I think the Nikon photos where better because I cant afford a Leica. 😒 Great content! One day, if i feel I deserve it, I will have an m3 and you will be partially to blame.
There are different perceptions between SLR and Leica, indeed. But I cannot judge whether I like one way more than the other. I used them all & like them all - from 18/24mm Olympus Pen F up to Pentax and Makina 6x7. I enjoy the 1/8000 sec of the Nikon F801s as well as the astounding Rangefinder bright & 1:1 finder of the VITO Voigtlaender (my today's favourite, tiny and decent RF camera). The Makina is as silent as a Leica, the high-pitched sound of the integrated motor drive of an F801s makes horses shy away, but a common Nikon SLR shutter doesn't matter in daily traffic conditions. For street photography I use them all - with pleasure;-))
Insightful as always Matt. SLR’s better for say Sport photography, as you touched on, especially if having to use longer lenses. But for me, the Rangefinder’s get the most use. Interesting how Leica fashions change, and have seen the prices now being asked for M6 in particular; I have just tracked down my bill from 2002, then 15 yr old M6 £940. Now at nearly 33yrs old it might sell over £1,500 !
Thanks Alastair, yes despite all my cameras I don't spend money on many other things. I see Leicas as much as an investment so I don't feel as bad owning multiple cameras. I certainly wouldn't do this with modern AF lenses (with no aperture rings etc). I don't feel they will survive the test of time.
Matt Osborne thanks for replying. It’s good that my Leica M film bodies are increasing in value, and even the M9 has only depreciated by about 50% from 2012. Agree that anything Leica is an investment that won’t be matched by DSLR’s, and particularly the modern lenses.
@@alastaircowe6844 Yes I think if you can buy used it's normally a safe bet. When I was to dumb and eager (when first starting out) I was buying some Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses new so i've lost on those but the used Leica lenses (too expensive new!) have held their value well.
Let me say that normally I think you are spot on with what you say, but I am not at all convinced about the closeness of the lens to the film being at all relevant in sharpness. Think about the telephoto lenses for the SL66 where the rear element of the 1000mm lens must be 25cm away from the film plane at infinity. Actually as I have hurt my arm I cannot measure mine at the moment (it is a very heavy lens) so that may well be an under estimate. The required image projection will of course be taken fully into account by the lens designer. Yes it is true that if you put a lens on extension tubes, optical performance declines because as you move the lens forward less of the image circle is used and the smaller part of the image circle has to cover the same area. But when a lens is designed for an SLR or a rangefinder, the designer will normally take fully into account the physical position of the lens to the film plane at infinity and the image projection. Moving the lens away from the designed ideal, focusing at a lesser distance than infinity, will affect image quality no matter what the lens (macro and micro lenses excluded). I think the thinking about rangefinders being sharper was entirely due to the a lack of mirror induced vibration. Again camera designers have had different ideas how to deal with that, some more successfully than others. Eliminating the mirror of course eliminates the problem. One of the benefits of the SLR is that the relationship between the focusing screen and the film is fixed rather solidly in the manufacturing process (Bronica S2 etc excluded) whereas the rangefinder mechanism of rather more delicate and rough handling can disturb it leading to inaccurate focusing. I think there are very good reasons for using a rangefinder camera for street photography and you covered most of them in the video, but try and do macro photographs with a rangefinder, or really long telephotos, not available for the Leica. It is a case of horses for courses. Few would use an 8x10 camera for sport photography, although you could do, especially for sports where the action is in a limited place, for example pole-vault. I would not use my Pentax 67 for street photography as the mirror slap might induce a cardiac arrest in some little old lady standing too close. If I wanted to do street photography I would actually use a Yashicamat twin lens reflex, but I would not dispute that a Leica would be a very suitable tool indeed, just a little too valuable for me to want to walk around a city center with these days. Matt you are clearly braver than me.
Thanks for visiting one of my very early videos. I think this was based on what many see as ‘common knowledge’ vs my own findings. As you say some SLR lenses can capture super sharp images. There is some general correctness about RF often out performing similar FL in the past. My Nikon SLR fast glass what never as wow as my Nikkor RF glass for example.. say 50mm. But later the Nikkor G glass became very sharp. All your points are valid too.
Viewed briefly on a small screen I certainly could not see any differences between those sets of photos. Anyway I am very interested in hearing your thoughts on the modern EVF cameras like the Nikon Z, Sony A, Fuji, etc. They seem to have the best of both SLR and rangefinder. Kudos to you for leaving the "the experience" and coolness of owning a Leica off your list of rangefinder advantages.
Aaron Stern thank you Aaron! I appreciate your feedback. I use a mirrorless camera actually, well 2. Lumix GH5, mostly for video and Leica CL, main photo camera currently. To address the comparison point better perhaps check out the Leica SL recent review I did. It compares APS-C & FF mirrorless to each other and verses a M rangefinder, and the reasons to have/ use both. 👍🏻
I agree! As my eyes age I love using the m3 patch vs tiny split prisms or focus screens on SLRs. Also the handling and user experience of rangefinder shooting is an extra intangible benefit.
I do love your passion for Leicas and range finder cameras. I think your are right in that they are tools each camera type has it own space. Yes DSLR / 35mm do it all but there are time like street and art where the Leica cameras and glass will just win but that sade I shoot both Nikon and Hasselblad and there are time that the Hasselblad just blow the Nikon away and at other time the Nikon is so mush better. Thank for you thoughts.
Thanks John! Yes we are similar, I use Nikon and Hasselblad too. I’ve done a few Hassy videos but need to do more! I use rangefinders the most but love the resolution from MF and Nikon has its place too. Thanks.
Basically you have stated my view. I have assorted pre-AI Nikons as well as an M3 (I also have and have used a wide range of other cameras as well.) The Nikons and other SLRs can do pretty much anything. The rangefinder's strength is with close in and intimate photography. In the end, if you are doing 35mm photography with these old classic cameras, it is because you enjoy the blend of art and techno skills to create great pictures and you really won't have to break the bank or raid your kids college fund to have both an SLR and a rangefinder kit. Life's too short...
..and great I was hoping someone would ask about the GF670! :) I seem to have misplaced it currently but when I find it I will try to put a video together with photos.
Another cracking video thanks Matt I use both formats various SLRs even a TLR rangefinder wise my fave is the Oly 35SP just a lovely camera to use. Cant say I have a definite preference I love them all 📷❤️📷
Nice one Matt! I think it’s probably true to say the RF lenses are sharper. But in most cases the film we shoot has less resolution than either the SLR or rangefinder lenses. So most times the difference in sharpness is probably impossible to see. Another advantage with rangefinder lenses is the ultra wides. They generally have way less distortion than SLR ultra wides for the same reasons you explained in the video. The catch is with ultra wides on an RF you need to use an external viewfinder, making accurate framing more difficult, good external finders are not cheap and their view is still distorted and not perfectly accurate.... SLR’s... far more accurate framing for ultra wides... but lenses have more distortion. The last point is probably only relevant to architectural and landscape photography. Can we ever be completely satisfied??! Haha
Hello Mike, it's an honour to have you here! I hear you name mentioned a lot by Perry and co! :) Thanks for sharing that info.. yes I buy Voigtlander viewfinders and I think they will double as my pension they cost so much! I do love the Heliar 15mm f4.5 LTM on my Bessa L (or any other camera). ..and agreed, we just like having something to moan about/ give us an excuse for GAS haha.
