Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/11/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Is there a Nikon list?
From: "Howard Sanner" <>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 23:18:29 +0000

On Thu, 26 Nov 1998 20:08:19 -0600 (CST), Walter S Delesandri wrote:

   Since I so far haven't seen an answer to the question posed in
the subject line, I'll jump right in with both feet.

   Yes, there is a Nikon mailing list. The homepage is at To subscribe, send email 
to with the text:

         subscribe nikon-digest

As you might guess from the list name, it is available as a 
digest only. The web page explains why. When I was a subscriber, 
traffic dealt almost exclusively with "modern" Nikons, in which I
have zero interest. (To me a Nikon is modern if it uses AI or 
newer lenses. It is old if it is a rangefinder camera. A Leica is
modern if there is a place to put a battery, and it interests me 
as much as the AI and later Nikons. A Leica is old if the lens 
can't be changed. So there!)

>Many users of M-cameras, either consciously or unconsciously appreciate 
>the intelligent design and mechanical excellence of the camera.

   Yes! I'm donning my asbestos underwear as I type this, but if 
I could use only one camera and lens, it would be a Nikkormat FTn
and 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor with M1 tube. It does the closeups I 
keep needing to take with so much more ease than my M3 or IIIf. 
(Not a criticism of the Leicas. It's more a matter of the right 
tool for the job. It just fits "my" type of photography best. I
wouldn't use a flare nut wrench on connecting rod bolts, either,
but there's no other tool to consider for tubing. That sort of
thing.) I am second to no one in my admiration for the products
from Wetzlar.

>The older Nikon SLRs were/are the equivalent of the M - logical design, 
>beautiful execution, excellent optics (mounts included)

   I think my Nikkormats and Nikon F are not *quite* the
mechanical equal of my M3 and IIIf. I can also tell a difference
in the lenses, but to me it's more a matter of different instead
of better or worse.

>Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Robert G. Stevens wrote:
>>I wondered why I was using an EOS with
>> F4-5.6 lenses.

   When I first started researching Leica after about 30 years of
using the Nikon F system, I didn't (and, frankly, still don't) 
understand what people were talking about with the "fast Leica 
lenses." Sheesh, the most common 135's and 90's are f/4, and the
Noctilux isn't that common, even if it is fast. I thought these
quite a come down from my 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2.5, and 135mm
f/2.8 Nikkors. I do think the argument is valid that one can hand
hold an M Leica at slower shutter speeds than an SLR, and thus
lenses don't have to be as fast for the same performance.

**                         Howard Sanner
**                Kirsten Flagstad Discographer
**                  Ampex Mailing List Founder