Any reason not to get a Nikon S2?

The only thing that irritates me to no end about the S2 bodies operation versus the M3 is the shutter speed dial.. a lot hard to change "on the fly" or with gloves... The M3's is much more "modern" in operation. Still though, I really like the results I've gotten... all the M2's or M3's I've owned have need almost 50% of their pricetag "reinvested" into servicing before they could be as reliable as a used S2 is off the shelf.
 
Thanks all. I think I'll stick with Leica. A few of the things mentioned are turn-offs for me and I would only be buying this to use. I'm very cranky when it comes to ergonomics, so I should probably buy a S2 when I feel like accumulating multiple cameras instead of just finding one to use.
 
I've never shot with a Leica M, but when I've looked through the finders at Fotokina I was surprised and disappointed and stopped lusting for Leicas and stuck with Nikon RFs. Obviously the original poster likes the way Leicas work, so he probably should stick with what's comfortable to him.

Reasons I like the S2/S3/SP:
1:1 viewfinder - No reduction. It's like you're looking through a window, not taking a picture.
Indistinct but VERY accurate rangefinder patch. For me, I like not having a big rectangle in the center of the frame. Once you're in focus, the RF patch effectivel vanishes and you can concentrate on the scene you are photographing (at lifesize).
In this regard, the S2 is possibly the least cluttered camera viewfinder of any professional level 35mm. On the other hand, I find the 1:1 viewfinder makes clutter more tolerable because of ability to open both eyes. For that reason, i prefer the S3. If you're just shooting a 50mm lens, the etched 105mm framelines on the S3 are definitely adding to the clutter, but I've used them a lot to aid in rule-of-thirds composition ... their corners happen to be in just the right locations.

EDIT: And, with the S3, the field of view is huge, so you can see quite a lot outside of the frameline area.
 
Creative people get bored easy. They need variety. That's why some of us cycle through gear. It's not so much we're looking for a better system as we are looking for new experiences. And as modern society become more automated, I find myself looking further back. I believe a Nikon rangefinder would be a nice change of pace to a Leica, but never a substitute (opinion).
 
Last edited:
VinceC said:
I've never shot with a Leica M, but when I've looked through the finders at Fotokina I was surprised and disappointed and stopped lusting for Leicas and stuck with Nikon RFs.
Click to expand...

I had a similar, but opposite experience, although it hasn't completely cured my Nikon rangefinder lust. I looked through an old SP and the rangefinder patch was so faded it was useless. A paper weight, that's all it was.
 
steveyork said:
Creative people get bored easy. They need variety. That's why some of us cycle through gear. It's not so much we're looking for a better system as we are looking for new experiences. And as modern society become more automated, I find myself looking further back.
Click to expand...

Steve, I *really* like how you think :D:D
 
Steve,
The SP rangefinder patches can all but disappear, espeically on the ones with early serial numbers. The RF patch has held up much better on S3s and S2s.
 
shadowfox said:
Steve, I *really* like how you think :D:D
Click to expand...

yeah man, I think you've just given me the go-ahead to spend a lot of money :)

Incidentally, my wife's grandfather's S2 is just sitting in the closet, hasn't been touched in about 30 years. Can't wait to get home and give it a good look over and maybe load it up.
 
Well of course you didn't...if you had, you wouldn't be "100% digital".

;)
 
Last edited:
There are two main reasons not to waste money onto an S3 or an SP.

They are :
1) the S2 "chrome dial", and
2) the S2 "black dial".
 
can't imagine buying an S2, S3 or SP is a waste of money, if you keep it reasonable.

My personal preference is an SP, for its improved ergonomics and features.

Vick
 
jsrockit said:
No, I'm not, but his info is appreciated anyway. For me, I don't shoot film often. However, when I want to shoot film, I want something nice for using with a 50mm lens. For me, it is either a M3 (I've owned the 2, 4, 4-2, and 6 in the past) or the S2. I'm leaning towards the M3, but they have went up in price recently. The S2 seems to stay around the same price.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a Konica IIIa would make sense if you only want to use a 50mm. The finder is excellent, and the lens is very sharp.
 
Every time a Nikon S2 or SP thread becomes a hot topic I start shopping and budgeting... It's instant GAS.
Something always prevents me from getting one. And this is kind of crazy since the cost of a good working S2 with a 50mm f/1.4 is about the same as the LTM version of the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor!
I should have bought one years ago but I just can't seem to bring myself to do it even though I love the cameras that I've had the chance to play with.

Phil Forrest
 
Highway 61 said:
There are two main reasons not to waste money onto an S3 or an SP.

They are :
1) the S2 "chrome dial", and
2) the S2 "black dial".
Click to expand...

I assume the colour of the dial has a great deal to do with the quality of the photos one gets with the camera.
 
Yes, my S2 "black dial" generally produces better photos than my S2 "chrome dial".

I might try to customize the latter with soda bottles caps or vitamine pills canisters though, or - let's live dangerously - some Hello Kitty stickers.
 
Could this be a compelling reason to get one? :D
5660500512_931d2c6cc0_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom