I wonder what people think about combining e.g. Nikon SLRs with Leica Ms: I know that some of you out there do this (having read previous postings). Isn't there some confusion caused by the aperture and focussing going the other way round to one another? I note that a lot of National Geo photographers use Canon L and Leica M (presumably because they focus in the same direction (and don't use a manual aperture at all) but I always find the Canon pictures to be tonally very poor (you can find out what people used (at least for the last year or so's editions) for a particular assignment by checking their website) - so I'm not hugely keen on that approach. I quite like some of the latest Nikon lenses (as well as the old AIS lenses - just avoid the early AF stuff which doesn't seem to exhibit any tonality at all (as a rule) - did it make early AF sensors work better to just have black and white/dark and light with hardly anything between..?). Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what users etc thought - I suppose I'm keen to make the Leica M intuitive in use to get full value out of it and don't want to run the risk of confusing my already addled brain...

Best regards as ever, Steve

-- Stephen Jones (Stephen_Jones_et_al@hotmail.com), May 13, 2001

Answers

Anyone who can carry two systems at once is a better (or at least stronger) man than I. I'd need at least 2 of not 3 bodies of *each*, plus backups for the lenses. I use Leica M, R, Nikon AF and Hasselblad, but never together. I don't have any problem adjusting to the differences in the way the controls operate. I would, if I had them around my neck at once. I evaluate and choose a system for its merits in the particular shooting situation I expect to dominate the occasion. Some Leica lenses are sharper than some Nikon lenses, yet some Nikon lenses have advantages I can't get with Leica (zoom ranges, VR technology, AF-S, non-clickstopped tripod collars, etc.). In my case, though, I don't nitpick optical quality between Leica and Nikon because if nothing but absolute image quality is at stake, the Hasselblad is my first and only choice.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 13, 2001.

Back in the days when Olympus was fully supporting its OM system, Leica Ms and Oly OMs was a combination favored by many, and one I used myself for a number of years. As a matter of fact, I am in the process of re-assembling an OM outfit, since the kind of work I'm doing these days seldom calls for the operational speed of my Canon EOS equipment and the OM stuff is much lighter.

As for the ability of Canon EOS lenses to render tones accurately, check out my book "Rock City Barns: A Passing Era" at amazon.com. (Signed and inscribed copies are also available directly from me at the same price.)

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 13, 2001.

Ditto. If I *must* take another system along with the M, I would take the Leica R simply because of the similar controls, layout, and color rendition. If I'm using Hasselblad or Nikon, it's pretty much that and only that.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), May 13, 2001.

Steve, look again at the sharpness, contrast, and Bokeh of the latest Canon lenses. The 50/1.4 and 28-105 give 'chromes virtually indistinguishable from M-Summicrons (not the ASPH generation).

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), May 13, 2001.

Steve:

I shoot with Leica M and Nikon AF systems, albeit generally not at the same time as others have stated. I use the Nikon system priamarily in settings where a lot of action is involved or I need long glass. I also like the convenience and quality of Nikon's zooms and their VR technology in the 80-400. I chose the Nikon because it "fit" me a little better than the Canon did - I don't think one is better than the other, just different. As for being confusing with the M, my F5 and F100 are so different from my M that there are virtually no similarities to get confused about.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 13, 2001.

I continue to use a Contac Aria and several Zeiss primes, since I became and M user. Seems like a perfect match to me, except if you need AF.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), May 13, 2001.

I use an EOS 50 and M2. I use the M as a carry everywhere, iso 400 B&W machine with just the summicron 50. I don't see much point in weighing down the Leica with a bunch of lenses and accessories. For that I have the Canon (or Rolleiflex, or Horizon, or 4x5) I use the Canon with 100iso color film and use the flash a lot (maybe 80% of shots). For this I have a 28-105, 85/1.8 and 28/1.8. I disagree with the comment on the quality of the 28-105, I think is is a great snap shot lens, but certainly nothing like the summicron. My wife likes the convenience of the zoom.

-- Mark Wrathall (wrathall@laudaair.com), May 14, 2001.