Heaven knows the finders are darned expensive! I like the metal Voigtländer finders, they’re the best balance of size and quality, generally with not too much distortion. The Voigtlander 15/4.5 has definitely been on my radar but not actually shot one yet.... I like the size of the first version, but I like that the 3rd version plays well with digital. Thanks for the great videos! Keep them coming!
Michael Epstein thanks Mike, yes my version 1or2 M mount lens gives the purple edges to photos on digital. I agree for the finders! I just picked up a nice mirrored 50mm for my Bessa T but will use on Leica iiia too.
I don’t know why people keep saying this… rf lenses are sharper CUZ they sit closer to the film. If that were the case, NO srl lens will ever beat any rf lens. But we both know thats not the case. Are ALL rf lenses sharper than ALL Nikon lenses? HELL NO Leica lenses are sharper cuz they are made to be sharper. Period. Its like giving different doses of a medicine to different size people. They will both have different effects. So you give doses based on they history. Meaning, lens designers will always compensate for the larger distance to film in slr. As simple as that. There are lenses that are designed to sit further away from the film plane and there are lenses designed to sit closer. They can be equally sharp, cuz the designers added or removed lens elements to permit that. So if u were a lens designer and u know an slr has a wider distance, wouldn’t you adjust to make it sharper? Think about shortsightedness and longsightedness. They are corrected by using different lenses. BUT corrected EQUALLY.
The lenses for the Mamiya Super 23 Press cameras with their built in shutters are very quiet and they have flash sync at any speed. These too are range finder cameras with great lenses and can be made to focus closely with the ground glass back and bellows extension.
You fm is quite noisy. The mirror spring dampener has probably given up (usually a foam next to the mirror spring on the mirror box, that falls apart and makes the nikon make a lound "clang" after the mirror return). Not that the Fm could be more silent than m3 :)
WRT sharpness, one image my father took of my mother with an inexpensive (Petri) 35mm rangefinder was enlarged to 30" x 40". At a normal viewing distance, you don't see the grain and it's still acceptably sharp throughout. I was quite surprised. I don't know if the lower vibration (no mirror) or shorter lens to film plane distance is responsible.
That's a one beautiful FM you got there, Matt. I really dig your insides, you are one of the reason I bought an M6. Now, I'm considering adding FM2 for portraits. How are you finding FM? Is it worth to pay more for FM2? I see that you are using f/1.2 Nikkor on it, I guess faster shutter speed would be convenient. How do you get around that 1/1000? Regards, Wojtek.
BRW thanks! Did you see the other part of this review showing the FE2? I use that camera the most of the FM, FE, FE2. All of them do the same job and it’s all down to the lens you choose. I’ve started posting additional video on Patreon.com/MrLeicaCom - currently I’m also testing some Minolta SLR cameras.
BRW I’ve not tried the FM2 but if similar specs to FE2 then yes it’s worth it. Visit MrLeica.com and search FM. There are very detailed specs reviews there showing pros and cons of each.
Dear Matt, your review on cameras and lenses are always top interesting. But you have a gift about portraying. I enjoy watching them and the different characteristics you squeeze from each lens. Well done 👍
@@robertolouth7468 Thanks, i'm happy you see this! I still find being in front of the camera mostly painful with main re-takes haha but I will get better! I'm better at taking photos I think. :)
Another excellent informative video, still looking to take the plunge and buy a Leica. The only thing putting me off the rangefinder is something you said in one of your videos, regarding the rangefinder being bumped and knocked out of true and the need to be recalibrated.
Thank you David! I think it is all relative. If you have a "workhorse" camera then it will get knocked from time to time and need a "service" like a car would. For hobby work and careful handling you should never have a problem with normal use. My M240 has been worse than film Leica but is used more.. (I would think older Leica were built better... think how photographers shot in the war etc!)..
Thanks Zehn, yes cameras are just tools but for most occasions I find Leica or rangefinder cameras suit me best.. or an SLR with a split prism finder so I can see to focus.
I like the M2 because of the rangefinder for 35mm lenses and the later M models with rangefinder for 28 and 35mm lenses, but in all I do not like Leica rangefinder cameras they are to fiddly, but the Mamiya 6 have a nice Rangefinder, but in all do not like rangefinder cameras, lenses hiding the lower right corner and not WYSIWYG, that is why I love modern digital cameras with EVF, only very few analog cameras had 100% viewfinder and focus screens, mirror and pentaprism that was good to give a good feel for focusing. Watching your Nikon FM, I see an old problem, the missing rubber ring at the back of the viewfinder, beware to all that wants to buy a second hand Nikon FM (or any other brand or model) get a good one with rubber ring, those are often more cared for than those without :) About sharpness, yes back in the old analog days when lenses was designed by calculating it by hand an brain, some lenses with short focal lenght could be sharper for rangefinder, but as computer and software was getting better, more and more lenses for SLR even in short focal lenght lenses with retrofocusing was getting just as goo as those for rangefiner cameras :) The longer a focal length then tere are no advantage for the rangefinder lenses. Most positive with wideangle lenses for rangefinder camera are the small formfactor. As for compactness of the camera, som SLR´s like the Olympus OM-1 are maybe slightly larger than the Leica M cameras, but Olympus had also som compact lenses. Today I do not see Leica lenses superior compared to other brands, Leica are much too overprized today, the second hand market prices have gone bonkers too, I love the modern choices today evne though I like old manual mecanical cameras and lenses, but I do use my old Canon FDn, Leica R and Tamron SP analog lenses on Sony camera ;) About street shooting, when you have both eyes open you can still see a person when using a SLR, so no advantege there ;) You don´t need to shot the eye when triggering the shutter botton :) The M3 are only good for shooting with a 50mm lens. (I never use 50mm). An advice to all new users of rangefinder camera, never use a lens cap ! :D You end up with a lot of black images :D Focusing with mirrorles digital cameras a joy, you can adjust the eye correction, you can enlarge the viewfinder, you can have focus peaking, it is WYSIWYG :) I don´t shoot with analog film anymore, I have allways had a bad feeling of polution from the chemicals.
Another comment I missed, sorry. (On a mission to clear every comment!) Agreed the M2 for 28 and 35mm. Mamiya 6 is excellent too. Not used mine for a while. I've just got into Leica R cameras which give me WYSIWYG .. thanks about FM, yes mine is more of a beater than most my cameras. I like the cheap Nikon FG-20 for a Leica size SLR (smaller than OM-1 I think and lighter). Great tip on RF + lens caps! :) I recently got a Lumix S5 for the FF mirrorless experience :)
Ernest Nazarov thanks Ernest. Part 1 of this video would say why the SL is better and part 2 the M. I prefer Ms to focus and size but an SL might be fun with non Leica lenses too like the Helios video using the CL.
