What would you take: F or M3?

JSU said:
But realize along with the brace of M3's around Burrow's neck there are a pair of Nikons (1 x F & 1 x Nikkormat) on his shoulders.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what I said in my post too? :)

My opinion is still the same, people baby their Leicas so much it's vomit-inducing.
 
but if you are an ounce/gram counter of a hiker, a prosumer grade digital with a flexible zoom or mid-wide would be the way to go. if i had the pins to wear your hiking boots, i'd take my x100 in a padded pouch.
but that is not an option. so i stick with your F/40 combo ...
 
F. Get the micro f/3.5 50mm non AI -- it's UNBELIEVABLE. Better IQ than the old 1.4. Even at infinity. Other super cheap lenses you might enjoy (lightweight too) for the trip: 35/2.5 Series E. Totally neglected lens. and a tele. The 200/4 Ai or AIS can be had for less than 50 dollars and will knock your hat into the next county. I don't think this is the job for the M3. The 50/2 as suggested, or the 3.5 micro, with the 200 and the 35 could be had all together for like $150. And it's not a crime just to stick to the 1.4 you already have. It doesn't focus as close and the IQ is not uniformly as good but stopped down it is just fine. I would definitely grab the 200/4. Killer lens, quite small for its FL. And the series E 35 weighs like three ounces. All right, maybe 8.
 
kshapero said:
Thanks all. Decided on the F with a Voigtlander 40/2 (does great closeups and is small). Now should I throw in the Nikkor 105/2.5 (very beat up but glass is perfect). Uh oh, now it starts......
Click to expand...

Good choice. Yes, take the 105.
 
Yeah, Im with the F crowd too.

One somewhat odd but lightweight option would be a old MF folder........
 
JSU said:
I think your choice of the F, CV 40/2 & Nikkor 105/2.5 are sound and solid. I know the 40/2 does pretty good with close-ups (I have one also), but if you have a PK ring from a Micro-Nikkor you might consider packing that as well, not much weight and works like a champ with the 105/2.5.

Otherwise, consider also bringing some 1 gallon ziplock bags in the event you run into serious rain, they're good for organizing film, too.
Click to expand...
I always have folded waterproof bear bags in my camera bag. They have saved my a&s before.
 
Have been in your situation myself on numerous occasions and all I can say is you can't make a bad choice no matter what you decide. Both cameras are pretty solid so which do you enjoy using more. I think the F might be a bit more versatile but both cameras have been to the top of Everest.

If you are worried about the M getting scratched, then take the F or put the M in a case. Use the one you enjoy the most. And if you can't make a decision, flip a coin.
 
mfogiel said:
M3, Rigid Summicron, yellow green filter, 50 rolls of Tri X, off you go !
Click to expand...
Ugh, why did you have to say that? Now I am back to the drawing board.

"M3, Rigid Summicron, yellow green filter, 50 rolls of Tri X," Beauty in motion.:bang::D:D
 
For me, it's a percentages game. You might get it wrong if you take the M3 and, if you get it scuffed up, it will also hit your pocket. It's virtually impossible to get wrong with an F. Cheap, tank-like build, legendary reliability and world-class glass. The M3 is no slouch but, for the rough and tumble, I'd go with the F.

Incidentally, I'm having a similar debate between an M6TTL + lenses, my F3 + lenses or my Mamiya 7 + lenses for my impending trip to Marrakesh. I'm 99.9% certain to go with the F3 as it is just so incredibly easy to use and 100% reliable / easy to load in a hurry and has a meter that's difficult to fool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top