The important take away is that no matter what camera you choose, be sure to choose the camera that inspires you to create. Be it Leica, Nikon, or whatever!
Not all tools created equal as well lens but overall as you said choose what suits and be inspired to shoot with it everyday as this is the only way to get better. You love it. You do it more often and you get better.
When I was in my teens I wanted the best fountain pens my parents could afford. My father said to me "it's not what you write with that matters, it's what you write". The same applies to cameras. Whoever views the resulting image will not know if it was produced by a Leica M6 or a Ricoh KR5. Great photographs are made by photographers, not cameras.
I full heartedly agree, just take a cheapo Canon 300 with a decent lens and film stock and you can take at least as great photos, if not technically greater, than F2/M6. Especially in film photography the lens, accurate focus and the film stock quality is the decisive factors, not the shutter sound. I have a range of decent film cameras from Nikon, Canon, Minolta and the actual camera, above a certain technical level, has zero relevance to the quality of the photos.
I agree. I've had great results, and sold more images taken with cheap cameras like my Ricoh Kr-5, and Pentax SRT-201, than with high dollar ones. As I learned photography I was taught that the camera was simply a film holder, and that the glass was more important, along with photographers eye. Reminds me of megapixel "snobs". At one time all that was available on a 5D was 8.2mp, and they took great photos, and still do. It's about the artist, not the equipment. Ansel Adams.. "A good photograph is knowing where to stand".
@@miklosnemeth8566 Your're fully right. However, almost every famous photographer of the past one day or other had found the need of a strict reliable tool, and those had been Leica, Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon, and only few others. Today, it's a different syndrome, indeed: Maybe the first 1.000 Leica photographers had made 90 % of the best Leica photos, and the subsequent 1 Mio. only 10 % or even less.
Both cameras are phenomenal tools, and both are possibly the peak of design in their respective realms. There are things rangefinder film cameras will always excel at - smaller lenses, often smaller camera, quieter operation (no mirror slap), the ability to use symmetrical lenses. But there are also things a film SLR will excel at - using telephoto lenses, the ability to see exactly what the lens is seeing (including DOF preview), macro photography, so on. Leica glass may have a mystique about it but it's good to remember there are all sorts of Leica lenses over the years that are actually Schneider or Minolta lenses. It is also pertinent to remember that, after Nikon released the original F, most professional photographers dumped their Leica (or Contax) gear for Nikon - it wasn't that one brand was better or one type of glass was better; there is simply more versatility in an SLR system and this came to dominate the photography landscape, for better or for worse, for the next 60 years. Leica took some time to figure out what it wanted to do with itself after this horrible reality sank in for themselves and repositioned themselves more and more over time away from a professional brand towards a luxury brand. As someone who grew up around a lot of cameras (I basically grew up in a camera store in the 80's), the Leica's in the display case always felt nice and sounded nice when you pushed their buttons. But then so did the Olympus OM-3s and OM-4s (they didn't sell very well though), and so did the Contax RTS's (we never had a distribution deal but we had an RTS II for a while on consignment), and the Canon T cameras seemed like the future at a time when everyone else was forcing you to buy a separate motor drive. And we still had Nikon F2's new in box (and even sometimes used) that people would still buy because that fancy new Nikon F3 was electronic and that wasn't a "real camera". But the staff were all curious and all the various gear would get tried out on slide film (usually K25 or K64) and, because it was slide film, you could look at it through the microscope and say oh wow this or that lens is a little better than this or that lens... but when you projected it or sent it to get printed on Cibachrome (RIP 😢) there was almost no difference. Every major manufacturer was making good quality products, and you would be hard pressed to get "bad pictures" from any hardware from any of them if you were just taking the time to do the basics of making a quality photograph. Fast forward to the 90's, when the Samsung rep dropped off a framed 8x10 photograph of a miner with a gas mask on shot on one of their zoom point and shoots, on Fuji 800ASA colour negative film (!) no less... a stunning print from a plastic Korean camera with a zoom lens that rivalled anything I had ever seen out of any Leica rangefinder. Don't pick a brand that everyone tells you will make the best pictures, and don't pick the system that everyone tells you is better. Find what feels the best and is the most comfortable for you and get out there and take pictures with it. And if you end up owning a Leica (or a Contax, or a Nikon or Canon rangefinder) as well as a Nikon (or other) SLR... enjoy the best of both worlds!
TBH, I'm not sure the point of "quiet" camera is...I do street photography, and never has there been a moment where I took a photo and the person didn't clearly look at me, looking at them. And that's with my M3....Whether the mirror smacks like a tank or whispers like a butterfly...I guess if you're photographing a church, that would make sense.
@@ThePhotoDept Same with my M5. I’ve been having to use an M6 for the Last six moths and tbh (and no offense to those who love it) but that rangefinder is crap. It’s inaccurate and it flares like hell. I’ve lost important shots because of that.
@@VariTimo The flaring is a valid point, I used to have that problem before an MP upgrade, but inaccurate? I think the one you’re using needs an adjustment.
If an M2 had a meter and the internal film counter it would be 100% perfect. I still want an M2 the most though. But if I could afford an mp I would get that probably.
@@ThePhotoDept Today, I shoot with an iPhone, Voigtlaender VITO (1958), Pentax Spotmatic (1970), some analogue Nikons (1974-1990), and one digital SLR - it really doesn't matter.
I had a Nikon F2 and worked for a newspaper. One day I took the pictures in the rain without an umbrella or any protection for the camera. Afterwards I used silica stones to remove all the moisture from the camera inside a plastic bag. When I bought this Nikon F2, it had already been used by a photojournalist and it looked like it had been abused a lot, but it worked wonderfully. I sold the Nikon F2 in 2005 and now in 2023 I've bought another all-black one with the Nikon DE-1 Eye Level Prism View Finder so no light meter, I can't describe the emotion after 18 years of having a Nikon F2 again. I'm thinking of buying a leica iiig also without a light meter, I believe your question will also be mine.
Sincere, honest and accurate. Great photographers take great photographs. I know a chap with five Leicas film and digital…he still takes crap photographs! He doesn’t have the necessary eye for decent, creative images. I once saw an amazing artist produce something extraordinary with a sharpened match, some spit and some coal dust.
The thing I like most about film cameras is the fact that it's not about technical specifications. Its just preference for how it feels in your hand or what helps you see the best photos. If you like rangefinders or slr's its what helps you see the best not what has the most megapixels or best dynamic range. Love to see this video.
I've been a glowing photographer since my 7th birthday in 1955. But I never had glowing tendons to own a Leica. Since the age of 12, the only target has been an SLR, and the Nikon F has made it perfectly since 1972, and soon the F2. I shot more than 250.000 exp. and have no reason to regret my choice. For about 40 years, I've been a pro - without any Leica but with a 'leica-like' Makina 67, concerning noiseless shooting and compact body, lens incl.
I have used a Nikon f since 1961. The primary lens was a 28mm. Used a split image focusing screen. In 1969 I purchased a used M3 with a 50mm lens. I never got comfortable with the M3. I think it was using a 50mm lens. It took me longer to focus the 50mm vs the 28mm. I was saving to get a 35mm lens for the M3 when I damaged the M3 beyond repairable. It whould have cost me $900 in 2000. So the question is would the 35mm make it easier to focus. I'll never know. In 2006 I purchased a Context G1. And yes it's auto everything. Which means I can concentrate on taking photos. Now it's digital but I still go out with the Nikon and the Context occasionally. Enjoy both.
Of course a 28mm is easier to focus than a 50mm, mainly because of its much wider depth of field. You don't need to be as accurate with focusing and usually the focusing travel on the focusing ring is significantly shorter at a shorter focal length.
Well done. When it comes to contemplating the Leica M6, this is one of the best videos I've seen. I've owned my M6 for more than 20 years and still enjoy using it. Provided that a photographer's budget could cover either camera and assuming that their needs could actually be met by either a rangefinder or a SLR and things like lens size/lens range don't factor in, then it really comes down the user experience. As you've noted, cameras of this caliber (be it a F2 or a M6) are of incredibly high quality and plenty capable of capturing terrific images. Beyond that, the only thing left is the user experience. While the exorbitant prices that the M6 commands certainly doesn't make it a better camera, the user experience that it provides is worthy of consideration. Yet as you've pointed out, the user experience of the F2 is just as worthy of such consideration. However, if cost does start to factor in, then the conversation begins to change in my opinion. Like I said, I love the user experience that the M6 provides. But if I had to start all over today I doubt that I would pay twice the amount that my M6 cost me when new. However, I might consider the purchase of a F2. As someone wanting an all-mechanical camera with a built-in light meter, I could think of other SLR's that also appeal to me such as a Nikon FM/FM2 or a Leica R6/R6.2 for example. When it comes to SLR's there are actually a number of others, but coming up with alternative rangefinders is more challenging. There is the Leica M5, but that's about it. Therein lies another part of the M6's appeal I suppose.
yes...I have 2 F-2s also and I find it very difficult to think of parting with them. I've never shot with a Leica and I'll probably never get that chance.
The two most exercised cameras of those I have are the Leica M4-P and Nikon F2. Both similar in that they can also be used as melee weapons if ever needed. Shoot wider and spontaneous with the rangefinder and composed tele portraits with the SLR
Happy over here with my Nikon F2, which I always feel super fond of when hearing you talk about yours! I like the heft of the F2, the patina on the body, and I feel like it’s a bit of important photographic history, even for a hobbyist like me. 🙂
As an owner of both Leica and Nikon's I must say that Leica glass is much better. The micro contrast of the Leica glass provides the type of contrast that would make it appear as if the final print was made with a medium format camera. I must say that I love my Nikon's. I own every single F model starting with the Nikon F and I miss not seeing the view provided in an SLR when using an extreme wide angle or a telephoto lens. The Leica's are more appropriate for shooting street type photography with a 35 or 50mm lens being the sweet spot.
On paper I agree but having shot most highly rating film cameras I think the Nikon image is MUCH more pleasing. Do what you like but just get out there and shoot!
In the end it's just a black box that holds film. It's the photographer that makes the image, not the camera. That said; I absolutely love and enjoy both Leica and Nikon camera's.
Fantastic review and comparison. I’ve owned various Nikons and various Leicas over the years. I currently have a Leica M3 and a Nikon F with a Nikon F2 on the way. Oh and there’s also an FM2 upstairs that’s jammed and needs servicing. I’m currently shooting and loving the Nikon rather than using the M3 because the Nikon is beat up and brassy and I don’t have to worry about it in the same way I do when I take my beautiful, pristine M3 from the 1950s out. They are both great instruments but carrying a leica and lenses around you’re always aware of and anxious about the value of it all and getting it scratched or stolen.
