Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Nagging dissatisfaction...

dissatisfaction nikon leica catharsis

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1
Dogbytes

Dogbytes

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationCornwall

I like my D610 - to the point where I sometimes go on about how much I like it too much. It does everything I want, photographically speaking, so to want something different seems unreasonable.

 

However, something I once read comes back to me. It went along the lines of 'The reasonable man is content to try to fit into the world around him, whereas the unreasonable man always tries to make the world fit him. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man.' I can't remember who said it, it might have been Carl Sagan, but it's always been my excuse for being unreasonable.

 

This unreasonableness currently manifest itself in my desire for a Leica M and a couple of lenses. I had one many years ago and I loved it but it was as unsuitable as an only camera (for me, at least) as a digital one would be today. And yet I still watch them on eBay. A tidy M9-P can be had for about £2k and a couple of Canadian lenses for, maybe, another £1500 the pair. £3500… Fortunately I don't have £3500, not even if I sold all of my sellable possessions would I have it. I still look though!

 

It's not GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) because I am obsessed, these days, with a small outfit - if it doesn't fit in a Bilingham Hadley Pro I don't want it, but a Hadley Pro is just about made with with Leicas in mind!

 

I have even tried logic! My D610 will run rings round an M9 - resolution, dynamic range, low-light, battery life, maybe even build quality. I KNOW all this but I'd STILL love an M9-P!

 

Okay, so you have to go some to beat a 50mm Summicron (we won't mention Summilux or Noctilux - I can't even afford to dream about them!) but my Nikkor AF-S 50/1.4 is far better, in the real world, than you will ever be told in a review, easily better than me. If I want to go exotic (if? Of course I do…), half of the price of that used M9 will get me a brand new Nikkor 58/1.4 GN - and my wife probably wouldn't even notice.

 

But I still want one...



#2
Mark H.

Mark H.

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationFar Northcoast of California

Site Supporter

Resist the urge! I bought a used Canon 5D on eBay just so I could buy and use their 85mm f1.2 USM II lens! But have I used them? NO! With so many fine Nikon (not to mention Sigma-for-Nikon) lenses available, you'd be better off looking towards the D810 or a gently used D800E and some top-quality Nikon glass. I love the Nikon 180mm f2.8 AFD; I haven't tried the latest iteration, but the older one I have is just stunning as a portrait lens.

 

Forget the Leica hype, my friend, and retain your happy marriage. :-)

 

With kind regards,

 

Mark H.



#3
Wayben

Wayben

    Senior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationIowa

Site Supporter

I've got an M9-P, a Monochrome, and half a dozen lenses.  Like you, there is no way those could be my only cameras.  There are just too many things they don't do well.  However, I love using them for what they are good at: street photography, urban walk-around, backyard gatherings, etc.  There is something very satisfying about using a manual focus digital rangefinder camera.  I also have a couple Nikon and Leica film rangefinders that I use on occasion.  They are a much cheaper, and very satisfying, way to scratch that rangefinder itch.  Personally, I prefer the Nikon film rangefinders over the Leica's.  An SP with a couple lenses can be a very nice rangefinder setup.



#4
Brian

Brian

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Country Flag

Just get one. You only live once.

 

I read Wayben's post, good thing he has the M9-P... otherwise I would have thought I made it.

 

If you shoot film, Nikon rangefinders compete in every way with the Leica film cameras and the vintage S-Mount lenses are less expensive that Leica lenses.

 

My most used cameras are the M9, M Monochrom, and Df. I have a LOT of lenses for both systems. I prefer manual focus and aperture-preferred Auto and Manual exposure when using them.

 

There are many less expensive lens options for the Leica M camera compared with a Summicron. The Voigtlander 35/1.7 and 50/1.5 Aspherical lenses in Leica Screw Mount can be bought for $700 for the pair.

 

Let us know if you go in this direction.

 

I use a lot of low-priced (under $100) lenses on my M9 and M Monochrom; samples can be found in the forums here:

 

Cameraderie Photography Forum

 

A Jupiter-8 50mm F2, Russian Sonnar formula lens, wide-open on the M Monochrom. I adjusted this lens for good focus on the Leica, have done a lot of Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-3 work for people.

 

19063008152_3d8623a4e4_b.jpgG1005267 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

For film cameras...

