Are Nikon RFs for collectors and Leica Ms for users?

[Pioneer]

They are all very good cameras but, Roger is right, Leica is the only one left building high quality rangefinders.

But I do believe that has less to do with design superiority and more to do with the fact that both Canon and Nikon realized that there was more money to be made with the single lens reflex so they walked away from the rangefinder market and left it to Leica. If they had not I am afraid that Leica would have gone the way of Zeiss into bankruptcy.

I for one am glad that things turned out the way they did, and that Leica kept their focus and continued to build rangefinder cameras. If they had not, none of us would have anything left to talk about. 🙂

 

[RObert Budding]

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.

Seriously? Leica has been on the brink of bankruptcy for decades. And the reason that there are fewer Nikon rangefinders is because of the SLR.

 

[VinceC]

>> The guys kneeling are taking a photo of the scene everyone else is making a head and shoulders shot of Davy Jones... <<

The guys in front seem to be wearing official arm bands and are in front of the press tape, so they probably are official photographers in some capacity. It seems to be a military base. Among the journalists behind the tape, I can see at least one Nikon F with 21mm lens.

 

[Corran]

I think the Nikon SP is the greatest 35mm camera ever made.

Mine just came back from a CLA...I thought the viewfinder was good before, but now! Wow! If I could get the guts of my Nikon D800 into a couple of SP's, I'd enjoy shooting commercial work 100x more.

Anyway, I don't have much to add, because it's a rather silly question, especially making the opening statements about Leica being "better." I don't have much experience with Leica. I'd say they are better in the sense that they have a modern digital FF rangefinder, unlike anyone else. If I had an M I'd want all my Nikkor glass on it!

I'm enjoying using my freshly refurbished 18cm f/2.5 Nikkor on my D800! Nikon's glass from that era was certainly fantastic.

 

[micromontenegro]

Count me as an user 🙂

 

[shadowfox]

Here you go, Will:

1) Classic Nikkors 35/3.5, 35/2.5 and 35/1.8
2) "Millenium" 35/1.8
3) Voigtlander SC 35/2.5 Skopar

There are several classic contax mount 35s (Biogon, Herar, Orthometar, etc.) that you can mount too, if you are OK with some focus inaccuracy.

Then again, the 35/1.8 is all you ever need 🙂

Roland.

Off the top of my head: Nikon 35/3.5, 35/2.5, & 35/1.8. Tanack 35/2.8 [Edit, also Soligor & Komura, though it's not clear if they were for both Nikon & Contax]. CV 35/2.5. Zeiss 35/2.8, 35/3.5, & 35/4.5 (for Contax, but work fine on the Nikon).

Thanks Roland, furcafe, and others for educating me.
Just want to know what my options are if I were to stumble to a Nikon RF body in the future 🙂

 

[Range-rover]

Thanks Roland, furcafe, and others for educating me.
Just want to know what my options are if I were to stumble to a Nikon RF body in the future 🙂

And you'll love it too!


Range

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135971

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135971

The Nikon-F literally destroyed the German photographic industry.The SLR was the item everybody wanted!
What once was "cheap copy cat" became the quality to want!
Leica survived because Canon and Nikon chose not to compete. Not then, not now. Leica was an"honor to keep" for them too!
The SP incorporated all the needed lenses without added viewfinders. The one handed working a real plus. In a Life book on photographers, most used Nikon RF..
Nikon (and Canon) make superb equipment. Not as fancy finish, but more than sufficient for a working tool.
I was demonstrated the strength of Nikon's lens color coating. The lens was unscathed! My Summicron would have been not burnt toast but ashes..
Sure the RFDR spot not as good.How difficult would it have been, to either equal or surpass?
I am a Leica RFDR user. In SLR almost everything..but the Nikon-F still one of my favorites.
My Leica M3 is my most repaired and serviced camera.
Yes, it was used hard. My Pentax Spotmatic was way more used. It made way more money.I made one small repair myself. One Pentax Spotmatic still used by my daughter. She has digital Nikon Equipment.
In the end, use whatever you like. A lens is a lens, a body a means to hold and move film.Analog!
I seldom remember what i used or why.

 

[Frontman]

I can't say that a Leica M is superior to a Nikon rangefinder in any way except the rangefinder patch. The 1-1 viewfinder in the Nikon is far superior than the magnified finders in the Leica M cameras.

Another point is the quality of the internal parts and construction. Nikon is far superior here as well. The Nikon shutter mechanism is simply bullet-proof. It seems never to require service or adjustment, and the shutter material, be it silk or titanium, is far more durable than anything Leica has ever made. The accuracy of the Nikon mechanisms are amazing, my old 1958 SP and old F have never been serviced, yet their shutter speeds are on the money.

The Nikon rangefinders (S3/4 and SP) have better shutter speed dials, which are easier to use. The focusing wheel does not cut your fingers, and it actually allows for very quick focusing. The big benefit for press photographers was that the Nikon rangefinders could be used with only the right hand. Try shooting your Leica while holding an umbrella, or carrying a bag in your other hand, and you'll understand how convenient this feature is.

