Faithful readers might remember that I bought the Nikon F100 and 80-200/2.8 one week ago. While by no means expert with the system, I found myself adept within a few days. And once adept, I found myself missing the diligence and interactivity the Leica demands. True, the Nikon shots were impressive, as were the metering and focus speed. But the Nikon system, and the philosophy behind its engineering, is premised on the virtues of speed. No surprise there; the world demands it. Dazzling as the Nikon system is, I get less satisfaction from the excellent Nikon images than I do from the Leica. I suspect it's because the effort I invest in a Leica image makes me appreciate it more. I compose, I fiddle the focus, adjust the exposure unassisted. The results, for better or worse, are entirely my own, not a collaboration between circuitry and humanity. Yes, I know it's possible to override the Nikon's computers and impose my own values on its images. But that defeating its purpose, isn't it? (In the hands of most folk, the F100 et al are glorified point and shoots.) As far as my aesthetics go, I regard value as a function of effort. The more sweat/ingenuity required, the more I appreciate the result. Which may be why I prefer a Michaelangelo to, say, a Rothko. Or why I prefer the M6 to the F100. The question now remains: What do I do with the Nikon?

-- Gulley Jimson (gulleyjimson@hotmail.com), January 18, 2002

Answers

Sell it and buy film. :)

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), January 18, 2002.

These are just different tools for different applications. I like to shoot soccer games with a long zoom on my F100. I like to dial in flash fill ratios with 1/250 flash sync on my F100. Oddly, I find more "sweat/ingenuity" required with the Nikon, trying to remember all those functions and buttons! The M6 is as comfortable as an old shoe, and feels rather effortless to me. So under "value as a function of effort," I should value the Nikon snaps more? I don't think the viewer I show the images to, neither knows nor cares. It's a question of how the actual image appears...

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), January 18, 2002.

With a little bit of luck, you may be able to return it for a full credit that you can then apply toward further Leica bodies or lenses. Most stores have a grace period and if you are known by the store and have not sent in the warranty cards, you may be able to pull this off. Hurry!! (8>))--Albert

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), January 18, 2002.

Just too easy to get great photos, huh? I can think of many times that can come in handy! I could see how someone sure could get tired of lugging around the 80 to 200 zoom though. My favorite AF Nikkor lens is the short fast 85mm f1.8--one of the few Nikon lenses that is in the same league as Leica's best glass (from my experience with both lens lines).

There must have been some reason you fealt the need to buy the Nikon AF SLR. I'd keep it for a while and see if you find any use for it, and wouldn't get rid of it after only a couple of weeks. I have an N90s that I really enjoy using when I do need to "get the shot" and don't want to have to fiddle with focus and exposure and don't mind getting help from a computer.(especially with fill flash--1/250 second flash sync and automatic fill really has spoiled me)

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 18, 2002.

Hope you bought gray market even then you will be luckey to get 70 cents on a dollar when you sell. Welcome to the wonderful world of impulse buying.Good luck, been there did that. You may want to buy a frame and put your sales receipt in it. Along with a photo copy of the bill of sale to who ever you sell it to. Hang this in a conspicuous place to vaccinate yourself from futer attacks. Warning the vaccine is not always effective.

-- Al Henry (J Henry@provide.net), January 18, 2002.

I use the N80, a very similar cheaper little brother of the F100. I use it with spot metering, manual exposure, and I'm not even too sure what all that stuff on the back is for so I disabled it. So, don't feel the need to use all the automation available. It's there if you want to customize the way your camera works - or not. I'm far too spoiled by my 24-120 zoom to even think of using fixed focal length lenses again.

-- Sanford (sanford@usa.com), January 18, 2002.

As Big Daddy said, I smell the powerful oder of mendacity in this thread.

-- (bmitch@home.com), January 18, 2002.

keep the f100. buy the 85/1.4.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), January 18, 2002.

"... Which may be why I prefer a Michaelangelo to, say, a Rothko. Or why I prefer the M6 to the F100. The question now remains: What do I do with the Nikon? " -- Gulley Jimson

Gulley,

If you prefer a Michaelangelo to a Rothko, then you would prefer a F100 to a Leica. The F100 is intricate and more detailed in its innards than the mechanical Leica. A Leica is pure Rothko, simple on the outside, but capable of amazing results, depending on one's vision.

The National Gallery had an exhibition on Rothko, you might be interested, and might find out that there was more to Rothko than rectangular splotches. A lifetime of angst got him to generate those rectangles. Here's the link:

http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/rothwel.htm

My favorite is "Untitled (No. 4)" painted in 1964. In plain English, a black canvas. Here's the description:

With some exceptions, the darkened palette continued to dominate Rothko's work well into the 1960s. He developed a painstaking technique of overlaying colors until, in the words of art historian Dore Ashton, "his surfaces were velvety as poems of the night."

Ok, the above is tongue-firmly-in-cheek. My favorite Rothko is Purple over Yellow, I don't know its real title but it evokes strong emotions that I didn't know existed. Isn't that what art (or Leica, or even F100 photography) is supposed to do?

Best of luck with your dilemma.

-- Sikaan (Sikaan4@aol.com), January 18, 2002.

In using an M-Leica, the image is fully formed before I raise the camera, and the framelines merely give quick affirmation to my intent. Its as if the camera doesn't exist. With a Nikon, or any reflex camera for that matter, my original perceptions are further influenced, and sometimes led astray, as I find myself interacting with the optical system itself. Sometimes I'm actually in the mood for this latter approach, or I'll need to do long tele/ macro work for professional reasons, which is why I'll always have a reflex around. If I were forced to choose at this point in time, I'd sell the Reflex!

