Leica R6.2 vs. Nikon FE2

[jsanz@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Dr. Juan F. Sanz Cervera)]

Roger L. Beamon wrote:
[...]
>
>Won't argue that focusing *should* be easier because of the brighter
>viewfinder. Obviously, technology now allows the use of much better mirror
>silvering techniques. But here I go again, today's Canon EOS1n finder is
>equally bright compared to its technology peer the R series, IMO.
[...]
>Look, guys, heretic that I am, I'm shooting with M6 and R7 and loving it! I
>do sense here, however, a lack of willingness to give the Japanese their
>due. If they hadn't run with the SLR ball and done what they did with it,
>the chances of us sitting here now and carressing our Rs would be remote.
>Much as the Japanese invasion into our auto market  spurred the finesse and
>quality improvement in our autos over the rattletraps that they were in the
>70's.
>
>Ok, now my shields are up...
>     --
>     Roger Beamon,  Naturalist & Photographer
>                               Docent:  Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
>                               Leica Historical Society Of America
>                               INTERNET:  beamon@primenet.com
>


Last Easter I had the opportunity to shoot a Leica R6.2 fitted with a 50/2
Summicron lens (it belongs to a friend of mine) and compare the results
with a Nikon FE2 with a Nikkor AIS 50/1.8. I did not try and make a
scientific comparison of both cameras, but I really wanted to check by
myself if the hefty price of the R6.2 + Summicron is really justified by
the results. I say by the results, because it is quite obvious to me that
the Leica is very nicely finished, much better so than the Nikon.

What I did was to shoot exactly the same photographs (a 24 roll in each
camera), from the same standpoint, handheld (since I wanted to do a "real
life" test: whan I want to shoot using a tripod I use a 4x5 camera). Film:
TMY, my usual film, rated at 200 ISO, and processed in TMax developer 1+12
at 24 degrees centigrade. I shot a variety of scenes using for each
photograph a combination of speed and diafragm so that I could compare the
shots with a diafragm of 5.6-8 (probably close to optimum lens performance)
and f2 (to check lens performance wide open with the Summicron, almost wide
open with the Nikkor). The speeds were around 1/125 and 1/60 for f5.6-f8
and 1/500 or 1/1000 for f2. I always used the same combination of speed and
diafragm for each camera in each photograph. After processing the film
myself, I examined the results in a light table with a good quality Peak
x10 scale lupe. I also made a couple of prints of selected photographs. I
did not try the test with slide color film because I only do B&W
photography. I used a 400 ISO film because that's what I normally use.

First of all, I have to say that the finder in the R6.2 is much clearer
than in the FE2, probably in part because it offers diopter adjustment,
which is always nice. In my case, however, focusing was equally good with
both outfits, although the image in the R6.2 finder was more contrasty (not
necessarily brighter), better defined.

The results were as follows:

- For the lens wide open, the Nikkor gave me about the same definition in
the center, but clearly better resolution in the borders than the
Summicron.

- For the lens at f5.6-f8, the negatives were difficult to tell apart.
However, one thing that I noticed is that in the shots at 1/60, the Nikon
gave me better resolution. I attribute this to the fact that the mirror
slap in the R6.2 seems to cause much more vibration than in the Nikon.

Conclusions? Now, I want everybody to understand that these were *my*
conclusions, and that I am not trying to extend them to anybody else. For
me, the Nikon provided better results. The Leica is beautifully made, of
course, and I wouldn't mind owning one, but I guess it is too much of a
luxury item for me. I fully respect those who use R Leicas. I would like to
be able to afford them, (actually, I could probably afford them, but I'd
rather spend my money in other stuff) but in my case the feeling of having
a nicely made camera is not worth the big money.

As a clarification, and before everybody out there starts shooting at me
(my shields are up, as Roger Beamon said), I must say that I have a Leica
M6 and an M4P with several lenses. I love them and use them often. I was
not interested in comparing my M Leicas with my Nikon, as for me this would
be like comparing apples with oranges: a rangefinder camera and an SLR are
totally different beasts :-)

I just hope this won't stir too much controversy... :-)

Regards,

        Juan F. Sanz Cervera
        Visiting Professor of Chemistry
        Department of Chemistry
        Colorado State University
        Colorado, USA