It's interesting how a little perspective can change your perception , and I appreciate your views. My first Fuji camera was a brand new X-pro2 and I loved it, then I bought an X-T20 and it made me realize how amazing my X-pro was. I then experienced the opposite with my Nikon FM and getting an F3. Your tastes can change at any time if you are open to it.
I've never shot a Leica, but I have a OM2n, and it feels really great. Super precise. Solid construction, and simple design. Just enough features and amazing glass. I can imagine that if I were able to shoot a Leica I would probably have the same experience as you. No denying that I'd love to own a Leica for the style and the experience of shooting one, but I really do love my OM2n.
Leicas are wonderful, here in Europe we don't mythologize them much, they are just cameras like others, made for photography, they are comfortable, they are beautiful, but what you haven't said is that the blind is made of waxed fabric.That shutter is delicate, if it hits the light directly it burns the shutter, it pierces the fabric because of the magnifying effect they have a delicate shutter the Nikon F2 its shutter is made of titanium. To use the leica you should always go with f / 16 closed diaphragms or with a lid, if not, the shutter can be damaged and that is not good on the street you need speed and always carry the camera set for fast shots. Good video.
Back in my film only days, I used a Nikon F2 with 20mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2, and 85mm f/1.8 lenses. Eventually, I purchased a Leica M6 with 21mm f/1.4 Leitz, 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss, and 90mm f/2 Leitz for the times when I needed to shoot quietly. My F2 and my M6 produce high-quality images. Recently, I purchased a Leica M10 digital rangefinder that accepts my M-mount lenses. I hope it will be as reliable as my F2 and M6.
Glad you had a chance to try both camera and appreciate their difference. Both are great cameras. Both Leica and Nikon have made cameras that are very intuitive, competent and enjoyable use. From a machine and glass as they are both great tools. The camera will never make you better, it is important that it do as you expect, again both are great, whether it is from with either camp. Cheers
I had the same experience when I had an M3, I always wanted to own a film leica. While rangefinder focusing was very fun and the overall precision feel of the camera is very nice, my Nikon F3 has that same high quality feel and I tend to get better shots out of it just since I've used it for so long.
That second photo with the F2 is my favorite from the two examples. The composition is just so well done with that blue tone through the whole scene.. Jesus Christmas on a cracker
I also have a Nikon F2 and always wondered how much better the photos from the Leica M6 would be in comparison, and after watching this video I feel that the Leica's price is in no way an indication that you are going to get that much of a better photo. It's more like a status symbol to me for a well made awesome looking camera, and if I could afford it, that would be great to own, but with my current cameras I'm in no rush to save up the money. Thank you for the video. Please keep'em coming, they're getting better and better.
The main advantage of a Leica for me is the beautiful, clear viewfinder with infinite depth of field and frame-lines that allow me to see outside of the frame. When photographing with a rangefinder, I'm extracting a frame from the flux of life. I am subtracting and isolating. When I use a camera with a view through the lens, I am making the frame in camera. It is an additive process. I've shot Pentax for 30 years and Leica for 20 years. Over this extensive period of time, I've naturally developed different habits when using each camera as they offer different ways of looking. And my photos look different, not so much in technical things like sharpness, contrast and colour fidelity but in terms of subject matter, composition, balance, rhythm, movement and unity.
What a hoity toity take. I use an M3, it takes the same god damn pictures. Some of the BEST photographs between the 1970's-1990's on the street were taken on an SLR.
@@fgsemedo The camera does not matter one iota. This "I'm extracting a frame" bullshit is hilarious at best. I own a leica, I own an SLR, the quality of work is the same, and my style in images is the same. Stop attaching extra bullshit to what the camera does because we over spent on a light tight box. Is a leica highly enjoyable to use? Yes, of course. But all that other frivolous shit you applied to it is laughable at best. Again, some of the BEST photographs in the world, street and documentary and journalism, have been taken on SLR's between the 70's-90's. SLR's blew past rangefinders in the 1970's due to their accurate superiority. You get the same image. Stop seeing shit with rose tinted glasses.
I got a M3 a few months ago. I really like, but I cannot discern much difference in images taken with the M3 and 50MM Summicron Collapsible versus my Nikon FM2 with the 50MM F 1.8 Nikkor.
You've summed it up perfectly! I use my Pentax K1000 just as much as I use my Zeiss Ikon (Equivalent concept to M7), and I've owned and sold an M3. Honestly with 35mm film the biggest differences I've seen have been in the film and developer choices. Sometimes I feel I get sharper pictures from my Pentax, which is more from the good viewfinder and accurate focus rather than the lenses.
Great video! I think it's almost embarrassing that eeeeeeevery photo-youtuber has a Leica. And always the M6. But I guess thats just how people work, we lust for things we daily get fed with. I wanted the M6 when I started with photography in 1989, but there was no economic chance in h**l that got get on. I should say that I ordered a MP last summer, and I love it.... /A fool for the "hype".
For the past year an a half I shot almost exclusively Leica. It began with an M3 and I added an M4-P. Some madness also led me to add an M240 to the mix (though I sold the M3). Sold the M3 and soon thereafter the M4-P went in the shop. After waiting around for months to get my M4-P back, I bought an F3 and a 50 1.4 and 24 2.8 for what seemed like a pittance compared to Leica money. And then I went on vacation with the 240 and the F3. The 240 only made it out of the bag once. I ended up using the F3 for everything and loving it. I could see everything in the frame (glasses wearer here) and found nothing lacking about the experience. Fast forward, and I'm in the process of selling all the Leica gear because I actually enjoy the Nikon more. It was an expensive journey, and I'll never say the Leica experience isn't alluring, but honestly I prefer actually using the Nikon. Videos like this are helpful for people who feel like they're "missing out" if they don't have a Leica when at the end of the day, they all take the same film and maybe some cameras aren't worth the hype tax they're currently commanding.
Man what a journey. I appreciate your words, man. I see people constantly yearning for a Leica because of the quality or status and feel like they are missing out otherwise. I’m never hating on leicas, but after my first F2, I can’t imagine needing one.
@@ThePhotoDept All over the years since about 1960, I wonder why Leicas have been much more in a showcase than in use;-)) In 1971, I decided to go along with the Nikon F system and never had to regret this.
When the F2 was released, I sold my Leicas, an F and some other stuff to buy 2 F2 bodies. I was stringing for a newspaper and several other publications at the time and wanted the F2's. I still have one of them plus several others. They are my favorite cameras!
You have totally Right about Leica! I own M4 IIIa and Nikon S2 now F2 and..... actually Nikon have titanium shooter, mirror, good weight and cheeper sometimes better lens. The best is "F mount " :3
Sorry for the late post. I had viewed this video some time ago, but wasn't ready to comment. I have been in a very similar situation to yours in that I wanted to understand more of what was behind the "mystique" with Leitz and German glass in general - is it really as good as claimed? I have been skeptical. Without going into a boring list of cameras I have and have used, I will say that I have a lot of Nikon kit (including the F2 Photomic) and have acquired some Barnack style Leica cameras. In general the quality of fit and finish and mechanical operation of these German cameras is just off the hook, but while the LTM glass I have shot is good, I find it hard to say better than my best Nikon glass. That changed when I decided to give the Leica R system a try. I now have an R7 with 50mm f2 Summicron, and more recently acquired a bundle in an eBay auction that includes a Leica SL, 35mm f2.8 and 21mm f4 Super Angulon plus a couple of other lenses. I am still shooting and getting film processed from the SL use so I can't speak to the wide angle lenses, but my comparison of the Summicron in both B&W and color to my Nikon, Olympus, Canon and Minolta glass illustrated to me that there is definitely something different about the German glass. I went into this examination believing that a lot of this Leica legend stuff was hype. Not so sure now. If this weren't enough I did the same thing with a Contax RTS II and 50mm f1.7 Planar lens. I have gone over these scans and negatives more than a few times and I cannot deny that there is more information in the captures made with the German (German-designed) glass. But here is the thing - does it matter? When I look at any of the images captured with any of my Japanese glass, I don't really find anything lacking, per se, so why change? For me, this comes down to how the equipments feels while in operation. I am starting to lean more toward the old mechanical bodies (F2, Olympus M-1, Canon F1, Leica SL, etc.) just because they feel so smooth and you know it is an accomplishment to make mechanical things feel this way. As far a shutter noise is concerned, my Olympus 35 SP is probably even quieter than the M6 just because it uses a leaf shutter and not focal plane shutter. I feel like the F2 shutter sound is one of the softest for an SLR that I have used until I experienced my Olympus M-1 after a CLA. In your street photography example the F2 may well be heard but I would challenge that M6 with my Olympus M-1. I know they built in shutter shock absorbers to the M-1 to get it as close as possible to the Leica M3 level of sound. Maybe we should capture sound files of these shutters going off and compare them. I am sure there is an iPhone app for that somewhere. Great discussion.
love your input. i have to agree with you, the German glass just has something about it. Zeiss isn’t a titan in lens manufacturing by accident. it would be foolish to disagree. I think it comes down to preference as most things do. I love Zeiss glass, and I love Nikkor glass. Different beasts, different uses. Just so happens that Nikkor glass is more easily achievable at my income bracket hah.
Good decision. I have a Leica MP and a Nikon FE2 ... if I had to decide to go further with just one of both, it would be the FE2, because it is much more versatile in use and you can take pictures which every focal length you want. Leicas rangefinder is very good for 35 & 50 mm and if your are not composing your images with objects or lines precisely out of the corners.
I also had the same issue, borrowed also an Leica M3, M6 and M monochrome, but somehow I always went back to my Nikon F2 or F. Somehow I prefer to be able to see the boarders of my frame and what I really get on the image focus wise and DOF. Though agree that it's very nice machine, and in certain situations it can be preferred and you do get a different feeling of approach, but then when shooting portraits I see you got the 105 f2.5, and must say that is a pretty nice piece of glass. About feeling a a professional... That's only between the ears, at the end people judge (OK that sounds hard) of the images and not about the glass, camera film etc ;) But nice and honest review! (And jup Im also thinking about getting an M)
I agree with the value of seeing exact frame lines ESPECIALLY when shooting with symmetry in mind. I prefer knowing EXACTLY how it's framed, not a really good estimation.
I use an all black Nikon F2 with a Nikkor 50mm sc 1.4 lens and a Nikkor 105 p auto f2.5. The perfect outfit. I also have a Zorki 4k with the Jupiter 8 coupled rangefinder camera with. a 50mm F2 which I enjoy.
Nice weighting! Since the 1970s, I've been pondering if it will worth to me owning a Leica - then the M3, then for 700 DM in Germany. But at the same time, I got familiar with the Nikon F/FTN, from the beginning with the 1.8/85 and 4.5/80-200 Nikkors (that cost me 3000 DM); so end of the discussion proved to be crucial: it had to be the Nikon. And until now, I never have had to regret it. The overwhelming versatility has not only been an option but necessity in my everyday pro photographer life. Now, at the age of 75, I understand your flirt with Leica - I feel the same way;-)) But I'll never get rid of my Nikons, especially the F2. And concerning rangefinder cameras, I got a Voigtlaender VITOmatic II from 1958 in best condition for 25 EUR instead of 5000 EUR for a Leica. Now it's up to me to prove whether I'm a good photographer, or only my tool is worth watching. Too many awesome Leicas are in too many boring hands. By the way: Is your chair the famous one made of aluminium in Hanover/Pennsylvania? I'm just sitting on one right now. @philosimot
I got a Nikon F2 black body and it came with the original 2 Parts motor drives and it need a Expousre meter head and I have to get the camera fixed and I paid £10.00 for it from a camera dealer in a market in London in 2023
Great video! Definitely a breath of fresh air from Leica Purists and Leica bashers. I have an M4-P which is main shooter and and M3 that I use for personal stuff (both funded by flipping other cameras). I think the main reason I like shooting Leica is the rangefinder and how it feels. I've jumped between SLRs, Rangefinders, and TLRs and I think I just work best with the rangefinder, even medium format my go to is another rangefinder. As dumb as it sounds it just feels like home, like what's right for what I want and how I shoot. I want to be fast with my camera, be in and out and I get that with shooting a Leica. Ultimately, learn your camera and know it inside and out and it will feel like a Leica to you.
The output between Nikon VS Leica or any other camera is not the main point from my perspective, it’s simply HOW you use it. Focusing with a rangefinder VS a SLR is so so so much better, the manual focus experience is also so much better than any other camera. The overall size of the lens too is so compact and you have so many options too between classical designs and modern ones. All in all, it just feels so much better to use (for me because I prioritize the above over other things that SLR does better like providing depth of field preview or 0.5m minimal focus).
I bet you'll get yourself a Leica someday, too. You don't forget this experience. Leica M2 will do by the way.😅 You can tell yourself all day that any SLR you have is good (for me it was an A1) but something always pulls you to this camera.
I fulfilled my dream last year and got a Leica. It was an M5 though. It is nice, but lenses are so expensive that I still only have one and it is not even Leica (Voigtländer). The camera is great, but I found out that I am not really a range finder person - and I have 11 Nikon lenses! Realizing that SLRs are more for me, I got a Leica R8 and 3 Leica R lenses. They are much more affordable. And I like the photos very much. Surely the Nikon F2 will be the next on my list
Thanks for taking that Leica fever away from me lol, I also own an F2 and can attest to how much of a joy it is to use. I also own an F3 and while I believe it’s a superior camera, the feeling of shooting an F2 is just different. However, if I were to buy a Leica it would be the M3, not the M6.
When I worked as a journalist, I used the Nikon F. It's a great camera, the best at the time (late '70s). I recently bought a Nikon F2as. Also good, but way too heavy. Five or six years ago, I returned to photography as a hobby. I worked my way up the Leica food chain and now use q digital M10-p and a q2. They can't be beat. Beside the Leica reputation, it's the simple menu system and UI that make them the best. Leica keeps it simple.
Shot an M6 for years, own and use an F2 for years, I see your point. I'd say if you're crazy about cameras and photography, treat yourself to a Leica and use it. It's one of photography's magic swords :). The F2, the Rolleiflex, the Hasselblad, they will be of great service to any photographer enjoying well made things, as they will push you to bring your imagery to a higher level- now that your search for camera perfection has brought you here... No more excuses !
Loved the video, but my mouse was poised on the comment button when you asked if the pictures looked different or "better". As you later pointed out, it's how the camera feels when shooting that is the difference-maker. I shot with a cheap ass (relatively) Bessa R2 for about a year, swearing it was good enough and Leica was all hype, but I eventually had to see if for myself, bought a $1500 used M6 TTL, and with first rolls (before even getting them back from lab) knew I was in love. But an important point - I still used the cheap Cosina lenses I used with the Bessa (as well as a great Konica 50mm m-mount, but I hate that focal length, alas) and 15 years later still shoot that way. The camera - all the points you mention (heft, low shutter noise, shutter press feel, rangefinder patch) - inspires me to shoot better pictures I believe. Not pictures that "look" better though ("sharpness is a bourgeois concept" and all that). (As an aside, am I the only one that feels on pins and needles every time your elbow approaches the Leica or the Nikon strap touches the mug?!)
The camera that inspires you to shoot and create is what you should shoot with. Sweet deal on that M6! (I’m sure you’re not the only one on pins and needles haha)
Really enjoyed your video - your analysis was spot on. I use a Nikon FE2 and Olympus OM2n and I think SLRs are easier to use with telephoto lenses - e.g. the famous Nikkor 105 f2.5. I just wanted to ask you - did you push your film or add contrast? Your images look quite contrasty & saturated for Portra - I think they're great by the way!
I tweaked the images a little bit, but I think people have a skewed idea of what Portra looks like cuz everyone shoots/edits it for super flat pastels.
That's true - the typical daytime shot of the petrol station. I think the fine grain with a bit more contrast makes Portra look much better. I also like Fuji Superia 400
Totally agree with everything you said. I have a couple of days left with the M6 to make a decision on if I'm going to keep it, but.... something feels OFF about it to me.
You said it Chris. The camera is just a tool. It's what you do with it. I wanted 1, the M6 TTL. Used it's my whole rent (Burbank or anywhere in the 818). You do get what you pay for, fine German engineering. But do I need it? No. I can't justify it right now but maybe later like U say. Fun video & cool pix. Ya, recognized those places. (: Climb the Kilbourn Stairs, awesome views and photo opp.
I've only held a Leica a couple times. I'd like a comparison to shooting with a OM-1. Compact, quiet shutter and wind on sound levels. I think the wind on sound level should be considered as much as the "click". Nice work on the video.
Speaking from somebody who has sort of stumbled into owning an R series Leica camera, they do make you want to shoot, and the glass is wayyy better then something like a K1000. But honestly it isn’t much of a difference, just makes me feel better.
Great video Christopher. I have an M6 and I got it because I love the design, the build quality and the Leica lenses, but most significantly cheaper 35mm cameras could take basically the same images. I really love rangefinders so it’s the perfect camera for me but if you like SLRs only a Leica would be an awful purchase.
Excellent video! I dont know if using an M6 makes you a better photographer, I am pretty sure that an M6 alone doesnt. I do think that there is something indefinably different about the way Leica lenses render colours and provide an almost 3D effect etc. However, to my surprise I am enjoying rangefinder cameras (I have 2 you mentioned - the XA and Yashica Electro) and I do find the whole manual process coupled with fixed/prime lenses does improve photography as you really think more about composition. Further, I am now more into medium format film and now looking at larger (4x5) format as I find that the whole slowing down and more considered approach to taking a photo is really what I am enjoying more. Thats what makes me a better photographer (in my opinion!). I think the Leica is just one camera that does that. I use my digital cameras so much less now and, when I go digital, unless I am going for wildlife etc, I tend to lean towards my Leica Q, often with manual focus rather than auto! I have never owned or shot anything Nikon, always been a canon man, so now you have me thinking!
This makes ne feel good 🥳, going to sleep well tonight 😂. Good stuff Christopher. I like the music in this video! I own a Nikon FE, it is not an F2, but it is a cool shooting experience, great pictures and build to last. Even people with more expensive gear comment how they like it and think it is a great camera. So I do feel the same as you. Appreciating what I‘ve got! But yeah, a Leica, man why not 😂. I wonder how I would feel and behave with a piece that expensive around my neck......not sure I would be relaxed and in the Zone 😂 rather worried like crazy ha ha Cheers from Switzerland
Honestly the Leica shooting experience is nice as hell. Just not necessarily gonna be for everyone! I have two FE’s and I love them. Both of them are currently broken unfortunately hah
Had so many issues with Leica shutters being slightly faster / slower to one side of the gate that I now just really enjoy the bulletproof qualities of the Nikon approach. Leica make beautiful compact lenses but you can get a whole Nikon lens kit for the price of a relatively shabby Summicron ……f2s and f3s go on and on and if you need to work out then the f5 has an amazing meter……
At the end of your video you mentioned people making fun of you for “not getting it”.. I think you DID get it though. You mentioned the “experience” is different and that’s really all it is. You just prefer the SLR experience and there’s nothing wrong with that at all. I think over the last few years, Leicas have been built up to be these mythical, legendary machines, but like you said, they’re just tools. When I first shot a Canonet maybe 12-13 years ago, I knew right then that rangefinders were for me. So, I saved up for a little while, since I’m not rich, and bought the M6 (pre-infuencer prices) and it’s been my favorite camera for 11 years now. A few years back I bought a Nikon lens on ebay and an F2 was part of the deal so I have that as well and love shooting both cameras. The F2 is almost as solid (mine’s got a rattly top plate), the photos I get out of both are equally satisfying, and the images from the Nikkor glass is just as amazing, seriously good, however I always gravitate back to the Leica, but it’s just because of the experience you mentioned, the way you hold it, look through it, shoot it it makes you think differently.. at least for me. I get a little sad that Leicas get so much hate these days, but I feel like it’s generally because of the mythical status I mentioned. People’s expectations are just too high because of it. It’s just a tool.
There's nothing wrong with the Nikon F2. they are a fantastic camera, solid, well built, and they just keep on shooting. I may be a bit biased, owning 3 myself, but I love the feel of them in my hand, and how easy and intuitive they are to use. sure., I'd love an M6 one day, but till then I'll happily keep shooting with my F2's. just one thing, try and grab yourself an AR-1 soft shutter release for your F2, it really helps to get sharper pics when your'e shooting at slower shutter speeds.
The choice between a Leica and a Nikon depends heavily on HOW you like to shoot, WHAT you like to shoot, and what focal length you tend to use. Furthermore, one can only discern optical differences between Leica glass and Nikon glass by printing at least larger than A4 size.
I really like your take on it. I think you pretty much illustrated what people call the law of diminishing returns. Are they better cameras? Yes (provided RF is for you). Are they better built? Yes. Are Leica lenses better? Yes again. But is the additional price giving you the same additional return? Likely no. You should try a Zeiss ZF 50mm 1.4 on your F2 and the comparison might be even narrower. The Voigtlander F mount 58mm 1.4 is nice too. I had a M7, inherited a M3 and M4, and own a Zeiss Ikon (which is really nice with glasses by the way). SLRs makes definitely more sense to most people including myself if I didn’t have the extra money. Audiophiles have the same debates 🙂
I completely agree to your findings! I own a Leica M6 and a Nikon FE2, and both are very well build tools. But the thing is: Both are two different beasts, and so is their handling. Personally I almost always long for the Leica when I go out shooting film. Does it make me a better photographer, or does it make my photos better? I can answer this question only on a rather philosophical level. If the tool inspires you, if it makes you wanting to load some film and go out - yes, then maybe it will make you a better photographer. But from the point of engineering, no, you definitely don‘t need a Leica. Personally I prefer focusing with the rangefinder instead of the TTL focusing with the Nikon. I don’t know why, but with the Leica I have much more keepers than with the Fe2. But that‘s just me, and I am sure you will find photographers who prefer a Nikon, Canon or whatever SLR over a rangefinder. Concerning prices and interesting Leicas: For some years now the prices are constantly rising, so it’s pretty difficult to find more reasonable priced Leicas. Personally I would look out for the M4, M4-2 or the M4-P - especially those which were built in Canada. Their quality is the same as the german built ones, but quite often they are a lot cheaper. And the M4 series is more or less very similar to the M6 - except the lightmeter (and the framelines). Another camera to have a look at would be the M5, the “ugly duckling” of the leica family. It looks a little different than the typical Leica M cameras since the M3 (and was therefore refused by lots of Leica Fans), but from a mere technical perspective it is better than the “normal” M-cameras. And because it is the “ugly duckling” it’s prices a at least a little bit more reasonable than the prices for a M6 and the later models. Hope this helps😉!
Great thoughts and as an owner of a few Leicas and an F2A that I’ve owned for 44 years (I was a freshman at Cal when I bought it) I agree with you on all points. My F2A has the same silky precision (which are lacking in the FM/FE) and density as a Leica. An F2 w/ a plain prism comes awfully close to an M size and weight-wise. Even the F2’s shutter fires and sounds different from the FM/FE and other prosumer models. One thing though is I see a little differently when shooting a rangefinder than an SLR and these days, I shoot 80% with.a Leica M which is funny because for 40 years I laughed at all the idiots who paid for Leicas. :-)
It’s similar but different! It is a tool fact! How you feel after a period of time is the value. I’m sure if you ask most owners why they shoot Leica they will tell it’s the feeling they get. It’s very subjective I admit . But shoot Leica for six months or a year and you’ll “get it “. You don’t hate the old kit but you “feel different” about your artistic expression! In my opinion the cost is a subjective barrier. You shoot because how it makes you feel about your craft. Love your Nikon it makes you happy.
It gets a lot of hate, but I love my Leica M5. It has a great viewfinder, accurate spot meter, most ergonomic shutter speed dial and you can see your shutter speed and relative over/under exposure in the viewfinder. That last one is huge for me, over the other metered Leicas with just arrows and no way of knowing how many stops away you are from middle tone. Last I checked, you can still find these for for about half of an M6, and you can put your savings into glass.
@@Rainyfeels Funny you should ask. I was going to send mine in a CLA and to fix a viewfinder issue when DAG tells me he will no longer be servicing these and recommended I sell it for what I could. His view scared me into selling it and I have regretted it ever since. I had a black model and preferred that over the silver M5.
@@Rainyfeels He didn't give any specific recommendation, but the M6 or MP are likely to be serviceable for a long time. I already had an M2-R, so I picked up a Contax G2 for the times I am feeling too lazy to meter or focus manually. It has become my go-to camera ever since. The autofocus is way more accurate than I am with my Leica, at least that is the case with photographing my kids.
Nice photos. I own both Leica M6 classic and Nikon FM2N. I would say the FM2N trumps the Leica in almost every department. But when it comes to the shooting experience, I prefer my M6. There is an emotional response to every hard earned shot I take with the Leica, LOL! And sometimes you just have to trust your instinct with it. It 's not a camera I would take everywhere. There are certain situations like a city walk or a visit to the museum, the Leica is a great body to carry around. However, the Nikon can get the job done anywhere at any time.
I have used many different cameras over many years. I appreciate the Leica's because I grew up with German equipment and enjoy using them. I would never pay the crazy prices they go for now, and would certainly not walk around a big city with one around my neck. I also love my Nikon F2's but they don't get out much because of the weight and size, and yes, I prefer the Leitz rendering. Honestly I think my favorite Leica is my CL. I certainly never thought that any camera would improve my photography.
12:24 "Not a mystery any more; it makes me appreciate my Nikon F2 more." It's 2021, and if you are serious about film photography, $3000 EUR can buy you an excellent condition Leica M6, and that price is forever, you will never loose a cent on buying a Leica. A Canon R6 is almost the same price, and in two years the R6 will have half the price and in four years maximum $700. Similarly, you buy a decent F2AS for $500 EUR today, for that price you can buy a Canon 6D, which will go under $200 in two years, but the F2 retains its price forever, if you keep it carefully. So, it doesn't really matter which film camera F2 or M6 to buy, they are eternal, you investment keeps its value.
Well said. A camera is a tool and is not going to make you a better artist. If you listen to the Leica fan boys they will tell you it's the best camera you can own. I never cared for range finders. I agree with you on the F2. I think it's the finest mechanical camera ever made. I love them so much I have four. The only film camera that is better is the F6 but that's a different kind of camera.
@@ThePhotoDept It's nice to have a couple of extra bodies. I can have different film loaded and different lenses so I don't have to bother swapping lenses.
Excellent video. The images on the Nikon vs the Leica there’s no comparison. The Leica is more sharp, refined and has better depth over all. The Nikon images had more grain and less sharpness and that’s okay, but just didn’t have that boldness and clarity like on the Leica. Of course the Nikon is excellent and offers great value. The Leica has a different feel and has been engineered incredibly well. It’s like comparing a Honda to a Porsche.
I was lucky enough to borrow one a few years ago and I wish I brought it then when they were a little more affordable. But I went the medium format route instead and now I’m looking to sell all my medium format gear in order to get buy an m6 because I haven’t stopped thinking about it 😂 but great video gave me a lot of food for thought! Analogue talk brought me to your channel! Love your content!
If someone gave me an M6 I wouldn't turn it down otherwise I don't feel that I need to spend 5k to prove anything to others or even to my self. I am Happy with my Nikon F100, Canon A-1, Minolta X-700, Olympus Mju II and to many others to mention.
This is kind of like that age old arguement of slr vs rangefinder. People would be here forever debating which is best or whatever With the f2, I think if you had a l de-1 finder paired with a pancake kind of lens, like a voitlander ultron 40mm or something, you’d definitely appreciate it more because it’s less bulky that way and you’d still have that German (or Austrian if you want to get technical) glass on there While I’ve never shot a roll with an m body, I’ve owned a barnack Leica. I’ve also played around with a friends M2 and put a roll through a Leica CL and I’m in agreement with you here. Leica’s are Cool cameras for sure but to me, the f2 is equal to, and in some aspects, better than a Leica
It doesn’t matter which camera one uses to take great photos. In 35mm I own Nikon FM, F4, F5, F100, Leica IIIf, Canon L2 and Rollei 35. Honestly some of my best photos have been taken with my Rollei 35.
As a hobbyist / enthusiast and also as a designer, I like the compact design of the Leica. Aside from the experience, these little details are a big deal personally. Those humps on SLR cameras really kill the form factor for me. Even trivial details like the rewind knob on the m4 and m6 can be a deciding factor. I hate those angled rewind knobs and all that branding in the front of the camera. That's why I like the M2 and MPs.
Hah, I agree it's terribly cheesy that gigantic Nikon logo, I agree. As for the pentaprism hump on an SLR cannot be avoided. Yes, definitely there is a good reason a Minolta CLE is so darn expensive today vs F2.
I'm also a designer. While I love leica's minimalism, Nikon is a test of brute utility. Both are actually very good designs when it comes down to it. They're just great designs in different areas.
Back in my Dark Ages I got rid of my Leicas for the Nikon F2. Carried 3 motorized bodies, six lenses including the 300mm f2.8 when I was Beirut-based with UPI.
I think something that isn't often talked about is how very different it is to shoot with a rangefinder. That's very subjective. Personally I find it very uninspiring. For me, it can make sense in cameras that would otherwise be very impractical to carry, like large format and pack film cameras.
The important take away is that no matter what camera you choose, be sure to choose the camera that inspires you to create. Be it Leica, Nikon, or whatever!
Not all tools created equal as well lens but overall as you said choose what suits and be inspired to shoot with it everyday as this is the only way to get better. You love it. You do it more often and you get better.
When I was in my teens I wanted the best fountain pens my parents could afford. My father said to me "it's not what you write with that matters, it's what you write". The same applies to cameras. Whoever views the resulting image will not know if it was produced by a Leica M6 or a Ricoh KR5. Great photographs are made by photographers, not cameras.
I full heartedly agree, just take a cheapo Canon 300 with a decent lens and film stock and you can take at least as great photos, if not technically greater, than F2/M6. Especially in film photography the lens, accurate focus and the film stock quality is the decisive factors, not the shutter sound. I have a range of decent film cameras from Nikon, Canon, Minolta and the actual camera, above a certain technical level, has zero relevance to the quality of the photos.
I agree. I've had great results, and sold more images taken with cheap cameras like my Ricoh Kr-5, and Pentax SRT-201, than with high dollar ones. As I learned photography I was taught that the camera was simply a film holder, and that the glass was more important, along with photographers eye. Reminds me of megapixel "snobs". At one time all that was available on a 5D was 8.2mp, and they took great photos, and still do. It's about the artist, not the equipment.
Ansel Adams.. "A good photograph is knowing where to stand".
@@miklosnemeth8566 Your're fully right. However, almost every famous photographer of the past one day or other had found the need of a strict reliable tool, and those had been Leica, Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon, and only few others. Today, it's a different syndrome, indeed: Maybe the first 1.000 Leica photographers had made 90 % of the best Leica photos, and the subsequent 1 Mio. only 10 % or even less.
Both cameras are phenomenal tools, and both are possibly the peak of design in their respective realms. There are things rangefinder film cameras will always excel at - smaller lenses, often smaller camera, quieter operation (no mirror slap), the ability to use symmetrical lenses. But there are also things a film SLR will excel at - using telephoto lenses, the ability to see exactly what the lens is seeing (including DOF preview), macro photography, so on.