 

21312366709_a5121d9e1e_o.jpgnikon_SP_Kit by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

Nikon SP and Leica M3. Glad I have both...



#5
Dogbytes

Dogbytes

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationCornwall

Resist the urge! I bought a used Canon 5D on eBay just so I could buy and use their 85mm f1.2 USM II lens! But have I used them? NO! With so many fine Nikon (not to mention Sigma-for-Nikon) lenses available, you'd be better off looking towards the D810 or a gently used D800E and some top-quality Nikon glass. I love the Nikon 180mm f2.8 AFD; I haven't tried the latest iteration, but the older one I have is just stunning as a portrait lens.

 

Forget the Leica hype, my friend, and retain your happy marriage. :-)

 

With kind regards,

 

Mark H.

I don't think I'd even buy a D810, I really am very happy with my D610 - although I'd happily upgrade my glass. I'm sure you're absolutely right about that 180/2.8D, in fact I have an alert set on eBay for just that lens. When I had a Leica R (immediately after the M3) one of my lenses was a 180/2.8 and I really liked it for portraits.

I've got an M9-P, a Monochrome, and half a dozen lenses.  Like you, there is no way those could be my only cameras.  There are just too many things they don't do well.  However, I love using them for what they are good at: street photography, urban walk-around, backyard gatherings, etc.  There is something very satisfying about using a manual focus digital rangefinder camera.  I also have a couple Nikon and Leica film rangefinders that I use on occasion.  They are a much cheaper, and very satisfying, way to scratch that rangefinder itch.  Personally, I prefer the Nikon film rangefinders over the Leica's.  An SP with a couple lenses can be a very nice rangefinder setup.

That's the trouble:D what they do well, they do better than anything else! And they are SO satisfying to us.  I couldn't go back to film though...

Just get one. You only live once.

 

I read Wayben's post, good thing he has the M9-P... otherwise I would have thought I made it.

 

If you shoot film, Nikon rangefinders compete in every way with the Leica film cameras and the vintage S-Mount lenses are less expensive that Leica lenses.

 

My most used cameras are the M9, M Monochrom, and Df. I have a LOT of lenses for both systems. I prefer manual focus and aperture-preferred Auto and Manual exposure when using them.

 

There are many less expensive lens options for the Leica M camera compared with a Summicron. The Voigtlander 35/1.7 and 50/1.5 Aspherical lenses in Leica Screw Mount can be bought for $700 for the pair.

 

Let us know if you go in this direction.

 

I use a lot of low-priced (under $100) lenses on my M9 and M Monochrom; samples can be found in the forums here:

 

Cameraderie Photography Forum

 

A Jupiter-8 50mm F2, Russian Sonnar formula lens, wide-open on the M Monochrom. I adjusted this lens for good focus on the Leica, have done a lot of Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-3 work for people.

 

19063008152_3d8623a4e4_b.jpgG1005267 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

For film cameras...

 

21312366709_a5121d9e1e_o.jpgnikon_SP_Kit by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

Nikon SP and Leica M3. Glad I have both...

Fortunately/unfortunately I can't afford to do it, financially and I really couldn't go back to using film, I'm very happy with digital. I'll stick with my D610, upgrade the glass, slowly, as time goes on and content myself with browsing ebay and whinging gently every so often:D



#6
Brian

Brian

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Country Flag

Of all the digital cameras that I've had and owned, I'd miss the M9 the most if it ever became unrepairable, and would just have to replace it. That's the sad part of Digital cameras, 10 years is "ancient". I took a Contax IIIa apart and revived the shutter, it's almost 65 years old. With Digital: get attached to the Lenses, not the cameras.

 

25589618761_39a36dc76a_o.jpgcontax_lenses by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

The world's only 35mm F2 Wollensak Raptar in Contax mount. I put it there... Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 on the camera, also a favorite on the Leica.

 

If you get the M9- post back, I can spare a Jupiter-8 or collapsible Industar-50 to get you started. The I-50 is equivalent to a post-war, coated Elmar 50/3.5. I've compared the two.

 

I also use a $65 1952 Jupiter-12 with Zeiss glass in it- the J-12 is a Biogon formula lens, works well on the M9 and M Monochrom. Just trying to state- there is some great, cheap glass out there.