-- John Layton (john.layton@valley.net), January 18, 2002.

Your original reason for the Nikon, as I recall, was longer lens application. If you still want to do this, then selling the Nikon will ultimately come back around to purchsing another SLR. I suspect the 80-200 is causing you more grief than the camera itself. There are some things a rangefinder just cannot do - long lenses, macro, zooms. Why deny yourself the opportunity to explore some of these? If you try and don't like, then move on. I say keep the F100 and try some used prime AF lenses in the 105 macro - 180 range.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), January 19, 2002.

Gulley:

Keep the Nikon! One week is not a long enough period of time to thoroughly evaluate and test a new camera and lens system that is radically different from your M system. There will be situations where you will need the 80-200 zoom or an autofocus SLR. I would keep it all for a year and use it whenever needed. You will find it complementing your M system............................

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), January 19, 2002.

As a Nikon user, my feelings on the F100 are not very good. The first F- series without a rewind knob? Less than 100% viewfinder coverage? Charge more for the lame vertical release accessory? Spare me.

As for that F100- Ebay that mother- Every Joe that holds one loves it-

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), January 19, 2002.

Hello Gulley, I wouldn't cosider selling this Nikon combination so soon..This may be a simple case of buyer's remorse.I'm sure you seriously considered all pros and cons pre-purchase.Your Nikon may well be handy for those longer grab shots and besides,although "too easy",another valuable and satisfying way of seeing and recording this world.I as a Leica photgrapher for many years and many to come opted the other way and went to Sinar..more than a challenge..but just as rewwarding for real "hand made" photos with satisfying results. Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), January 19, 2002.

Yes, wonderful as the Leica is it is simply a tool and the fact is you really cannot cover all photographic eventualities with a RF. I recently sold all my EOS gear - I will soon be buying an SLR again.

Whether you need predictive AF tracking, AE matrix metering, 5 fps and the ability to hook on a 300 2.8 is down to the user - with the M you don't get the choice.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 19, 2002.

Gully,put the Leica at one end of a field and the Nikon at the other and you stand in the middle.Shout out their names a few times.Whichever camera comes to you first is your true friend.

It work in Lassie?

-- Phil Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), January 19, 2002.

Keep it until it is discontinued. An used F100 in mint condition will surely go up in value at that point and you can recoup most of your investment. In the meantime you might even grow to like it.

-- Sanford (sanford@usa.com), January 19, 2002.

I would suggest sell the camera and lens and since it's still new you could get a good price for it on ebay. Buy yourself a german prime lens.

-- edgaddi (edgaddi@msn.com), January 19, 2002.

"The question now remains: What do I do with the Nikon? "

Send it to me. I still use my Nikons on occasion, since my 135mm f2 lens doesn't seem to fit on the M6.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), January 20, 2002.

The f100 has "Less than 100% viewfinder coverage? " It has but,

The *only* thing i don't like about my m6 is the viewfinder frame accuracy (oh, and the 75mm frames with the 50mm, of course).

I believe the m5 was better, and i know an artist who had the factory change his m6 viewfinder for an m5 one.

-- john stockdale (jo.sto@bigpond.com), January 20, 2002.

Well, your Nikon and your Leica are two different beasts. Any SLR does appear at its best when used with longer lenses, and the opposite can be said for rangefinder cameras. Or, the Leica is excellent at short range, while an SLR is better at long range.

Using my F100 with shorter lenses make me miss a Leica, while my experiences with an M4 and a 90 mm lens are a bit disappointing. Don't get me wrong here. There's nothing, repeat nothing that comes close to the feeling of a Leica with a 35 or a 50mm lens. The F100 being a very good camera doesn't give me that feeling either, but I do trust it to do its job and my F100 have not let me down for the two years that I've used it. But a Leica with a 50mm or shorter gives you a sort of direct communication with the subject that you cannot achive with any SLR. Now, in my opinion, all of this is lost when using longer lenses. The small part of the rangefinder window makes you feel very distant to the subject. The excellent performance of the lens is still there of course, but the camera doesn't assist you in the same way that it does when using e.g. a 35mm. (A 35mm and an M4 have given me many of my very favourite shots over the years. I would have missed many of those shots using any brand/model SLR.)

So, use your Leica for what it is good at, but when you need the longer focal lengths, e.g. the excellent zoom you mention, you can trust that the F100 will do an excellent job if you trust it.

-- Björn Nilsson (b.w.nilsson@telia.com), January 21, 2002.

Gulley, this is a tough one to answer! I sold my MF SLR gear after starting to use a Leica M again 16 months ago, as I prefer using the Leica M and the quality is fine for what I do. However, I also bought a Nikon N80 since then to use for sports when my daugher started playing soccer. I now find that I also use the Nikon when I just want a P&S, but I never find it very gratifying. Yet, there are times when a P&S is all I want AND all that will really do. So, I can relate to your sentiments about using a Nikon SLR while having a Leica M, but I also think you'll find the Nikon very handy sometimes, even if the experience isn't as satisfying.

-- Ken Prager (pragerproperties@worldnet.att.net), January 24, 2002.

I'm sure you have heard of steve mccurry .He works with F100's & nikons fast single focal length lenses,no zooms. Fast ,bulky zooms make everyone lazy & you lose intamacy with your subject . my suggestion is to sell the 80-200 & buy nikons 28f1.4,35f2 ,50f1.2 &get back to real photography.Look @ Steve's South By Southwest book & you'll see what i mean.

-- maynard switzer (switzer7@aol.com), January 24, 2002.