Leica glass may have a mystique about it but it's good to remember there are all sorts of Leica lenses over the years that are actually Schneider or Minolta lenses. It is also pertinent to remember that, after Nikon released the original F, most professional photographers dumped their Leica (or Contax) gear for Nikon - it wasn't that one brand was better or one type of glass was better; there is simply more versatility in an SLR system and this came to dominate the photography landscape, for better or for worse, for the next 60 years. Leica took some time to figure out what it wanted to do with itself after this horrible reality sank in for themselves and repositioned themselves more and more over time away from a professional brand towards a luxury brand.
As someone who grew up around a lot of cameras (I basically grew up in a camera store in the 80's), the Leica's in the display case always felt nice and sounded nice when you pushed their buttons. But then so did the Olympus OM-3s and OM-4s (they didn't sell very well though), and so did the Contax RTS's (we never had a distribution deal but we had an RTS II for a while on consignment), and the Canon T cameras seemed like the future at a time when everyone else was forcing you to buy a separate motor drive. And we still had Nikon F2's new in box (and even sometimes used) that people would still buy because that fancy new Nikon F3 was electronic and that wasn't a "real camera".
But the staff were all curious and all the various gear would get tried out on slide film (usually K25 or K64) and, because it was slide film, you could look at it through the microscope and say oh wow this or that lens is a little better than this or that lens... but when you projected it or sent it to get printed on Cibachrome (RIP 😢) there was almost no difference. Every major manufacturer was making good quality products, and you would be hard pressed to get "bad pictures" from any hardware from any of them if you were just taking the time to do the basics of making a quality photograph.
Fast forward to the 90's, when the Samsung rep dropped off a framed 8x10 photograph of a miner with a gas mask on shot on one of their zoom point and shoots, on Fuji 800ASA colour negative film (!) no less... a stunning print from a plastic Korean camera with a zoom lens that rivalled anything I had ever seen out of any Leica rangefinder.
Don't pick a brand that everyone tells you will make the best pictures, and don't pick the system that everyone tells you is better. Find what feels the best and is the most comfortable for you and get out there and take pictures with it. And if you end up owning a Leica (or a Contax, or a Nikon or Canon rangefinder) as well as a Nikon (or other) SLR... enjoy the best of both worlds!
This is it!
TBH, I'm not sure the point of "quiet" camera is...I do street photography, and never has there been a moment where I took a photo and the person didn't clearly look at me, looking at them. And that's with my M3....Whether the mirror smacks like a tank or whispers like a butterfly...I guess if you're photographing a church, that would make sense.
@@Adrian-wd4rn The streets are so noisy that some tiny camera noise doesn't matter.
My M2 does not make better photos than any of my cheaper ones... It just make me happier when shooting! 🙂
That’s valid! What’s important is having a camera that makes you wanna pick it up and shoot it!!!
@@ThePhotoDept Same with my M5. I’ve been having to use an M6 for the Last six moths and tbh (and no offense to those who love it) but that rangefinder is crap. It’s inaccurate and it flares like hell. I’ve lost important shots because of that.
@@VariTimo The flaring is a valid point, I used to have that problem before an MP upgrade, but inaccurate? I think the one you’re using needs an adjustment.
If an M2 had a meter and the internal film counter it would be 100% perfect. I still want an M2 the most though. But if I could afford an mp I would get that probably.
@@ThePhotoDept Today, I shoot with an iPhone, Voigtlaender VITO (1958), Pentax Spotmatic (1970), some analogue Nikons (1974-1990), and one digital SLR - it really doesn't matter.
I use a Nikon F3 and a friend let me borrow their Leica M4. Had the same experience as yours. Thanks for helping me feel sane.
I had a Nikon F2 and worked for a newspaper. One day I took the pictures in the rain without an umbrella or any protection for the camera. Afterwards I used silica stones to remove all the moisture from the camera inside a plastic bag. When I bought this Nikon F2, it had already been used by a photojournalist and it looked like it had been abused a lot, but it worked wonderfully. I sold the Nikon F2 in 2005 and now in 2023 I've bought another all-black one with the
Nikon DE-1 Eye Level Prism View Finder so no light meter, I can't describe the emotion after 18 years of having a Nikon F2 again. I'm thinking of buying a leica iiig also without a light meter, I believe your question will also be mine.
Sincere, honest and accurate. Great photographers take great photographs. I know a chap with five Leicas film and digital…he still takes crap photographs! He doesn’t have the necessary eye for decent, creative images.
I once saw an amazing artist produce something extraordinary with a sharpened match, some spit and some coal dust.
The thing I like most about film cameras is the fact that it's not about technical specifications. Its just preference for how it feels in your hand or what helps you see the best photos. If you like rangefinders or slr's its what helps you see the best not what has the most megapixels or best dynamic range. Love to see this video.
Exactly!!
I've been a glowing photographer since my 7th birthday in 1955. But I never had glowing tendons to own a Leica. Since the age of 12, the only target has been an SLR, and the Nikon F has made it perfectly since 1972, and soon the F2. I shot more than 250.000 exp. and have no reason to regret my choice. For about 40 years, I've been a pro - without any Leica but with a 'leica-like' Makina 67, concerning noiseless shooting and compact body, lens incl.
I have used a Nikon f since 1961. The primary lens was a 28mm. Used a split image focusing screen. In 1969 I purchased a used M3 with a 50mm lens.
I never got comfortable with the M3. I think it was using a 50mm lens. It took me longer to focus the 50mm vs the 28mm.
I was saving to get a 35mm lens for the M3 when I damaged the M3 beyond repairable. It whould have cost me $900 in 2000.
So the question is would the 35mm make it easier to focus. I'll never know.
In 2006 I purchased a Context G1. And yes it's auto everything. Which means I can concentrate on taking photos.
Now it's digital but I still go out with the Nikon and the Context occasionally. Enjoy both.
Of course a 28mm is easier to focus than a 50mm, mainly because of its much wider depth of field. You don't need to be as accurate with focusing and usually the focusing travel on the focusing ring is significantly shorter at a shorter focal length.
Well done. When it comes to contemplating the Leica M6, this is one of the best videos I've seen. I've owned my M6 for more than 20 years and still enjoy using it. Provided that a photographer's budget could cover either camera and assuming that their needs could actually be met by either a rangefinder or a SLR and things like lens size/lens range don't factor in, then it really comes down the user experience. As you've noted, cameras of this caliber (be it a F2 or a M6) are of incredibly high quality and plenty capable of capturing terrific images. Beyond that, the only thing left is the user experience. While the exorbitant prices that the M6 commands certainly doesn't make it a better camera, the user experience that it provides is worthy of consideration. Yet as you've pointed out, the user experience of the F2 is just as worthy of such consideration.
However, if cost does start to factor in, then the conversation begins to change in my opinion. Like I said, I love the user experience that the M6 provides. But if I had to start all over today I doubt that I would pay twice the amount that my M6 cost me when new. However, I might consider the purchase of a F2. As someone wanting an all-mechanical camera with a built-in light meter, I could think of other SLR's that also appeal to me such as a Nikon FM/FM2 or a Leica R6/R6.2 for example. When it comes to SLR's there are actually a number of others, but coming up with alternative rangefinders is more challenging. There is the Leica M5, but that's about it. Therein lies another part of the M6's appeal I suppose.
I like your honest assessment. I have also settled for my F3 and FE2. No more GAS since.
Sold my Leica M6 and got two Nikon F2's. Super impressed with the Nikon cameras. I do miss the M6 but I've realized it's just a tool.
yes...I have 2 F-2s also and I find it very difficult to think of parting with them. I've never shot with a Leica and I'll probably never get that chance.
The two most exercised cameras of those I have are the Leica M4-P and Nikon F2. Both similar in that they can also be used as melee weapons if ever needed. Shoot wider and spontaneous with the rangefinder and composed tele portraits with the SLR
Happy over here with my Nikon F2, which I always feel super fond of when hearing you talk about yours! I like the heft of the F2, the patina on the body, and I feel like it’s a bit of important photographic history, even for a hobbyist like me. 🙂
I still have my 1974 Nikon F2S in use without any overhaul & need no Leica.
As an owner of both Leica and Nikon's I must say that Leica glass is much better. The micro contrast of the Leica glass provides the type of contrast that would make it appear as if the final print was made with a medium format camera. I must say that I love my Nikon's. I own every single F model starting with the Nikon F and I miss not seeing the view provided in an SLR when using an extreme wide angle or a telephoto lens. The Leica's are more appropriate for shooting street type photography with a 35 or 50mm lens being the sweet spot.
Yeah I think Leica glass is pretty nice. I think it’s mostly subjective though.
On paper I agree but having shot most highly rating film cameras I think the Nikon image is MUCH more pleasing. Do what you like but just get out there and shoot!
In the end it's just a black box that holds film. It's the photographer that makes the image, not the camera. That said; I absolutely love and enjoy both Leica and Nikon camera's.
Fantastic review and comparison. I’ve owned various Nikons and various Leicas over the years. I currently have a Leica M3 and a Nikon F with a Nikon F2 on the way. Oh and there’s also an FM2 upstairs that’s jammed and needs servicing. I’m currently shooting and loving the Nikon rather than using the M3 because the Nikon is beat up and brassy and I don’t have to worry about it in the same way I do when I take my beautiful, pristine M3 from the 1950s out. They are both great instruments but carrying a leica and lenses around you’re always aware of and anxious about the value of it all and getting it scratched or stolen.
It's interesting how a little perspective can change your perception , and I appreciate your views. My first Fuji camera was a brand new X-pro2 and I loved it, then I bought an X-T20 and it made me realize how amazing my X-pro was. I then experienced the opposite with my Nikon FM and getting an F3. Your tastes can change at any time if you are open to it.
I've never shot a Leica, but I have a OM2n, and it feels really great. Super precise. Solid construction, and simple design. Just enough features and amazing glass. I can imagine that if I were able to shoot a Leica I would probably have the same experience as you. No denying that I'd love to own a Leica for the style and the experience of shooting one, but I really do love my OM2n.
Leicas are wonderful, here in Europe we don't mythologize them much, they are just cameras like others, made for photography, they are comfortable, they are beautiful, but what you haven't said is that the blind is made of waxed fabric.That shutter is delicate, if it hits the light directly it burns the shutter, it pierces the fabric because of the magnifying effect they have a delicate shutter the Nikon F2 its shutter is made of titanium. To use the leica you should always go with f / 16 closed diaphragms or with a lid, if not, the shutter can be damaged and that is not good on the street you need speed and always carry the camera set for fast shots.
Good video.
Back in my film only days, I used a Nikon F2 with 20mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2, and 85mm f/1.8 lenses.
Eventually, I purchased a Leica M6 with 21mm f/1.4 Leitz, 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss, and 90mm f/2 Leitz for the times when I needed to shoot quietly.
My F2 and my M6 produce high-quality images.
Recently, I purchased a Leica M10 digital rangefinder that accepts my M-mount lenses. I hope it will be as reliable as my F2 and M6.
Glad you had a chance to try both camera and appreciate their difference. Both are great cameras. Both Leica and Nikon have made cameras that are very intuitive, competent and enjoyable use. From a machine and glass as they are both great tools. The camera will never make you better, it is important that it do as you expect, again both are great, whether it is from with either camp. Cheers
I had the same experience when I had an M3, I always wanted to own a film leica. While rangefinder focusing was very fun and the overall precision feel of the camera is very nice, my Nikon F3 has that same high quality feel and I tend to get better shots out of it just since I've used it for so long.
I'll feel even better about my F3 now. Thanks! Great vid.
That second photo with the F2 is my favorite from the two examples. The composition is just so well done with that blue tone through the whole scene.. Jesus Christmas on a cracker
hahah thank you!
I also have a Nikon F2 and always wondered how much better the photos from the Leica M6 would be in comparison, and after watching this video I feel that the Leica's price is in no way an indication that you are going to get that much of a better photo. It's more like a status symbol to me for a well made awesome looking camera, and if I could afford it, that would be great to own, but with my current cameras I'm in no rush to save up the money. Thank you for the video. Please keep'em coming, they're getting better and better.
Damn thank you so much for the support.
The main advantage of a Leica for me is the beautiful, clear viewfinder with infinite depth of field and frame-lines that allow me to see outside of the frame. When photographing with a rangefinder, I'm extracting a frame from the flux of life. I am subtracting and isolating. When I use a camera with a view through the lens, I am making the frame in camera. It is an additive process. I've shot Pentax for 30 years and Leica for 20 years. Over this extensive period of time, I've naturally developed different habits when using each camera as they offer different ways of looking. And my photos look different, not so much in technical things like sharpness, contrast and colour fidelity but in terms of subject matter, composition, balance, rhythm, movement and unity.
Interesting.
What a hoity toity take. I use an M3, it takes the same god damn pictures. Some of the BEST photographs between the 1970's-1990's on the street were taken on an SLR.
@@Adrian-wd4rn What exactly do you find snobbish about my observation?
@@fgsemedo The camera does not matter one iota. This "I'm extracting a frame" bullshit is hilarious at best. I own a leica, I own an SLR, the quality of work is the same, and my style in images is the same. Stop attaching extra bullshit to what the camera does because we over spent on a light tight box.
Is a leica highly enjoyable to use? Yes, of course. But all that other frivolous shit you applied to it is laughable at best. Again, some of the BEST photographs in the world, street and documentary and journalism, have been taken on SLR's between the 70's-90's. SLR's blew past rangefinders in the 1970's due to their accurate superiority.
You get the same image. Stop seeing shit with rose tinted glasses.
@@Adrian-wd4rn If you disagree with me, that's fine. I don't understand your hostility.
I got a M3 a few months ago. I really like, but I cannot discern much difference in images taken with the M3 and 50MM Summicron Collapsible versus my Nikon FM2 with the 50MM F 1.8 Nikkor.
You've summed it up perfectly! I use my Pentax K1000 just as much as I use my Zeiss Ikon (Equivalent concept to M7), and I've owned and sold an M3. Honestly with 35mm film the biggest differences I've seen have been in the film and developer choices. Sometimes I feel I get sharper pictures from my Pentax, which is more from the good viewfinder and accurate focus rather than the lenses.
Great video! I think it's almost embarrassing that eeeeeeevery photo-youtuber has a Leica. And always the M6. But I guess thats just how people work, we lust for things we daily get fed with. I wanted the M6 when I started with photography in 1989, but there was no economic chance in h**l that got get on. I should say that I ordered a MP last summer, and I love it.... /A fool for the "hype".
Sooo true.
What a reasonable and fulfilling conclusion you’ve come to!
For the past year an a half I shot almost exclusively Leica. It began with an M3 and I added an M4-P. Some madness also led me to add an M240 to the mix (though I sold the M3). Sold the M3 and soon thereafter the M4-P went in the shop. After waiting around for months to get my M4-P back, I bought an F3 and a 50 1.4 and 24 2.8 for what seemed like a pittance compared to Leica money.
And then I went on vacation with the 240 and the F3. The 240 only made it out of the bag once. I ended up using the F3 for everything and loving it. I could see everything in the frame (glasses wearer here) and found nothing lacking about the experience. Fast forward, and I'm in the process of selling all the Leica gear because I actually enjoy the Nikon more.
It was an expensive journey, and I'll never say the Leica experience isn't alluring, but honestly I prefer actually using the Nikon. Videos like this are helpful for people who feel like they're "missing out" if they don't have a Leica when at the end of the day, they all take the same film and maybe some cameras aren't worth the hype tax they're currently commanding.
Man what a journey. I appreciate your words, man. I see people constantly yearning for a Leica because of the quality or status and feel like they are missing out otherwise. I’m never hating on leicas, but after my first F2, I can’t imagine needing one.
@@ThePhotoDept All over the years since about 1960, I wonder why Leicas have been much more in a showcase than in use;-)) In 1971, I decided to go along with the Nikon F system and never had to regret this.
Very good to do the comparison, to experience what it is like. And you now appreciate your F2 even more. Safe travels.
It’s worth checking things out to be able to appreciate what you have!
When the F2 was released, I sold my Leicas, an F and some other stuff to buy 2 F2 bodies. I was stringing for a newspaper and several other publications at the time and wanted the F2's. I still have one of them plus several others. They are my favorite cameras!
Amazing
You have totally Right about Leica! I own M4 IIIa and Nikon S2 now F2 and..... actually Nikon have titanium shooter, mirror, good weight and cheeper sometimes better lens. The best is "F mount " :3
great video. I have a fuji xpro 1 with 3 manual lenses and I think I have forgotten the rest of my camera
Honestly it manual focuses so nicely.
Sorry for the late post. I had viewed this video some time ago, but wasn't ready to comment. I have been in a very similar situation to yours in that I wanted to understand more of what was behind the "mystique" with Leitz and German glass in general - is it really as good as claimed? I have been skeptical. Without going into a boring list of cameras I have and have used, I will say that I have a lot of Nikon kit (including the F2 Photomic) and have acquired some Barnack style Leica cameras. In general the quality of fit and finish and mechanical operation of these German cameras is just off the hook, but while the LTM glass I have shot is good, I find it hard to say better than my best Nikon glass. That changed when I decided to give the Leica R system a try. I now have an R7 with 50mm f2 Summicron, and more recently acquired a bundle in an eBay auction that includes a Leica SL, 35mm f2.8 and 21mm f4 Super Angulon plus a couple of other lenses. I am still shooting and getting film processed from the SL use so I can't speak to the wide angle lenses, but my comparison of the Summicron in both B&W and color to my Nikon, Olympus, Canon and Minolta glass illustrated to me that there is definitely something different about the German glass. I went into this examination believing that a lot of this Leica legend stuff was hype. Not so sure now. If this weren't enough I did the same thing with a Contax RTS II and 50mm f1.7 Planar lens. I have gone over these scans and negatives more than a few times and I cannot deny that there is more information in the captures made with the German (German-designed) glass. But here is the thing - does it matter? When I look at any of the images captured with any of my Japanese glass, I don't really find anything lacking, per se, so why change? For me, this comes down to how the equipments feels while in operation. I am starting to lean more toward the old mechanical bodies (F2, Olympus M-1, Canon F1, Leica SL, etc.) just because they feel so smooth and you know it is an accomplishment to make mechanical things feel this way. As far a shutter noise is concerned, my Olympus 35 SP is probably even quieter than the M6 just because it uses a leaf shutter and not focal plane shutter. I feel like the F2 shutter sound is one of the softest for an SLR that I have used until I experienced my Olympus M-1 after a CLA. In your street photography example the F2 may well be heard but I would challenge that M6 with my Olympus M-1. I know they built in shutter shock absorbers to the M-1 to get it as close as possible to the Leica M3 level of sound. Maybe we should capture sound files of these shutters going off and compare them. I am sure there is an iPhone app for that somewhere. Great discussion.
love your input. i have to agree with you, the German glass just has something about it. Zeiss isn’t a titan in lens manufacturing by accident. it would be foolish to disagree. I think it comes down to preference as most things do. I love Zeiss glass, and I love Nikkor glass. Different beasts, different uses. Just so happens that Nikkor glass is
more easily achievable at my income bracket hah.
Good decision. I have a Leica MP and a Nikon FE2 ... if I had to decide to go further with just one of both, it would be the FE2, because it is much more versatile in use and you can take pictures which every focal length you want. Leicas rangefinder is very good for 35 & 50 mm and if your are not composing your images with objects or lines precisely out of the corners.
But FE2 has a 93% viewfinder. You won't be composing precisely.
@@bohabbibab5858 93 % of Wysiwyg is for my use case better than the parallax difference between lens and view finder, regarding precise work.
@@andreasd3346 M3 has parralax correction.
In addition to contemplating a camera change, are you thinking about getting better glasses?
have you ever shot a rollei 35? Can't hear the shutter if it was inside your ear
I also had the same issue, borrowed also an Leica M3, M6 and M monochrome, but somehow I always went back to my Nikon F2 or F. Somehow I prefer to be able to see the boarders of my frame and what I really get on the image focus wise and DOF. Though agree that it's very nice machine, and in certain situations it can be preferred and you do get a different feeling of approach, but then when shooting portraits I see you got the 105 f2.5, and must say that is a pretty nice piece of glass.
About feeling a a professional... That's only between the ears, at the end people judge (OK that sounds hard) of the images and not about the glass, camera film etc ;)
But nice and honest review! (And jup Im also thinking about getting an M)
I agree with the value of seeing exact frame lines ESPECIALLY when shooting with symmetry in mind. I prefer knowing EXACTLY how it's framed, not a really good estimation.
I use an all black Nikon F2 with a Nikkor 50mm sc 1.4 lens and a Nikkor 105 p auto f2.5. The perfect outfit.
I also have a Zorki 4k with the Jupiter 8 coupled rangefinder camera with. a 50mm F2 which I enjoy.
leica----->Hasselblad------->Rolleiflex! I have also gone bad. Now whatever
I am old enough to remember when Nikon F-series arrived and all camera shop windows were full of second-hand Leicas.
