Leicaflex vs. Nikkormat

[martinvath]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings.

 

I´ve just got the prints from a testroll of Kodak BW from my old Nikkormat FT/Nikkor S 50/2.0, which I resently fixed with new lightsealings and new battery. It worked perfectly and the prints were great.

Now I wonder if anyone here know how big difference in picture quality there is between a Nikkormat FT and a Leicaflex SL. The Nikkormat is from 1965 (a handfull of years older than me) and build to last forever I think, have had mine for 20 years now. I had a Leica RE + 35 Cron + 90 Elmarit a couple of years ago, but sold it to get Digilux 2. The files from D2 or my Canon 30D just newer get that classic look with small DOF as the Nikkormat, so I´m tempted to get at Leicaflex SL + 50 Cron. Is the viewfinder in SL much better than FT (the finder in 30D sucks, looking through FT is like a panorama i comparison), and is the shutter quieter? FT makes a nice but quite loud click. I´ve been looking at old M´s too, but they are still out of my budget.

All in all, should I get a Leicaflex or just stick with my old Nikkormat?

 

Kind regards

 

Martin

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

Stick with your Nikkormat, unless you are still using a wet darkroom where the differences between the Nikon and Leica lenses can really show themselves. If you are scanning your own negs, or having average quality lab prints done, the subtlety will be lost. And there are some great Nikon lenses to get and the Nikkormat is a terrific camera.

 

Steve

[someonenameddavid]

Greetings.

 

I´ve just got the prints from a testroll of Kodak BW from my old Nikkormat FT/Nikkor S 50/2.0, which I resently fixed with new lightsealings and new battery. It worked perfectly and the prints were great.

Now I wonder if anyone here know how big difference in picture quality there is between a Nikkormat FT and a Leicaflex SL. The Nikkormat is from 1965 (a handfull of years older than me) and build to last forever I think, have had mine for 20 years now. I had a Leica RE + 35 Cron + 90 Elmarit a couple of years ago, but sold it to get Digilux 2. The files from D2 or my Canon 30D just newer get that classic look with small DOF as the Nikkormat, so I´m tempted to get at Leicaflex SL + 50 Cron. Is the viewfinder in SL much better than FT (the finder in 30D sucks, looking through FT is like a panorama i comparison), and is the shutter quieter? FT makes a nice but quite loud click. I´ve been looking at old M´s too, but they are still out of my budget.

All in all, should I get a Leicaflex or just stick with my old Nikkormat?

 

Kind regards

 

Martin

 

The nice thing about the Nikkormat is that should you ever be attacked you can beat your assailant with the camera and it will work afterwards... you could probably do the same with an SL, but you would feel bad about it afterwards:D

[pico]

Greetings.

 

I´ve just got the prints from a testroll of Kodak BW from my old Nikkormat FT/Nikkor S 50/2.0, which I resently fixed with new lightsealings and new battery. It worked perfectly and the prints were great.'

 

Goodie for you. I maintain a Nikkormat FS (no meter) for experimental long and short work. I'm glad you are happy with your Nikon camera and suggest you move on to a forum who really gives a damn.

[wildlightphoto]

... I wonder if anyone here know how big difference in picture quality there is between a Nikkormat FT and a Leicaflex SL.

 

It will depend a lot on the lens. Several of the Leica-R lenses are incomparable but the differences between these lenses and the better Nikon lenses is often hard to see with average processing.

 

... Is the viewfinder in SL much better than FT

 

IMHO, yes however if you require diopter correction lenses it will be much easier to fit them to the Nikkormat.

 

... and is the shutter quieter?

 

It's a smoother sound.

 

... All in all, should I get a Leicaflex or just stick with my old Nikkormat?

 

It will depend a lot on how you use the camera and what you require of it. Aside from the differences noted above, the Nikkormat has a mirror lock-up feature that is not found on the SL (though there is a work-around for the SL and SL2). The SL has a 1/2000 sec shutter speed and is continuously variable over a wider range than the Nikkormat's Copal Square shutter, and the Leicaflex can be adjusted much more precisely than the Nikkormat can be.

