Leica M3/4/2 vs Nikon SP

frederick_muller · December 21, 2010

Just out of curiosity, has anyone here shot both? I know it's getting harder to find Nikon S-mount lenses, but lenses availability aside, I'd be curious to know people's thoughts and experiences comparing the M* and the SP as pure shooting platforms.

Uhooru · December 21, 2010

Check out Cameraquest Frederick. You probably already have, but Steve Gandy is a fan of both cameras and has a fair amount of material.

leicaglow · December 21, 2010

I have shot a number of Nikon RF's, including an M that I owned. My personal preference is that the M3 and M4 is a little sturdier for their age, but they are all a joy to shoot with.

Alex_Es · December 22, 2010

I have shot both. The virtues and foibles of both a similar and different. In all, they are a delight to use for similar and different reasons.

Have I made myself clear? :-)

To begin with there are many variations of the M Leica and only one SP. The SP is the diamond of all Nikon / Contax RFs. It was advanced for its time. In terms of find frames, Leica did not catch up until the M4P. The SP in my view does not quite as ergonomically good as the Ms. The focusing patch is is fuzzy, while the M focusing patch is sharp on the sides. The M3's finder is fantastically well magnified, but the SP's is no slouch. The SP could be motorized (but try and find a motor for it) while the M3 could not. The M2 and MP could take the Leicavit. Everything from the M42 to the present film M can take a motor, a Lecaivit or a Rapidwinder. The Leica system of lenses and accessories is, of course, wider and better than the SP's.

When you are out shooting there are experiences that are unique to both cameras that make you enjoy both.

I like the focusing wheel, which can be used on everything up to 50mm (the 50/1.1 excluded). Once you get used to it it is liberating. You can focus, speeds and shoot with one hand, leaving the other hand setting f-stops and checking a handheld meter. The devise makes the SP, and similar cameras a bit fragile. As I discovered when I dropped my S3.

The overall feel of a Leica M is that it is ergonomically perfect and you are in total and absolute control. The lenses are internal focusing, the shutter speed dial is this right and the rewind lever has been made for your thumb.

Anyway, I love shooting the SP as a kind of novelty. Leica is my serious everyday camera.

frederick_muller · December 22, 2010

There are elements of novelty or nostalgia to the Nikon rangefinders, I guess. Even in this digital age, one still sees guys walking around with Leicas (thank goodness!!!!). But I've never seen a shooter using a Nikon S-series.

I handled an S3 in the store and was afraid I couldn't change lenses without breaking something. The external mount seems more like an old Canon breech-lock. I'm sure it gets easier with practice.

paul_wheatland · December 22, 2010

I have an M3 with DR Summicron. I also have Nikon S-2 with 50mm f1.4. I use the Leica 75% more than the Nikon. I have no quarrel with the Leica. Two things about the S-2 annoy me, the shutter is loud compared to the Leica. To change lenses on the Nikon, one must make sure lens is on infinity (I have a three lens out fit 35/50/135) as do I with the Leica. The Leica cares less about infinity when changing lenses. I own the Nikon because I am a Nikon SLR user/early F, F2 with DP1 in black, F36, N2020, Fuji S-1Pro(Nikon bodied and lensed), plus a nice selection of lenses.

aplumpton · December 22, 2010

What the the S series did was to accompany Nikon lenses, which then were a quantum leap forward in quality, at least in terms of those like the Nikkor SC 50mm f1.4. Something to do with rare earth elements and Nikon glass. Leica caught up very fast of course, but apparently really blossomed only with the Mandler (Leitz Ontario) formulations of the 70s and early 80s. I agree that among the shortcomings of the Nikon S2 and SP were the lesss well demarked rangefinder patches. Both Leica and Nikon had very ordinary accessory zoom finders. A friend had an M3, which I found to be smoother and more responsive than the Nikon RFs. My S2 (similar in construction to the SP) always felt a bit more clunky or less smooth to handle than the M3 and I found that you had to move the focussing wheel too far in quick focussing. Some repairmen suggested to me that the Nikon was an improvement over the Contax IIa, on which it was fairly closely modelled, except for a better shutter in the Nikon.