Rangefinder Vs SLR sharpness debate. Mirror slam was often deemed to be the culprit when unfavourable comparisons were made between images taken on these very different cameras . It was argued that the abrupt mechanical shock of the mirror mechanism reaching the limit of its travel, generated enough in the way of micro vibration in the camera body to reduce sharpness. I use a Pentax K5 DSLR and a Leica M8 (yes, I know it's considered to be deeply flawed and limited compared to Leica's later offerings, but the Kodak kaf 10 sensor delivers the filmic outcome that appeals to me, also the complete lack of bells n whistles simplicity. and the very small and light lenses I can hang on it, which make it jacket pocketable, body on one side pocket, with aVoigtglass Color Skopar or a Summicron hung on it and a 90mm Elmar, (120mm when crop factor is taken into account) in another pocket. A light compact kit for a day of landscapes or a spot ofstreet and candid cafe pics. Horses for courses. The Pentax for wet weather and it's longer reach. The Leica for street, family, pets n fairweather landscapes. I cannot say that I have ever noticed any objectionable difference in sharpness, when comparing images from the two systems. Sharpness , as everyone knows, important tho' it is, is not the only contributor to a great image. For some purposes a forensically sharp image is required, but the characteristics of the lens will likely have a stronger effect than the body it is attached to in most circumstances. I wouldn't get into an argument about it because for me both systems have merit and it simply comes down to choosing the right tool for the job, or sometimes which camera has enough battery charge to make it useable (!)
Hi Barry, thanks for your input. Yes i'm an M8 fan too, I guess you've seen that video already! In brief I think sharpness is most down to the lens. I can put a sharp lens on a Leica or a soft depending on the look i'm going for and that can be said for most systems I think.. well 35mm anyway. Less so for MF. All Hasselblad lenses are excellent, all Mamiya 6 & 7 lenses are sharp... :)
Nice video 👍, my question is: let's say for example you shoot from a tripod with your nikon and your leica and print the pictures in the darkroom in a 20x30cm size, can you spot the sharpness differences between the 2 systems watching from a distance of 20cm? Personally I can't
Thanks! Without even testing this I would say no! It is mostly lens specific but I do find that often lenses for RF cameras punch above their weight, especially when it comes to older lenses. (But as in this video some SLR lenses are excellent so it can't be said for all - I think).
RE sharpness, it's only true for lenses 50mm and wider as RF lenses will have fewer design compromises (they don't have to design around a large and technically arbitrary distance from film plane). But a well-designed SLR lens can be just as good. The 50 Summicron-R (version 2) is IMO the best 50mm lens Leica ever made, even beating out the 1950s-60s M-Summicron Rigid/Dual Range and the later V.4-5 (I don't know about the APO as I've never tried it). I never thought I'd say this but it is the shocking truth
Thank you. I own 3 copies of the 50 Summicron-R v2 (don't ask why ha, they camera with cameras).. they are good at f2.8 onwards but can be easily beaten at f2 by many of my 50s including a Nikkor 50 f2 AI £50 lens (which smashes it). APO lenses will easily win, even the old Nokton 1.5 LTM ASPH can beat it plus obvious lenses like the Summilux 50/1.4 ASPH and Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 F mount. I still love Leica though and great point on wides for SLR vs RF. The Voigtlander 20mm and 28mm SL lenses for F mount are excellent even next to my RF wide lenses.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom I agree the Nikkor AI 50mm F2 is a stellar lens for the money; strangely I felt the pre-AI version fell flat, though it's supposedly the same formula. What makes me fall in love w/ a certain lens like the 50 Summicron-R is the subtle things that can't be measured, like the particular way it renders motion blur. Cheers!
Your first statement that rangefinder cameras are smaller than SLR cameras is not always true. My 6x7cm rangefinder camera is much larger than my Pentax ME SLR. In fact, my Pentax ME SLR is slightly smaller than my Leica M6 rangefinder.
Thanks, yes I should have been more specific. Like for like camera and lens, the rangefinders should be smaller in most cases. Leica M + small lens should be smaller than ME + small lens I would guess? (From my experience).
Thanks Humberto, yes I agree with you! The strap is British made. You can find it here - hawkesmill.com/product/westminster-leather-camera-strap-brown/
Interesting video. But if you want an SLR camera you could use the Leica R 6.2, a manual camera with an excellent photometry system. Nikon works also very well and Canon too, but if you like leica lenses... you have a choice. And the best camera... depens of how you work, money. Leica cameras are made to work with you during your life time or even more, the others not so long.
Thanks Rafael, that is a good point about R bodies, I looked at R glass before but managed to resist it! So far! Excellent point about Leicas as a long term working cameras, well film bodies especially!
SLR shutter doesn't fire until after the mirror has lifted, in comparison rangefinder shutters are instantaneous - 🙂 - as useful for action photos as the uninterrupted view from the range/viewfinder.
Edwin Parker thanks Edwin, yes I should have mentioned that. No blackout on RF. So much better!! When the CL blacks out during a wedding it freaks me out as I can’t see what I’m missing. RF much better suited in that regard. 👍🏻
I love my Leica but when I go away next week its the FM2n thats coming along with the Voigtländer 58 1.4 attached and a Nikkor 28mm f2. If I am on the beach, in the woods or by the lake or in the hills the FM2n trumps the Leica and invariably comes along....4000 shutter speed too. Both sets of photos were good I thought.
Thanks Paul, yes if you saw Part 1 I talk about using my Nikon FE2 on trips overseas last summer and as you say the faster shutter speed is very useful. That and the amazing Voigtländer 58 1.4! ..Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 also excellent.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom I'll have a look at the Part one. I've not tried the 20mm 3.5. I do like Voigtländer (not all but many are really nice) That 58 1.4 is, as you say, a super bit of kit. Great on digital too. I like my FE2 but when I go away I always have the fear that it will conk out so I take the FM2n along. My Leicas mostly stay in the city...they seem to belong there. .have a good evening there Matt
@@paulwalker797 Thanks Paul, the Voigtlander 20mm isn't shown in Part 1 but you can see it here if interested - th-cam.com/video/m_YBLN3S7oE/w-d-xo.html ...and yes depending on where I visit sometimes I leave Leica behind too!
I am not sure I agree with You regarding "sharper pics with the lens closer to the film/sensor plane" I have taken exceptionell sharp images with Hasselblad and 4x5" cameras. In those you have extrem long distance between lens and film plane. My guess is that the more moving parts you have such as mirrors, shutters etc, the less sharpness you get. Thats why you have a function of mirror lockup in most cameras. My absolutely best camera in this context is my Hasselblad 903SWC. Large film or sensor and only the shutter moving. No mirror, no curtain. Next debate should be if the shutter should be in the lens or in the body. And since every lens is made for use on a specific camera, I guess we never find out.