Nice weighting! Since the 1970s, I've been pondering if it will worth to me owning a Leica - then the M3, then for 700 DM in Germany. But at the same time, I got familiar with the Nikon F/FTN, from the beginning with the 1.8/85 and 4.5/80-200 Nikkors (that cost me 3000 DM); so end of the discussion proved to be crucial: it had to be the Nikon. And until now, I never have had to regret it. The overwhelming versatility has not only been an option but necessity in my everyday pro photographer life. Now, at the age of 75, I understand your flirt with Leica - I feel the same way;-)) But I'll never get rid of my Nikons, especially the F2. And concerning rangefinder cameras, I got a Voigtlaender VITOmatic II from 1958 in best condition for 25 EUR instead of 5000 EUR for a Leica. Now it's up to me to prove whether I'm a good photographer, or only my tool is worth watching. Too many awesome Leicas are in too many boring hands. By the way: Is your chair the famous one made of aluminium in Hanover/Pennsylvania? I'm just sitting on one right now. @philosimot
I got a Nikon F2 black body and it came with the original 2 Parts motor drives and it need a Expousre meter head and I have to get the camera fixed and I paid £10.00 for it from a camera dealer in a market in London in 2023
Great video! Definitely a breath of fresh air from Leica Purists and Leica bashers. I have an M4-P which is main shooter and and M3 that I use for personal stuff (both funded by flipping other cameras). I think the main reason I like shooting Leica is the rangefinder and how it feels. I've jumped between SLRs, Rangefinders, and TLRs and I think I just work best with the rangefinder, even medium format my go to is another rangefinder. As dumb as it sounds it just feels like home, like what's right for what I want and how I shoot. I want to be fast with my camera, be in and out and I get that with shooting a Leica. Ultimately, learn your camera and know it inside and out and it will feel like a Leica to you.
I feel this. It really does depend on what makes you want to pick up a camera and create. That’s what’s truly important.
I have a Nikon f2 and I’m very happy with it.
The output between Nikon VS Leica or any other camera is not the main point from my perspective, it’s simply HOW you use it. Focusing with a rangefinder VS a SLR is so so so much better, the manual focus experience is also so much better than any other camera. The overall size of the lens too is so compact and you have so many options too between classical designs and modern ones. All in all, it just feels so much better to use (for me because I prioritize the above over other things that SLR does better like providing depth of field preview or 0.5m minimal focus).
Your perspective is valid! It’s all in how you use it, what you use it for, and what inspires you to shoot.
I bet you'll get yourself a Leica someday, too. You don't forget this experience. Leica M2 will do by the way.😅 You can tell yourself all day that any SLR you have is good (for me it was an A1) but something always pulls you to this camera.
I have no doubt I’ll end up with an M2 or some such at some point haha
I fulfilled my dream last year and got a Leica. It was an M5 though. It is nice, but lenses are so expensive that I still only have one and it is not even Leica (Voigtländer). The camera is great, but I found out that I am not really a range finder person - and I have 11 Nikon lenses!
Realizing that SLRs are more for me, I got a Leica R8 and 3 Leica R lenses. They are much more affordable. And I like the photos very much.
Surely the Nikon F2 will be the next on my list
Thanks for taking that Leica fever away from me lol, I also own an F2 and can attest to how much of a joy it is to use. I also own an F3 and while I believe it’s a superior camera, the feeling of shooting an F2 is just different. However, if I were to buy a Leica it would be the M3, not the M6.
I think I feel the same. I’d want an m3 as well, I think? Not sure I need to do more research haha
When I worked as a journalist, I used the Nikon F. It's a great camera, the best at the time (late '70s). I recently bought a Nikon F2as. Also good, but way too heavy.
Five or six years ago, I returned to photography as a hobby. I worked my way up the Leica food chain and now use q digital M10-p and a q2. They can't be beat. Beside the Leica reputation, it's the simple menu system and UI that make them the best.
Leica keeps it simple.
Shot an M6 for years, own and use an F2 for years, I see your point. I'd say if you're crazy about cameras and photography, treat yourself to a Leica and use it. It's one of photography's magic swords :). The F2, the Rolleiflex, the Hasselblad, they will be of great service to any photographer enjoying well made things, as they will push you to bring your imagery to a higher level- now that your search for camera perfection has brought you here... No more excuses !
Loved the video, but my mouse was poised on the comment button when you asked if the pictures looked different or "better". As you later pointed out, it's how the camera feels when shooting that is the difference-maker. I shot with a cheap ass (relatively) Bessa R2 for about a year, swearing it was good enough and Leica was all hype, but I eventually had to see if for myself, bought a $1500 used M6 TTL, and with first rolls (before even getting them back from lab) knew I was in love. But an important point - I still used the cheap Cosina lenses I used with the Bessa (as well as a great Konica 50mm m-mount, but I hate that focal length, alas) and 15 years later still shoot that way. The camera - all the points you mention (heft, low shutter noise, shutter press feel, rangefinder patch) - inspires me to shoot better pictures I believe. Not pictures that "look" better though ("sharpness is a bourgeois concept" and all that). (As an aside, am I the only one that feels on pins and needles every time your elbow approaches the Leica or the Nikon strap touches the mug?!)
The camera that inspires you to shoot and create is what you should shoot with. Sweet deal on that M6! (I’m sure you’re not the only one on pins and needles haha)
Great video. Thank you.
You should look into shooting an R series leica and compare that to your Nikon F. They are similar in price (at least in terms of the bodies)
Really enjoyed your video - your analysis was spot on. I use a Nikon FE2 and Olympus OM2n and I think SLRs are easier to use with telephoto lenses - e.g. the famous Nikkor 105 f2.5.
I just wanted to ask you - did you push your film or add contrast? Your images look quite contrasty & saturated for Portra - I think they're great by the way!
I tweaked the images a little bit, but I think people have a skewed idea of what Portra looks like cuz everyone shoots/edits it for super flat pastels.
That's true - the typical daytime shot of the petrol station. I think the fine grain with a bit more contrast makes Portra look much better. I also like Fuji Superia 400
Totally agree with everything you said. I have a couple of days left with the M6 to make a decision on if I'm going to keep it, but.... something feels OFF about it to me.
You said it Chris. The camera is just a tool. It's what you do with it. I wanted 1, the M6 TTL. Used it's my whole rent (Burbank or anywhere in the 818). You do get what you pay for, fine German engineering. But do I need it? No. I can't justify it right now but maybe later like U say. Fun video & cool pix. Ya, recognized those places. (: Climb the Kilbourn Stairs, awesome views and photo opp.
I've only held a Leica a couple times. I'd like a comparison to shooting with a OM-1. Compact, quiet shutter and wind on sound levels. I think the wind on sound level should be considered as much as the "click". Nice work on the video.
Speaking from somebody who has sort of stumbled into owning an R series Leica camera, they do make you want to shoot, and the glass is wayyy better then something like a K1000. But honestly it isn’t much of a difference, just makes me feel better.
the R series is cool but i don’t dig the ergonomics. also i don’t think the glass is that much better, the early takumar glass has so much character.
Great video Christopher. I have an M6 and I got it because I love the design, the build quality and the Leica lenses, but most significantly cheaper 35mm cameras could take basically the same images. I really love rangefinders so it’s the perfect camera for me but if you like SLRs only a Leica would be an awful purchase.
There’s no debating that the Leica quality is second to none. It’s all about what works best for you.
Is it worth shooting FM2 with leica lenses?
Excellent video! I dont know if using an M6 makes you a better photographer, I am pretty sure that an M6 alone doesnt. I do think that there is something indefinably different about the way Leica lenses render colours and provide an almost 3D effect etc. However, to my surprise I am enjoying rangefinder cameras (I have 2 you mentioned - the XA and Yashica Electro) and I do find the whole manual process coupled with fixed/prime lenses does improve photography as you really think more about composition. Further, I am now more into medium format film and now looking at larger (4x5) format as I find that the whole slowing down and more considered approach to taking a photo is really what I am enjoying more. Thats what makes me a better photographer (in my opinion!). I think the Leica is just one camera that does that. I use my digital cameras so much less now and, when I go digital, unless I am going for wildlife etc, I tend to lean towards my Leica Q, often with manual focus rather than auto! I have never owned or shot anything Nikon, always been a canon man, so now you have me thinking!
I am appreciative of my Nikons. I have a Leica M4 but still gravitate to my Nikons they are like my spirit animal.
I would love a Leica MP but currently shoot a Nikon F6. Maybe one day.
This makes ne feel good 🥳, going to sleep well tonight 😂.
Good stuff Christopher. I like the music in this video!
I own a Nikon FE, it is not an F2, but it is a cool shooting experience, great pictures and build to last. Even people with more expensive gear comment how they like it and think it is a great camera.
So I do feel the same as you. Appreciating what I‘ve got!
But yeah, a Leica, man why not 😂.
I wonder how I would feel and behave with a piece that expensive around my neck......not sure I would be relaxed and in the Zone 😂 rather worried like crazy ha ha
Cheers from Switzerland
Honestly the Leica shooting experience is nice as hell. Just not necessarily gonna be for everyone! I have two FE’s and I love them. Both of them are currently broken unfortunately hah
Had so many issues with Leica shutters being slightly faster / slower to one side of the gate that I now just really enjoy the bulletproof qualities of the Nikon approach. Leica make beautiful compact lenses but you can get a whole Nikon lens kit for the price of a relatively shabby Summicron ……f2s and f3s go on and on and if you need to work out then the f5 has an amazing meter……
At the end of your video you mentioned people making fun of you for “not getting it”.. I think you DID get it though. You mentioned the “experience” is different and that’s really all it is. You just prefer the SLR experience and there’s nothing wrong with that at all.
I think over the last few years, Leicas have been built up to be these mythical, legendary machines, but like you said, they’re just tools. When I first shot a Canonet maybe 12-13 years ago, I knew right then that rangefinders were for me. So, I saved up for a little while, since I’m not rich, and bought the M6 (pre-infuencer prices) and it’s been my favorite camera for 11 years now. A few years back I bought a Nikon lens on ebay and an F2 was part of the deal so I have that as well and love shooting both cameras. The F2 is almost as solid (mine’s got a rattly top plate), the photos I get out of both are equally satisfying, and the images from the Nikkor glass is just as amazing, seriously good, however I always gravitate back to the Leica, but it’s just because of the experience you mentioned, the way you hold it, look through it, shoot it it makes you think differently.. at least for me. I get a little sad that Leicas get so much hate these days, but I feel like it’s generally because of the mythical status I mentioned. People’s expectations are just too high because of it. It’s just a tool.
I totally agree! It really is all about what makes you wanna create. You nailed it.
