I've been talking about these two cameras for the last two posts. Here I'd like to do a head to head -
Shutter speeds: The Leica has manually set shutter speeds of 16s to 1/8000s in half-stop values, plus B and X. The F4 has 4s to 1/8000 (8800 the top speed in auto). Since I like to use fast lenses, the 8000 top shutter speed is one of the most important selling features for both. Plus I like taking pictures of the sun. Seriously.
Lenses: both have excellent world class lenses. Nikon lenses are faster and cheaper and more available but they can't do the Leica thing. Nikon has many more F mount lenses than Leica R mount lenses available. The F4 has an incredible integration of ANY F mount lens ever. The R8 can use many of the R lenses but it's dangerous to use anything besides the later 3 cam and ROM versions because it can damage the ROM contacts on the R8/R9 body. The F4 has an advantage here but the R8 is still versatile.
AF: Nikon has it, Leica doesn't. Who cares
Modes: both have all the modes I need. In general regarding cameras, manual works fine, aperture priority is really nice, shutter priority is neat and everything else is "what exactly is that for?" The Leica has: manual, aperture priority, variable automatic program, Shutter priority, Prior-to-exposure flash metering. The Nikon has: Programmed auto-multi, shutter-priority auto, aperture priority auto and manual. If you are interested in program modes you might want to do some research as both of them have their unique specialties in this department.
Exposure: The Nikon has exposure lock, exp. comp and a double exposure lever control on the body. The Leica has all that AND a sophisticated system for clamping down the film and controlling exposure for multiple exposures. Hella cool
Winder and frames/sec: Both have removeable power winders, the Leica at 4 frames per second with a convenient battery pack and the Nikon (F4s) at 5.7 frames per second with 6 AA batteries. The Leica also has the option for a motor winder which is smaller, quieter and does 2 frames per second. Sometimes I wish my F4 had a motor winder option as it's nice not having to be distracted by winding and I'm not shooting at 6 frames/sec much.
Metering: both have multiple types including matrix and spot. I have heard the Nikon matrix metering works better.
Viewfinders: The Leica has a fixed viewfinder. The Nikon has several viewfinders including a waist level viewfinder. I'm a big fan of this option for several reasons - When using a tripod at max height, about 5', I have to bend way over, being 6'4". The WLF is also more discrete than pulling your huge F4 or R8 camera to your head and you can get great candid photos this way.
Mirror lockup and viewfinder shutter: both
Focusing Screens: many types available for both.
Prices:
I've already hinted a few times about the tremendous price difference between these two. Here's a comparison of some lenses these two have in common (in N vs L form, used prices):
Body with power winder: $300 vs $800
35mm f/2: $100 vs $450
50mm f/2: $50-100 vs $300
50mm f/1.4: $150 vs $600
80-85mm f/1.4: $800 vs $1200
135mm f/2.8: $150 vs $250-300
180mm f/2.8: $300-400 vs $250-600
Why are the R8 and F4s my favorite pro 35mm cameras?:
This can be answered in 3 smaller questions -
Why Nikon and Leica? LENSES
Why 1/8000 second top shutter speed? OPTIONS
Why pro SLRs? CONTROL
Conclusion: if you need a professional 35mm SLR, the F4s is the obvious answer at $300 for a body (or an N90s for $80 if you're really on a budget) and a plethora of relatively cheap excellent lenses. If the most important thing is having a camera that suits you and your art, you'll have to consider the R8 too.
Monday, February 23, 2009
So I bought a Leica R8
So I bought a Leica R8. I missed holding it. Although it is similar to an F4 in terms of features and quality, it costs quite a bit more (more about this in the next post). But it's a great camera with wonderful colorful style of its own. The lenses and the build quality are what make it a Leica. Here's a comparison between the Nikkor and Leica lenses:
-Nikon lenses are pretty color accurate and medium contrasty. No colors pop out more than others, and some people say it has a brown tone (which would be hard to notice without a reference on hand). The "bokeh" or out of focus regions are oil paint in texture with open apertures. Out of focus lights are circles in the center, bending to cat eye shaped blobs for ~50mm or less lenses.