 

As far as I'm concerned the most annoying feature of the Nikkormat is the shutter/film advance interlock. Camera designers design this feature into the cameras to prevent the shutter from being released while the film is being advanced. In the Leicaflex series the film advance lever is prevented from being advanced while the shutter button is even slightly depressed. On the mechanical Nikkormats (FS, FT, FTN, FT2, FT3) the shutter button is locked when there's even the slightest pressure on the film advance lever... so if you're in the habit of keeping your thumb at the lever to wind the film, odds are that sooner or later you're going to put a little pressure on the lever and the shutter won't release no matter how hard you push the button. Makes the decisive moment hard to catch, to say the least.

[Xmas]

Goodie for you. I maintain a Nikkormat FS (no meter) for experimental long and short work. I'm glad you are happy with your Nikon camera and suggest you move on to a forum who really gives a damn.

 

Hi

 

Stick with the Nikon unless you want to get a M4-2 & CV lens, or M2 if you need to spend more money.

No detectable difference, Nikon probably better flare performance, cheaper lenses.

 

Noel

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The camera will make absolutely no difference to your image quality. The body is just a light tight box to hold the film.

 

If you want to use Leica lenses, you can fit a Leitax Nikon adapter to an R lens which will allow you to mount it on any Nikon F mount camera.

[Nikkor AIS]

Martain, the Nikkormat is classic camera and like you said built to last. Check out the Nikon Cafe anf the FM forum for me a more sympathitic ear to Nikon usage.

 

The leica forum is not the best place to be banging the Nikon monkey.

 

Not that ever stopped me:)

 

 

 

As far as glass. The fact is Nikon has some of the best glass ever built for 35 mm photography and the while there is a certain prestesge to using the leica glass. If you want to use Nikkor glass like the 28 1.4 AF-D , Nikkor 58 1.2 , Leica has no equal.

 

 

Saying that, there is certain look that lens like the 35 mm 1.4 Pre-asph and the 50 1.0

Noctilux have that is great appeal.

 

I use both system in both film and digital and if you ask me the using both gives you the best of both worlds.

 

 

Good luck in your choices.

 

 

Gregory

[wildlightphoto]

...Nikon probably better flare performance

 

No.

 

cheaper lenses.

 

Yes. Having repaired both Leica-R and Nikon (pre-AI, AI conversions, AIS and AF) I can assure you the lower cost of the Nikon lenses isn't just because of lower labor costs.

 

As far as glass. The fact is Nikon has some of the best glass ever built for 35 mm photography

 

One needs to be a little more selective with Nikon lenses. There are good Nikkors and there are some that are mediocre. There are very few Leica-R lenses that I'd avoid.

 

Saying that, there is certain look that lens like the 35 mm 1.4 Pre-asph and the 50 1.0 Noctilux have that is great appeal.

 

The OP was asking about Leica-R equipment.

 

I use both system in both film and digital and if you ask me the using both gives you the best of both worlds.

 

I've used and repaired the specific equipment the OP asked about. The Leicaflex SL is far more robust and precise than the Nikkormat. The Nikkormat is a good sturdy camera that is excellent for its intended market, the advanced amateur who doesn't need the most robust equipment. The SL will take a beating that will leave the Nikkormat wimpering.

 

 

The camera will make absolutely no difference to your image quality. The body is just a light tight box to hold the film.

 

The Nikkormat's two-step shutter release latches will certainly make a difference if you start to press the shutter release then decide to skip the exposure. Once the first latch is released the Nikkormat's mirror is slightly out of position so accurate focussing will be impossible until after the next exposure.

[tobey bilek]

Unless you are doing your own work from developing to scanning or darkroom and you know what you are doing and buy top quality equipment, you will not see a difference. Not much difference in buying a Ford or Ferrari. Stop lights are the limiting factor and they are set so you can not even utilize the Ford.. With pics, commercial processing is the limiting factor.

 

Once you digitize by scanning or digi camera, lens differences are minimized. A camera is just a box to hold film.

 

When I use film, which is less and less, I have a darkroom with Focomat enlargers and Leica lenses and process my own prints, there I see a difference. If you send the film out, no difference.

[Xmas]

No.

yes more veiling flare in some shoot off tests

Yes. Having repaired both Leica-R and Nikon (pre-AI, AI conversions, AIS and AF) I can assure you the lower cost of the Nikon lenses isn't just because of lower labor costs.