Hello thanks! Yes I only reported the common thought that RF cameras are sharper but I 100% agree that a good lens on any camera will give great images. As you say, especially without mirror vibrations.
..and I 200% agree with regards to the SWC! I have the SWC/M :) Hasselbads take amazing cameras anyway, I have 500cm, 501c, H2.. BUT the SWC is as good as it gets I think. One of my older videos shows my 501c next to the SWC/M and the CineStill film video shows some example images. I aim to do more Hasselblad videos going forward. :) ...and 4x5! (I have 3 but 1 needs shutter servicing).
Great me too Christopher! In that case SLR for portraits / close ups/ more complex day to day photos of shooting through or between something. RF for documentary/ street/ landscape etc (obviously for sports,wildlife etc SLR too).
Thanks Georg! I’m a Nikon film camera fan boy too. (Any nice film camera, Zorki or otherwise). SLR cameras are easier to make and now most cameras are mirrorless but Leica do still make their RF cameras.
What you said about optics shouldn't hold up so much today when it comes to sharpness. On Nikons you could achieve 24mp (eq to 24mp body, as in not the full 24 mp) equivalent sharpness. The Nikon's unique trait (their lens compatibility) let's you put really sharp and cheap modern lenses on old body's. The sharpest 35mm is probably a Nikon F6 with one of their 85mm lenses. That should be enough to be able to resolve some of the extremely sharp 35mm film like the 800 line sub 30 iso fine grain films.
Thanks, are you thinking of one 85mm lens in particular? I own a lot of Nikon glass and never think of 85mm as their best glass. I’m sure the Tokina 100 macro or Nikkor 55 Micro are much sharper but they are known to be good. That’s why I use them.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom haven't used it but the Nikkor 85mm 1.4 g . It was more of a example of a lens within the average persons reach and scores really well on dxomark. DxoMark isn't God but if you technicaly look for sharpness their averaging on a fixed lens says a lot. I mean if the average resolved resolution is the full resolution it should tell you it's sharp. But there is a decent amount of lenses that can resolve the full resolution. I'm not for sharpness but I know some people even in analog loves that and I don't think at the high end that a leica system could provide as sharp of an photo as Nikon.
@@lokalkakan Thanks, ah yes I used to use that website a lot years ago. A good site. Yes true G lenses are good. I had the 35mm f1.4 G and that is also sharp.. though it was funny my Samyang 85 1.4 beat my Nikkor 85 1.4 wide open :) Such a great lens if shoot at f1.4.. I still have these lenses. It also depends on micro contrast etc.. I use Mamiya 7 lenses which are said to be some of the sharpest yet I get better images with my Zeiss Hasselblad glass as it looks more 3D and less flat. Some Leica lenses such as the APO ones are very sharp + 90mm Macro Elmar. For medium format Zeiss 120mm Macro Planar f4 is amazing and the 38mm Biogon (fixed lens on SWC camera).
With a rangefinder camera you need to remember to take the lens cap off and Leica cameras and lenses are Sooo expensive, whereas Nikon cameras and lenses are less expensive. Lenses longer than 135mn are not useable on a M3. Macro is not possible with a rangefinder unless you use a reflex housing. I use a 300 mm on my Nikon FE. I use a Zorki 4K with the Jupiter 8 50mm f2 which is known as the poor man's Leica. The Jupiter 8 50mm f2 lens is amazing. There is room in my life for both, but if you get serious with film photography you will move on to medium format, Rollei, Hasselblad or a Pentax 6x7.
Thanks Neil, yes I shoot MF and LF. I have Hasselblads, Mamiyas, Rolleis, Fujis etc. Yes Nikon is great with a long lens and is easier for macro. I enjoy Soviet cameras too, Kievs, FED, Zorki.. excellent value for money if they are working. I will share videos on them too going forward. (and some Leica gear is cheaper than Nikon... I think I will need to do a specific video on this to break the myth!) :)
Looking at any photo I judge it on its merits not wether it was taken with SLR or rangefinder. I cringe when I here comments like Leica look, micro contrast act.
jan frosty thanks Jan, yes I think if people see a nice photo they want to know how it is made and comment on those then lens characteristics rather than the image as an art form - composition, mood etc.
The Leica images are clearly superior. Mostly in the rage of micro contrast. I’d be curious to see the results of a better micro contrast lens on the Nikon.
There is much to do about sharpness, micro contrast etc. my view is in 90% of all photography the difference in sharpness between modern lenses today is neglectable in the formats till plus/minus 30x40cm. Even by larger prints it is very difficult to make visible differences in micro contrast. The stories about these items ar mostly bla bla subjective views of the people that write about it. Only on exellent monitors, (4K to 8K), blowing up the pic files to at least 100%. Resulting in real big print sizes of 1 to 1,5 meters. IF you want 'the best' products. Okay nothing wrong with that but it is not guaranty for better or greater pictures. Most of the worlds iconic photo's were made by average photo gear. I wish you success. Greets, Aad
▶️ Watch Next: PART1 if you missed it - 5 Reasons Why Nikon are Better: th-cam.com/video/Ogx_XBVE_BU/w-d-xo.html
@@rickykieran7427 thanks
I think the Nikon photos where better because I cant afford a Leica. 😒
Great content! One day, if i feel I deserve it, I will have an m3 and you will be partially to blame.
Thanks! Nikon will take the same photos so don’t worry ..but if you do get a M3 you will like it ;)
There are different perceptions between SLR and Leica, indeed. But I cannot judge whether I like one way more than the other. I used them all & like them all - from 18/24mm Olympus Pen F up to Pentax and Makina 6x7. I enjoy the 1/8000 sec of the Nikon F801s as well as the astounding Rangefinder bright & 1:1 finder of the VITO Voigtlaender (my today's favourite, tiny and decent RF camera). The Makina is as silent as a Leica, the high-pitched sound of the integrated motor drive of an F801s makes horses shy away, but a common Nikon SLR shutter doesn't matter in daily traffic conditions. For street photography I use them all - with pleasure;-))
Nice! Yes I use both still too for film. Both have pro/ cons
Insightful as always Matt. SLR’s better for say Sport photography, as you touched on, especially if having to use longer lenses.
But for me, the Rangefinder’s get the most use. Interesting how Leica fashions change, and have seen the prices now being asked for M6 in particular; I have just tracked down my bill from 2002, then 15 yr old M6 £940. Now at nearly 33yrs old it might sell over £1,500 !
Thanks Alastair, yes despite all my cameras I don't spend money on many other things. I see Leicas as much as an investment so I don't feel as bad owning multiple cameras. I certainly wouldn't do this with modern AF lenses (with no aperture rings etc). I don't feel they will survive the test of time.
Matt Osborne thanks for replying. It’s good that my Leica M film bodies are increasing in value, and even the M9 has only depreciated by about 50% from 2012. Agree that anything Leica is an investment that won’t be matched by DSLR’s, and particularly the modern lenses.
@@alastaircowe6844 Yes I think if you can buy used it's normally a safe bet. When I was to dumb and eager (when first starting out) I was buying some Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses new so i've lost on those but the used Leica lenses (too expensive new!) have held their value well.
One of my favorite rangefinders is my folding Zeiss Icon Contessa. Talk about compact, well built, and sharp! As always, great video bud.
Thanks Luis! Ah very nice. I’ve not used that yet. Noted! :)
Let me say that normally I think you are spot on with what you say, but I am not at all convinced about the closeness of the lens to the film being at all relevant in sharpness. Think about the telephoto lenses for the SL66 where the rear element of the 1000mm lens must be 25cm away from the film plane at infinity. Actually as I have hurt my arm I cannot measure mine at the moment (it is a very heavy lens) so that may well be an under estimate. The required image projection will of course be taken fully into account by the lens designer. Yes it is true that if you put a lens on extension tubes, optical performance declines because as you move the lens forward less of the image circle is used and the smaller part of the image circle has to cover the same area. But when a lens is designed for an SLR or a rangefinder, the designer will normally take fully into account the physical position of the lens to the film plane at infinity and the image projection. Moving the lens away from the designed ideal, focusing at a lesser distance than infinity, will affect image quality no matter what the lens (macro and micro lenses excluded). I think the thinking about rangefinders being sharper was entirely due to the a lack of mirror induced vibration. Again camera designers have had different ideas how to deal with that, some more successfully than others. Eliminating the mirror of course eliminates the problem. One of the benefits of the SLR is that the relationship between the focusing screen and the film is fixed rather solidly in the manufacturing process (Bronica S2 etc excluded) whereas the rangefinder mechanism of rather more delicate and rough handling can disturb it leading to inaccurate focusing. I think there are very good reasons for using a rangefinder camera for street photography and you covered most of them in the video, but try and do macro photographs with a rangefinder, or really long telephotos, not available for the Leica. It is a case of horses for courses. Few would use an 8x10 camera for sport photography, although you could do, especially for sports where the action is in a limited place, for example pole-vault. I would not use my Pentax 67 for street photography as the mirror slap might induce a cardiac arrest in some little old lady standing too close. If I wanted to do street photography I would actually use a Yashicamat twin lens reflex, but I would not dispute that a Leica would be a very suitable tool indeed, just a little too valuable for me to want to walk around a city center with these days. Matt you are clearly braver than me.
Thanks for visiting one of my very early videos. I think this was based on what many see as ‘common knowledge’ vs my own findings. As you say some SLR lenses can capture super sharp images. There is some general correctness about RF often out performing similar FL in the past. My Nikon SLR fast glass what never as wow as my Nikkor RF glass for example.. say 50mm. But later the Nikkor G glass became very sharp. All your points are valid too.
Viewed briefly on a small screen I certainly could not see any differences between those sets of photos.
Anyway I am very interested in hearing your thoughts on the modern EVF cameras like the Nikon Z, Sony A, Fuji, etc. They seem to have the best of both SLR and rangefinder.
Kudos to you for leaving the "the experience" and coolness of owning a Leica off your list of rangefinder advantages.
Aaron Stern thank you Aaron! I appreciate your feedback. I use a mirrorless camera actually, well 2. Lumix GH5, mostly for video and Leica CL, main photo camera currently. To address the comparison point better perhaps check out the Leica SL recent review I did. It compares APS-C & FF mirrorless to each other and verses a M rangefinder, and the reasons to have/ use both. 👍🏻
I agree! As my eyes age I love using the m3 patch vs tiny split prisms or focus screens on SLRs. Also the handling and user experience of rangefinder shooting is an extra intangible benefit.
Thanks Alan, yes the M3 is a hard camera to beat! :)
I do love your passion for Leicas and range finder cameras. I think your are right in that they are tools each camera type has it own space. Yes DSLR / 35mm do it all but there are time like street and art where the Leica cameras and glass will just win but that sade I shoot both Nikon and Hasselblad and there are time that the Hasselblad just blow the Nikon away and at other time the Nikon is so mush better. Thank for you thoughts.
Thanks John! Yes we are similar, I use Nikon and Hasselblad too. I’ve done a few Hassy videos but need to do more! I use rangefinders the most but love the resolution from MF and Nikon has its place too. Thanks.
Good comment John, balanced and realistic.
Basically you have stated my view. I have assorted pre-AI Nikons as well as an M3 (I also have and have used a wide range of other cameras as well.) The Nikons and other SLRs can do pretty much anything. The rangefinder's strength is with close in and intimate photography. In the end, if you are doing 35mm photography with these old classic cameras, it is because you enjoy the blend of art and techno skills to create great pictures and you really won't have to break the bank or raid your kids college fund to have both an SLR and a rangefinder kit. Life's too short...
Always nice to see content that has a Leica M3. It is my favourite camera. I'd love to see a review of the Fuji GF670 you mentioned.
Thannks Jesse! Good to hear you are an M3 fan too! :)
..and great I was hoping someone would ask about the GF670! :) I seem to have misplaced it currently but when I find it I will try to put a video together with photos.
Another cracking video thanks Matt I use both formats various SLRs even a TLR rangefinder wise my fave is the Oly 35SP just a lovely camera to use. Cant say I have a definite preference I love them all 📷❤️📷
Thanks Paul! I have the Oly 35RC (another video ha) but not tried the SP.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom saw a few reviews on both olys both cracking cameras I went with Sp cause it was in stock love it
Nice one Matt!
I think it’s probably true to say the RF lenses are sharper. But in most cases the film we shoot has less resolution than either the SLR or rangefinder lenses. So most times the difference in sharpness is probably impossible to see. Another advantage with rangefinder lenses is the ultra wides. They generally have way less distortion than SLR ultra wides for the same reasons you explained in the video. The catch is with ultra wides on an RF you need to use an external viewfinder, making accurate framing more difficult, good external finders are not cheap and their view is still distorted and not perfectly accurate.... SLR’s... far more accurate framing for ultra wides... but lenses have more distortion. The last point is probably only relevant to architectural and landscape photography. Can we ever be completely satisfied??! Haha
Hello Mike, it's an honour to have you here! I hear you name mentioned a lot by Perry and co! :) Thanks for sharing that info.. yes I buy Voigtlander viewfinders and I think they will double as my pension they cost so much! I do love the Heliar 15mm f4.5 LTM on my Bessa L (or any other camera). ..and agreed, we just like having something to moan about/ give us an excuse for GAS haha.
Heaven knows the finders are darned expensive! I like the metal Voigtländer finders, they’re the best balance of size and quality, generally with not too much distortion. The Voigtlander 15/4.5 has definitely been on my radar but not actually shot one yet.... I like the size of the first version, but I like that the 3rd version plays well with digital.