-The Leica lenses also have a reasonably accurate color balance, with colors popping out more, much more contrast, and a yellow/green emphasis to my eye.
Both lenses have very lovely qualities and are useful in their own ways. If you're a painter and you're painting with blue and red, you're still going to need blue even if it's twice as expensive as red. I think the camera will enhance my art and will not be redundant, but if it is, it goes back off to the auction block. I'll have a back to back breakdown of my two favorite professional 35mm SLRs up next.
-Nikon lenses are pretty color accurate and medium contrasty. No colors pop out more than others, and some people say it has a brown tone (which would be hard to notice without a reference on hand). The "bokeh" or out of focus regions are oil paint in texture with open apertures. Out of focus lights are circles in the center, bending to cat eye shaped blobs for ~50mm or less lenses.
-The Leica lenses also have a reasonably accurate color balance, with colors popping out more, much more contrast, and a yellow/green emphasis to my eye.
Both lenses have very lovely qualities and are useful in their own ways. If you're a painter and you're painting with blue and red, you're still going to need blue even if it's twice as expensive as red. I think the camera will enhance my art and will not be redundant, but if it is, it goes back off to the auction block. I'll have a back to back breakdown of my two favorite professional 35mm SLRs up next.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Leica R8 and Nikon F4
Finally let me tell you about my jump into "professional grade" cameras...
When I got my Miranda Sensorex at a garage sale for $5, I was so blown away by the color and character imparted by this camera, that I plunged head first into photography and I haven't slowed down since. I thought that my developing style was "lofi," similar to the sound quality ethics of idealistic musicians popularized especially 90s and beyond. Old/crappy/weird stuff has a special character - and if you like using that character your style is "lofi." I had been buying thrift store and flea market cameras originally just to test them out. Then I came to a conclusion from the cameras I had used: many classic cameras have similar features and not all lenses are created equal. As I experienced lenses, I picked my favorites and noted them. If they were good enough to keep, meaning they were equally stimulating as the Miranda lenses I had, then I would keep them or continue collecting lenses and bodies of that kind (like Miranda mount, Pentax K mount, Olympus OM, m42 etc.). I was beginning to become jaded on the possibilities of these flea market cameras; nearly all of them had a top shutter speed of 1000 (maybe 2000 or 500), maybe had aperture preview, maybe had available 50mm f/1.4 lenses and maybe they didn't, maybe they were rangefinders and maybe they were SLRs. I liked my Miranda, and I had begun to build up my lens collection, but I was also intrigued by cameras costing much more. What made a camera so expensive when you could get one that works pretty darn good for under $100? My friend friendly damage was way into these expensive cameras and he had a lot more photography experience than I had at the time. I didn't get it.
Finally one day I stumbled upon a Leica R8 in a thrift store. The price was fair for the model but unaffordable to me; I still had to hold it in my hands. I was inexperienced and holding something that expensive made me shake a bit. I was afraid I would drop it. But when I held it, I noticed its heft and excellent finish. I still didn't understand how a used 35mm SLR could cost well over $1000. It sat in there for a while, being way nicer than all the other cameras they had there (and out of most people in the area's price range) and I used to think about it as I drove by. Then during the holidays it went on sale, and I uncomfortably haggled them down to $1350 with 2 mint lenses (after doing my internet research of course). I knew it was a good deal on it and I intended to just use it once to experience it and sell it on ebay for an estimated profit of between $100-$600. I had been mostly fixing up flea market cameras so I thought I might as well use my knowledge to flip this one for some easy cash.
So I shot a roll through it. Just screwing around on my roof with my mint R8 and a tripod taking some low light photos. Not bound to be anything spectacular. I got the pictures back and thought "hmmmm..." It looks good but not $1350 good. So I put it out of my mind and started thinking I'd be using my Miranda for a while as it seems to be working good. Practical eh?