I'd accept that completely, but I did not mention low labour costs, the primary cost in manufacture is rejection/rework rate, with labour intensity, labour rate and patent costs secondary. None of my Nikon kit has ever needed repair - yet.

One needs to be a little more selective with Nikon lenses. There are good Nikkors and there are some that are mediocre. There are very few Leica-R lenses that I'd avoid.

tens of thousands of pros musta been careful in lens choice then...

The Nikkormat is a good sturdy camera that is excellent for its intended market, the advanced amateur who doesn't need the most robust equipment. The SL will take a beating that will leave the Nikkormat wimpering.

I assume the OP fits the bill...

 

Noel

[wildlightphoto]

yes more veiling flare in some shoot off tests

 

Compare 35mm f/2 lenses, 85mm f/1.8 Nikon and 90mm f/2 Leica, 300mm f/4.5 Nikon and 280mm f/4.8 or 250mm f/4 or 280mm f/4 Leica, 400mm f/5.6 ED Nikon and 400mm f/6.8 Leica lenses. In all cases the Leica lenses show less flare.

 

I did not mention low labour costs, the primary cost in manufacture is rejection/rework rate, with labour intensity, labour rate and patent costs secondary.

 

The Nikon lenses are more cheaply made, not in a good sense. A mainstream US photo magazine many years ago reached the same conclusion when they compared Leica-R (their example of how it should be done) with Pentax, Canon, Minolta and Nikon lenses. The Pentax, Canon and Minolta lenses were (in the author's opinion) pretty good, the Nikon lens was over-priced.

[Xmas]

Compare 35mm f/2 lenses, 85mm f/1.8 Nikon and 90mm f/2 Leica, 300mm f/4.5 Nikon and 280mm f/4.8 or 250mm f/4 or 280mm f/4 Leica, 400mm f/5.6 ED Nikon and 400mm f/6.8 Leica lenses. In all cases the Leica lenses show less flare.

 

 

 

The Nikon lenses are more cheaply made, not in a good sense. A mainstream US photo magazine many years ago reached the same conclusion when they compared Leica-R (their example of how it should be done) with Pentax, Canon, Minolta and Nikon lenses. The Pentax, Canon and Minolta lenses were (in the author's opinion) pretty good, the Nikon lens was over-priced.

 

The 5cm E series on my FM2n is an impeccable performer and was cheap new... I'd not expect a jurno to necessarily understand production engineering.

 

Noel

[wildlightphoto]

... my FM2n ...

 

Be careful not to over-stress the tripod socket, it's a weak point on the FM- and FE-series cameras. When it breaks it breaks the camera's main casting and a repair means going back to your used camera store.

 

... I'd not expect a jurno to necessarily understand production engineering.

 

One reason why Nikons of that day were popular with journalists. I'm a mechanical engineer.

[bocaburger]

The main reason Nikons were so popular with photojournalists in the USA was because Joe Ehrenreich, the CEO of EPOI (Ehrenreich Photo Optical Inc) the US Nikon distributor, gave Nikon F's away. In particular, to the photojournalists going to shoot the war in Vietnam. Folks at home saw pictures of them in muddy fatigues with 2 or 3 Nikons around their necks, and Nikons started flying off the shelves.

 

To the OP who said:

 

...but sold it to get Digilux 2. The files from D2 or my Canon 30D just newer get that classic look with small DOF as the Nikkormat, so I´m tempted to get at Leicaflex SL + 50 Cron. Is the viewfinder in SL much better than FT (the finder in 30D sucks, looking through FT is like a panorama i comparison)

 

Have you considered looking for a used Canon 5D-I? Both the DOF and the viewfinder size are solved, and as an added bonus, with fairly inexpensive adapters you can use most Nikkor lenses and most Leica-R lenses on it. Just a thought.

 

But Leicaflexes are pretty cheap these days, as are R lenses (by comparison to M anyway), so you can't really go wrong by trying for yourself, and it's fun. Just be aware that getting a CLA on a Leicaflex from a factory-trained repair guy won't be cheap, in fact it would probably cost more than the camera.

[earleygallery]

The main reason Nikons were so popular with photojournalists in the USA was because Joe Ehrenreich, the CEO of EPOI (Ehrenreich Photo Optical Inc) the US Nikon distributor, gave Nikon F's away. In particular, to the photojournalists going to shoot the war in Vietnam. Folks at home saw pictures of them in muddy fatigues with 2 or 3 Nikons around their necks, and Nikons started flying off the shelves.