You can mount some SLR lenses on Leica Ms (with limited compatibilty). If you are interested, you can have a look at what Stephen Gandy proposes: http://www.cameraquest.com/adaptnew.htm It could help you decide on a particular SLR brand.

-- Xavier Colmant (xcolmant@powerir.com), May 14, 2001.

Wow! Has anyone seen or used the Contax to Leica adapter? I'd like to put my Zeiss 28/2.8 Distagon on my M6x0.58. Neat idea.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), May 14, 2001.

I use M's with manual focus Nikons and Prime AI / AIS lenses. I'm sure someone will tell me that on paper I am being short changed optically, but my basic travel kit, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4 and (the great!) 105mm f/2.5 delivers time and time again. As far as the dissimilar controls, I never felt any confusion as I mentally readjust simply when the camera reaches my eye. The tiny M with my eye at the top left edge, and my meaty F, F2 or F3 with the center eyepiece are so different that I am aware immediately which I am holding and operation is instinctive. On the M's, my use of the focusing tab might be another factor in not confusing things. I don't think in terms of "rotation" direction, (clockwise, counter clock wise), but simply direction in linier terms, (left, right). The f-stop rings being on opposite ends of the lens also help differentiate the actions enough to not mix them up.

I would be happy to go the Leica route, but I bought the three lenses listed above for less than one thousand Dollars. I also have a closet full of other Nikkors, from 20mm to 300mm, that cost the same as a single M6. Tens of thousands of real world photographers earned a living with these for years, so I won't believe they are inferior enough to spend two to three time the amount for the same focal lengths and apertures. I agree that the plastic auto focus equipment is not in the same league as the classic Nikkors, and I won't use it.

If we are shooting in a dynamic manner, handheld, shooting breaking events, we must realize that that potential and actual performance from a lens may not match. Any lens test can say lens "A" will kill lens "B", but the only test that matters to me is the slides in my projector. These lenses pass my test every time.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 14, 2001.

Hi Mark, it's likely that I have a killer Canon 28-105. There seems to be a lot of variation between Canon lenses. I had a killer 28- 135IS without realizing how good it was. It kept condensing moisture inside the lens which would take an hour in the sun to evaporite, so I exchanged it for another identical lens, which is a real looser. I have read that Canon is trying to design Leica type Bokeh into their lenses. Ah, if one could only get Nikon ergonomics, Canon technology, and Leica lenses. Oh yes, and Pentax prices while I'm dreaming.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), May 14, 2001.

Al

"Tens of thousands of real world photographers earned a living with these for years, so I won't believe they are inferior enough to spend two to three time the amount for the same focal lengths and apertures."

Of course when you say things like that then the sensible option is to sell all our Leicas and buy Nikon or Canon etc. etc. Thousands of real photographers can make a good living out of cameras that are not Leicas, and in fact many are dismissive of them. The whole point surely is that the optics are so good. The rangefinder preference would not really be so important to most I think if the optics were not so very good too.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 14, 2001.

As a Leica M&R, Nikon AF and Hasselblad user, I tend to choose more on the basis of features and ergonomics with respect to the subject I'm intending to photograph, rather than the optics, but I've noted that while Leica users get together and argue about which version of a lens is sharper than another, Nikon users tend to discuss which lenses are sharp and which are dogs.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 14, 2001.

Well, I can't add much. I agree with some of what everyone says. I use an M3 with a 35, 50 and 90. Apparently, I have the only pristine Tele-Elmarit in the world. Probably because I don't use it that much. This stuff works well.

I agree with Al. In my experience, the Nikon 105 f2.5 is, for me, the best lens that I have used. As I have said before, I have worn the color off of the focusing ring of my 24 f 2.8. The 35 isn't far behind. I love the 20 f/4. I am not as new as the AIS; the AI's work fine. As age decreases my ability to focus I will move to AF.

I also agree with Jay. If final quality is the ultimate goal, I will use my Hasselblad; or I could go to 8 x 10, but what a pain [have you ever backpacked one of these for a week?].

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), May 14, 2001.

