What SLR to get to complement my film Ms?

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

I disagree on that point. Cameras that focus the "wrong way" (Pentax and Nikon in 35mm) mess with my brain. It takes me a while to get back in sync, so I avoid them.

Hmm, but going back in history there are many photographs of photographers working in war zones, such as Vietnam, using both Leica M’s and Nikon F’s as a complimentary pair so I think you should disagree with the people who worked under  fire which is the ultimate arbiter. I only worked using the Leica/Nikon pairing in relative safety baring the odd riot. I can pick either up nowadays as an aesthete and it still doesn’t scramble my brain.

[BernardC]

32 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Hmm, but going back in history there are many photographs of photographers working in war zones, such as Vietnam, using both Leica M’s and Nikon F’s as a complimentary pair so I think you should disagree with the people who worked under  fire which is the ultimate arbiter. I only worked using the Leica/Nikon pairing in relative safety baring the odd riot. I can pick either up nowadays as an aesthete and it still doesn’t scramble my brain.

It has to do with my experience pulling focus for low-budget projects. I can track subjects well, but "wrong way" lenses affect me. Near is far, north faces east and east faces south (as the song goes), and I lose the ability to focus instinctively. It takes a not-insignificant amount of time to get my groove back. I now use a reversible Vocas follow-focus, for the odd time that I'm assisting on a project that uses geared Nikkors.

Anybody accustomed to tabbed M lenses could have a similar problem, although not to the same extent. You develop muscle memory for the position of infinity. Anything closer is clockwise (from eye position). 

[Carlos cruz]

Another reason not to go with Nikon camera - there are not many lenses you can easily adapt to Nikon (if you’ll ever feel that nikkors are not enough) 

[250swb]

10 minutes ago, Carlos cruz said:

Another reason not to go with Nikon camera - there are not many lenses you can easily adapt to Nikon (if you’ll ever feel that nikkors are not enough) 

But you can adapt Nikkor lenses to other cameras, digital Leica’s for example. It’s not like a collection of Nikon lenses becomes redundant if you have a digital M or L mount.

[Carlos cruz]

I really liked some of the Nikon lenses, but felt bad about not being able to use some adapted lenses to full extent (most adapted lenses can’t reach infinity, unless you move whole optical block closer) 

[250swb]

40 minutes ago, Carlos cruz said:

I really liked some of the Nikon lenses, but felt bad about not being able to use some adapted lenses to full extent (most adapted lenses can’t reach infinity, unless you move whole optical block closer) 

The distance from flange to film plane or sensor distance with a Leica lens is 27.8mm, with a Nikon lens it's 46.5mm so that's roughly 18mm of space for an adapter to allow full infinity focusing. Which if you'd ever had an adapter of F to M mount you'd know, wouldn't you? 🙄

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Stay with M, get used to it. You can.

[250swb]

55 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Stay with M, get used to it. You can.

Yes Leica M's are great for telephoto photography, very wide angle lenses, PC shift lenses, macro photography, and very cheap but high quality M lenses. You could also argue that an automatic M7 is better value than a £150 Nikon FE AE, or an M6 has an equivalent/notional 1/4000th shutter speed like an FM2n if you shoot wide open with a Noctilux on it. In all this there's a point when sometimes hype needs to be cast aside when one day you find you need a bigger hammer and drill to do all those jobs around your photography that have been ignored.

Edited August 6 by 250swb

[Bliz]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

Stay with M, get used to it. You can.

That’s so not the point of all this lol, I’m not selling my m4. It is still a nice camera, for *some stuff* (which is basically shooting 35 to maybe 90mm while being not too nitpicky with framing, not a lot imo). As I stated before I like rf focusing and the size of the body and especially the lenses, but acting like the world abandoned rangefinders in favor of SLRs for no reason is rather ridiculous though.

Edited August 6 by Bliz

[Biotar]

OM-4 is the best complement to the M4
small enough and robust (in titanium version)
same focus direction of the lenses
best light meter for the M4 (the multispot metering was the last automatic metering I use - since then I only expose manually)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, Bliz said:

That’s so not the point of all this lol, I’m not selling my m4. It is still a nice camera, for *some stuff* (which is basically shooting 35 to maybe 90mm while being not too nitpicky with framing, not a lot imo). As I stated before I like rf focusing and the size of the body and especially the lenses, but acting like the world abandoned rangefinders in favor of SLRs for no reason is rather ridiculous though.

If I read you right, you are looking for SLR for precise composition. If so, my suggestion is to get used to it. 
RF cannot do everything, super tele, super wide, are not M good at. If those are bothering you, then by all means get a SLR or P&S or technical camera. 

[earleygallery]

45 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

If I read you right, you are looking for SLR for precise composition. If so, my suggestion is to get used to it. 
RF cannot do everything, super tele, super wide, are not M good at. If those are bothering you, then by all means get a SLR or P&S or technical camera. 

Maybe read the OP again. He has and SLR already but wants suggestions for a smaller/lighter option than the Canon F1. 

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, earleygallery said:

Maybe read the OP again. He has and SLR already but wants suggestions for a smaller/lighter option than the Canon F1. 

I get that, and he wants SLR to get precise composition. Staying with M is the smallest and lightest option.

