I didn't mean complex from a user's perspective - I meant that, compared to an all-manual M3, or even M6, the technology inside the New F-1 is more complex.
The Canon New F-1 is not larger than a Nikon F2? With AE finder? I did not know that. Where is Les Sarile now that we need him?
An F2 with plain finder is similar in size to the Canon. Size hardly matters?
Failure modes are what switches you to the backup cameras, I normally carry three, ie two backups.
I own both cameras, they're roughly the same size., their size differences are not significant.
A nikon FG is significantly smaller. An F5 is significantly bigger.
I'm not a big Leica fan either but I'd argue that a great tool gets you on the road of success much faster.I always was suspicious of people who said:'it's not the camera ;it's the photographer'or 'a good photographer can make great images with any camera'Why is it then that all the people saying this own expensive cameras?I find it much easier to make good images with good cameras.
When I started using expensive cameras, my photographs improved. A lessor camera can produce a great photograph, but the same photograph with a better camera can be better.
I always liked the feel of the Leica, but by the time I could afford one I was happy with my Minolta and later Nikon slrs. I never thought the Leica slrs. The Leica range finder cameras are still range finder cameras and I find the availability of a greater range of focal lengths, the ease of use of polarizers, and seeing what is in focus with or without stopping down on slr superior to rangefinder cameras. Hence not Leicas for me.