Thanks for the great videos! Keep them coming!
Michael Epstein thanks Mike, yes my version 1or2 M mount lens gives the purple edges to photos on digital. I agree for the finders! I just picked up a nice mirrored 50mm for my Bessa T but will use on Leica iiia too.
I don’t know why people keep saying this… rf lenses are sharper CUZ they sit closer to the film.
If that were the case, NO srl lens will ever beat any rf lens. But we both know thats not the case.
Are ALL rf lenses sharper than ALL Nikon lenses? HELL NO
Leica lenses are sharper cuz they are made to be sharper. Period.
Its like giving different doses of a medicine to different size people. They will both have different effects. So you give doses based on they history.
Meaning, lens designers will always compensate for the larger distance to film in slr. As simple as that. There are lenses that are designed to sit further away from the film plane and there are lenses designed to sit closer. They can be equally sharp, cuz the designers added or removed lens elements to permit that.
So if u were a lens designer and u know an slr has a wider distance, wouldn’t you adjust to make it sharper?
Think about shortsightedness and longsightedness. They are corrected by using different lenses. BUT corrected EQUALLY.
The lenses for the Mamiya Super 23 Press cameras with their built in shutters are very quiet and they have flash sync at any speed. These too are range finder cameras with great lenses and can be made to focus closely with the ground glass back and bellows extension.
Thanks John, yes I hear they are popular.. especially for those who modify cameras. I've not tried one yet myself.
You fm is quite noisy. The mirror spring dampener has probably given up (usually a foam next to the mirror spring on the mirror box, that falls apart and makes the nikon make a lound "clang" after the mirror return). Not that the Fm could be more silent than m3 :)
Ah thanks, great spot! I've now got the FM3a too so using that but yes the M3 is hard to beat for SLR cameras! Both nice
WRT sharpness, one image my father took of my mother with an inexpensive (Petri) 35mm rangefinder was enlarged to 30" x 40". At a normal viewing distance, you don't see the grain and it's still acceptably sharp throughout. I was quite surprised.
I don't know if the lower vibration (no mirror) or shorter lens to film plane distance is responsible.
Thanks Michael, yes there are so many variables it's never as black and white as RF cameras are sharper but overall they usually are I think.
That's a one beautiful FM you got there, Matt. I really dig your insides, you are one of the reason I bought an M6. Now, I'm considering adding FM2 for portraits. How are you finding FM? Is it worth to pay more for FM2? I see that you are using f/1.2 Nikkor on it, I guess faster shutter speed would be convenient. How do you get around that 1/1000? Regards, Wojtek.
BRW thanks! Did you see the other part of this review showing the FE2? I use that camera the most of the FM, FE, FE2. All of them do the same job and it’s all down to the lens you choose. I’ve started posting additional video on Patreon.com/MrLeicaCom - currently I’m also testing some Minolta SLR cameras.
BRW yes for 1.2 you can use ND filter on FM or FE2 with its faster max shutter speed. That’s what I do.
BRW I’ve not tried the FM2 but if similar specs to FE2 then yes it’s worth it. Visit MrLeica.com and search FM. There are very detailed specs reviews there showing pros and cons of each.
Good review and comparison Matt. Best regards from México
Thank you Roberto!
Dear Matt, your review on cameras and lenses are always top interesting. But you have a gift about portraying. I enjoy watching them and the different characteristics you squeeze from each lens. Well done 👍
@@robertolouth7468 Thanks, i'm happy you see this! I still find being in front of the camera mostly painful with main re-takes haha but I will get better! I'm better at taking photos I think. :)
Another excellent informative video, still looking to take the plunge and buy a Leica. The only thing putting me off the rangefinder is something you said in one of your videos, regarding the rangefinder being bumped and knocked out of true and the need to be recalibrated.
Thank you David! I think it is all relative. If you have a "workhorse" camera then it will get knocked from time to time and need a "service" like a car would. For hobby work and careful handling you should never have a problem with normal use. My M240 has been worse than film Leica but is used more.. (I would think older Leica were built better... think how photographers shot in the war etc!)..
Matt, you're a great photographer either with a Nikon or a Leica. Having said this, I prefer to use my Leica instead my Nikon. They are just special.
Thanks Zehn, yes cameras are just tools but for most occasions I find Leica or rangefinder cameras suit me best.. or an SLR with a split prism finder so I can see to focus.
I like the M2 because of the rangefinder for 35mm lenses and the later M models with rangefinder for 28 and 35mm lenses, but in all I do not like Leica rangefinder cameras they are to fiddly, but the Mamiya 6 have a nice Rangefinder, but in all do not like rangefinder cameras, lenses hiding the lower right corner and not WYSIWYG, that is why I love modern digital cameras with EVF, only very few analog cameras had 100% viewfinder and focus screens, mirror and pentaprism that was good to give a good feel for focusing.
Watching your Nikon FM, I see an old problem, the missing rubber ring at the back of the viewfinder, beware to all that wants to buy a second hand Nikon FM (or any other brand or model) get a good one with rubber ring, those are often more cared for than those without :)
About sharpness, yes back in the old analog days when lenses was designed by calculating it by hand an brain, some lenses with short focal lenght could be sharper for rangefinder, but as computer and software was getting better, more and more lenses for SLR even in short focal lenght lenses with retrofocusing was getting just as goo as those for rangefiner cameras :) The longer a focal length then tere are no advantage for the rangefinder lenses. Most positive with wideangle lenses for rangefinder camera are the small formfactor.
As for compactness of the camera, som SLR´s like the Olympus OM-1 are maybe slightly larger than the Leica M cameras, but Olympus had also som compact lenses.
Today I do not see Leica lenses superior compared to other brands, Leica are much too overprized today, the second hand market prices have gone bonkers too, I love the modern choices today evne though I like old manual mecanical cameras and lenses, but I do use my old Canon FDn, Leica R and Tamron SP analog lenses on Sony camera ;)
About street shooting, when you have both eyes open you can still see a person when using a SLR, so no advantege there ;) You don´t need to shot the eye when triggering the shutter botton :)
The M3 are only good for shooting with a 50mm lens. (I never use 50mm).
An advice to all new users of rangefinder camera, never use a lens cap ! :D You end up with a lot of black images :D
Focusing with mirrorles digital cameras a joy, you can adjust the eye correction, you can enlarge the viewfinder, you can have focus peaking, it is WYSIWYG :) I don´t shoot with analog film anymore, I have allways had a bad feeling of polution from the chemicals.
Another comment I missed, sorry. (On a mission to clear every comment!) Agreed the M2 for 28 and 35mm. Mamiya 6 is excellent too. Not used mine for a while. I've just got into Leica R cameras which give me WYSIWYG .. thanks about FM, yes mine is more of a beater than most my cameras. I like the cheap Nikon FG-20 for a Leica size SLR (smaller than OM-1 I think and lighter). Great tip on RF + lens caps! :) I recently got a Lumix S5 for the FF mirrorless experience :)
Agree!!! I am thinking about switching from SL to M246, what do you thing Matt?
