Re: [Leica] Help with a Nikon F/F2 to Leica M transition

[Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>]

Hi, John

Welcome to Leica.......
First, forget the M3 -- it ain't got a finder for 35.......also, 
MOST of them have cement deterioration in the finder by now, 
requiring replacement since Leica no longer rebuilds them....
about $500 -- the good ones, those with perfect finders and 
mechanics, are fetching $800 or more -- for that you can get 
a nice M4-2 or M4-p.  However, there is no mechanical advantage to 
a newer M  - IF you can get a "good" one.....in fact, the newer 
ones have coarser feel and looser tolerances/adjustment than the 
old ones.....but it doesn't affect the pictures.

As for metering, since I "grew up" without TTL, and since my way 
of working isn't supported by a broad-angle reflected meter, I 
shouldn't comment.....I usually work out an exposure for the 
"event" and go with that......for more precise work, I use 
pseudo-Zone system approach, with selective area readings....
I prefer a studio-type incident meter for general shooting, 
a 1degree spot for the latter.....your personal feelings will have 
to make this decision for you.....

BTW, you're right about one thing -- I get the same results from 
Leica as Nikon --AT TWO SHUTTER SPEEDS SLOWER!!! -- with 50 or 
shorter lenses, I prefer 1/60 or 1/125 MINIMUM on Nikon -- but 
I get a lot of more-or-less sharp shots at 1/15-1/30 on leica
(good enough for my usual slightly-less-than-8x10 print size.
You'll open up a whole new world of photography with the 35 'lux 
wide open at 1/15, if you're reasonable steady!!  (yeah, yeah, I know 
the 35 sucks wide open, and 1/15 ain't >really< sharp, but the 
pictures sure are nice!!)

Good luck and happy holidays, 
Walt

On
Thu,
24 Dec 1998, The Beal's wrote:

> Dear LUG'gers,
>    I've been lurking in this mail for a couple of years, absorbing all
> words of wisdom I can to make a successful transition to the world of
> Leica.  The latest Nikon F/F2 posting seemed relevant enough for me to
> make a posting.
>    I have used a Nikon F Photomic (flag meter) for 21 years.  I'm an
> amateur photographer drawn to candid, available light, star trail, and
> occasional landscape and black & white photography.  Candids are out
> because of the loud mirror slap, and dim viewfinders and minimum
> handheld speeds of 1/60 make available light difficult.  The above
> reasons and Leitz glass tell me I might be happier and more productive
> with a Leica M.  With your kind assistance (particularly from
> former/current Nikon F users), I have a few questions for the group.
>    In looking for an M body, I'm torn between metering convenience and
> focusing practicalities.  The M6 is attractive because of the TTL
> metering, which is familiar to me via Nikon, and the prices have really
> come down.  It is also newer with a potentially longer service life. 
> However, being burdened with eyeglasses, the M3 appeals to be because of
> greater focusing accuracy and I have yet to hear much negative about the
> M3 in this group.  My only hang-up about an M3 seems to be the process
> of metering: is it that much more involved than a TTL system?  Is
> metering an M3 with black & white filters more of a chore than with the
> M6?  What does an M body undergo in a CLA, and how much sway should it
> have over a similar M without it?
>    I intend to use a Summilux-M 35mm/1.4 (not flush enough for an ASPH)
> and eventually acquire a Summicron 90mm/2.0.  Are there any particular
> traits or Achilles heels with these lenses (fungus, element separation,
> etc.) for which I should be on the look out?
>    Any help on any of these questions is much appreciated.  
> 
> Thanks and Happy Holidays to all.
> John Beal II
> jbeal@bendnet.com
>