There's nothing wrong with the Nikon F2. they are a fantastic camera, solid, well built, and they just keep on shooting. I may be a bit biased, owning 3 myself, but I love the feel of them in my hand, and how easy and intuitive they are to use. sure., I'd love an M6 one day, but till then I'll happily keep shooting with my F2's. just one thing, try and grab yourself an AR-1 soft shutter release for your F2, it really helps to get sharper pics when your'e shooting at slower shutter speeds.
The choice between a Leica and a Nikon depends heavily on HOW you like to shoot, WHAT you like to shoot, and what focal length you tend to use. Furthermore, one can only discern optical differences between Leica glass and Nikon glass by printing at least larger than A4 size.
I really like your take on it. I think you pretty much illustrated what people call the law of diminishing returns. Are they better cameras? Yes (provided RF is for you). Are they better built? Yes. Are Leica lenses better? Yes again. But is the additional price giving you the same additional return? Likely no. You should try a Zeiss ZF 50mm 1.4 on your F2 and the comparison might be even narrower. The Voigtlander F mount 58mm 1.4 is nice too. I had a M7, inherited a M3 and M4, and own a Zeiss Ikon (which is really nice with glasses by the way). SLRs makes definitely more sense to most people including myself if I didn’t have the extra money.
Audiophiles have the same debates 🙂
What film did you use on Lecia and F2 photo sample ?
Nice video. I always enjoy reviews on leica cameras. But my nikon is just fine and I do not stress carrying it around.
I use a Nikon F (original) and 2 Leicas. Still fully agree with what youre saying haha
No Leica hate here!
I love this channel. Subbed !!
Thanks so much for the support!!!!
I completely agree to your findings! I own a Leica M6 and a Nikon FE2, and both are very well build tools. But the thing is: Both are two different beasts, and so is their handling. Personally I almost always long for the Leica when I go out shooting film. Does it make me a better photographer, or does it make my photos better? I can answer this question only on a rather philosophical level. If the tool inspires you, if it makes you wanting to load some film and go out - yes, then maybe it will make you a better photographer. But from the point of engineering, no, you definitely don‘t need a Leica. Personally I prefer focusing with the rangefinder instead of the TTL focusing with the Nikon. I don’t know why, but with the Leica I have much more keepers than with the Fe2. But that‘s just me, and I am sure you will find photographers who prefer a Nikon, Canon or whatever SLR over a rangefinder.
Concerning prices and interesting Leicas: For some years now the prices are constantly rising, so it’s pretty difficult to find more reasonable priced Leicas. Personally I would look out for the M4, M4-2 or the M4-P - especially those which were built in Canada. Their quality is the same as the german built ones, but quite often they are a lot cheaper. And the M4 series is more or less very similar to the M6 - except the lightmeter (and the framelines).
Another camera to have a look at would be the M5, the “ugly duckling” of the leica family. It looks a little different than the typical Leica M cameras since the M3 (and was therefore refused by lots of Leica Fans), but from a mere technical perspective it is better than the “normal” M-cameras. And because it is the “ugly duckling” it’s prices a at least a little bit more reasonable than the prices for a M6 and the later models. Hope this helps😉!
I agree! They are tools and you should choose the tool that inspires you to create.
Great thoughts and as an owner of a few Leicas and an F2A that I’ve owned for 44 years (I was a freshman at Cal when I bought it) I agree with you on all points. My F2A has the same silky precision (which are lacking in the FM/FE) and density as a Leica. An F2 w/ a plain prism comes awfully close to an M size and weight-wise. Even the F2’s shutter fires and sounds different from the FM/FE and other prosumer models.
One thing though is I see a little differently when shooting a rangefinder than an SLR and these days, I shoot 80% with.a Leica M which is funny because for 40 years I laughed at all the idiots who paid for Leicas. :-)
It’s similar but different! It is a tool fact! How you feel after a period of time is the value. I’m sure if you ask most owners why they shoot Leica they will tell it’s the feeling they get. It’s very subjective I admit . But shoot Leica for six months or a year and you’ll “get it “. You don’t hate the old kit but you “feel different” about your artistic expression! In my opinion the cost is a subjective barrier. You shoot because how it makes you feel about your craft. Love your Nikon it makes you happy.
Agreed!
It gets a lot of hate, but I love my Leica M5. It has a great viewfinder, accurate spot meter, most ergonomic shutter speed dial and you can see your shutter speed and relative over/under exposure in the viewfinder. That last one is huge for me, over the other metered Leicas with just arrows and no way of knowing how many stops away you are from middle tone. Last I checked, you can still find these for for about half of an M6, and you can put your savings into glass.
Still enjoying it? Considering getting one. Which color do you have?
@@Rainyfeels Funny you should ask. I was going to send mine in a CLA and to fix a viewfinder issue when DAG tells me he will no longer be servicing these and recommended I sell it for what I could. His view scared me into selling it and I have regretted it ever since. I had a black model and preferred that over the silver M5.
@@justinhensen5266 Oh interesting, did he recommend an M6 instead then? Will you be picking another up?
@@Rainyfeels He didn't give any specific recommendation, but the M6 or MP are likely to be serviceable for a long time. I already had an M2-R, so I picked up a Contax G2 for the times I am feeling too lazy to meter or focus manually. It has become my go-to camera ever since. The autofocus is way more accurate than I am with my Leica, at least that is the case with photographing my kids.
Nice photos. I own both Leica M6 classic and Nikon FM2N. I would say the FM2N trumps the Leica in almost every department. But when it comes to the shooting experience, I prefer my M6. There is an emotional response to every hard earned shot I take with the Leica, LOL! And sometimes you just have to trust your instinct with it. It 's not a camera I would take everywhere. There are certain situations like a city walk or a visit to the museum, the Leica is a great body to carry around. However, the Nikon can get the job done anywhere at any time.
I have used many different cameras over many years. I appreciate the Leica's because I grew up with German equipment and enjoy using them. I would never pay the crazy prices they go for now, and would certainly not walk around a big city with one around my neck. I also love my Nikon F2's but they don't get out much because of the weight and size, and yes, I prefer the Leitz rendering. Honestly I think my favorite Leica is my CL. I certainly never thought that any camera would improve my photography.
12:24 "Not a mystery any more; it makes me appreciate my Nikon F2 more." It's 2021, and if you are serious about film photography, $3000 EUR can buy you an excellent condition Leica M6, and that price is forever, you will never loose a cent on buying a Leica. A Canon R6 is almost the same price, and in two years the R6 will have half the price and in four years maximum $700. Similarly, you buy a decent F2AS for $500 EUR today, for that price you can buy a Canon 6D, which will go under $200 in two years, but the F2 retains its price forever, if you keep it carefully. So, it doesn't really matter which film camera F2 or M6 to buy, they are eternal, you investment keeps its value.
Leica and the Nikon F2 are a match made in heaven. I have both. They're NEARLY as good as my Pentax MX
Well said. A camera is a tool and is not going to make you a better artist. If you listen to the Leica fan boys they will tell you it's the best camera you can own. I never cared for range finders. I agree with you on the F2. I think it's the finest mechanical camera ever made. I love them so much I have four. The only film camera that is better is the F6 but that's a different kind of camera.
I need a back up body or two for my F2.
@@ThePhotoDept It's nice to have a couple of extra bodies. I can have different film loaded and different lenses so I don't have to bother swapping lenses.
I will never let go of my eyelevel F2, paired with a GN nikkor 45mm it's a small and high quality package
Such a good setup.
Imma keep my F2 as well dude.
Excellent video. The images on the Nikon vs the Leica there’s no comparison. The Leica is more sharp, refined and has better depth over all. The Nikon images had more grain and less sharpness and that’s okay, but just didn’t have that boldness and clarity like on the Leica. Of course the Nikon is excellent and offers great value. The Leica has a different feel and has been engineered incredibly well. It’s like comparing a Honda to a Porsche.
I was lucky enough to borrow one a few years ago and I wish I brought it then when they were a little more affordable. But I went the medium format route instead and now I’m looking to sell all my medium format gear in order to get buy an m6 because I haven’t stopped thinking about it 😂 but great video gave me a lot of food for thought! Analogue talk brought me to your channel! Love your content!
If someone gave me an M6 I wouldn't turn it down otherwise I don't feel that I need to spend 5k to prove anything to others or even to my self. I am Happy with my Nikon F100, Canon A-1, Minolta X-700, Olympus Mju II and to many others to mention.
Heck yeah.
3:04 man, this image feels *california*
Gave me feelings of nostalgia I’d forgotten (being a kid in cali in the 90s)
What a huge compliment!!
This is kind of like that age old arguement of slr vs rangefinder. People would be here forever debating which is best or whatever
With the f2, I think if you had a l de-1 finder paired with a pancake kind of lens, like a voitlander ultron 40mm or something, you’d definitely appreciate it more because it’s less bulky that way and you’d still have that German (or Austrian if you want to get technical) glass on there
While I’ve never shot a roll with an m body, I’ve owned a barnack Leica. I’ve also played around with a friends M2 and put a roll through a Leica CL and I’m in agreement with you here. Leica’s are Cool cameras for sure but to me, the f2 is equal to, and in some aspects, better than a Leica
It doesn’t matter which camera one uses to take great photos. In 35mm I own Nikon FM, F4, F5, F100, Leica IIIf, Canon L2 and Rollei 35. Honestly some of my best photos have been taken with my Rollei 35.
Amen
As a hobbyist / enthusiast and also as a designer, I like the compact design of the Leica. Aside from the experience, these little details are a big deal personally. Those humps on SLR cameras really kill the form factor for me.
Even trivial details like the rewind knob on the m4 and m6 can be a deciding factor. I hate those angled rewind knobs and all that branding in the front of the camera. That's why I like the M2 and MPs.
Hah, I agree it's terribly cheesy that gigantic Nikon logo, I agree. As for the pentaprism hump on an SLR cannot be avoided. Yes, definitely there is a good reason a Minolta CLE is so darn expensive today vs F2.
I'm also a designer. While I love leica's minimalism, Nikon is a test of brute utility. Both are actually very good designs when it comes down to it. They're just great designs in different areas.
Back in my Dark Ages I got rid of my Leicas for the Nikon F2. Carried 3 motorized bodies, six lenses including the 300mm f2.8 when I was Beirut-based with UPI.
I think something that isn't often talked about is how very different it is to shoot with a rangefinder. That's very subjective. Personally I find it very uninspiring. For me, it can make sense in cameras that would otherwise be very impractical to carry, like large format and pack film cameras.
You are so cool and I could watch your Videos for hours
Hahah thank you !
Great video and analysis. But you definitely need a Leica one day. :)
You’re not wrong.
Great video! Do I think the Leica shooting experience is one-of-a-kind? Yes. Do I think it’s worth the price? Not really
It’s all about perspective!