Ernest Nazarov thanks Ernest. Part 1 of this video would say why the SL is better and part 2 the M. I prefer Ms to focus and size but an SL might be fun with non Leica lenses too like the Helios video using the CL.
Good work!
Thanks!
Rangefinder Vs SLR sharpness debate. Mirror slam was often deemed to be the culprit when unfavourable comparisons were made between images taken on these very different cameras . It was argued that the abrupt mechanical shock of the mirror mechanism reaching the limit of its travel, generated enough in the way of micro vibration in the camera body to reduce sharpness.
I use a Pentax K5 DSLR and a Leica M8 (yes, I know it's considered to be deeply flawed and limited compared to Leica's later offerings, but the Kodak kaf 10 sensor delivers the filmic outcome that appeals to me, also the complete lack of bells n whistles simplicity. and the very small and light lenses I can hang on it, which make it jacket pocketable, body on one side pocket, with aVoigtglass Color Skopar or a Summicron hung on it and a 90mm Elmar, (120mm when crop factor is taken into account) in another pocket. A light compact kit for a day of landscapes or a spot ofstreet and candid cafe pics.
Horses for courses. The Pentax for wet weather and it's longer reach. The Leica for street, family, pets n fairweather landscapes. I cannot say that I have ever noticed any objectionable difference in sharpness, when comparing images from the two systems. Sharpness , as everyone knows, important tho' it is, is not the only contributor to a great image. For some purposes a forensically sharp image is required, but the characteristics of the lens will likely have a stronger effect than the body it is attached to in most circumstances. I wouldn't get into an argument about it because for me both systems have merit and it simply comes down to choosing the right tool for the job, or sometimes which camera has enough battery charge to make it useable (!)
Hi Barry, thanks for your input. Yes i'm an M8 fan too, I guess you've seen that video already! In brief I think sharpness is most down to the lens. I can put a sharp lens on a Leica or a soft depending on the look i'm going for and that can be said for most systems I think.. well 35mm anyway. Less so for MF. All Hasselblad lenses are excellent, all Mamiya 6 & 7 lenses are sharp... :)
..good travel setup btw.. in my small lenses video I show my Leica Minolta CL with 3 super compact lenses for a travel setup.
Nice video 👍, my question is: let's say for example you shoot from a tripod with your nikon and your leica and print the pictures in the darkroom in a 20x30cm size, can you spot the sharpness differences between the 2 systems watching from a distance of 20cm? Personally I can't
Thanks! Without even testing this I would say no! It is mostly lens specific but I do find that often lenses for RF cameras punch above their weight, especially when it comes to older lenses. (But as in this video some SLR lenses are excellent so it can't be said for all - I think).
Do these film rangefinder benefits all transfer to digital rangefinder cameras?
I think so yes..and if you use a Leica M with an EVF you get 2 cameras in 1 (SLR style via EVF and RF without).
RE sharpness, it's only true for lenses 50mm and wider as RF lenses will have fewer design compromises (they don't have to design around a large and technically arbitrary distance from film plane). But a well-designed SLR lens can be just as good. The 50 Summicron-R (version 2) is IMO the best 50mm lens Leica ever made, even beating out the 1950s-60s M-Summicron Rigid/Dual Range and the later V.4-5 (I don't know about the APO as I've never tried it). I never thought I'd say this but it is the shocking truth
Thank you. I own 3 copies of the 50 Summicron-R v2 (don't ask why ha, they camera with cameras).. they are good at f2.8 onwards but can be easily beaten at f2 by many of my 50s including a Nikkor 50 f2 AI £50 lens (which smashes it). APO lenses will easily win, even the old Nokton 1.5 LTM ASPH can beat it plus obvious lenses like the Summilux 50/1.4 ASPH and Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 F mount. I still love Leica though and great point on wides for SLR vs RF. The Voigtlander 20mm and 28mm SL lenses for F mount are excellent even next to my RF wide lenses.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom I agree the Nikkor AI 50mm F2 is a stellar lens for the money; strangely I felt the pre-AI version fell flat, though it's supposedly the same formula. What makes me fall in love w/ a certain lens like the 50 Summicron-R is the subtle things that can't be measured, like the particular way it renders motion blur. Cheers!
@@TucsonAnalogWorkshop thanks! I’ll have to try motion blur sometime (I’m
Definitely not anti the 50/2) 👍🏻🙂
Your first statement that rangefinder cameras are smaller than SLR cameras is not always true.
My 6x7cm rangefinder camera is much larger than my Pentax ME SLR. In fact, my Pentax ME SLR is slightly smaller than my Leica M6 rangefinder.
Thanks, yes I should have been more specific. Like for like camera and lens, the rangefinders should be smaller in most cases. Leica M + small lens should be smaller than ME + small lens I would guess? (From my experience).
Different cameras for different days but both lovely. By the way, what strap are you using on your Leica M3?
Thanks Humberto, yes I agree with you! The strap is British made. You can find it here - hawkesmill.com/product/westminster-leather-camera-strap-brown/
Interesting video. But if you want an SLR camera you could use the Leica R 6.2, a manual camera with an excellent photometry system. Nikon works also very well and Canon too, but if you like leica lenses... you have a choice.
And the best camera... depens of how you work, money. Leica cameras are made to work with you during your life time or even more, the others not so long.
Thanks Rafael, that is a good point about R bodies, I looked at R glass before but managed to resist it! So far! Excellent point about Leicas as a long term working cameras, well film bodies especially!
SLR shutter doesn't fire until after the mirror has lifted, in comparison rangefinder shutters are instantaneous - 🙂 - as useful for action photos as the uninterrupted view from the range/viewfinder.
Edwin Parker thanks Edwin, yes I should have mentioned that. No blackout on RF. So much better!! When the CL blacks out during a wedding it freaks me out as I can’t see what I’m missing. RF much better suited in that regard. 👍🏻
I love my Leica but when I go away next week its the FM2n thats coming along with the Voigtländer 58 1.4 attached and a Nikkor 28mm f2. If I am on the beach, in the woods or by the lake or in the hills the FM2n trumps the Leica and invariably comes along....4000 shutter speed too. Both sets of photos were good I thought.
Thanks Paul, yes if you saw Part 1 I talk about using my Nikon FE2 on trips overseas last summer and as you say the faster shutter speed is very useful. That and the amazing Voigtländer 58 1.4! ..Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 also excellent.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom I'll have a look at the Part one. I've not tried the 20mm 3.5. I do like Voigtländer (not all but many are really nice) That 58 1.4 is, as you say, a super bit of kit. Great on digital too.
I like my FE2 but when I go away I always have the fear that it will conk out so I take the FM2n along. My Leicas mostly stay in the city...they seem to belong there.
.have a good evening there Matt
@@paulwalker797 Thanks Paul, the Voigtlander 20mm isn't shown in Part 1 but you can see it here if interested - th-cam.com/video/m_YBLN3S7oE/w-d-xo.html ...and yes depending on where I visit sometimes I leave Leica behind too!
