"jsl" <jsleatherbury@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ab139ead.0309021608.19b2ed1b@posting.google.com...

> I am trying to figure out which Nikon to purchase - namely the F100 or

> the N90. The N90 is clearly the least expensive, so that's always

> good, but I am most concerned with the outcome of the shots. I

> realize it's in the choice of lens, but I still need to purchase a

> camera! (if you can suggest another nikon please do).

I dislike the N90's VF (it, and the N70, are unusual for

Nikon in that the finder is not very sharp - making manual

focus more difficult). Nikon's VF's tend to be sharper and

easier to see than those of most other brands, so I would not

disgard this useful feature... Look also at the excellent 8008

(smaller and lighter, but the AF is not as good). If MF is OK,

the FM2, FE2, FM3, FA, and F3 can be good choices - and

even the old N2000 and FG can serve well enough for most

purposes (which is not to mention a good-condition F or

F2 - or F4 or F5, or even an N6000...;-). Nikon made a lot

of good bodies...

(As other posters pointed out, though, using VR or G lenses

does limit the choices.)

> I want the quality that Leica offers, but I have not ever used a

> rangefinder and am nervous I won't meld to this way of shooting. I

> have been studying the Leica R series too. I stray from this because

> it seems to me that shooting SLR diminishes the quality, so for the

> price of things the Nikon is the wiser choice.

See other posters' comments on this - to which I will add: Leica

image-quality, until recently, has been more hype than reality - but

with current (horribly-expensive) aspheric lenses, the reality is

finally catching up with the hype...;-) I find rfdr-use OK if I have

the time to use it - but then good, sharp GG SLR focus is

also OK, and easier for me (and it provides a better preview

of the image, with superior framing-accuracy). The AF in the F100

is good enough that I now trust it (unlike with earlier cameras).

> The question for me with the Nikon isn't about bells and whistles in

> and of itself, but about functionality and weight.

No-one I know dislikes the F100 when first picked up - and

it is only the second 35mm camera that I immediately liked on first try

(the other was the original Nikon F...;-).

> Another topic/question: How does a person using a Leica know what

> exposure to be set at? When I shoot with my medium format vintage

> camera I use a light meter, but you don't always have time for that

> and in documentary work it seems a light meter would be awfully

> intrustive and disruptive.

They have built-in meters now...;-)

But, with an F100 set in an auto-exposure mode (biasable...),

with AF, you will shoot rings around a Leica rfdr (unless you

don't care about exact focus and exposure and preset these...;-).

A good SLR is just plain more versatile...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com