I put the Leica out of my mind until the idea of a more-featured camera came back to me. My friends were into Contax and I only sorta got it. I saw some of their images and I really liked the strength and color of their images. So I got the idea of getting an older "professional" camera with a top shutter speed of 2000+ and an assortment of "nice" lenses ( still didn't know quite what these terms meant). I had been getting into fast lenses / slow film and I began to notice that if I liked to shoot with the aperture wide open in the daytime with fast lenses, then I need fast shutter speeds. Certain creative options were only available with nicer more expensive cameras. Fast lenses were more expensive as well as cameras with fast shutter speeds. So I started looking at a Nikon F3 at the recommendation of mr. damage.
At the same time I had realized that the Leica images were very nice and were still ME. I had thought that my style was "lofi". This wasn't really true as I was never a holga/disposable camera/polaroid guy. It was more about the strange and imprecise style and choices I made that resulted in interesting photographs. I was never an "image engineer" - someone who views a camera as a tool that should be used in a certain way to produce an accurate representation of "reality". So I found out that I actually could benefit from a fancier camera. But which one?
The Leica was outrageously expensive but I loved the feel and function of it. The F3 was cool but not nearly as high tech or as big and nice to hold as the R8. Then I found the F4, read about it, found out it was about the same price as the F3 but with a power winder like the R8 I had and a top shutter speed of 8000 (also like the R8). Plus it looked big and nice to hold and had the possibility of other viewfinders, which was one thing that I thought was really impressive about the Miranda in its price range. So one day an F4 popped up on craigslist and I picked it up with a handful of film and a wonderful 105mm f/2.5 for $450 and I was happy as a clam once I started burning through rolls at lightning speed (must've been maxing it out at 6 frames per second) and I was astounded by the results!
But that was not the end of the Leica...
When I got my Miranda Sensorex at a garage sale for $5, I was so blown away by the color and character imparted by this camera, that I plunged head first into photography and I haven't slowed down since. I thought that my developing style was "lofi," similar to the sound quality ethics of idealistic musicians popularized especially 90s and beyond. Old/crappy/weird stuff has a special character - and if you like using that character your style is "lofi." I had been buying thrift store and flea market cameras originally just to test them out. Then I came to a conclusion from the cameras I had used: many classic cameras have similar features and not all lenses are created equal. As I experienced lenses, I picked my favorites and noted them. If they were good enough to keep, meaning they were equally stimulating as the Miranda lenses I had, then I would keep them or continue collecting lenses and bodies of that kind (like Miranda mount, Pentax K mount, Olympus OM, m42 etc.). I was beginning to become jaded on the possibilities of these flea market cameras; nearly all of them had a top shutter speed of 1000 (maybe 2000 or 500), maybe had aperture preview, maybe had available 50mm f/1.4 lenses and maybe they didn't, maybe they were rangefinders and maybe they were SLRs. I liked my Miranda, and I had begun to build up my lens collection, but I was also intrigued by cameras costing much more. What made a camera so expensive when you could get one that works pretty darn good for under $100? My friend friendly damage was way into these expensive cameras and he had a lot more photography experience than I had at the time. I didn't get it.
Finally one day I stumbled upon a Leica R8 in a thrift store. The price was fair for the model but unaffordable to me; I still had to hold it in my hands. I was inexperienced and holding something that expensive made me shake a bit. I was afraid I would drop it. But when I held it, I noticed its heft and excellent finish. I still didn't understand how a used 35mm SLR could cost well over $1000. It sat in there for a while, being way nicer than all the other cameras they had there (and out of most people in the area's price range) and I used to think about it as I drove by. Then during the holidays it went on sale, and I uncomfortably haggled them down to $1350 with 2 mint lenses (after doing my internet research of course). I knew it was a good deal on it and I intended to just use it once to experience it and sell it on ebay for an estimated profit of between $100-$600. I had been mostly fixing up flea market cameras so I thought I might as well use my knowledge to flip this one for some easy cash.
So I shot a roll through it. Just screwing around on my roof with my mint R8 and a tripod taking some low light photos. Not bound to be anything spectacular. I got the pictures back and thought "hmmmm..." It looks good but not $1350 good. So I put it out of my mind and started thinking I'd be using my Miranda for a while as it seems to be working good. Practical eh?