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom Thanks for the link Matt.
@@paulwalker797 No problem, great lens! :)
I am not sure I agree with You regarding "sharper pics with the lens closer to the film/sensor plane" I have taken exceptionell sharp images with Hasselblad and 4x5" cameras. In those you have extrem long distance between lens and film plane. My guess is that the more moving parts you have such as mirrors, shutters etc, the less sharpness you get. Thats why you have a function of mirror lockup in most cameras. My absolutely best camera in this context is my Hasselblad 903SWC. Large film or sensor and only the shutter moving. No mirror, no curtain. Next debate should be if the shutter should be in the lens or in the body. And since every lens is made for use on a specific camera, I guess we never find out.
Hello thanks! Yes I only reported the common thought that RF cameras are sharper but I 100% agree that a good lens on any camera will give great images. As you say, especially without mirror vibrations.
..and I 200% agree with regards to the SWC! I have the SWC/M :) Hasselbads take amazing cameras anyway, I have 500cm, 501c, H2.. BUT the SWC is as good as it gets I think. One of my older videos shows my 501c next to the SWC/M and the CineStill film video shows some example images. I aim to do more Hasselblad videos going forward. :) ...and 4x5! (I have 3 but 1 needs shutter servicing).
What is better Mercedes or Porsche? I have them both mr Leica. Nikon is the best. Leica is the best.
Great me too Christopher! In that case SLR for portraits / close ups/ more complex day to day photos of shooting through or between something. RF for documentary/ street/ landscape etc (obviously for sports,wildlife etc SLR too).
Very well composed explications and comprehensively put 👍👍
Thanks Ronald.. I just need to learn to say it all in less time haha :)
Matt Osborne actually I wish your videos were longer
I enjoy your video’s very much so the longer the show the better!
In conclusion, no harm in getting one of each.
haha exactly! :)
If Rangefinder are so good why they stopped making them? And yes you are a Leica Fan Boy
Thanks Georg! I’m
a Nikon film camera fan boy too. (Any nice film camera, Zorki or otherwise). SLR cameras are easier to make and now most cameras are mirrorless but Leica do still make their RF cameras.
What you said about optics shouldn't hold up so much today when it comes to sharpness. On Nikons you could achieve 24mp (eq to 24mp body, as in not the full 24 mp) equivalent sharpness.
The Nikon's unique trait (their lens compatibility) let's you put really sharp and cheap modern lenses on old body's. The sharpest 35mm is probably a Nikon F6 with one of their 85mm lenses.
That should be enough to be able to resolve some of the extremely sharp 35mm film like the 800 line sub 30 iso fine grain films.
Thanks, are you thinking of one 85mm lens in particular? I own a lot of Nikon glass and never think of 85mm as their best glass. I’m sure the Tokina 100 macro or Nikkor 55 Micro are much sharper but they are known to be good. That’s why I use them.
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom haven't used it but the Nikkor 85mm 1.4 g . It was more of a example of a lens within the average persons reach and scores really well on dxomark. DxoMark isn't God but if you technicaly look for sharpness their averaging on a fixed lens says a lot. I mean if the average resolved resolution is the full resolution it should tell you it's sharp.
But there is a decent amount of lenses that can resolve the full resolution.
I'm not for sharpness but I know some people even in analog loves that and I don't think at the high end that a leica system could provide as sharp of an photo as Nikon.
@@lokalkakan Thanks, ah yes I used to use that website a lot years ago. A good site. Yes true G lenses are good. I had the 35mm f1.4 G and that is also sharp.. though it was funny my Samyang 85 1.4 beat my Nikkor 85 1.4 wide open :) Such a great lens if shoot at f1.4.. I still have these lenses.
It also depends on micro contrast etc.. I use Mamiya 7 lenses which are said to be some of the sharpest yet I get better images with my Zeiss Hasselblad glass as it looks more 3D and less flat.
Some Leica lenses such as the APO ones are very sharp + 90mm Macro Elmar. For medium format Zeiss 120mm Macro Planar f4 is amazing and the 38mm Biogon (fixed lens on SWC camera).
You should listen to an Olympus 35 RD. Much quieter than a Leica.
Thanks there are quieter than Leica for sure.. I misplaced my GF670 so couldn't show on camera. Thanks for mentioning the 35 RD
I have the oly 35sp absolutely love it to bits 📷📷
I know that. Stop making me feel bad about it
Thanks Zeca, you might want to watch part 1 (Why Nikon is better vid) :)
@@MattOsborne-MrLeicaCom I would still daydream with a leica.
With a rangefinder camera you need to remember to take the lens cap off and Leica cameras and lenses are Sooo expensive, whereas Nikon cameras and lenses are less expensive. Lenses longer than 135mn are not useable on a M3.
Macro is not possible with a rangefinder unless you use a reflex housing.
I use a 300 mm on my Nikon FE.
I use a Zorki 4K with the Jupiter 8 50mm f2 which is known as the poor man's Leica.
The Jupiter 8 50mm f2 lens is amazing.
There is room in my life for both, but if you get serious with film photography you will move on to medium format, Rollei, Hasselblad or a Pentax 6x7.
Thanks Neil, yes I shoot MF and LF. I have Hasselblads, Mamiyas, Rolleis, Fujis etc. Yes Nikon is great with a long lens and is easier for macro. I enjoy Soviet cameras too, Kievs, FED, Zorki.. excellent value for money if they are working. I will share videos on them too going forward. (and some Leica gear is cheaper than Nikon... I think I will need to do a specific video on this to break the myth!) :)
Looking at any photo I judge it on its merits not wether it was taken with SLR or rangefinder. I cringe when I here comments like Leica look, micro contrast act.
jan frosty thanks Jan, yes I think if people see a nice photo they want to know how it is made and comment on those then lens characteristics rather than the image as an art form - composition, mood etc.
The Leica images are clearly superior. Mostly in the rage of micro contrast. I’d be curious to see the results of a better micro contrast lens on the Nikon.
McCall Jones III thanks, if you see part 1 I use the Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 on a Nikon and it gives a look you might appreciate more. (Great lens!)
There is much to do about sharpness, micro contrast etc. my view is in 90% of all photography the difference in sharpness between modern lenses today is neglectable in the formats till plus/minus 30x40cm. Even by larger prints it is very difficult to make visible differences in micro contrast. The stories about these items ar mostly bla bla subjective views of the people that write about it.
Only on exellent monitors, (4K to 8K), blowing up the pic files to at least 100%. Resulting in real big print sizes of 1 to 1,5 meters.
IF you want 'the best' products. Okay nothing wrong with that but it is not guaranty for better or greater pictures.
Most of the worlds iconic photo's were made by average photo gear. I wish you success. Greets, Aad
An ant is coughing, hopefully it’s not covid.
Haha thanks.. I was trying to think of very quiet sounds :)