Another great Nikon. The first AF they made.
Cost me nearly a months wages back in the day.
I use it occasionally, AF is a bit slow, but accurate.
Once available for a tenner, now climbing back to as new cost
3 Likes
Threads are like conversations and streams, they can meander and go off in different directions 
I have a Leica SL2 which I bought after owning and using the M rangefinder series for several years. if I am standing in the right spot, have an interesting subject and good composition then I don’t have to worry about image quality or colors. There is, nevertheless, a special quality to images made on Leica system that I really like, probably mostly due to the quality of the lenses. Having said that I have also used mirrorless Sony and Fujis which are also really nice, especially given the price comparison.
14 Likes
Top quality without question, but how do you find the size, weight and conspicuousness, coming from an M?
EJS, that is a really good question and I had thought that I might add my impressions with my post.
The Leica SL2 is indeed more conspicuous that the M series and that might make me lean towards the less conspicuous M model if I did any serious street photography (which I don’t anymore). It is bigger and heavier than the M and this is a bit of a disadvantage if your perspective is like mine: i.e. the best shots are often when you have the camera with you. I bought my SL2 as a bundle with the Leica zoom lens which while being very good also adds quite a lot of weight and imbalance. I get around this by usually leaving the zoom lens at home and taking a couple of primes with me. Personally I liked the M a great deal but my eyesight is going and I was beginning to have difficulties with the rangefinder.
One thing I do especially like about the SL system is the availability of “Leica designed” lenses from Sigma. I have some of the Sigma primes and they are close to the Leica branded lenses for the SL for a (small) fraction of the cost. But it is also true that the M series has a very wide range of new, vintage and downright strange lenses available from multiple manufacturers. My main lens on the M was a Leica 35mm and sometimes the 50mm although they increased so much in price over the past few years that each of those would be a major additional investment (although not a bad one).
3 Likes
philipsrst thank you for sharing your thoughts. Those small Sigma’s are for me the main attraction of L- and E-mount!
This is a genuine, no hidden agenda question, and straight up, I will confess to being a dyed-in-the-wool Canon person.
I know that many here love Leicas. Why? What makes them special to you?
And I suppose one question is how do their lenses stack up against the Japanese one, especially, I suppose, Canon L series.
Discuss.
They look like a Fuji X100! 
3 Likes
On a more serious note, I just find the M a lot of fun to use, although it takes practice and commitment to keep it fun to use. There are also the simplicity (no video and no autofocus means no need for a complicated interface) and the workmanship. The lenses are excellent but above all, extremely small.
I also have a Q3, which looks a bit like an M and shares most of its simplicity, but doesn’t have the same feel: it’s more like a high end compact in M clothes.
2 Likes
I’m sure I am missing your point here? I could say that my 5D4 looks like a bog standard DSLR……
OTOH, the Leicas do look rather pretty.
But is not image quality the prime consideration?
Sorry… the X100 is a Fuji camera that looks like an M, and somehow became a TikTok hit. Saying an M looks like an X100 would be the world upside down… a poor attempt at a joke I guess.
Image quality is not the prime consideration (for me).
1 Like
I’m also a Canon guy and own several bodies and lenses (L-Series glass)… I also have a Leica Q2. There is something special about the Leica… fit, finish (think maybe Naim vs Cambridge gear)… the lens is incredibly sharp and the colours uniquely Leica. Worth the money… if you can afford it I suppose so. I wouldn’t give up the Leica for the Canons… and vice versa. They are 2 different beasts.
3 Likes
I’ve read similar thoughts before, especially the bit about colours, which is what has got me interested.
Out of interest, do we know who does the electronics for Leicas?
I like the Leica (I have an M9 and a little-used-these-days M6 film camera) for the following reasons:
- The rangefinder system: I dunno why, but I much prefer it to an SLR. Takes a bit of getting used to but once you do, it’s easy-peasy.
- The small size, and the way the camera feels in your hand.
- The build quality, which is the best out there.
- The lenses, which are the best you can buy.
- The “Leica look” you get in your pictures.
- The unobtrusiveness.
- The all-manual operation, which puts you completely in control (or not!).
What I don’t like:
- The prices, which are just silly these days.
- The limitations of the rangefinder system.
- The reverse snobbery you get from some other photographers, who automatically think you’re a rich airhead only interested in camera jewellery/the brand rather than photography.
8 Likes
Nah Kev. Not when you are wearing your West Ham shirt.
They’ll think you nicked it …
3 Likes
I’ve always just assumed they do their own electronics. Interestingly, they have recently entered the audio fray… they have some kind of high end home cinema projector / audio device that was just recently launched.
if I may say 
cameras are simple tools. better show the output of these cameras.
1 Like
For those (s)nobs who say Leica only make jewellery… well they do! Nice-looking – if very very pricey – timepieces. Apparently they’re very good, but at those prices…? 
3 Likes
I bet he’s feeling a little cocky. 
1 Like