any leica users try the new nikon s3??

with the cost of a nikon s3 and 50 f1.4 lens roughly equal to the cost of an m6 with 50mm summilux, i wonder if anyone with experience of both cameras can speak to their relative merits as picture takers. i have used nikon RF models over the years, and always found them to be fine cameras, with brite rangefinders and good handling characteristics. i especially like the 100% magnification of the viewfinder. combined with the longer RF base (as compared to an M6) this makes for super-accurate focusing (roughly 2x the effective baselength of the m6 .72). any thoughts on whether the new s3 might be a good user camera -- especially now that so many of the voigtlander lenses are being made in the nikon RF mount. thanks!!

As to "picture takers" I can't say, because I can't seem to get past

the difference in "build". Not that the quality of the S3 isn't good -

it is. But I guess I would have to call it the basic architecture or

engineering of the camera & lens - the lens mount, for example, and

also rangefinder flare. The Nikon also just feels too "tinny" to me.

Hard for me to feel comfortable with it having become accustomed to SM

and BM Leica rangefinders.

If you think that current Leica viewfinders are Schisophrenic, wait

till you try the Nikon S3 with all three bright lines visible (more

or less) at once. I still think that the SP had it right, though.

Roger,

 

<p>

 

You're right that the Nikon

RFs are fine cameras. I had an

S2 that I really liked, but I

always thought its shutter was

a little more 'cla-chunky' (for

lack of a better word) and

couldn't shoot as slow as on an

M.

 

<p>

 

I've always had issues with

the Contax/Nikon RF mount.

The M mount represents much

better engineering. The Nikon/

Contax mount tends to dry out

and get a little sloppy. Also, I

think you'd find the opposite

focusing direction from the M

distracting.

 

<p>

 

In short, I'm sure the S3 will

make fine pictures, but I think

Nikon's aim here is for the

collector market, not for the

user. Plus, if you think Leica

prices are expensive (say, on a

lens shade) try coming to terms

with some of that Nikon RF

stuff, if you can even find it!

 

<p>

 

It's a looker though, isn't it?

thanks for your input. a couple of follow up points: first, as for

the brite lines all being displayed at once, i like this. it is a

good way of previewing lenses. as for the superiority of the sp in

this area, remember that while the sp has a selector switch, it

simply adds add'l lines, it doesn't remove the ones already there

(i.e. once you get to the lines for the 135, all the other lines are

displayed as well). there is also no question in my view that the s3

finder (simple albada type) is FAR less flare prone than either the

sp finder or any of the leica finders precisely because it does not

have superimposed "floating" lines. you pay a price for every

convenience, and flare in the finder bothers me more than the lack of

selectable (and parallax corrected) lines. in terms of build

quality, there is a lot of aesthetic judgment at play here, but i

think the nikons exude quality to a far greater degree than the

leicas. they are modeled (externally and vis-a-vis the RF) on the

contax cameras which, in their day, were widely regarded as superior

to leicas in terms of build quality. it was the dodgy shutters and

mechanicals that let the contax products down. that is precisely why

nikon copied the RF and external design of the contax iia, but copied

the innards of the leica. but, again, this is all subjective. i

think part of the problem may be that it is rare today to see a true

mint nikon RF camera of any kind, and so few people have a fair

benchmark of comparison. a dead mint sp is a sight to behold, and

certainly the build quality equal of any RF design. as for the

mount, i'm not sure what to say, they are so different. and i don't

just mean how the lens is fixed, but the concept of an integral

helical as well. the nikon design has the HUGE advantage of

compactness. with the inboard helical, nikon could make its lenses

much smaller and (possibly more important) much lighter. i think

there may also be an advantage in terms of the RF interface. i also

like the positive engagement of the lens in the nikon (really contax)

design, at least in virgin samples. but whether the light touch of

the helical appeals to any given user is a matter of taste. i hated

it initially when i first handled an sp years ago. after a few

weeks, however, the combination of the light touch and super large,

super clear, super accurate RF made for lightning focus. when i went

back to my m2 (at that time), it felt like i was moving in slow-mo.

