Nikon FM3a vs Leica M7

[kivis]

I like aperture preferred. Being that film is forgiving a stop or two, I like the speed I am able to work at. A Nikon FM3a can be found for about $450 or so, plus glass is very reasonable. Yes the shutter is loud. But that's it and oh yes repairs are cheaper, too. So why an M7?

 

[Mackinaw]

........So why an M7?

Because it's a rangefinder.

Jim B.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Two different types of cameras and photography: range finder versus single lenses reflex

 

[flavio81]

Why? No idea. I wouldn't pick any of them. I'd pick a Nikon F2.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Because it's a rangefinder.

Jim B.

Yup. Agree. And an FM3a because it's an SLR.

It's really about which you prefer for your personal style of photography, and subjectively why.

 

[kivis]

I own both and frankly, I get great results from both. So why pay more? BTW I never really got the mystique of owning a rangefinder. Just never got better results with one or the other.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Range finders provide advantages such as parallax correction headaches, inability to adjust polarizer filters, cannot use focal lengths shorter than 23mm or 35mm easily, cannot use focal lengths longer than 135, the inability to see what the focus depth of field really is, and having a reason to post on range finder forums. Such are the advantages of range finder cameras.

 

[georg16nik]

Range finders provide advantages such as parallax correction headaches, inability to adjust polarizer filters, cannot use focal lengths shorter than 23mm or 35mm easily, cannot use focal lengths longer than 135, the inability to see what the focus depth of field really is, and having a reason to post on range finder forums. Such are the advantages of range finder cameras.

The wides for RF are best of the best, while in SLR land under 28mm is nothing in particular.
Komura 200mm ƒ/4,5; 300mm ƒ/5; 400mm ƒ/6,3; 500mm ƒ/7... longer enough than 135mm for you?

 

[Sirius Glass]

500mm with a 2X extender

 

[Alan Gales]

One advantage of a rangefinder is if you got a big nose like me, your nose does not get in the way like on an SLR.

 

[kivis]

Range finders provide advantages such as parallax correction headaches, inability to adjust polarizer filters, cannot use focal lengths shorter than 23mm or 35mm easily, cannot use focal lengths longer than 135, the inability to see what the focus depth of field really is, and having a reason to post on range finder forums. Such are the advantages of range finder cameras.

man you are tough on those poor rangefinders.I love them but just can not justify some of the prices.

 

[Les Sarile]

man you are tough on those poor rangefinders.I love them but just can not justify some of the prices.

Love is unconditional so you should not have to justify it . . .

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

man you are tough on those poor rangefinders.I love them but just can not justify some of the prices.

There are many very inexpensive ice rangefinders.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have an FM3a, which is really just a bare-bones auto-exp tweak of the FM series. Very reliable, and totally usable mechanically without any battery at all. All you need a battery for is the light meter and associated functions. But even this camera has too many bells n' whistles for me, which is why I prefer the even more basic FM2n.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Range finders provide advantages such as parallax correction headaches, inability to adjust polarizer filters, cannot use focal lengths shorter than 23mm or 35mm easily, cannot use focal lengths longer than 135, the inability to see what the focus depth of field really is, and having a reason to post on range finder forums. Such are the advantages of range finder cameras.

man you are tough on those poor rangefinders.I love them but just can not justify some of the prices.

I call them like I see them. I have looked at buying LTM and M series Leicas several times in the last year but I end up saying no because I found nothing to gain over what I have in slrs and the post above. But hey some people love range finders. Heck someone even married my ex- so no accounting for tastes and he is a nice guy.

:devil:​

 

[Sean Mac]

FM Nikons are not the only option. An Olympus OM2n might be a better comparison.

A nice Rolleiflex seems to cost about the same or less than a Leica with no glass.

For that kind of money I'd buy another Rolleiflex and another OM2n.

FM2ns are so good to use that the FM3a has remained an interesting curiousity to me.

 

[ColColt]

The biggest difference I noticed between the F2 series and the Leica was the size and how much quieter the M2 was...not to mention the superb(albeit, expensive) optics.

 

[4season]

I've never used an FM3a, so I think I'd rather try that.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Sort of like comparing a cow to a camel, though they both have four legs and a tail.

