What do you guys prefer a Leica M3 or a Nikon F?

[michaelbsc]

Ideally, I'd have one of each. The M3 with a 35, 50, and 90.

Why, with this lens set, would you prefer the M3 over an M2?

 

[2F/2F]

Why, with this lens set, would you prefer the M3 over an M2?

Exactly!

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Why, with this lens set, would you prefer the M3 over an M2?

Well... The Summaron 35 with goggles does look incredibly cool!

Probably a PITA to mount, though.

 

[buzzardkid]

Well... The Summaron 35 with goggles does look incredibly cool!

Probably a PITA to mount, though.

Not at all.

Clicks on just as easy as any other lens without the goggles.


Regarding the OP's question: I'd take an M3 over a Nikon F anytime. Just posted the Nikon F as my most disappointing camera ever in another thread in this forum: it has nothing over the Nikkormat FTn. My Nikkormat FTn's are black with the early styled full metal lever (identical to the Nikon F), they have a meter in a much smaller finder, and a meter read-out on the top which makes them ideal companions for other camera's that have no meter. It's real easy to use them as a spotmeter wthout having to lift them to the eye.

The M3 is the summit of mechanical craftmanship. Maybe an Alpa or a Robot Royal 36 could compete, but I really cannot think of any other camera

 

[darinwc]

The Nikon F is really big and heavy. If I were travelling/sightseeing, it would be way too much to carry around.
Unless I needed a long telephoto for wildlife or something, hands-down it would be the Leica.

And frankly, the F is kinda clunky. An F3 or an FE2 is much more my style.

 

[kivis]

I'll take an FM over either except that I have become aperture preferredizied. So give me a Nikon FE and call it a day.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

If I were travelling/sightseeing, it would be way too much to carry around.

One of the locals might help you out with that.

 

[Kinetic]

I see that many of you are owned by their own camera.

 

[sangetsu]

I have an M3, two M4's, and an M6. I can't say that they are superior to a Nikon F in any way other than that their winding action is a little smoother, and that they may focus better in low light. But the M cameras are not as reliable, cannot focus closely, and don't allow you to see exactly what the lens sees.

As far as weight is concerned, an F with an eye-level meter weighs roughly the same as a Leica M. I like to shoot with a 28/2.8 AIS lens, which weighs about the same as a 35mm Summicron, but less than a 50mm Summilux.

If your goal is to simply take good pictures, then the F is the obvious choice. You can spend the hundreds of dollars you save on good lenses or film.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Well, whilst I agree that the Nikon (or Nikkormat in my case) and the Leica (M6 in my case) are almost equally heavy as camera bodies, the minute you start adding extra lenses to the mix the weight and bulk factor starts to favour the Leica. Unless the trip is oriented towards car travel and there's not too much walking around then the weight of the Nikon kit can see you getting more and more reluctant to haul it around.
Frankly, my own travel kit now is basically the much lighter Bessa R4A for B&W and the Fuji X10 for colourful 'snaps'.

 

[Nikon 2]

Guess what I would pick...?

 

[GregY]

I've used both systems extensively. I do like the small and light...so I'd go for an M2 with a 35mm. (I don't use a 50 much). Also depends on the subject & terrain. Do i need long lenses? In European cities i'd go with the Leica 21 & 35. Since i photograph in B&W & print....if i needed long lenses i'd go with a 645 & a 200 & 300.

 

[Don_ih]

Guess what I would pick...?

An iphone?

 

[Besk]

Depending on the type of travel anticipated, quietness of the camera can be important.
The M3 is going to be much quieter that an F. In my case, the shutter of my F2 even with the mirror locked up is much louder than my Leicas - IMO that is..

 

[Nikon 2]

Depending on the type of travel anticipated, quietness of the camera can be important.
The M3 is going to be much quieter that an F. In my case, the shutter of my F2 even with the mirror locked up is much louder than my Leicas - IMO that is..

I think it’s true, my Leica M3 was extremely quiet compared to the F2 I’m currently using…!

 

[Nikon 2]

An iphone?

Only if it shoots film…!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Give me one of each with full sets of lenses for me to use and own and I will get back to you.

 

[Nikon 2]

Give me one of each with full sets of lenses for me to use and own and I will get back to you.

 

[Nikon 2]

What I have amassed so far, the Leica lenses tend to be sharper especially on the corners, but seem too clinical also. Otherwise, the vintage Nikon lenses have that softer non clinical look that many prefer…!

 

[AnselMortensen]

Drops mic.
Walks away.

 

[GregY]

Well... The Summaron 35 with goggles does look incredibly cool!

Probably a PITA to mount, though.

The goggled 35mm i found bulky, awkward with weird balance....
For me that was the M3 deal-breaker
Stuck with the M2

 

[Nikon 2]

Drops mic.
Walks away.

Amen…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Drops mic.
Walks away.

Is it me or does that Nikon F look better built than a Leica M3…?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Interested readers want to know!

 

[AnselMortensen]

I think so.
My subjective opinion, of course.