anyway, just another taste thing. finally, as for the idea that the

s3 millenium is a collector-only camera, i disagree. admittedly, it

is a reproduction camera made in small numbers. however, the m6 (as

erwin puts points out in his great m7 article) is really just an m3

with a light meter -- no real changes at all. when the m3 was

current, serious news photogs chose the nikon RF system over leica.

there was a real debate about which system -- leica or nikon -- was

better (thrilling to think what course the nikon RF system would have

taken over the years had not nikon gone the slr route -- what would

an sp with forty years of nikon innovation look like??). viewed in

that way, why shouldn't a reissue of the s3 be a genuine alternative

to the m6?? again, i think more of a taste thing than anything

else. i really don't think there is anything fundamental to the m6

design that makes it any more superior to the reissue s3 than the m3

was to the original nikon product. in the end, i think leica without

a doubt currently has the edge for the simple reason that the company

makes a large and wondrous array of state of the art optics for its

cameras. the lens is always the most important part of any camera.

while the new 50 1.4 that comes with the millenium s3 is a modern

design, the only other new tech lenses for the camera are from voigt

(and then onlythe 21, 25 and 35 for now). again, thanks for your

thoughts.

Is the Nikon S3 all mechanical What is the top shutter speed?

Roger, I don't believe that the Contax was ever considered superior

to Leica in quality of construction. But it certainly had better

lenses, and on paper, at least, better features (combined RF/VF,

bayonet lens mount, removable back, self-timer, etc.). A major

reason that many photojournalists preferred Nikon was their being

stroked by the importers (Joe Eisenrich(sp)) where Leitz, like Zeiss,

didn't think they needed to compete with those upstart Japanese. Ha!

Dear Roger and Everyone,

 

<p>

 

Here in Japan I see the new Nikon S3 in camera stores all the time.

I even played with one. No question the construction is excellent.

The lens is excellent too. The the 35/50/105 lines displayed in the

finder remind me of the Canon P. But my question is: What's the

point of it all. Nikon is not going to build a system around this

camera. And if it did, reviving the old Contax/Nikon mount would be

a little like bring back spats. It's an okay mount but not a great

mount--not much faster than the Leica screw mount.

 

<p>

 

Voigtlander has three stunning lenses that fit Contax/Nikon mounts,

which is great if you have an old Contax / Nikon / Kiev that you

dearly love. But otherwise they are like the flowers born to blush

unseen and waste their fragrance on the desert air.

 

<p>

 

It is primarily because of thoese three stunning lenses--35/2.4, 25/

4 and 21/4--that I toyed with the idea of getting an old Nikon S2.

With 50mm lens they are about the price of a mint Leica M6 classic.

Not insanely expensive (though back in 1987 I nearly bought one for

$300 at K&S in Palo Alto). The truth is: I hated the feel as much as

I appriciated the craft that went into the camera.

 

<p>

 

The new Nikon S3 is a beauty. I am sure it takes beautiful pictures.

I know that having a beautiful camera does inspire beautiful

pictures somehow. If this camera will be your divine spark, get it.

It is a better investment than Enron stock.

I wonder why Nikon brought back the S3 instead of top of the line

SP? A warehouse full of spare parts that somebody stumbled on

(perhaps the japanese IRS)?

"Is the Nikon S3 all mechanical What is the top shutter speed?"

 

<p>

 

All mechanical. No meter or electronics. Top speed 1/1000. Synch at

1/60. Film loading, controls, and layout similar to Nikon F, but

without reflex mirror box.

"I wonder why Nikon brought back the S3 instead of top of the line SP?

A warehouse full of spare parts that somebody stumbled on (perhaps the

japanese IRS)?"

 

<p>

 

Bill - almost certainly because the S3 has a much simpler (read

'cheaper') finder. 3 permanent brightlines instead of the switchable

50/85/105/135 frames + 28/35 peephole finder, as I imagine you know. It

was a lot cheaper to plate out 3 silver lines on a sheet of glass than

put in all the moving parts for the SP finder - just like it was in

1962 when the S3 came out the first time.

