[rollei_list] Re: FM2 meets my needs was Not My Definition of a Thoroughbred (Re: Nikon vs. Leica)
- From: Allen Zak <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:07:27 -0400
When the Columbus Dispatch was still using film, Nikon FM/FEs were
issued to the photo staff, who proceeded to trash them in an average of
2 years. The F/F2s previously used lasted longer, but factoring
repairs, it was a wash. But PJ use, especially for big city dailies,
is particularly hard on equipment. My own FM2s are still cranking
after 20 years of moderate use ( average 300 rolls of film per year)
and have required little or no service in all that time. In that
respect yhey have done as well or better for me than any other cameras,
including Leica, Hasselblad and (ghasp!) Rollei.
As far as lens quality; some years ago some friends and I spent an
afternoon "testing" our respective gear by photographing a variety of
subjects in different light conditions, using Kodachrome, and comparing
the results. Lenses involved were Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Leica.
While there were slight "character" differences, we all agreed the
results were about equally good except for the Leica 50 mm Summicron,
which exhibited the famous "3 D" effect at wider apertures. It was
enough to convince me that Leica lenses (that one, at least) had a
special quality, but not enough to actually go out and re-outfit
because of it. I have used Leica now and then, always enjoyed them and
got great results, but the distinctions are too subtle for the cost.
If I really need to squeeze a little more sharpness and contrast out of
a subject, Rollei or Hasselblad do it better.
Allen Zak
On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:27 PM, mak@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I have perhaps 8-10 of the FM FM2 FM2n FM2T breed and a couple F and
> F2 bodies as well. For a number of years in the mid 1990's I shot with
> Leica R cameras (which I relaced with my Nikon FMs)...I also own M
> gear.
>
> The M is silky smooth, truly a jewel to use.
>
> The FM FM2 et al is not quite as silky smooth but for the price of a
> $1200 or so used M6 I can pick up a HALF DOZEN FMs or 2-3 FM2s and
> some awesome glass...
>
> Probably opening a whole new discussion here but from REAL WORLD
> EXPERIENCE I have found my Nikon FM/FM2/FM2T/F/F2 gear as reliable in
> the field as my M gear and more reliable than my R gear AND in my
> experience in real world shooting the Nikon glass is as god as the
> Leica glass and there is a heck of a lot more of it and it is a
> fraction of the cost...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Douglas Shea <dshea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Apr 12, 2005 9:13 AM
> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Not My Definition of a Thoroughbred (Re:
> Nikon vs. Leica)
>
> Which Leica are we discussing here, the "R" or the "M?" With all due
> respect, having used a vast array of Nikon and various Leica "R"
> cameras I'd
> stop way short of calling the "R" a thoroughbred. I would also not
> refer to
> any of the Nikon FM/FE series cameras as "workhorses" either. As for
> build
> quality and expected durability I'd put the "R" and the FM2 in the same
> league; rather light duty cameras and a notch or two below any of the
> Nikon
> F series, especially from the F2 onwards. I'm sure that Leica enjoys
> seeing
> the "thoroughbred" reference -- it reinforces their belief in their own
> advertising hype. Only two SLR's come to my mind as thoroughbreds: the
> second and third generation Alpa cameras and the Contarex.
>
> Doug
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nick Roberts
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:53 AM
> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Nikon vs. Leica (was: Query: Mechancial
> Cameras)
>
> Thor is absolutely right to describe the FM2 as a
> workhorse. It's precisely that, not a thoroughbred
> like a Leica. Just a perfectly good tool.
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
