moldousa Posted August 24, 2011 Share #1 Posted August 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hey guys, I am a Nikon user-digital only...so I thought it is time to try film...I have a chance of getting a M2 in 75% condition with a f=5 1:2 lens...or a r5 in 99% condition with a 35mm f2.8 elmarit...so the m2 package goes for 850$, and the r5 package for 700$...I am new to the film, but I also want to know what will be a better deal...thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 24, 2011 Posted August 24, 2011 Hi moldousa, Take a look here R5 or m2?? first time leica user. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted August 24, 2011 Share #2 Posted August 24, 2011 1) First - do you prefer an SLR to a rangefinder? They are very different types of cameras (not even mentioning that the specific models you mention are - a totally unmetered M vs. a fully automated-multi-exposure-mode SLR). These are not really substitutes for one another. It's a little like asking "Which is the better deal for $20,000, a Mazda Miata or a Mazda pickup truck?" That depends on whether you want to haul bricks - or the opposite sex. 2) I would say that the M rangefinders are something unique to Leica (at least in the past 50 years or so). In operation, the R5 is not essentially different from a Nikon FA or the Minolta XD-11 on which it was based (one can argue build quality and lens differences). 3) Depends on which version 35 f/2.8 comes with the R5. The first version is really soft in the corners @ f/2.8-f/4 (as one might expect from Leica's first-ever attempt to design a retrofocus wide-angle for SLR use, c. 1964). I would say any M 5cm/50mm f/2 (if it is a Summicron) will be the better lens optically. IMHO, if you want to experience what makes Leica "special", choose the M2. Someone is sure to point out that an M2 may need a CLA (clean/lubricate/adjust) if it has not had one within the past few years. Emphasis on "may" - I've actually bought 5 Leica Ms "of a certain age" (+20 years) and never needed a CLA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
moldousa Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted August 24, 2011 Thanks for the quick reply...I will be better probably with a slr instead of a rangefinder...I also wanna know if I'm not paying to much for either of them... Btw it is the 3-rd version because the cap is a e55-at least that's what google is saying... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezc203 Posted August 24, 2011 Share #4 Posted August 24, 2011 Well I don't know if it's about "getting the better deal here". Most of my opinions are in congruence with Andy's. Since you mentioned you are a digital Nikon SLR shooter, I don't know how you'll get along with the rangefinder format of the Ms. If you want to experience the rangefinder format, that look no further than Leica Ms. But if you don't like the rangefinder format, that why bother with the R5 when you can a sweet Nikon F3/F?? for a fraction of the price? Not to mention the lenses you buy for your film Nikon can also be used on your digital Nikon? Just seems like it would be easier, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezc203 Posted August 24, 2011 Share #5 Posted August 24, 2011 PS: if the condition of the lenses are primo, then both packages are good deals. Don't think you're over paying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 24, 2011 Share #6 Posted August 24, 2011 I'd also say the prices are reasonable - probably even low for the M package. I've seen less-than-pristine M2 bodies alone go for $800. R5 combo seems in line with the market. If you are strictly interested in using film per se, you might find a Nikon F100 is an operational twin to the D1/2/3 cameras - and those run $275. Should work with your digital Nikon lenses if they cover full frame. Not to put you off trying Leica if you want... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 24, 2011 Share #7 Posted August 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree with Eddie, if you simply want to try shooting film and prefer the familiarity of your DSLR then just buy a film Nikon (if your DSLR is a crop sensor model you'll need 'full frame' lenses for your film camera, but they will also fit and work on any digital Nikon). I bought a Nikon F2 a while back, simply because I always liked the look of them - it's as well built as a Leica IMHO and will serve you well, or you can go for a later model with Autofocus lenses. Leica SLR's are excellent, don't get me wrong, I use both R and M systems. But for your purposes I think you are best buying a Nikon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronan Posted August 24, 2011 Share #8 Posted August 24, 2011 I agree with Eddie, if you simply want to try shooting film and prefer the familiarity of your DSLR then just buy a film Nikon (if your DSLR is a crop sensor model you'll need 'full frame' lenses for your film camera, but they will also fit and work on any digital Nikon). Only if he has DX lenses. Most people have a mix. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