I have an FM3a and four Leica M's (fully manual). The FM3a to me is Nikon's best non-pro camera: fully mechanical if you want it, solid, great viewfinder, light and relatively quick to use. The Leica rangefinders are like an extension of your hand. Even more solid feeling than the Nikon, very smooth, small, quick to use. Both cameras have their good points and it is up to the photographer to choose which to use for situations.

 

[Chan Tran]

I like aperture preferred. Being that film is forgiving a stop or two, I like the speed I am able to work at. A Nikon FM3a can be found for about $450 or so, plus glass is very reasonable. Yes the shutter is loud. But that's it and oh yes repairs are cheaper, too. So why an M7?

I actually think the FM3a is too much money and the M7 is not. But I would rather have an M6 or MP than the M7. Or the cheap FM. I think the FM3a is overpriced.

 

[NB23]

I own both and frankly, I get great results from both. So why pay more? BTW I never really got the mystique of owning a rangefinder. Just never got better results with one or the other.

For someone that's been crazy for his M3 for so many years, I am surprised that you suddenly "don't understand" the mystique.

For me, there's no mystique. Looking through a rangefinder window is like looking through a window. It simply can't be more natural than that. Looking through a SLR is like looking through a Tunnel. I have to use SLRs for work but if I could, I'd never touch them again. A rangefinder is just more natural.

 

[Nuff]

Because of the difference in experience and usability.

I have an M3, but by the time you bring your SLR to your eye I will be walking away with a photo. By the time you try to frame and focus back and forth I have already prefocused my lens with the thumb tab on the lens (you tend to remember the position and it's distance). It's much faster to get critical focus with Leica than slr. Especially eyes with thin DOF. Even split screen is a pain! And when you take photo with SLR you have no idea what you got. Did the person move, blink etc? Live preview anyone? (Joking) with rangefinder, I can see the subject at the exact moment the shutter is open and I know if I should take another photo or not. And if you are right eyed like me, I don't need to pull away the camera from my face to wind it again. I have to win h the fm3a and Leica is so much smoother.

Ps: I have played around with fm3a last weekend.

 

[georg16nik]

... It's much faster to get critical focus with Leica than slr. Especially eyes with thin DOF. Even split screen is a pain! And when you take photo with SLR you have no idea what you got. Did the person move, blink etc? Live preview anyone? (Joking) with rangefinder, I can see the subject at the exact moment the shutter is open and I know if I should take another photo or not. ...

Same here, although on occasion I enjoy Ricoh XR-1 diagonal split-image, for closeup < 1m etc.

 

[Xmas]

A low serial FM is a lot cheaper, and easier to use.
A Canon P is a lot cheaper.
A blacksmith can repair a P or film M.
The vertical shutters can need module replacement.
Any will take the same picture...

 

[mdarnton]

I have a pack of Nikon FGs and a couple of M4s. I don't know what the FM3a offers the photographer that the FG doesn't and the FGs cost $50 each. I love them--light, good meters, M and A settings (and P, which I never use), and very ergonomic. If I leave one under a chair somewhere, someone else can have it, and I won't cry. They're a good match for my Leicas in every way, except as the OP notes, everything's cheaper. I like both systems, and tend to use one or the other for months at a time, then switch when I get bored, and I find that it's the switching that keeps me on my toes, not the system I'm using. I think that more likely a system can get in the say, rather than help. I'm the guy who keeps his digital Nikons set on A priority, one central focus point, average metering. The strategy works fine. I feel lucky when a camera even has a meter in it. Maybe I missed something about batteries---is there some reason I want to pay $400 to have a camera that doesn't use a $2 battery, when I can carry a lifetime supply of them in the bottom of my bag?

I don't use anything except from 20mm - 100mm, so fancy lenses don't matter. I have close-up equipment for both systems, when I need it. The Nikons are backed up by digital, which is a point for Nikon (can't afford Leica digital). Differences in viewing systems--one being better that the other for wide angle, for instance, become theoretical after a while--I can make either work fine. I've noticed that I take different photos with either system, and generally think my RF photos are better, but that could be because I started with Leica over 50 years ago and came to SLRs after I had a lot of habits formed--I'm not prepared to say either system is really better.

Anyway, I think a lot of people conflate differences in their toys with personal habits. There are good and bad reasons for any system to work, but ultimately to blame the system for bad photos? . . . . the real problem is in the mirror.