Nikon moved their production to Thailand not Vietnam.
Nikon had released a collectors copy of the S2(?) , from what I recall at the time Nikon had most of the tools and dye in storage. With moving all camera production to Vietnam dont know what Nikon has in storage. My guess is that Nikon is not thinking about a new film body and if they were it would be another collectors model, maybe a F. Pentax is working a new series of K mount bodies, Cosina has of cousre made Leica SM and M bodies, one M42 body, not sure what else.
I had a IIIG, other than having to cut the film leader to load, it was a nice camera.
The F6 isn't a camera that would sell well like the Leica M. It has way too many features. Something like the F3 would be much better but then Nikon also stopped making AI-S lenses.
I think rangefinder 35mm cameras are a pain to use. I'm not alone, rangefinder 35mm cameras were never big sellers after the 1950s. The F6 is light years ahead. More lenses available too. Maybe just collectors and poseurs are buying the Leicas?
I've used Nikon SLRs extensively. I've used a Barnak Leica extensively, they are simply different cameras.
SLRs excel when you want to use very long lenses or need the benefit of motor drive.
An RF viewfinder never blacks out. That makes it perfect for in the moment shooting to capture Henri Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment".
RF cameras and lenses are substantially lighter and smaller than SLRs. Not only does that make them easier to carry, it also makes them far less intrusive and immediately visible to a subject. (Try putting any SLR in your pocket and going skiing. You better have really big pockets.)
You don't buy Leica (or Hasselblad) first for their camera bodies (says the guy who just bought an M2). You buy them for their lenses. The Leica optics have a look that belongs just to them, particularly at wide apertures.
RFs are generally very simple designs whereas SLRs are much more complex. So, SLRs, by the nature of their design, require more maintenance. My Leica IIIf is almost 70 years old and has had two maintenance cycles I am aware of. My Nikons (I have 7 Nikon film bodies) require shutter adjustment, foam replacement, and regular CLAs every decade or so.
But, SLRs give you an almost perfect view of the final captured image dimensions without parallax.
SLRs are noisy. Leica RFs, at least, are whisper quiet.
One is hammer, the other is a surgeon's scalpel. Both have a place. That's why I own and use both when I do shoot 35mm.
Not sure if any of the news photojournalists that cover politics shoot with dig*#al SLRs anymore they're just too noisy. Film SLRs aren't any different. I love both rangefinders and SLRs, I shoot a lot with MF rangefinders, but Leicas are sublime for disappearing into the woodwork so to speak.
I have a F6, just another, very nice camera, nothing special. I have Leicas too
@Kodachromeguy- there's a nice Leica IIIg for sale at Monument Camera in Tucson. The owner is a friend and an honest businessman, and I'm sure he'd like to sell it.
"the company is now considering new designs based on pre-M cameras but with M-mounts.” A body like the IIIG with an M mount would definitely interest me. I recall seeing in a book some test IIIG bodies just like that. As I get older, I want a compact kit I can take easily with me wherever I go (sort of like a Rolleiflex is a perfect take-anywhere 120 camera). When I use a 35mm SLR, a Pentax MX or Spotmatic is convenient because the body and lenses are compact.
Uh, well not exactly
Well said. I'll add for color snapshots - it is now all mirrowless digital for me.I've used Nikon SLRs extensively. I've used a Barnak Leica extensively, they are simply different cameras.
SLRs excel when you want to use very long lenses or need the benefit of motor drive.
An RF viewfinder never blacks out. That makes it perfect for in the moment shooting to capture Henri Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment".
RF cameras and lenses are substantially lighter and smaller than SLRs. Not only does that make them easier to carry, it also makes them far less intrusive and immediately visible to a subject. (Try putting any SLR in your pocket and going skiing. You better have really big pockets.)
You don't buy Leica (or Hasselblad) first for their camera bodies (says the guy who just bought an M2). You buy them for their lenses. The Leica optics have a look that belongs just to them, particularly at wide apertures.
RFs are generally very simple designs whereas SLRs are much more complex. So, SLRs, by the nature of their design, require more maintenance. My Leica IIIf is almost 70 years old and has had two maintenance cycles I am aware of. My Nikons (I have 7 Nikon film bodies) require shutter adjustment, foam replacement, and regular CLAs every decade or so.
But, SLRs give you an almost perfect view of the final captured image dimensions without parallax.
SLRs are noisy. Leica RFs, at least, are whisper quiet.
One is hammer, the other is a surgeon's scalpel. Both have a place. That's why I own and use both when I do shoot 35mm.
I think rangefinder 35mm cameras are a pain to use. I'm not alone, rangefinder 35mm cameras were never big sellers after the 1950s. The F6 is light years ahead. More lenses available too. Maybe just collectors and poseurs are buying the Leicas?
I agree, but I am happier with the very capable and lighter F100. Before someone posts about the F100 door latch, note that I do not use any of my cameras as hammers.
I love the way Leica M series cameras feel when advancing the film and firing the lens but the rangefinder drawbacks have kept me from buying one.
Who uses their cameras as hammers? None of the cameras would survive.
The same using their hammer to take pictures.
Not sure if any of the news photojournalists that cover politics shoot with dig*#al SLRs anymore they're just too noisy. Film SLRs aren't any different. I love both rangefinders and SLRs, I shoot a lot with MF rangefinders, but Leicas are sublime for disappearing into the woodwork so to speak.
I have a F6, just another, very nice camera, nothing special. I have Leicas too
Are we really having a RF vs. SLR argument here? That “war” was won in the ‘60’s by the Japanese SLR. But I have and use both as many (most?) of us do.
RF’s have their place, which is why they are still out there. I especially like how quiet and quick to focus they are.
It’s all kind of meaningless though in the face of giga megapixel AF digital mirrorless, no? But old farts like me just won’t give up on film.
The F6 isn't a camera that would sell well like the Leica M. It has way too many features. Something like the F3 would be much better but then Nikon also stopped making AI-S lenses.
I have a F6 and going by the serial number it is probably one of the last made/sold (I bought it S/hand) Yes I agree it has more features than I would ever think about using so they are largely wasted, but what a quality build! I am mainly a a/priority, matrix metering but occasionally spot and AF single shot sort of person. I also have a F2a which is my B&W camera and I use that exactly the same simply because there are no other choices. Lovely instruments and far better made than some of the plastic bodied "alternative" types They will not go out of vogue.
There is no shortage of very good and clean AIS lenses at present some at very reasonable prices too.
I don't say it's bad. I just say it doesn't sell well. That's all. The Leica M would sell well because of its spartan features. I don't say the features of the F6 are wasted but people buying film cameras just prefer that their cameras don't have those. It's the case of less is more.
I hate when people said, this camera is so tough you can hammer a nail with it. No you can't. Built like a tank? As if built like tank is a good thing. And no camera is built like a tank. A great camera is a fine and delicate instrument. It's not built like a tank nor you can hammer a nail with it.
I hate when people said, this camera is so tough you can hammer a nail with it. No you can't. Built like a tank? As if built like tank is a good thing. And no camera is built like a tank. A great camera is a fine and delicate instrument. It's not built like a tank nor you can hammer a nail with it.
Contemporary Leicas are worn as jewelry and status symbols. Leica is even trying same sales strategy with the Leica Watch. Except that their advertisement in the Wall Sreet Journal magazine fell flat…on opposite page of $12,000 Leica watch was an add for a $53,000 watch. Made Leica look cheap.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?