Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/04/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Félix López de Maturana wrote: > > > Would anyone who will off-line admit to using both a Nikon F100 and F3, > > or who has done so recently enough to have a good memory of the foibles > > and strengths of the F3, please contact me off-line. > > > > Thanks > > > > B. D. > I own and use, very often by the way, either the F3, with > 15,20,24,28,35,50,85 and 180mm lenses and F5, similar to F100, mainly with 3 > zooms 17-35, 28-70 and 80-200 AFS zooms, plus teleconverter. Nikon is a > reliable SLR system with some very interesting lenses with very good ratio > quality/price. F3 is by actual standards a light body very tought with a > consistent center weighting metering system and a some beautifull lenses. > They are not exactily searching the absolute perfection as Leica and Carl > Zeiss do, but have a long history of producing some nice lenses which give > a output accordingly with their cost. In some tests I have done at f:8 15mm > f:3,5 Nikon proved to be as better as Hologon from Zeiss. 20 mm f:2,8 from > Nikon is not as good as Carl Zeiss 21mm but quite near. Same can be said > from 28mm, 35mm and 50mm. Main difference is that full opened Nikon lenses > are worse than equivalent Leica/Carl Zeiss lenses. Generally speaking Nikon > gear has very good ratio efficiency/cost. Autofocus camera have not so well > finished lenses as manual focus but quality is certainly present. > > F3 is a particularly nice camera that admit every lens produced by Nikon but > perhaps the more interested camera is Nikon F4 that preserve a beautifull > matrix metering with every lens produced by Nikon with AIS interface. But to > be on topic the only lenses that have improved my Summicrons have been the G > Carl Zeiss 45mm f:2 and specially my Hasselblad 45mm f:4 in 24x36 never in > 24x65 and I believe that it is due besides to his quality to his huge > coverage. > > Kind regards > > Felix Félix you sound like a nice guy with your long list of glass better than the classic 50 Summicron. But so many cameras so little time!!!! :) Nikons, Contax G, Fuji/Hasselblad XPAN, and Leica. All 35mm film! That's 4 35mm systems you're telling us about so far you are using! How you find time to learn the ins and outs of these various systems I'll never know!!! Perhaps you could upload some images or point us your website! Then we'll have some idea visually we're your coming from! Nice as you sound your credibility is rock bottom with me at least telling us that ridiculous toy: the Contax G 45 is better than our noble (yet creaky) 50 Summicron. Feels like a cheap toy with no DOF field scales to me. And it is! A Hologon i could sink my teeth into. But the Contax G is cheap consumer grade stuff not really intended to compete with Leica M. You claims of The cheap G glass surpassing our M glass i think would just embarrass the G's designers. I give the people at Zeiss more credit or enough to know who and what they're designing for. And did they have any input at all on the design of the Fuji with the Hasselblad name on it? ....the 45 for the Fuji XPAN with it's extended coverage? I think you take you pick; extended coverage for medium format, or the high imaging power needed to just cover the 24x36 image circle. And you get what you pay for. Mark Rabiner My take on the F3 is that it is a classic among many, having just finished a decades long production. But as I'm using Leica m rangefinder cameras as my main system and am discussing this on the LUG it should not be a surprise that compared to my Leicas, Nikons bore me. For my zoom, long tele and macro 35mm needs. I don't go to Nikon. For all my other 35mm photographic needs i shoot with two Leica M6's. A system which require dedication and i could never master if i was playing around with a bunch of silly plastic cameras. Sorry! You put down my 50! Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/