Jul 12 2016, 08:39 PM
QUOTE(kevin_kwfoong @ Jul 12 2016, 06:15 PM)
Leica fans may scorn at this comparison. Seriously? Leica vs Nikon? But please hear me out.
I own a Hasselblad 500cm (80mm 2.8), Nikon FM2 (50mm 1.8) and recently just added a Leica (Voiglander 35mm 1.4).
I bought the Nikon about a month earlier than the Leica. I took it out for a couple of shoots and it was a good experience. Very snappy operation, light and solid. Then I got my hands on a Leica M6 and used it as my main camera when I travelled to US for almost a month. While the experience wasn't bad, it doesn't seem to justify the price difference compared to Nikon FM2. It's light and solid, but wasn't as snappy as the FM2. Photo wise they were quite comparable too.
So I've been wondering what am I missing with the Leica. Maybe I need more time to warm up to it? Maybe I need to get a better lens? Or it's just not for everybody?
If the two are very similar, I'm actually considering to sell off my Leica and get a Pentax 645n. Thought it would be nice to add an auto-f camera to my arsenal. Can't afford Contax 645.
I mainly do street photography, but would love to explore outdoor portraiture shoots. I don't do studio shoots.
You do realise what Leica is famous for right? Not saying their product is bad in anyway, superb in fact in some places (I talking about you, Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95), but getting a Leica is like buying a really expensive wine that nobody can tell the difference when tasted against other cheap wines. But rich people will buy them anyway cause they want to show off how rich they are. I own a Hasselblad 500cm (80mm 2.8), Nikon FM2 (50mm 1.8) and recently just added a Leica (Voiglander 35mm 1.4).
I bought the Nikon about a month earlier than the Leica. I took it out for a couple of shoots and it was a good experience. Very snappy operation, light and solid. Then I got my hands on a Leica M6 and used it as my main camera when I travelled to US for almost a month. While the experience wasn't bad, it doesn't seem to justify the price difference compared to Nikon FM2. It's light and solid, but wasn't as snappy as the FM2. Photo wise they were quite comparable too.
So I've been wondering what am I missing with the Leica. Maybe I need more time to warm up to it? Maybe I need to get a better lens? Or it's just not for everybody?
If the two are very similar, I'm actually considering to sell off my Leica and get a Pentax 645n. Thought it would be nice to add an auto-f camera to my arsenal. Can't afford Contax 645.
I mainly do street photography, but would love to explore outdoor portraiture shoots. I don't do studio shoots.
That said, if you find Nikon no different from the expensive Leica, then perhaps that's just the way it is. Granted, if given option to choose between Leica and nikon of the same price and spec, I would jump into Leica no question asked, simply because the retro rangefinder style with Leica's famous red icon looks cooler to carry around than nikon.
Quote
0.0146sec
0.66
6 queries
GZIP Disabled