Moment of madness? Leica to film SLR

I will not defend the Olympus OM here. There are too many people already chasing the few lenses I do not yet possess.

OM is junk. Avoid it. Do not bid on that Zuiko lens.
 
I've had most of the SLR's mentioned over a long period.
OM1n nice but cheap feel. Had the 85 you mention. Nice lens.
Forget Leica R as you won't save that much due lens prices.
Decent Fm2n's are not that cheap either and the decent Nikkors are getting expensive so same again, not saving that much.

I still use Leicaflex and Nikon but for my cheapy kit I bought a Pentax K2 serviced by 'the man' Eric along with a 50 1.4 K from a member here for $100. Ok it needs a battery but I've never got the 'battery debate'
I also got a 28 2.8 M and a 135 M for nothing after buying an MX kit for 65 euro and selling the MX body for same.
Total kit price $100. Will last another 30 years, big bright finder with higher magnification than Nikons, good metering and superb pentax lenses.
Speaking of MX, forget them, just too small and the meter is so difficult to see and one of the more disappointing experiments I've done!
 
Hmmm. Sold M2, M4-2, M5, and Leitz lenses. Now have six Minolta SRT's, two motorized SR-M's, and an XK. And a complete set of the original Rokkor MC lenses, from 16mm to 400mm. The Minoltas are old friends, and do everything I require, and the Rokkor lenses are outstanding. I am just finishing up the CLA process, and it has been worth it for me.
 
once had a minolta SR-T. did not like it. appeared clumsy to me.
once had an FM2n. nothing wrong with it, very solid thing. but i do not miss it.
once had OM-1. i missed it so much, i got another one ... which i do not use now. but i still adore it.
once (long long ago) had a spotmatic. and that's the one that inspires me just now (beside the leica M).

very hard to recommend something without knowing your preferences. heck, i even did not know my own! it is such a personal thing. but i bet, you won't go wrong with any of these, as long as the camera is in good shape.

enjoy the choice!
regards
s.
 
Again, thanks all for your input. I am now trying to work out whether or not this was just a bout of GAS, rather than a real concern over money etc! ;)
 
[email protected] said:
perhaps Zeiss lens with some Contax bodies to go with it ?
Click to expand...

That is a good idea unless price is a problem. The Contax mount Zeiss lenses aren't cheap. They are very good though. I have owned the Contax 139Q and the Contax 167mt. I liked them both.

The Pentax Spotmatic was mentioned. Stop down aperture metering (IIRC), but that isn't as difficult as it might sound once you get used to it. Am I wrong on the SDA? A Yashica FX 3 would be a good choice for Zeiss lenses as well.
 
+1 contax 139
gives both speed and f-stop in finder, unlike om.
somewhere between om-1 and fm-2 in build weight.

139q can use both cz and yashica lenses and also dont dismiss the yashica c/y glass some of which is cheap and they have awesome performers like the 50 f2 and 1.4, 24/2.8 and 100 3.5 macro
Also c/y cz 50 1.7 is cheap and beautiful glass.

I also have om1 and have had fm2 f3 pentax mx etc but the 139 beat the om1n with great lens choices at different price points, great auto mode and all shooting info and dials at your fingertips while shooting. very well designed also. Om has the slightly bigger VF. both feel great in the hand. neither is a bad choice, but contax gets my vote.

slightly off topic but depending on your subjects contax g gives some of the best glass per $ spent but may not give the same tactile enjoyment as a less automated camera, also if you dont pre-focus and hold there can be some small shutter lag, but the glass is ridiculously sharp and distortion free.

Have you thought of a leica cl with 40 + 90 ? I'm enjoying my cl !
 
It's not small, and it's not manual, but it's a great camera you cn pick up for next to nothing: F5. Bought mine new 12 years ago and still love it.
 
The Pentax LX is a wonderful body, but I'd agree K lenses are overpriced for what they are. Note that the LX is no longer serviced by Pentax, if that matters.

FM2N or FM3 are very robust, and I'll agree with the above comment about the 35/1.4 being top notch. Add a 28/2, a 50/1.4 or 1.8 and the 105 or 135/2 DC you'd be very well set.

Never had Olympus.
 