Robin,

Please don't think I am putting Leica down. 75% of my current photography is accomplished with the M6 and a wide to tele set of these world class lenses. They are second to none and I feel no distress about pulling the "plastic" out to purchase them. The points about my choice to use pro-level Nikons for my SLR system are only my opinions. I am not working with unlimited funds, so I must compromise somewhere. Since there are serious alternatives in the SLR department, as opposed to the heretofore limited rangefinder selection (the track record for the Bessa and Konica is not in yet), I chose to economize in that area. At this time, I am not feeling any limitations using these carefully chosen lenses, (Nikon has a LONG track record, and by-passing the "dogs" as Jay calls them is not too hard), and when I do, I'll reevaluate my choice.

Again, please don't take my choice as an indictment of Leica. I am just using my funding for camera gear as efficiently as possible, and the original question asked about our opinions of mixing and matching systems. These points are only my opinions.

Happy shooting :-)

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 14, 2001.

I can see backpacking with 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 and even 4x5 but an 8 x 10 needs a 4x4.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 14, 2001.

I have to say that if I needed to raise cash and had to sell one of my camera systems, the Leica R would be the one to go. The M and Hasselblad and Nikon AF all do certain things the R can't. I like having the Leica optics and mechanics in a 35mm SLR but if push came to shove I'd keep the Nikons. The optics (if you know which ones to pick and which to stay away from)are just fine, as evidenced by the number of famous, successful pros who use them. Whoever remembers the photos of the late Larry Burrows in the field with 2 Leica M3's and 2 Nikon F's around his neck?

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 14, 2001.

"Tens of thousands of real world photographers earned a living with these for years, so I won't believe they are inferior enough to spend two to three time the amount for the same focal lengths and apertures."

To Al: I don't disagree, but anytime you want to make that statement on the LUG, let me know in advance so I can watch the feeding frenzy as those retired doctors, lawyers, dentists, and engineers gorge themselves on your still-palpitating carcass.

To Bill: About 60% of the photos in my book (see above) were made with the EOS 28-105, and I have had numerous professional photographers ask me if I did the book with 4x5. In one case, when I said no, the guy said, "Oh, 5x7?"

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 14, 2001.

Dave,

One of the oldest rules in communications is, "know your audience", and knowing this group, I feel comfortable making my statements. Knowing the LUG... well, I'll keep my mouth shut. I wouldn't wish to be responsible for the carnage... especially to myself. No doubt about it... this is the place to be for a true open dialog. Thanks for the warning anyway.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 14, 2001.

It seems that the R series is just too much like any other quality SLR, but unfortunately 10 years (15?) behind the times in a few areas. And as much as some will bring up the sophisticated off camera flash metering, most studio shooting is not done on 35mm. The M on the other hand has built a niche that is just not reproduced by anyone else. Konica and Voigtlander are trying, but only time will tell as to how successful they are. A couple of years ago I got rid of a ton of Olympus gear (two bodies w/ drives and ten lenses) and made enough cash to pick up a used R body and three lenses (with the $$ I added). Do I regret it? No! (I could count the times I used the 16mm and the 300mm on three fingers), I love the silkiness and solidity of the equipment. Is there a marked difference in image quality? No! If I and another Leica shooter get together we sit and claim how much further we can see into the shadows with the Leica glass, but this is usually after a couple of fingers of scotch. I've never made a sale of an image that wouldn't have sold had it been shot on Olympus. I get what I am saying is that in my opinion there is a real reason for buying an M. But when looking for an SLR, stay with the top brands, pick and choose you glass carefully, and you'll be happy.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 14, 2001.

I second Dan's recommendation for Contax SLR

Carl Zeiss T* lenses are as good as Leica lenses, although they are not as silky smooth.

Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 28/2.8, Macro- Planar 60/f2.8, Vario-Sonnar T* 28-85/f3.3-4 etc are all superb leneses. The Macro-Planar 60mm/f2.8 is reputed to be the sharpest 35mm prime lens in the 35mm lens universe.

Don't forget, Carl Zeiss has much longer camera lens design history than Leitz. The famous Tessar was invented in 1902 by Paul Ruldoph in 1902. Only in 1925 Leitz came out with Elmar design by Max Berek. then

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 15, 2001.

