Nikon F6 vs Leica M3... do I have G.A.S. or a legitimate concern?

[250swb]

Please don't misconstrue this as whining... this is an appeal to those who may have some experience with this to share some insight.

I suggest you are not connected to your camera because you are not connected to your subject, the scene, or the event. True enough some camera's can do better job's than others at different things, and refining the equipment does free the photographer up and can clear the mind. But it should be subject led, what do you want to photograph, what project do you have on the go, what gets you excited? Then choose the camera for the job. Even so, if you are excited about a subject or project you should be thinking more about that than the camera you are holding, and even if a wholly unsuitable camera, like a 4x5 at a riot, you should make the best image you can from the tools around you, the idea should override the inconvenience of a 'wrong' camera. This goes for war photographers who wished they'd had a Nikon and telephoto lens instead of a Leica and a 28mm lens, to a landscape photographer who wished he'd had his 8x10 for the 'once in a lifetime opportunity' and not his wife's P&S. In either case the photographer will still produce a great picture because they override the camera's limitations and find a way with what they have to express the situation in a photograph.

So, the answer is to make a list of projects, things to think about and hopefully get excited about with a tingle of anticipation each time you go out the door, then the best camera will come to you, it will reveal itself in that moment you say 'Doh! why didn't I think of that before?!'

Steve

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . I guess I want both to enjoy the photography process more *and* to get better images. . . .

Getting better images is more about what you do with whatever camera you use than about the capabilities of the camera. You can use only one camera and lens, and make fine photographs of a limited range of subjects. You can also use an appropriate variety of cameras and make equally fine photographs of many more subjects. However, you can NEVER have all the equipment needed to adequately photograph all possible subjects.

I bought my first Leica in 1953 and my first SLR about 10 years later; different tools for different circumstances. Now, a d****** SLR enables me to capture better photographs of some subjects than ever before. For example, tonight I'll photograph a small-town football game at ISO 12800, and autofocus will make most images sharp. I could go back to a Leica IIIf and make better photos than ever of fewer subjects, and perhaps be just as satisfied. Decide on a practical limit to your photographic arsenal, and enjoy just that.

 

[georg16nik]

.....
It hit me this morning-- I think the reasons I'm not enjoying this F6 as much as the K1000 or Canon F1 are:

1) To me, it is a digital camera (the D7000) that happens to records images on film rather than an SD card.
2) I don't feel that connect or involvement in the process; I point and click, the same as with the digital camera. I miss focusing and composing... I miss the analog metering that shows me where my exposure lies (I know the Leica doesn't have an internal meter, but does have the ability to attach a meter.)... I miss the simplicity of turning a dial to set the film speed rather than fighting through a bunch of menus if I want to push a roll.
3) I wonder if I will become reliant upon the computer in the camera rather than become a better, more adept photographer.
4) I don't feel that sense of accomplishment with the F6 when an image turns out great that I get with the Canon F1 or Pentax K1000; after all, the computer did all the work, not me.

Does this sound like Gear Acquisition Syndrome or does this sound like legitimate concern over whether I have the right instrument for my photography? Please don't misconstrue this as whining... this is an appeal to those who may have some experience with this to share some insight.

Thank you!

Sounds like you need a full manual camera to force you walk the walk and have fun.
Nikon F6 got manual mode - sure! But are you going to have as much fun shooting B&W in manual with F6, when compared to Leica M3?
Also, do you have all the good glass for M or even F6? Just the camera body itself is one side of the story.

 

[Regular Rod]

I suggest you are not connected to your camera because you are not connected to your subject, the scene, or the event. True enough some camera's can do better job's than others at different things, and refining the equipment does free the photographer up and can clear the mind. But it should be subject led, what do you want to photograph, what project do you have on the go, what gets you excited? Then choose the camera for the job. Even so, if you are excited about a subject or project you should be thinking more about that than the camera you are holding, and even if a wholly unsuitable camera, like a 4x5 at a riot, you should make the best image you can from the tools around you, the idea should override the inconvenience of a 'wrong' camera. This goes for war photographers who wished they'd had a Nikon and telephoto lens instead of a Leica and a 28mm lens, to a landscape photographer who wished he'd had his 8x10 for the 'once in a lifetime opportunity' and not his wife's P&S. In either case the photographer will still produce a great picture because they override the camera's limitations and find a way with what they have to express the situation in a photograph.

So, the answer is to make a list of projects, things to think about and hopefully get excited about with a tingle of anticipation each time you go out the door, then the best camera will come to you, it will reveal itself in that moment you say 'Doh! why didn't I think of that before?!'

Steve

+1

RR

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Hi everyone--

If this thread isn't appropriate, please accept my apology. I'm trying to sort this out and figured I'd ask ya'll to weigh in as I evaluate whether or not I should consider a different camera.

About 6 months ago, I bought a Nikon F6, and after my post the other day in the "better equipment" thread, I really began to think about *why* I still prefer the Pentax and the Canon, even though the F6 is an arguably better camera with which I get better results more often. At the time of purchase, I was debating between ta Leica M3 and the Nikon F6. I went with the F6 because I was familiar with the Nikon D7000 controls and it would be very similar.

It hit me this morning-- I think the reasons I'm not enjoying this F6 as much as the K1000 or Canon F1 are:

1) To me, it is a digital camera (the D7000) that happens to records images on film rather than an SD card.
2) I don't feel that connect or involvement in the process; I point and click, the same as with the digital camera. I miss focusing and composing... I miss the analog metering that shows me where my exposure lies (I know the Leica doesn't have an internal meter, but does have the ability to attach a meter.)... I miss the simplicity of turning a dial to set the film speed rather than fighting through a bunch of menus if I want to push a roll.
3) I wonder if I will become reliant upon the computer in the camera rather than become a better, more adept photographer.
4) I don't feel that sense of accomplishment with the F6 when an image turns out great that I get with the Canon F1 or Pentax K1000; after all, the computer did all the work, not me.

Does this sound like Gear Acquisition Syndrome or does this sound like legitimate concern over whether I have the right instrument for my photography? Please don't misconstrue this as whining... this is an appeal to those who may have some experience with this to share some insight.

Thank you!

Compared to the M3, the Nikon is a plastic turd on a strap.

 

[frank]

Compared to the M3, the Nikon is a plastic turd on a strap.

So much flowery language. Just tell us how you really feel.

 

[Bill Burk]

But the photos that win, the photos that sell, all of them were made with an auto camera. My Pentax 645Nii with the FA 45-85 and FA 80-160 has the highest hit rate of all my cameras but my Pentax PZip is not that far behind. I even have a higher hit rate with my Zeiss Ikon Contaflex with shutter priority (a couple of those older Pro-Tessar lenses are very, very good.)

The interesting thing is that it has nothing to do with exposure or focus. I can do that as well or better with a manual camera as I can with an auto camera. The difference is in the composition. Somehow I am subconsciously so concerned with focus and exposure while working manually that my compositions must be taking a back seat. I must be less concerned when working with auto systems so my subconscious is placing composition where it belongs, up front.

Pioneer,

This is a very interesting story.

I think there is a lot of truth in the idea that the best camera is one which frees you of fiddling so you can get to the business of composition.

I spent many years with autoexposure, Pentax ESII and Olympus OM-4, and I know that I was free to shoot with them. Now I am using manual cameras and separate lightmeters. When I use a fiddly camera (like the Retina I), I will miss shots.

But the better manual cameras give me the shots that I want. Basic SLR or Rangefinder cameras (such as Pentax K1000 or Leica M) free my subconscious.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

So much flowery language. Just tell us how you really feel.

For my money, Nikon's camera production ended with the F2 and FM2N.

I'd gladly take a Zorki over an F6. Or, if you were giving it to me, I'd take the F6, sell it, buy the best Kiev II I could find, a Contax II for purposes of comparison, and another marine chronometer.

 

[mdarnton]

I can only speak from my own experience...... I have had a mess of Leicas, starting in 1967 with a IIIf, M3s, M2, an M4-2, various thread-mounts, currently a couple of M4s, but never one with a meter. I have also had a mess of Nikon stuff over the years, starting with a Nikkormat FS in 1966. I have relatively complete systems in both for film, and a digital D300 I use for work, but very few AF lenses, all primes. What I have ended up carrying around and actually using the most over the last five years or so has been one beat up Nikon FG. It is closest in size and handling to my M Leicas, and I do appreciate having the relatively simple meter and nothing else that it has.

Construction quality and reliability are excellent. It's a little plastic turd on a strap, yet is seems to take good pictures, and where brass dents, plastic simply bounces. I forgot it somewhere once, and my wife asked if I was worried. About a $45 camera with a free lens. . . . . no, not so much.

Given what they cost, on Ebay the near equivalent to free compared with the other stuff people have mentioned, you should pick one up and give it a go, assuming that you have some Nikon lenses already.

By the way, despite the supposedly legendary Leica quality, my plastic turds have had much better reliability stats.

 

[budrichard]

Seems to me that this Thread is not about photography but equipment.
Nikon, Leica, I've owned then all in analog form and the Nikon F6 is a VERY different camera than the M3 of which I still retain and M3 but never use it anymore, preferring a pair of M7's with Motor M's. My Nikon's of today are Fm3 for 135mm and longer Nikon lenses I still retain.
Use what you have, learn to take photographs first before jumping to the vaunted M3.
The M3 is slow to use, no meter, unless you use the coupled MR which is a good and fast as a hand held meter. I use a nikon to meter for the M3, no motor or trigger winder readily available.
Nice for it's day but today an M6, MP or M7 is much faster to use with accurate exposures. In fact the M7's so accurate that I mostly leave it in AUTO 95% of the time and get great exposures with chrome.
-Dick