#7
Dogbytes

Dogbytes

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationCornwall

Of all the digital cameras that I've had and owned, I'd miss the M9 the most if it ever became unrepairable, and would just have to replace it. That's the sad part of Digital cameras, 10 years is "ancient". I took a Contax IIIa apart and revived the shutter, it's almost 65 years old. With Digital: get attached to the Lenses, not the cameras.

 

25589618761_39a36dc76a_o.jpgcontax_lenses by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

The world's only 35mm F2 Wollensak Raptar in Contax mount. I put it there... Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5 on the camera, also a favorite on the Leica.

 

If you get the M9- post back, I can spare a Jupiter-8 or collapsible Industar-50 to get you started. The I-50 is equivalent to a post-war, coated Elmar 50/3.5. I've compared the two.

 

I also use a $65 1952 Jupiter-12 with Zeiss glass in it- the J-12 is a Biogon formula lens, works well on the M9 and M Monochrom. Just trying to state- there is some great, cheap glass out there.

Thanks for the offer, Brian, that's very good of you. To be honest, I'll probably stick to my Nikon - and just continue to lust after another Leica M.

 

It is a very good point you made about the 'obsolescence' of digital cameras and it is very sad. Clearly manufacturers, in this competitive market, are not going to build cameras to last decades, mechanically, when the electronics are ancient after a handful of years. I had my M3 s/w in the early '90s and it was over 30 years old then. The lenses were older still but felt like they could have been made yesterday.

 

At least my D610 will use old lenses should I want it to...



#8
dcbear78

dcbear78

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 701 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationGladstone, Queensland
I don't understand Leica fascination. It's a well known psychological fact that when things are priced out of reach they become more desirable. To me that's all that is happening here.

#9
Brian

Brian

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Country Flag

I don't understand the fascination that people have with expensive cars.

 

My fascination with Leica is simple: I can use lenses made over the last 85 years on my M9 and M Monochrom in the fashion that they were intended: RF coupled and full-frame. The price of the bodies ran about the same as each of my two D1x bodies. Prices of Nikkor lenses can be high, price of Leica lenses can be high. None cost as much as some of the custom optics that I had made. The M9 and M Monochrom together cost less than the first DSLR that I bought, ~1994. That camera has 1.6MPixels, a Kodak DCS200ir.

 

I have some 70 lenses in Leica mount, many bought when prices were low before the M8 came out. $70 for a Summicron, $95 for a Nikkor 5cm F1.4, etc.

I paid for the M9 and M Monochrom by selling lenses, most of which I custom converted to Leica mount myself. It's fun, and a good break from debugging custom computer hardware and firmware. I could have just written a check for the cameras, way cheaper than what most people spend on cars. 

 

1934 5cm F1.5 Zeiss Sonnar, converted to the Leica Mount. I've done about 50 of these conversions, made enough to pay for the M9 and M Monochrom doing them.

 

18721376255_932581308d_o.jpgsonnar_160 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

Wide-Open at F1.5.

 

22573680840_5c040b49e2_o.jpgWarm November Day by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

If you don't feel any connection to the equipment that you use for your work and your hobbies. you won't get this. When I get into my car, I just don't want to get stuck in traffic, and I want to get where I'm going. When I pick up a camera, I want to setup the shot and have the camera make the images as I see it in my mind. The cameras are way cheaper than an expensive car, and I enjoy using them.



#10
Dogbytes

Dogbytes

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationCornwall

I don't understand Leica fascination. It's a well known psychological fact that when things are priced out of reach they become more desirable. To me that's all that is happening here.

 

I bought my old M3 when they weren't expensive. It's not the allure of the unobtainable - I actually like Leica M cameras. Actually I like their lenses even more - as do many people. A friend of mine uses his M lenses on a Sony A7S more than he ever does on his Leica body.

 

The fact is that it's a subjective thing, you either like the rangefinder way of working or you don't. You either like the way Leica M lenses render an image or you don't. If you don't find anything special in them then they aren't worth the money to you. When I had a Micro Four Thirds Olympus system, I had a Zuiko 45/1.8 (90mm equivalent for anyone not familiar with MFT) and it produced a 'look' very like a Leica M lens - and it was one of the cheapest lenses in the system! How much was lens and how much camera software, I don't know. I wish I could get a similar look from my Nikon, let alone for the same money. perhaps I can but I haven't found it yet. And that's the thing - I know I can get it from a Leica.

