Are Nikon RFs for collectors and Leica Ms for users?

Tom A said:
It was extremely cold (northern Sweden in January) and i did not realize that I had ripped the tip of my finger until I saw a dark liquid gathering on the top-plate. It was cold enough to "freeze" nerve endings!
Click to expand...

But you can't blame the Contax for that - in alpine or polar conditions I've frozen to Nikon SLRs, a Mamiya RB67 and a Gitzo stand, to similar effect, and none of them had a finger focus wheel...
 
kingqueenknave said:
I don't know about the first two statements on this list. My experience suggests otherwise.
Click to expand...

Now, I really really like the look of a Leica, especially a M3. And I wont say, that it is impossible to load a Leica, but for me it seems to be easyer & faster to load a Nikon RF.
Tryed both of em, like loading a Nikon RF more. Maybe because I am trained in loading my Nikon F the same way.
 
Perhaps due to the vast differences in quantities built and available, the Leica is more often found in users' circles.

But if you were to normalize the quantities, for instance, if you were to discuss "black paint Leicas are user vs collector items", you may swing the balance.

And sure, Nikon lenses are fewer too, but consider that Cosina revived the line a few years ago, with brand new optical formulations in the classical S mount. Sadly, I hear they are now discontinued, but I think S.Gandy still carries new-old-stock.
 
Platinum RF said:
Like Zeiss Contax, Nikon RF's rangefinder is kind of inferior to Leica M, not many lenses available and expensive too. The focus action is painful, the sharp focus wheel may cut your finger. Except cool looking or different layout, are Nikon RFs most for collectors?
Click to expand...

Really.
Who makes up this nonsense?
About the only thing I prefer about the Leicas over the Nikon rangefinders is their brighter, better defined rangefinder focusing spot.
And after shooting with S3s and an SP for about the last seven or eight years, I do just fine with the Nikons.
 
Vickko said:
Perhaps due to the vast differences in quantities built and available, the Leica is more often found in users' circles.
Click to expand...
True. But WHY did the Leica sell more and survive longer? Because it attracted more users...

Yes, I've always fancied trying a Nikon Rangefinder. But at today's prices (and prices for the last 30 years), they're collector cameras, not user cameras, unless you're a real addict. And why are there so few addicts? See paragraph 1.

Cheers,

R.
 
Overall, I do like Leicas more on account of the RF patch, but in all fairness, if you're going to play the numbers game, 1 reason why Nikon got out of the RF game was that they came up w/an SLR system that outsold both their own RFs &, eventually, Leica Ms.

Roger Hicks said:
True. But WHY did the Leica sell more and survive longer? Because it attracted more users...

Yes, I've always fancied trying a Nikon Rangefinder. But at today's prices (and prices for the last 30 years), they're collector cameras, not user cameras, unless you're a real addict. And why are there so few addicts? See paragraph 1.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
furcafe said:
Overall, I do like Leicas more on account of the RF patch, but in all fairness, if you're going to play the numbers game, 1 reason why Nikon got out of the RF game was that they came up w/an SLR system that outsold both their own RFs &, eventually, Leica Ms.
Click to expand...
Far from untrue. But equally, WHY couldn't they sell enough Nikon RFs to do better than the M? 'Cos the S-series were inferior cameras...

(Of course that's an over-simplification. Even so, it doesn't negate the basic truth.)

Cheers,

R.
 
>> But WHY did the Leica sell more and survive longer? <<

Nikon sold a BUNCH more cameras ... Nikon Fs ... and quickly left the RF market due to the overwhelming success of its SLR. This was driven largely by consumer demand. Looking through the lens was a killer app of its era.

Leica in the late '50s - early '60s had one basic camera system and lenses and a philosophical abhorence to SLR size and mass, and so devoted its energies to the premium rangefinder niche. Canon kept up development of decent lower-cost RF alternatives using the Leitz thread mount for anouther decade, which allowed for an affordable point-of-entry to new users until such time as used Leica Ms were plentiful enough to fill the market space.
 
The S-mount was inferior to the M-mount. No question. Rather than reinvent it, Nikon moved on to dominate professional and premium amateur market with its F-mount SLRs.
 
Roger the reason for less Nikon RF cameras sold than Leica RF might be that Nikon RF cameras were not really available outside Japan and Asia and in some European countries they were not available until the late 1960's. Furthermore many Americans would not buy goods made in Japan. Besides the Nikon F outsold I believe the Leica cameras by quiet a margin so no reason to build RF cameras anymore. I personally think that the best rangefinders were build by Zeiss Ikon but unfortunately they gave up the development of their RF line. The most precise 35mm RF is still the one build into the Contax RFs.

I have to agree with you that the prices are outrageous and often make them collectors items
 
(VinceC) Nikon sold a BUNCH more cameras ... Nikon Fs ... and quickly left the RF market due to the overwhelming success of its SLR.

(VinceC) The S-mount was inferior to the M-mount. No question. Rather than reinvent it, Nikon moved on to dominate professional and premium amateur market

(DominikDUK) . . . Nikon RF cameras were not really available outside Japan and Asia and in some European countries they were not available until the late 1960's. Furthermore many Americans would not buy goods made in Japan. Besides the Nikon F outsold I believe the Leica cameras by quiet a margin so no reason to build RF cameras anymore. . . .
I have to agree with you that the prices are outrageous and often make them collectors items

None of the above untrue. But they still argue that the M-series survived because no-one has ever made better RF cameras.

Cheers,

R.
 
The notion of German quality engineering was still dominant in the 1950s-'60s, while "made in Japan" at the time had a stigma of "copy-cat" tech. So it was more of an uphill battle to sell a premium camera at prices comparable to a German cameras. Once the Nikon F because popular, this was a market segment with no German counterpart, and hence no consumer perception that the German product would be the top of the market compared to the Japanese "knock off." There are still persistent folks who repeat the falsehood that the Nikon RFs were screw-for-screw copies of the Contax instead of dramatic improvements to an idiosyncratic system.
 
The results count. A set of an S2 with a Nikkor from 1957 impresses even today.

Nikon S2, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, Tmax400.

Erik.

8706206776_378426a64a_c.jpg
 
Roger Hicks said:
Yes, I've always fancied trying a Nikon Rangefinder. But at today's prices (and prices for the last 30 years), they're collector cameras, not user cameras, unless you're a real addict..
Click to expand...

Roger, the going rate for a user Nikon S2 with 50/2 is around £350. Hardly expensive for anyone used to Leica prices.
 
Highway 61 said:
This confirms what sounds from your opening post : you never used any of the Nikon RF piece of gear.

So you aren't a collector, are you ? :D
Click to expand...

No I am a user, a Leica user. I have Voigtlander R2c, Contax IIIa and Canon RF. No Nikon RF. But I have Nikon F which is derived from Nikon RF. The Nikon F's layout is inferior to Leica M too. The shutter release is near the back not very user friendly. The base concept of Nikon RF is similar to Contax except shutter is borrowed from Leica. I did try a Nikon SP in store and the rangefinder is kind inferior to Leica M. For these Nikon RF die-hard fans please hold your emotion, I just want to have a constructive discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom