diminishing optical returns (if any) but above all, you're paying for a different tactile experience. The summary though is that if you cannot make a good photo with a Nikon, Leica (or anything else) won't help in that respect.
|