FM3A if you need/want AE; FM2N if you don't. For lenses, price-be-damned-I-want-the-best choices in your preferred FL's are:


Zeiss ZF.2 Distagon T 28mm f/2.0 Lens

Zeiss ZF.2 Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 Lens

Zeiss ZF.2 Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 Lens
 
Keep the Leica gear; it can do certain types of work far better than an SLR.
You ideally need both types.

I would suggest a Pentax MX, or at full size, a Nikon F2 ( plain prism if possible ).
I carry a Domke F6 bag with my Nikon S2 RFDR kit, and a Pentax MX.

Go for the strength of each: perhaps a micro lens on the SLR, plus various telephotos.

( I have used my Nikkor 105mm. for the RFDR only once in the past five years— although this was the lens that originally sold me on that focal length. The SLR mount 105's work so much better, and if you can find a 105mm. F/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, perfection.

I would suggest that you will always regret disposing of the Leica RFDR kit.
 
ottluuk said:
Mirror slap, viewfinder black-out, no view outside the frame, iffy manual focus in low light - remember those? Where they among the reasons why you got an M6?

If so, then maybe downgrading your current RF kit to a cheaper RF kit is an idea worth considering. switching from the Leica 35mm to a CV 35/2.5 or 1.4 should already free up a pile of cash. Similarly, you could go from the M6 to a Bessa R2M/A or M2 and pocket the difference.
Click to expand...

Macro. Long telephoto. Need for auxiliary finders. Remember the things that rangefinders don't do so well? That's why I own both a rangefinder and a film SLR.
 
Unless you are in need of some cash I would keep the M6. I bet it took some saving & penny pinching to get the camera & lenses you have. SLR systems are pretty cheap now a days.
 
Rogier said:
Nikon F3 HP :cool::cool::cool:
Click to expand...

+1. The f3 is a fantastic body and you can get them for 125$. An amazing bargain.

If I was the original poster, I would keep the Leica and buy some lesser expensive Nikon gear. Then if you really start using the slr a bunch and the Leica becomes even more obsolete... Sell it!

For slr's, I would go Nikon or Pentax for the lenses and prices.
 
jerrybro said:
+1 for the FM2N. The price and availability of used Nikon cameras and optics is hard to argue with. I once shot slides of printed circuit boards with an F3 and 55mm 2.8 Micro Nikkor that I used as part of a training program. Projected on a wall at a huge size you could read the printing on ICs.
Click to expand...

If you really insist on doing this, you can't go wrong with the Nikon FM2n.
A lot of people like the Olympus SLRs as well as the Pentax MX. From all I have seen, the Leica R cameras are the only SLRs that surpass the Nikon FM2n.
 
Ideas, suggestions or is this just madness?
Click to expand...

Suggest you decide. Perhaps use your Leica stuff more?

Could you get people to purchase photographs from you? It would give you justification for spending your hard earned money for Leica equipment.

There are lots of other endeavors where money is spent but little is rewarded back to the person spending the money. W/O creating controversy here I won't mention some as I see it!

Haven't ever considered the thought process you present here. I get out and use my equipment to earn money. Works for me! Hope it can for you!
 
I switched from Nikon to the Olympus OM system in 1979 and loved, loved, loved my OMs. Carried them on documentary/PJ assignments to 27 countries on five continents, including several weeks in Eastern Europe just three months after the Berlin Wall was breached. I also carried the OMs around much of the US on editorial assignments and book projects plus using them for a ton of commercial work. The OM2n was my workhorse body and I still consider it the best of the OMs.

By 1992, aging eyes made it more difficult to focus quickly and accurately on the grid screens with very fine microprisms that I had installed in all my bodies. In retrospect, I should have just changed screens and kept on using the OMs. But I switched to Canon, and eventually switched over to Canon digital, which I still use for my commercial and architectural work.

When I first began using Olympus, I bought a 21mm f3.5, a 28f2.8, a 35-70f3.6, a 50f1.8, an 85f2, and a 135 f2.8. I later decided that the 24f2.8 could do the work of both the 21 and the 28, so they went on the shelf. I bought and sold other lenses over time, and on my last trip abroad I carried the 24, a 35f2, the 85f2, and the 180f2.8. This seemed to be about the perfect set of lenses for the kind of work I did. All were very sharp, and with the exception of the 180, were all quite small and light.

Now I'm back in the game with an OM2sp and an OM2n (which will need a CLA before I can use it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top