Bob

Interesting point you raise about not being able to tell the difference. I find that I could tell the difference between my Canon FD lenses and Leica Rs pretty easily, particularly when the light gets lower and the lenses open up. I take slides for 80% of the time and I can pretty tell very easily. On prints it is indeed different. If you use a tripod and small apertures it is difficult too, but again I rarely use my 35mm on a tripod so most of time my lenses are at wider rather than smaller apertures. Of course modern Canon L lenses might be as good actually (Photodo results imply this in some cases). As an aside I was noticing that Canon generally have higher Photodo scores than Nikon, which I thought was interesting as it seems many here pair Ms with Nikons.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 15, 2001.

If you want your SLR photos to have much the same look as your Leica M shots, you could do as Herbert Keppler implies in his column in a recent Pop Photo and put together a Pentax screw-mount system.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 15, 2001.

Herb Keppler needs a brain transplant. As a Pentax Spotmatic user in the early 70s, they were good cameras, but not up to Leica standards no doubt about it in my mind. I think this is the kind of article that journalists write all the time - it gives them something to write about. In fact I would rate Canon FD above them from my experience. They were also stop down metering cameras (although the later Spotmatic F was open-aperture), something that Leicas (and it is to their credit here) bypassed completely - their first TTL camera (SL) had open-aperture metering in 1968 unlike the contemporary Spotmatic or Nikons. Certainly the Spotmatics were considered excellent cameras and they sold well beside the Nikons of the period and ahead of Canon and Minolta.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 15, 2001.

Robin: I was being a bit facetious in my earlier post (but not really?!) Certain Olympus glass was considered to be very good, as are certain focal lengths in most systems. My point was that the only people who really might notice (and usually only if pointed out to them) are other photographers, and I find I make very few sales to other photographers. I do 'fine-art' photography (as pretentious as that sounds) and am represented by a number of galleries. I feel I have yet to loose a sale because someone thought the shadow detail was lacking in an image taken with an Olympus lens. I use Leicas because they have fairly consistent glass, are extremely reliable, and I like the mystique behind the name. But they by no means make me a 'better' photographer than when I was using Olympus or Nikon.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 15, 2001.

I shot with Nikon SLRs and Leica RFs side by side for most of the past 33 years. Only this past year have I decided to stick with Leica Ms 100% for my 35mm system camera, and sold off my Nikon gear.

There's nothing wrong with Nikon lenses. I've had Olympus, Canon, Minolta, and Contax as well ... all are quite good.

If I were to go back into an SLR, the Contax and Leica SLRs are my current favorites. I love the imaging qualities of Zeiss and Leica lenses and don't use as many lenses as I once did, so either would be acceptable to me.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey DiGiorgi (ramarren@bayarea.net), May 15, 2001.

Bob

Of course you are right. The viewer doesn't care what lens you use. But equally I don't believe there are any photographers who genuinely have no interest in good optics, despite what some say. It is all a question of degree - Leica owners are often a (too) obsessive about this point - it seems a small vice in the scheme of things though. Certainly we could all survive and take excellent shots on other systems no question.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 15, 2001.

As a Canon/Pentax user since the late 70's and spoilt by the qualities of my father's M3 with 50 Summicron and 90 Elmarit, I must agree with Robin above regarding the difference between the Canon FD and the Leica lenses. Though the FD-Canon and M-Pentax 1.4/50mm lenses have an excellent resolution, a direct side-to-side comparison of slides taken close to wide open shows a visible difference between the smooth plasticity of the Summicron and the cruel contrast rendition of its "rivals" which are very good in every other respect.

The other difference is flare, which is unknown to Leica users, but is terrible in the Canon 35/2 and 50/1.4 lenses. In this respect the Pentax M-50/1.4 and A-85/1.4 are excellent.

Currently the Leica M3 is not my primary camera but the performance of its lenses is the reference I try to "emulate" with my Pentax AF-lenses. In my experience the 43/1.9 and 77/1.8 have a rendition which is very close to the Summicron and Elmarit. The classic AF-Hexar 35/2 is also great.