 

As it happens, I can't afford it and I won't go there. However I will keep looking for that 'look' from a Nikon lens.

 

PS. There are certainly people who buy Leicas, particularly the horrendously expensive limited production ones, who will never take them out of the box. These people are collectors or investors. They are not to be confused with the very many people who actually use M cameras on a daily basis.



#11
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,573 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

I agree about using a rangefinder. It either comes natural to you or it doesn't. I would certainly like a digital rangefinder, but there are other more pressing needs that come well above that expense in my priorities.

 

The magic of the Leica is not in the name or the prestige for me but their perseverance in supplying the small part of the industry that need a RF camera must be admired, as well as how their lenses draw in microcontrast and balance between corrected and uncorrected aberrations. 



#12
Brian

Brian

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Country Flag

I've packed the Df with classic Nikon Primes and the Leica M9 or M Monochrom with a number of lenses for day trips and to compare the two.

 

The Nikkor 50/1.2 Ais would be my suggestion for a normal; 105/2.5 Ai or Ais for a short telephoto; and Nikkor-O 35/2 for a wide. The the latter: one that reads "Nikon" and not the older "Nippon Kogaku" label (the improved formula); and a 135/3.5 Ais- last Sonnar formula lens made by Nikon. You can buy all for less than the price of the 58/1.4. I have a lot of Nikkor lenses as well, including ~20 for the Leica.

 

My "prized" Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 and 13.5cm F4. David Douglas Duncan used the same lenses, from the same small batch as these. 300 made and 600 made in Leica mount respectively.

 

15197717566_4b06382b06_o.jpgNikkor 5cm F1.5 and 13.5cm F4 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

That 135/3.5 Ais is a direct descendant of these 1949 lenses.

 

15034133928_4b82071e7c_o.jpgGunston Hall by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr



#13
Dogbytes

Dogbytes

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationCornwall

I've packed the Df with classic Nikon Primes and the Leica M9 or M Monochrom with a number of lenses for day trips and to compare the two.

 

The Nikkor 50/1.2 Ais would be my suggestion for a normal; 105/2.5 Ai or Ais for a short telephoto; and Nikkor-O 35/2 for a wide. The the latter: one that reads "Nikon" and not the older "Nippon Kogaku" label (the improved formula); and a 135/3.5 Ais- last Sonnar formula lens made by Nikon. You can buy all for less than the price of the 58/1.4. I have a lot of Nikkor lenses as well, including ~20 for the Leica.

 

My "prized" Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 and 13.5cm F4. David Douglas Duncan used the same lenses, from the same small batch as these. 300 made and 600 made in Leica mount respectively.

 

15197717566_4b06382b06_o.jpgNikkor 5cm F1.5 and 13.5cm F4 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

That 135/3.5 Ais is a direct descendant of these 1949 lenses.

 

15034133928_4b82071e7c_o.jpgGunston Hall by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

You are a true connoisseur, Brian, and I thank you for your suggestions - they are great food for thought. The 50/1.2 and 135/3.5 are particularly appealing to me. I will hop over to ebay - for research purposes… :D



#14
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,573 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

I used the Nikkor-O 35/2 for my weekly single challenge some weeks ago.

 

One week, one camera, one focal length week ending February 12 2017 - Mini-Challenges, Member Contests, and Games - NikonForums.com

 

Mine is the late single-coated version that Brian talks about above. The O•C version has the same improved optics, but is multi-coated. This gives less flare, but there is a small difference in micro-contrast compared to the late O.



#15
nikdood17

nikdood17

    Active Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Country Flag

I used two Leicas professionally, the 3F and the M2R. The latter is a fabulous camera, the former is not. Rangefinder cameras are my first love but I made most of my money as a photographer with the Nikon F SLR (and newer models). I have probably 100 cameras from the sublime to the ridiculous so I'm the guy who can tell it to you straight -- You probably don't need that super-dooper fantasy Leica kit.

I don't need a 1954 Austin-Healey A100, either. But if I had the dough....



#16
Dogbytes

Dogbytes

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationCornwall

I used two Leicas professionally, the 3F and the M2R. The latter is a fabulous camera, the former is not. Rangefinder cameras are my first love but I made most of my money as a photographer with the Nikon F SLR (and newer models). I have probably 100 cameras from the sublime to the ridiculous so I'm the guy who can tell it to you straight -- You probably don't need that super-dooper fantasy Leica kit.