 

I guess Don McCullin was very grateful to Nikon if he was one of those who were given free Nikons to try!

 

Whatever, no one can deny that Nikon have provided the tools that enabled thousands of pro photographers to make good careers for themselves, and that's down to more than just a few freebies in the 60's.

[wildlightphoto]

... no one can deny that Nikon have provided the tools that enabled thousands of pro photographers to make good careers for themselves, and that's down to more than just a few freebies in the 60's.

 

System versatility was certainly a big factor too.

[earleygallery]

System versatility was certainly a big factor too.

 

Indeed - range of lenses/accessories, the back-up service and not to mention the ability to hire equipment.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

System versatility was certainly a big factor too.

 

It wasn't even close. Neither was availability. Nikon had a removable prism finder and interchangeable screens. This was somewhat important at the time and allowed for metering upgrades that even allowed older models to get TTL metering. Here is some info on the systems and the prices back in 1971 if you care to look. Also, Novoflex telephoto lenses that used Leica glass were available for Nikons. And it was easy to modify the 400 6.8 Telyt for use on Nikons. Back in the early 70s the Nikon 80-200 f4.5 and 24mm 2.8 were extremely popular among press photographers and others.

 

The huge Nikon system was a big selling point along with customer's expectations that the system would continue to expand and stay the most comprehensive of any system. For many, choosing Nikon was kind of a no-brainer. Back in the 50's- 80's my cousin owned a camera store in DC and the Secret Service was one of their customers. Well the Secret Service determined that the Beseler Topcon system was the best choice for them and used that system for a while. I think the early TTL metering and motor drive system sold them on Topcons. They also bought quite a few Novoflex 640mm and 400mm lenses. This was one of the few dealers with deep knowledge of Topcon and Novoflex as a result. I worked at this store in the late 60's and early 70's while in high school and college and we always had problems with Leica gear being back ordered. So none of the salesmen were big on pushing it. We pretty much only sold Leica to those who asked for it and understood they may have to wait quite a while for lenses or accessories that we didn't have in stock.

 

Some brands such as Minolta, and Olympus did well because they were quality cameras and filled a less expensive niche than Nikon but also because the salesman could make $10-$20 in "spiffs" from the manufacturer for each camera sold. I once got a free OM-1 for selling around a dozen cameras - something that was easy to do with that model at the time. Most manufacturers would sell a camera and a lens to a salesman for half price which was less than dealer cost. They often engraved your name into it to discourage you from selling it right away. A few brands would give you deals on lenses too.

 

Despite the incentives to sell other brands, I convinced a lot of customers to stretch their spending to a Nikon F because I believed the versatility and ruggedness of that system would make it the best and most economical choice in the long run if they planned on shooting a lot. We had plenty of customers who could afford them and Nikon's reputation made it easy to "up-sell" them. This would have been a big challenge with the Leicaflex.

 

1971 Helix camera catalog listings:

 

http://goldsteinphoto.com/Posts/nikonhelix.jpg

 

http://goldsteinphoto.com/Posts/leicahelix.jpg

 

Shortly after this listing, Nikon came out with the F2 system, the 15mm 5.6 rectilinear lens and some other gear and they stayed way ahead of everyone else until Canon started getting serious about competing. (Well I guess Canon was serious with the F-1 and Minolta was serious with the XK, but only Canon eventually got positioned right.) Even back then, it didn't look to me as if Leica was seriously trying to compete in this market and it also was not clear to me that they had much of a niche market for the SL. But I guess there always were a certain number of loyal Leica users even before Leica collecting came onto the scene. I had a couple of friends who used the SL and I had one for a while too.

[tobey bilek]

Nikon lenses are no where near made as well with the materials and craftsmanship of leica.

 

But I must say Nikons are tough. I have dropped a few to cement with no damage. I would liken them to Timex watches, they take a licking and keep on ticking if you remember the commercial. Open one and it is no Rollex inside.

Russian military equipment is the same, crude amateur and built to withstand hard conditions with only the most critical components made to fine tolerance. AK47 rifle for example, cheap, and you soak it in water and mud and it still works. It is no Winchester or Remington or Lugar, but made to do a certain job.