I put the Leica out of my mind until the idea of a more-featured camera came back to me. My friends were into Contax and I only sorta got it. I saw some of their images and I really liked the strength and color of their images. So I got the idea of getting an older "professional" camera with a top shutter speed of 2000+ and an assortment of "nice" lenses ( still didn't know quite what these terms meant). I had been getting into fast lenses / slow film and I began to notice that if I liked to shoot with the aperture wide open in the daytime with fast lenses, then I need fast shutter speeds. Certain creative options were only available with nicer more expensive cameras. Fast lenses were more expensive as well as cameras with fast shutter speeds. So I started looking at a Nikon F3 at the recommendation of mr. damage.
At the same time I had realized that the Leica images were very nice and were still ME. I had thought that my style was "lofi". This wasn't really true as I was never a holga/disposable camera/polaroid guy. It was more about the strange and imprecise style and choices I made that resulted in interesting photographs. I was never an "image engineer" - someone who views a camera as a tool that should be used in a certain way to produce an accurate representation of "reality". So I found out that I actually could benefit from a fancier camera. But which one?
The Leica was outrageously expensive but I loved the feel and function of it. The F3 was cool but not nearly as high tech or as big and nice to hold as the R8. Then I found the F4, read about it, found out it was about the same price as the F3 but with a power winder like the R8 I had and a top shutter speed of 8000 (also like the R8). Plus it looked big and nice to hold and had the possibility of other viewfinders, which was one thing that I thought was really impressive about the Miranda in its price range. So one day an F4 popped up on craigslist and I picked it up with a handful of film and a wonderful 105mm f/2.5 for $450 and I was happy as a clam once I started burning through rolls at lightning speed (must've been maxing it out at 6 frames per second) and I was astounded by the results!
But that was not the end of the Leica...
Friday, February 13, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
cameras
Here's a picture of my camera overflow:
From back to front, left to right:
Miranda Sensorex with 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2.8, macro bellows, lens extension tubes, magnifying waist level viewfinder, m42 adaptor
Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic (m42 screw mount) with 2 28mm f/2.8 wide angle lens and a Carl Zeiss Jena 85mm Tessar f/2.8 plus 135mm f/2.8
Canon QL-17 GIII with attached 45mm f/1.7
Pentax MV (K mount) with 50mm f/1.4, Kalimar 28-70mm f/3.9-4.8 with macro, Vivitar 28-85mm f/2.8-3.8
Kodak Retina IIa with Schneider 50mm f/2
Nikon Nikkormat FTn with Nikkor 43-86mm f/3.5 (plus my other lenses in my F4 bag)
Olympus OM-1 with 50mm f/1.8 (sold the f/1.4)
and on the bottom
Canon AE-1 with Canon 50mm f/1.4 and Vivitar 75-205mm f/3.8 with macro
Atari 2600 with Pac Man, Dig Dug, Missile Commander, etc.
I hate to be a square, but I'm going to sell most of this for fast Nikon lenses for my F4. After I've gone through all the thrift store cameras, I'll tell you how you can benefit from the features of a "pro" camera
From back to front, left to right:
Miranda Sensorex with 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2.8, macro bellows, lens extension tubes, magnifying waist level viewfinder, m42 adaptor
Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic (m42 screw mount) with 2 28mm f/2.8 wide angle lens and a Carl Zeiss Jena 85mm Tessar f/2.8 plus 135mm f/2.8
Canon QL-17 GIII with attached 45mm f/1.7
Pentax MV (K mount) with 50mm f/1.4, Kalimar 28-70mm f/3.9-4.8 with macro, Vivitar 28-85mm f/2.8-3.8
Kodak Retina IIa with Schneider 50mm f/2
Nikon Nikkormat FTn with Nikkor 43-86mm f/3.5 (plus my other lenses in my F4 bag)
Olympus OM-1 with 50mm f/1.8 (sold the f/1.4)
and on the bottom
Canon AE-1 with Canon 50mm f/1.4 and Vivitar 75-205mm f/3.8 with macro
Atari 2600 with Pac Man, Dig Dug, Missile Commander, etc.
I hate to be a square, but I'm going to sell most of this for fast Nikon lenses for my F4. After I've gone through all the thrift store cameras, I'll tell you how you can benefit from the features of a "pro" camera
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