 

<p>

 

BTW if you runs across one, the Canon "P" screw-mount body is very

comparable to the S3 - life-size view, 35-50-100 frames permanently

visible - and with a very tight build - except for the squeaky

stainless-steel-foil shutter. If parts and servicing wern't such a

problem I'd consider it, as a user, a very strong competitor even to

the M2/M4s - the perfect excuse to buy one of those screw-mount 35

ASPHs from 2-3 years ago.

mr. Bill , your mention about "Schizophrenia " ?

I have spent about half my life living and working around the

Japanese people, and travelling a lot in that beautiful country. I

have the opinion that Nikon made the S3 for the same reason that

Nissan and Toyota came out a few years ago with "classic" re-makes of

several new car models for their domestic market. Just to show that

they can do it. It's a brief marketing effort to satisfy a small

demand for something retro. (Even their new motorcycles are going

through this stage). Those vehicles look like restored versions of

cars from the 1940s or early 1950s, but are, in fact, very new.

However, I don't see Toyota or Nissan keeping those models very long.

And I would not be surprised to see Nikon moving on to something

else, leaving the S3 to become a rare collectible. Except for the

tendancy of the Japanese to honor their long tradition of indigenous

arts (like kimonos, pottery, paper-making, and so forth), and the

associated artesians as "living trewasures", I don't see Japanese

camera makers staying with a proven brand identity for very long, as

Leica has done with the M series.

 

<p>

 

At least Ford can keep the Mustang namesake alive for 35-plus years.

Same can be said for GM and the Corvette. But can you think of one

Japanese car company that has kept the same brand name (other than

the bland Camry or Corolla lines) long enought to establish a cult

following, world-wide? It's not in their nature to stay with slowing-

evolving consumer goods that rely as much on sentimental value or

historic impact (like the M cameras), as campared to the latest

technological "improvemewnts". They prefer to move along to someting

else that is newer, better, has more bells and whistles, etc. Does

anyone remember the Emerson, Lake and Palmer album cover (greatest

hits version) showing the 1600s-era Japanese ladies in kimono and

surroundings(in the woodblock print art style) listening to music on

Walkmans and phonographs players?

This is an old thread & I've already argued w/Bill Mitchell about

Leica v. Contax build quality/engineering, etc. on another thread (I

voiced the opinion that, far from having "dodgy shutters &

mechanicals," the Contax was superior to the TM Leica on all counts),

so I'll limit this posting to voicing my opinion re: the Contax/Nikon

RF lens mount issue. I'm probably the only 1 who feels this way, but I

disagree w/Carlin, et al. & believe that the Contax/Nikon RF mount is

actually more intuitive & ergonomically comfortable than the Leica M

mount. By that I mean that I've found it much easier, w/the

Contax/Nikon hanging on a shoulder/neck strap & lens facing away from

me (which is the way I usually carry a camera), to unlatch the lens

w/my left hand & then use my right hand to rotate the lens clockwise &

remove it (I'm right-handed, BTW) than use the opposite hands for each

task, which I'm forced to do w/the M cameras. To me, changing a lens

on the M's is easier only if the camera lens is facing towards me

(viewfinder up)--only then can I use my left hand to unlatch the lens

& my right hand to rotate the lens counter-clockwise & remove it.

I've also used Leica thread mount cameras (Canon P) & disagree that

the Contax/Nikon RF mount is comparably slow--I think it's

significantly faster--but maybe I just don't have as much practice

w/the LTM. Bottom line: if I could afford 1, the S3 Millenium (or

original) would be a fine shooter, but, like Alex pointed out, I

wouldn't hold my breath waiting for new lenses from Nikon!

I asked this question on the Topica RF list a while ago, & Stephen

Gandy opined that it was already a gigantic pain for Nikon to bring

back the S3 (they had to grab old factory hands out of retirement to

teach current workers the old-fashioned manufacturing techniques,

start up a special production line, etc.), so that reproducing the SP

would have been too much.

 

<p>

 

---

 

<p>

 

I wonder why Nikon brought back the S3 instead of top of the line SP?

A warehouse full of spare parts that somebody stumbled on (perhaps the

japanese IRS)?