I don't need a 1954 Austin-Healey A100, either. But if I had the dough....

 

I never suggested that I NEEDED it! :D :D :D

 

In truth, I just wanted to stimulate a little discussion. I have always loved Leica rangefinders, with all their faults they are still superlative for what they do best and those M lenses are everything that they should be for the money they charge. I think it is a wonderful world when someone like Leica can produce the M and sell it for a price that enables them to continue to develop it when all logic says it shouldn't be possible. My old M3 was lovely but impractical for someone with a wide range of photographic interests and only one camera. I even tried Leica R to attempt to combine mystique with practicality - with mixed results.

 

In lottery-winning terms, I'd buy a Leica M without a moment's hesitation but I wouldn't spend all the money I have in the world on one.

 

In all-the-money-I-have-in-the-world terms (when I've actually got any) I could easily be tempted by any one of a number of Nikkor lenses though - 58/1.4, 200/4 Micro, 180/2.8, 300/4, 135/2 DC probably in that order.

 

PS My father in law used to have a Healey 3000. Always had a hankering for a Daimler Dart myself...



#17
Marcus Rowland

Marcus Rowland

    Loyal Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 234 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationLondon

Back in the eighties I worked part time for Morgan Cameras, a London 2nd hand camera dealer. They had a lot of Leica gear and I probably played with most of it at one time and another. And I have to be honest, it just didn't appeal at all. I was much happier with my Canon F1 (and before that Exakta, if you want a name from the DISTANT past) and the only other camera I really lusted after back then was a Mamiya RB67. There definitely seemed to be much more of a cultish feel to Leica - you got people who would refuse to buy a virtually immaculate M2 because there was a microscopic dent somewhere, people who wanted to own every bit of gear ever made for them, and so forth (which explains the market in forged gold-plated Leica 1s etc.) Whereas the bulk of Nikon and Canon buyers were pros and/or keen amateurs who just wanted something that worked.



#18
Dogbytes

Dogbytes

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationCornwall

That's very true, Marcus, there are Leica collectors who will never take the camera out of the box and those who just want a Leica hanging round their necks. I'm happy these people exist - hey, they've probably saved the M system!

 

Then there are people who take photographs. Of these, there will be those who like rangefinder Leicas and those who don't - it is purely a subjective matter. I, for my sins, love them - despite the fact that I can't afford them and the fact that they don't even suit 80% of my subject matter. However, neither of those issues stop me wanting one for that remaining 20%.

 

I'm not arguing logic here, I'm just saying'. I think it's called mystique. My D610 is a much better machine but it ain't surround by mystique! It might have a bit with an AF-S Nikkor 58/1.4 G N fastened to the front but, funnily enough, those who don't get Leicas often don't get that 58/1.4 either.

 

To some, MTF charts justify anything - whilst, to others, they merely justify banality. For me there has to be soul and DXO don't have a rating for that yet.

:)



#19
Brian

Brian

    Forum Veteran

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • Country Flag

I converted the 13.5cm F4 Sonnar to Leica mount this weekend, took it out today on the M9

 

The color from this 1937 uncoated lens amazes me.

 

33800358725_687899c7e8_o.jpgGunston Hall by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

Flare resistance, contrast-

 

33800361645_9e0b6955b7_o.jpgGunston Hall by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

33800360455_ae502f2d20_o.jpgGunston Hall by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

 

The conversion was not hard, I used a Jupiter-11 focus mount. Took a couple of tries to get the focus perfect via shims, the thinnest one in my inventory was 0.01mm. The shim was from the 1930s as well. I know you can use a lot of lenses with adapters on mirrorless cameras, but using them as they were intended 80 years ago- I just find appealing. Zeiss did make a couple (very, very few) 13.5cm F4 Sonnars in Leica mount during WW-II, those are rare. I have ~$100 into this converted lens, and made the J-11 into a Contax RF mount lens. So- two lenses for $100.



#20
Dogbytes

Dogbytes

    Forum Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 780 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationCornwall

I'm definitely going to try some older Nikkor glass soon. Been looking at Q Autos.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: dissatisfaction, nikon, leica, catharsis