Leica vs Nikon

[dubaiphil]

I will have a few examples tonight of some walkabout photography with my usual street photography setup vs. a little something I had a 1 1/2 hour 'test drive' with yesterday in London.

So we're talking about a Nikon D700 (12MP) with Carl Zeiss 2/35 Distagon vs a Leica M240 (24MP) with 35mm f1.4 Summilux. Balancing out the contest is the fact that I'm very used to manually focusing with my Zeiss, but rangefinder focusing (and with the focus ring travelling in the opposite direction compared to Nikon fit lenses) is slightly different.

It will be interesting to see if anyone can spot the equipment for each SOOC shot if they're downsized for web viewing without EXIF peeking (unless it's an f1.4 shot), but I have a feeling that when I open up the RAW files I'm going to be in love. That Summilux is beautiful!


So my current vs. dream street rig - let battle commence!

[ajohnw]

You've used a camera that also takes an Olympus VF-2 viewfinder !!!!! i hope you didn't manually focus with that. With a 24mp sensor you would need to use a mangnified view. Probably 10x. I'd guess at least 7x.

Lenses - some people buy what are rather old Distagons. Times and coatings change but if it's a recent one then it may be a fair comparison apart from pixel counts which believe it or not will still make a slight difference.

John
-

[dubaiphil]

Well my rather old Distagon out performs my 24-70 f2.8 pro zoom, so it ain't all bad!

I actually really pushed and got it to flare yesterday as well, which was a first. The T* coatings are fantastic. No hood required.

Now what's the point in trying a rangefinder camera and then relying on a mini TV screen to focus, eh?!?!?! The price of the VF-2 is slightly better than the rebadged Leica version though, for those times that you have wider than 28mm on the camera and don't want to use live view.

[ajohnw]

I was more or less just warning you about manual focus and mirrorless cameras in case you were using the clip on viewfinder. The problem is the same as using live view. Not enough pixels in the image to really see if the lens is critically focused so it has to be magnified. There have been attempts at adding a small magnified area in the middle of the view which could work but so far insufficient magnification as far as I am aware. The highest I am aware of is 5x that way on a camera where I know that wont always work out. The full magnified views can go up as high as 14x but it's difficult to frame the subject accurately if it might move when the view goes back to 1x. Focus peaking is a bit of a mixed bag. Much depends on what is being photographed and the F ratio of the lens. Faster seems to be better helped a lot by a clear subject rather than something like a flower bed where you might see a sort of rough focus zone indicated.

If I bought the Lieca I think I would buy the Lieca viewfinder to go with it just in case they talk to the camera. The camera might refuse to work with the Olympus one.

Older lenses and new cameras can give mixed results. I talked to some one recently that was using an Olympus OM lens and a Zeiss. Funny colours on the Olympus fixed by adding a good quality UV/IR block filter and then the OM lens was as good as the Zeiss. The same sort of thing could happen with older Zeiss, Lieca or any other make of lens. I stay clear. Modern primes are generally pretty good and no chance of that problem.

John
-

[rpcrowe]

In the days of rangefinder film cameras, I really liked the Nikon S3 or SP far better than the Leica M2 or M3 rangefinders. I didn't like the Canon or Contax rangefinders at all and I absolutely hated the older II and III series Leicas.

I am not talking about image quality, I am simply talking ergonomics. I thought that the Nikon SP had the very best rangefinder system I ever used...

However, I am quite happy to allow my autofocus to do the work these days...

[NorthernFocus]

I'd be surprised if there is a noticeable difference at web rez. But I'd love to do a similar exercise myself

[LocalHero1953]

I use the Leica M, but I've never tried the Nikon. I have the Olympus VF, which is identical to the Leica VF, except for the logo. They are both made by the same 3rd party manufacturer (Chinese, I think). The VF and Liveview have focus magnification at 5x and 10x, and focus peaking, though the latter is not that great IMO. All that said, I prefer the OVF and rangefinder most of the time. I like the big picture view and, especially, the continuous view while a shot is being taken.

Enjoy your comparison, Phil!

[dubaiphil]

I was just about to process my Leica RAW files last night and my Capture One Pro trial has gone all corrupted on me! At web resolution there won't be a noticeable difference at f8-f16 but I'm interested in the comparison at wider apertures with the way a Summilux renders transitions to out of focus areas compared to my Zeiss.

Having said that, if I were to go down the M route, I'd probably aim for a Leica 35mm summicron or Carl Zeiss 2/35 ZM as a go to lens to start with. It's a lot of extra £££ for that extra stop.

[LocalHero1953]

It is not just ££££ that you save by going for f/2 rather than f/1.4 - they tend to be smaller, and smaller size is one of the attractions of the M system. Another attraction is all the M lenses going back to the early 50's, the earlier screw thread lenses with an adapter, plus the great Nikkor and Canon rangefinder lenses, many of which were made in Leica screw mounts; there are some real bargains, and characterful lenses, if you buy used.

[n8changus1aj]

I'd love to do a similar exercise