As Nikon gave up the RF series when the Nikon F SLR was created, the greatest value of the Nikon I think was the progress in lens design in the 50s and more complete VF framing that it brought to the RF field during its rather short life. As a user of the M series, I find the Leicas to be more ergonomic in shooting than the Nikon RFs, although my S2 (and SP) were great cameras, but the basis of a system of lenses and accessories that were considerably more limited (and less available) than those of the Leica M.

frederick_muller · December 24, 2010

Lenses for the Nikon are definitely harder to find nowadays, but not impossible. There were some awesome lenses made in the Nikon S-mount, like the classic 10.5cm f2.5 Sonnar-type. It's hard to find that baby in Leica screw mount ... if you want to shoot it on a rangefinder, I would say that lens in itself is a reason to buy a Nikon S* body. Of course, there is a more recent line of VC optics, though now discontinued.

I've handled an S3 and an SP and find the SP far smoother. The SP I handled was almost as smooth as an M; not so the S3. I agree with the observation about the infinity lock ... I think as a user it would take some practice to get so changing lenses was second nature. Also, the internal mount lenses and the external mount lenses have different rear lens caps, which could make changing lenses clumsier in the field.

furcafe · December 26, 2010

I have & shoot both Leica & Nikon RF systems, as well as Zeiss Ikon Contax RFs. Not much to add to what's already been written except to pick up on something that Mr. Plumpton hinted at. I think the best way to look at Nikon RFs is to view them as an improved (for the most part) continuation of the Contax RF concept & a link to the Nikon F SLRs. For shooting, I've found the Leica Ms to be better primarily because of their superior VF/RF. However, I think the Nikon RFs, like the Contax, are still very useable & a nice change of pace; they also often make a better match if you're also shooting a Nikon SLR (because of the focus direction that is probably the sole surviving legacy of the Contax system).

wayne gardner · December 26, 2010

While in Japan in 1958 as a young Marine PFC, I intended to buy a Leica M3, but a Marine PJ sergeant talked me into buying a Nikon SP. I still have the SP with 50/1.4, 35/2.5, 135/3.5, and my favorite, the 105/2.5. Later I bought Leica M3, M2, and M4 cameras, with 35/2 ASPH, 35/2 v3, 50/2 collapsible and 50/1.4, 90 Elmarit M, and 135/3.4 ASPH lenses.

The original SP was not as durable as the Leicas. It would regularly strip a gear in the film-advance mechanism at least every other year. It was not expensive to fix, and finally the Nikon F series more-durable gear fixed that problem.

Film reloading is much easier on the SP: the back slips off easily, and it is as easy as any camera made to load a new roll. I reckon dust intrusion is more likely on an SP, but I did not experience a problem. I don't care for Leica film loading, especially as my 73-year-old fingers are not as supple as they used to be.

The SP viewfinder is not as bright as Leica's, but it is 100% 1:1, making both eyes open a natural shooting style. Unlike Leica's automatic finder window frame adjusting to the lens mounted on the camera, with the SP you must twist a dial to bring up the proper frame windows--not a huge problem, but I forgot it once and ruined a shot.

The SP's huge advantage is the built-in finder for 35mm/28mm lenses: just slide your eye over to the next window. That 35-28 window also is very bright; there is some distortion in it, but that does not bother me. With Leicas, you must go to the M2, M4, etc., for 35mm lenses, and I much prefer the M3 viewfinder to later M cameras.

I carried my SP everywhere: it made several parachute jumps, and it locked out of an underway submarine with me in the South China Sea, wrapped in a supposedly waterproof bag (it wasn't), but the SP was wrapped again in a real waterproof plastic bag, so no harm done. It lived with me in Finland for three winters and never missed a beat on many cross-country ski trips. It went to Vietnam my second tour (first tour with a Nikonos/35mm). On Operation Hastings, Horst Faas accompanied me on an all-day patrol, and his, Larry Burroughs' and others' Leicas were also durable--as were Nikon Fs. I wonder how the current digital cameras perform in rough conditions.

I really like the 105mm Nikkor lens, almost as much as the 90mm Elmarit M for portraits. I much prefer my Leica 35mm lenses, however, and the Leica 135/3.4 beats the Nikon lens easily. I prefer both Leica 50mm lenses to the Nikkor 50/1.4, but will defer to others on subjective quality differences. One of my favorite photos is of the submarine Perch (APSS 313) in Alaska's Cook Inlet taken with the SP from a rubber boat after a patrol near Homer. It's digitized, and if I knew how, I would post it for you, but again at age 73 . . . .

I hope not to part with the SP. It is my first camera and has served well, but its rangefinder is so far out of adjustment it's unusable now. Nevertheless, for some reason the Leicas feel better in the hand, and I enjoy shooting them more than I ever did the SP. I believe the Leica lenses I have are better than the Nikkors I have from the Fifties, although the 105mm is still a great lens.

wayne gardner · December 26, 2010