You can be true to two......

[Alex Hurst <corkflor@iol.ie>]

Alf wrote:
>
>To me, a 20 y old Nikon FM is a better SLR than a R Leica or Leicaflex
>(except for the bright screen and the 1/2000, but still better in total):
>smaller, loading system is better, highly reliable, more comfortable
>lightmeter sytem (in her time, and - for me - till today), and a very
>reliable mechanical shutter. And, if I could give names to SLRs, I would
>call or name the Nikon FM as a fine example of a R Leica, not those Leitz
>GmbH products. On the other side, this statement is not true for several R
>lenses.
>
Alf - I was in Canada recently, and took an M3 , a Nikon F and an F2 with
me. The M3 excelled for the w/a shots - the 21/3.4 Super Angulon was really
superb for scenery, buildings and interiors. Used the venerable Nikons
mostly with 85mm and 105mm for people shots.

In my view there's no such thing as 'better' - it's horses for courses.
BTW, I also picked up an F  body with pentaprism in good order for CDN175
in Vancouver - that should ensure that at least one F keeps going for the
next 20 years, even if I have to use the other one for parts.

I notice that there are a lot of 'dual loyalty' people around. I normally
pack a Leica and a Nikon when I'm off on an expedition. Hans Pahlen seems
to be of the same turn of mind.

I'm sure Leica SLRs are wonderful pieces of kit, but I tend to agree that
you can get equal performance and better value for money using the Nikon
classics.

As somebody said:

"You're never alone with schizophrenia."

Slan

Alex

Alex Hurst
Waterfall
Nr. Cork
Ireland

Tel: +353 21 543 328 (H)
     +352 21 270 907 (W)

Fax: +353 21 271 248
email: corkflor@iol.ie
Home website: http://homepages.iol.ie/~corkflor/
Business website: http://www.flowerlink.com/corkflorists