Finally, and in response to an earlier post, I notice that though the Pentaxes focus and set apertures like Nikons, I never got confused when using both Leica and Pentax at the same time.

I think differently anyway because the SLRs are loaded with colour film and the viewfinders are now used for B&W.

-- George (gdgianni@aol.com), May 15, 2001.

Robin - what do you mean we're obsessive? You'll have to excuse me now, I have to go spit-polish my lenses ;-)

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 15, 2001.

A honking big Nikon F100 with AFS 28-70 and AFS 80-200 lenses with TC, SB 28, or Canon EOS equivalent of the same kit :-) and a macro thrown in for good measure. Why do things by half measure?

The SLR these days is all about prime-quality zooms, ultrafast autofocus and sophisticated fill-flash. There really is no point in getting it to merely replicate what a Leica M can do...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 15, 2001.

A honking big Nikon F100 with AFS 28-70 and AFS 80-200 lenses with TC, SB 28, or Canon EOS equivalent of the same kit and a macro thrown in for good measure. Why do things by half measure? :-)

The SLR these days is all about prime-quality zooms, ultrafast autofocus and sophisticated fill-flash. There really is no point in getting it to merely replicate what a Leica M can do...

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), May 15, 2001.

Wedding or Funeral? For the former, I'll put my F100 on a bracket with an SB-28 and 28-105 zoom, and enjoy the dial-in fill flash. The big rig and flash add to the festivities. For the latter, I want to be quiet, discrete, and use available light. It's a Leica natural.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@s-way.com), May 15, 2001.

I have a pretty complete M6 system but could not resist the 100APO urge so got myself an R8 and then a few more used lenses. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone since I now favor the R system. The 19mm, 28mm, 60mm and 100mm are my favorites. If I had to choose one system I would take the R and just keep one M6 and either 35 ASPH. If you must must have the M system then I recommend something AF with a zoom and long teles to do what your M cannot. Try the latest Minolta pro bodies.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), May 21, 2001.

Wow! Lots of good responses here.

I can only speak from my own experience as a non-pro photog. I have two Nikons bodies (FE and F90) plus all pro MF and AF lenses. After I got my Leica M2 w/ 50 Summicron lens, I haven't touched my Nikon stuff anymore. I even took the batteries off the body and flashes already for long storage or possible sell. The only other camera I take with my Leica is a Ricoh GR1s pocket camera w/ 28/2.8 GR lens.

Even then, I still try to just live with pro NG photog David A. Harvey's philosophy of one camera, one lens, and one film. I've gotten to a point where I feel that I'm taking "better" pictures, and I've also learned to meter by eye since my M2 is meterless. Not that I took bad photos with my Nikon gears, but I just wanted to simplify the whole process of photography for myself. I believe that this added to my current attitude on taking pictures.

-- Ron Gregorio (rongregorio@hotmail.com), May 23, 2001.

Hi Everyone, As to comparisons between Leica and other lenses, I usually come back to voting Leica the most useable image. For years I used the Canon 50mm 1.2L. At 1.2, wide open, the images were excellent. Stopped down to 2.5 to 6.3, the resolution was snappy and sharp. At the smaller aperatures: 8 to 16, this lens was not at its best, though still very good. The tonal range of the lens seemed to be sacrificed a bit for the contrast. A saturated image but lacking in subtlety. These are my impressions and not scientific test results. Then I bought a 75mm 1.4 Summilux-M and all previous standards were swept to the wayside. Wide open at 1.4 this lens is astounding. It only gets better stopped down to f/2 ! Nothing I have ever used comes close to its effect. Impressive for a lens not computer designed from the 1980's. As for the sharpest lens I have ever used, that would be the Macro-Switar 50mm 1.8 when used at 4" to 16" focus. I have blown up color negatives 70 + times with no apparent loss of sharpness. I think the lens, at its best, must resolve in excess of 200 lines/mm. With Kodachrome 25, the results are staggering. Thanks

-- Peter McDonough (31416@mediaone.net), May 27, 2001.