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

[kivis]

I am going with the F.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Apples and oranges, depending on the type of pictures you take.

I use my M6 often and my F is collecting dust (o.k., my SLR needs are taken care of by other cameras).

Old story: for what an M does well, it can be tops. For what it can't do, an SLR is needed. Of course, ideally you should have both! ;-)

For a trip I'd very probably take the M for its size & weight advantages, unless I really needed longer teles (not too likely on a longer trip).

Example:
M6 + 21 +35 & 90mm : 1080 grammes
F(w Ftn) + 20 +35 & 105mm : 1879 grammes

The Ms lenses are also better....

 

[philosomatographer]

The OM-1 is an excellent SLR and certainly set the trend. The MX was the most successful execution of that with a slightly larger full info VF.

Having used both Pentax MX and Olympus OM-1, my choice is... OM-3
Nothing on this earth in 35mm has a viewfinder that compares with an OM-3 or OM-4 viewfinder with a 2-series Lumi-Micron Matte focusing screen though. And I mean that absolutely. It's a bit smaller (but still huge by any standard of today's professional SLRs), but the clarity is something to be experienced. Closest thing I have ever seen was a Leica R9 finder - but it's a distant second.

Your MX looks very pretty with the mounted fisheye though!

 

[Les Sarile]

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

How about an FM3 . . .

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Which one do you think is a better camera overall. If you had to pick one for a trip.
Thanks in advance.

Either is better at producing images than most of the photographers who own them. Take the one that's easiest to replace when stolen.

s-a

 

[kivis]

What kind of a trip?

The Nikon would be way more versatile due to the entire system but if you needed to travel light may not be the right answer.

Bodies are about the same weight. I got my F for $25 then sold my M3 for $800. Then I bought a light Voigtlander pancake 40/2 lens for my F. A nice light kit, plus I can still swing it a deadly weapon if needed. (Don't laugh I have seen it done with an F) hehe.

 

[kivis]

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Bodies are about the same weight.

Errr.....878 vs. 500 grammes (F+FTn vs. M6).
But the main weight savings is in the lenses, where an M kit can end up weighing nearly half as much as a Nikon one.

Using C/V bodies & lenses, the difference will probably be even greater.

 

[Dismayed]

I use a Mamiya 7 when traveling . . .

 

[Vilk]

...an M kit can end up weighing nearly half as much as a Nikon one.

i guess i need my morning tea--my brain is struggling with this one :confused:

 

[IloveTLRs]

Which one do you think is a better camera overall. If you had to pick one for a trip.
Thanks in advance.

From a purely personal point of view, the M3. I prefer a thousand times to use a small, quiet rangefinder.

 

[2F/2F]

I'd pick the Nikon F if I wanted more capability/versatility and speedier operation. I'd pick the M3 if I wanted to carry a small package. Both are high quality cameras and both companies made high quality optics, so those things would be the least of my concerns.

 

[shutterclank]

M3! M3! with a 50mm or 35mm.

 

[kivis]

Errr.....878 vs. 500 grammes (F+FTn vs. M6).
But the main weight savings is in the lenses, where an M kit can end up weighing nearly half as much as a Nikon one.

Using C/V bodies & lenses, the difference will probably be even greater.

F with meterless prism - 580 grams
M3 - 560 grams

 

[kivis]

My silent Nikon F

[video=youtube;IdAVb0sNW-w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdAVb0sNW-w[/video]

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Which one do you think is a better camera overall. If you had to pick one for a trip.
Thanks in advance.

I see this is an old thread. But still active, so I'll pipe in.

I love both. Which is the better camera overall? The photography world pretty thoroughly voted that to be the Nikon F. That is largely due to versatility. The Leica is unbeatable at its strengths.

I prefer the Leica in the focal lengths I use most (35 to 50). Because of that I also prefer the M2 (or M4) to the M3.

In spite of my preference for Leica, I think the F would be ideal for a trip if you are talking about 50mm or longer (or even w/24mm). The M3 is fabulous with 50 Summicron, but the Nikon works really well at 50mm too. The one spot where a Leica seriously trounces the F is with 35mm and that is not the strong spot for an M3).

My answer if based on the idea of travel. The Leica is still theft bait. If somebody accidentally steals your F, they'll probably just give it back when they realize what it is. If that is not a concern, I'd choose the M3 w/50mm.

 

[2F/2F]

I use a Mamiya 7 when traveling . . .

Congratulations.

 

[BradleyK]

Like Mark, I too, love both. I own both an extensive Nikon system (8 bodies- various F2s, F3s and an F5, as well as some 16 lenses ranging from 15mm to 600mm) as well as a two body (M6s), 5 lens Leica outfit. My weapon of choice, as it were,
depends entirely upon my mood and what I feel like shooting. For travel, landscape, fine art, sports, etc. the Nikons get the nod; the versatility of the system is unsurpassed. However, for shooting on the street, general "walkabouts" where shooting
really is not at the forefront of my plans,or when I simply do not feel like schlepping a load, the Leica (often just a single body with my beloved 50mm Summilux ASPH attached) gets the nod. travelling light does, of course, force you to "look a little harder." Here the results will often speak for themselves...

 

[cliveh]

The main difference is that one is an SLR and the other is a rangefinder system. It is of course a matter of personal preference, but for me it would be the Leica. The reason being that the viewfinder allows you to see above, below and each side of your shot, thus providing an aid to composition.

 

[davela]

Both wonderful choices. Some on another thread here recently said something to the effect: use a Leica M for short lens work, and the F for long work - hard to argue with that! They are both superb cameras, but the F is indeed preferable for focal lengths beyond 135mm and for any sort of macro work.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The OP has asked a question that only HE can answer. He knows what type of photography he will be doing. Neither system is essentially better than the other.

 

[Chan Tran]

uhm! Having decided a long long time ago that SLR was more versatile than RF I would pick the Nikon F. But I would love to have an RF camera for a change.

 

[sangetsu]

I have both types (various Leica M models, and an old black eye-level F), and I love them both. For simple ruggedness, ease of use, and dependability, I would have to say the Nikon F is better. My Nikon is 50 odd years old, has never been serviced, and it still works perfectly. All of my Leicas have required service or repairs over the years (rangefinder adjustments, shutter curtain replacements, etc.). I use Summilux/Summicron lenses on my M cameras, as well as some special Canon lenses, and these are better in quality than the Nikon SLR lenses. But, though they are better, they are only fractionally so. For the dollar, you can't really beat Nikon (or other make) SLR lenses.

Today I played with a beautiful Nikon FM3A. It is an incredible piece of engineering, and Leica has never produced a film camera which comes anywhere close to it. At $600 it is not cheap, but when you compare what it does for that price to a Leica M and what it can do, the Nikon is an all-out bargain. But, beautiful as it was, I still prefer using my Leicas, I am comfortable with their weight, balance, smoothness, and noiseless operation.

Still, the FM3A is so tempting...

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The cameras are too different to really compare. In build quality, there isn't as much difference as you might think. The 50/f2 Nikkor H isn't quite a Summicron, but it's damn close. Ideally, I'd have one of each. The M3 with a 35, 50, and 90. I have an F, with a set of lenses and it suits my needs better than the M3. I've had - and worked on - several M3s

 

[kivis]

I have both types (various Leica M models, and an old black eye-level F), and I love them both. For simple ruggedness, ease of use, and dependability, I would have to say the Nikon F is better. My Nikon is 50 odd years old, has never been serviced, and it still works perfectly. All of my Leicas have required service or repairs over the years (rangefinder adjustments, shutter curtain replacements, etc.). I use Summilux/Summicron lenses on my M cameras, as well as some special Canon lenses, and these are better in quality than the Nikon SLR lenses. But, though they are better, they are only fractionally so. For the dollar, you can't really beat Nikon (or other make) SLR lenses.

Today I played with a beautiful Nikon FM3A. It is an incredible piece of engineering, and Leica has never produced a film camera which comes anywhere close to it. At $600 it is not cheap, but when you compare what it does for that price to a Leica M and what it can do, the Nikon is an all-out bargain. But, beautiful as it was, I still prefer using my Leicas, I am comfortable with their weight, balance, smoothness, and noiseless operation.

Still, the FM3A is so tempting...

Right there with you on this thread.