[hansvons]

23 hours ago, 250swb said:

 

I should add that any concerns about different cameras having focusing rings that turn in different directions from Leica are soon dispelled by using them, it soon becomes automatic just like finding all the other dials and buttons on different camera is.

I tend to agree to most of what you say usually. On this one, I‘m happy to agree to disagree and am with Bernard.
 

14 hours ago, BernardC said:

23 hours ago, 250swb said:

 

I disagree on that point. Cameras that focus the "wrong way" (Pentax and Nikon in 35mm) mess with my brain. It takes me a while to get back in sync, so I avoid them.

 

On 8/5/2025 at 9:12 PM, Bliz said:

Lately I have been a bit frustrated with composing on a rf though, especially on wide angles where you have to use an external viewfinder (25,21 etc) while trying to make architectural or symmetry focused shots.

The M system‘s strength is the ability to critically focus wide-angle lenses with ease and precision a focusing screen system cannot provide. I solve the composition issue with added room. BTW, DSLRs viewfinders mostly show about 90% of what‘s on the film. I own an R6 in perfect working order and a set of R primes for filmmaking. The only reason I‘d see to prefer the R6 over the M6 is its ability to critically focus 50mm and longer  at open aperture. Since I shoot 35mm for 98% of the time, a non-issue for me and the R6 collects dust.  

[250swb]

Precise composition isn't really possible with a rangefinder and becomes less precise the longer or wider the lens is. The Olympus OM4 viewfinder coverage is 97% and the FM2 is 93%, but even at 93% the FM2 will be more accurate with a wide or long lens than an M4 is. The Olympus 97% is very good but for 100% coverage you'd have to go with say the Canon EOS1 series (the Canon F1 has 97%) or professional Nikon's like the F, F2, F3, but that would get the OP back into the bigger heavier camera problem. You'd then have to start looking at viewfinder brightness between cameras as well to decide where the viewfinder coverage trade-off works best.

And the other trade-off is a 'heavy' Nikon F3 with a 50mm f/2.8 pancake lens can be lighter and feel smaller than an FM2 with an f/1.4 lens and this same equation true with Olympus, the camera's weight can change a lot depending on the lens mounted.

For precise focusing a Leica M rules (within it's limits), but all the camera's I've mentioned above have interchangeable focusing screens to suit purpose, eyesight, or brightness and while I'm not sure about Olympus a nice bright Nikon F3 screen is backwardly compatible with the Nikon F for example. You can also get dioptres for them without selling a kidney. But in good daylight and an f/2 lens a split image screen is as accurate as any M camera, it's only in dimmer lighting and with slower lenses they suffer. And of course for precise focusing you never have to wonder if your rangefinder took a knock, what you see is what you get with an SLR.

Many people will say a Leica rangefinder patch is faster to focus than an SLR, and generally that's true, but in dense woodland or photographing repeating patterns like a picket fence a split image and fresnel screen is faster ever time.

Edited August 7 by 250swb

[Bliz]

45 minutes ago, hansvons said:

The M system‘s strength is the ability to critically focus wide-angle lenses with ease and precision a focusing screen system cannot provide

Well yes, but I shoot my wides (25/21) mostly stopped down around f5.6 f8, I don't think focusing is an issue for anyone at that point. I routinely shoot a non RF coupled snapshot skopar using scale focus and get the vast majority of shots in focus.

As I wrote, my gripe with my m4 is decent composition with wide lenses (from 25mm down) while trying to have some geometry in the shot. The external vf don't cut it, it's almost better to shoot through the RF window and guess what will be in the frame, at least I usually get my lines more alligned, while if I use the voigtlander hotshoe VFs i have something is always wrong/tilted/parallaxed somehow. For 35 and 50 the RF framelines work well enough imo.

Edited August 7 by Bliz

[pgk]

59 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Precise composition isn't really possible with a rangefinder and becomes less precise the longer or wider the lens is.

You are of course right, but the 'sweet spot' is 35mm, as ever. With a great deal of practice you can get pretty tight compositions to the point at which only levelling crops are needed. I actually find 21mm with its own viewfinder quite tolerable too. 75mm, whilst one of the focal lengths I favour, is not easy to use on an M and I find it tricky to determine any really precise compositions with this focal length.

Of course dSLR/EVF cameras are way more precise and fill in when the M can't. I've just bought my first dSLR in years (Nikon D800E) and its great for many things, but small, light and simple it ain't! Nor are my Sony A7 series simple - smaller and lighter though. If I could have a digital original OM-1 I would be quite content because as a concept it was exceltionally effective.

[Bliz]

11 minutes ago, pgk said:

If I could have a digital original OM-1 I would be quite content

Yes that's something I thought a few times, I'd love a smallish manual focus SLR with a digital sensor, the slr version of a digital M. Sadly something we won't be seeing probably.

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Bliz said:

Yes that's something I thought a few times, I'd love a smallish manual focus SLR with a digital sensor, the slr version of a digital M. Sadly something we won't be seeing probably.

OM (Olympus as was) base an entire camera system around small DSLR's in the spirit of the original Olympus OM cameras. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Bliz]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

OM (Olympus as was) base...

 

It's a mirrorless with af lenses though, right?