moldousa Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share #9 Posted August 24, 2011 i have fx lenses only since i am using a d700 primarily...but i want to try something new, something more or less traditional then Nikon...and yes i can get even a Nikon F5 for 500$...but i think that the R5 will be a better choice with the 35 2,8 lens...or even the M2, the thing is that the M2 looks really ugly, and i am afraid of the resale value-since a 90-95% condition M2 on ebay is 600-650$... so let's say that i am going with leica-between this 2 options which would you choose-leaving the Nikon F cameras aside Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
moldousa Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share #10 Posted August 24, 2011 and BTW the M2 package is 700$ and the R5 package is 550$... not 850 and 700 as i first posted... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
storybrown Posted August 24, 2011 Share #11 Posted August 24, 2011 Get the R5 & don't look back -- stock up on R lenses as you can. Good luck! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezc203 Posted August 24, 2011 Share #12 Posted August 24, 2011 Well... if you have to buy a Leica, then I suppose it's a preference of shoot style. Does the rangefinder format suit you? If so, M2 is a stellar choice. If not, then go for the SLR R5 that you're familiar with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sterlinstarlin Posted August 24, 2011 Share #13 Posted August 24, 2011 At that price... purchase both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronan Posted August 24, 2011 Share #14 Posted August 24, 2011 R5 but tbh i would go with a old Nikon. I have a F and a FM2n among other camera's. They are amazing film camera's. Built like a tank too, doesn't have rangefinder alignment issues, doesn't have a weird film loading system, accepts a TON of glass oh and doesn't make you cry if you have a scratch on it. Oh and CLA? They laugh at it. My old FM2n has been ABUSED from the day it left the factory to the day it got in my hands, and i still use it weekly. NEVER needed a CLA or anything. Still works as good as day one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
moldousa Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share #15 Posted August 24, 2011 At that price... purchase both. that is a good idea ...i might get them both at this price Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewis44 Posted August 24, 2011 Share #16 Posted August 24, 2011 You could get a Nikon F3 HP for under $200. It's about the same size and functions as the R5. You can use your lenses and If you don't take to film you can get all of what you spent back, or just keep the body as a back up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted August 24, 2011 Share #17 Posted August 24, 2011 Reflex camera usually need new light seals. Do it yourself if handy. 55 mm filter 35 mm is the very best 35 they made not counting speed. R4& 5 have poor or no mirror dampening systems. I would not pick up a free on on the sidewalk. Mine are all sold. R6 and later are much improved and I still have the R6`s, 6.2`s and R7`s. 2 of each. A nikon F2 can be had for $200, what I paid, No additional lenses required. Save your cash. R is a dead end system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
moldousa Posted August 24, 2011 Author Share #18 Posted August 24, 2011 also just found out that the 50mm f2 is a near focusing range lens-so it has a higher value then the previous models-am i right?i am looking on ebay, and they go alone for more then 1000$... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 24, 2011 Share #19 Posted August 24, 2011 A nikon F2 can be had for $200, what I paid, No additional lenses required. Save your cash. R is a dead end system. I paid £90 for my F2 with (faulty) photomic head, one from the last year of production too. It's just such a solid camera. But...the R isn't a dead system if you want to use film. There's plenty of bodies and lenses on the s/h market, as well as some new stock still out there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taskoni Posted August 25, 2011 Share #20 Posted August 25, 2011 I use M2 as well as R7. Both are really different systems but you can not go wrong with either of them. R system is easier to set up and the lenses are cheaper than the M-lenses but the glass is excellent! The only thing I would avoid is the R5 body. I would go (and went) for R 6.2, R7, 8,9, etc... Regards, b. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.