At the time these cameras were produced (in the late 50's), Nikon lenses were arguably better than those made by Leica. Nikon used much harder coatings, both internally and externally, as a result, one simply doesn't find haze in old Nikon lenses. Shopping for old Leica lenses is difficult because most sre scratched to a degree, and many suffer from internal haze which cannot be removed without damaging the coatings. Also, there was almost no "sample variation" among old Nikkor lenses, any lens you chose would work properly.

I love and shoot both systems regularly, but I would never say that a Leica M is better than the Nikon S series. Shooting a new SP alongside a new MP, I prefer the Nikon.

 

[Frontman]

Quite interestingly, my Leica M4 quit on me the other day. I went to meet Tom Abrahamson so he could fit a rapidwinder to it. Tom attached the winder, but the camera would not wind or fire. I remembered that my camera bag had fallen off a chair, I didn't think it had fallen far enough to cause damage, but I was wrong.

I had three cameras in the bag, the M4, an Olympus Pen W, and a Nikon SP. only the M4 was damaged. At least I had the other cameras on hand to shoot with.

The best camera for using is the camera which works, and right now, it is not my Leica M.

 

[Range-rover]

That happen to me with the M4 I had, the shutter just stop working. It would have cost
me $300.00 to fix it so I sold it, Right now I'm using a S3, I still get that Leica bug, but the
S3 keeps it at bay.

Range

 

[Vickko]

I use my Nikon SP lots

 

[aoresteen]

I took my brand new Nikon SP 2005 to Iraq with me and used it in the desert. I bought it on my R&R and when I returned to the combat zone had a great time using it 🙂

Left the Leica gear home.

 

[VinceC]

Aoresteen,
Glad you used the SP '05 oversees.
Back in '90-'91, when digital was still an extremely expensive low-rez curiosity, I used an SP and S3 to photograph the first Gulf War. The public affairs rules forbade journalists using flashes in the combat zones. But the uniformed fighters were all over the place with their compact cameras popping in the dusk after firefights.

 

[aoresteen]

Aoresteen,
Glad you used the SP '05 oversees.
Back in '90-'91, when digital was still an extremely expensive low-rez curiosity, I used an SP and S3 to photograph the first Gulf War. The public affairs rules forbade journalists using flashes in the combat zones. But the uniformed fighters were all over the place with their compact cameras popping in the dusk to after firefights.

Those PAO guys/gals are PITA! The looks I got with the SP! One PAO type wanted to know how many megapixels my SP was 😀

A Time photograher came to our FOB. He was using a Leica M6. He was amazed when I showed up with a rangefinder loaded with HP-5. He shot Tri-X.

 

[yossarian123]

I use my Nikon SP lots

How does the SP compare to an S2? I have an S2, I vastly prefer my M's.

 

[Jan Van Laethem]

How does the SP compare to an S2? I have an S2, I vastly prefer my M's.

You'll find the biggest difference between the S2 and SP is in the viewfinder. The S2 only provides a viewfinder for the 50mm lens, but excels in providing you a very bright and uncluttered view.

The SP gives you four focal lengths in the main viewfinder (50 + 85 + 105 + 135 mm). These are projected and parallax corrected. There is a smaller viewfinder just next to it for the 35 and 28 mm focal lengths. With a little practice it is very easy to focus with the main viewfinder/rangefinder and then compose for the 35 or 28 mm lens.

The SP will take the Nikon flash-mounted meter, the S2 doesn't. But take into account that most Nikon meters are now aging and not at all predictable, although they can of course still be repaired and calibrated.

S2 :

http://www.cameraquest.com/nfs2al50.htm

SP :

http://www.cameraquest.com/nikonsp.htm

S2 to S4 :

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/s2_s4.htm

 

[yossarian123]

Thanks for the info.

What I've found is that my S2 does give a slightly bigger view than my M7, really comparable to my M3. The problem is that I have more trouble seeing the full 50mm frame than I do with my M3. It might have something to do with my glasses but I can just barely see the edges of the frame and I usually have to move my eye around to fully see them. The rangefinder window is also tinted a deeper shade of blue than my Ms, which might enhance contrast in the patch but it's a little distracting (in my mind at least).

You'll find the biggest difference between the S2 and SP is in the viewfinder. The S2 only provides a viewfinder for the 50mm lens, but excels in providing you a very bright and uncluttered view.

The SP gives you four focal lengths in the main viewfinder (50 + 85 + 105 + 135 mm). These are projected and parallax corrected. There is a smaller viewfinder just next to it for the 35 and 28 mm focal lengths. With a little practice it is very easy to focus with the main viewfinder/rangefinder and then compose for the 35 or 28 mm lens.

The SP will take the Nikon flash-mounted meter, the S2 doesn't. But take into account that most Nikon meters are now aging and not at all predictable, although they can of course still be repaired and calibrated.

S2 :

http://www.cameraquest.com/nfs2al50.htm

SP :

http://www.cameraquest.com/nikonsp.htm

S2 to S4 :

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/s2_s4.htm

 

[jonmanjiro]

Thanks for the info.

What I've found is that my S2 does give a slightly bigger view than my M7, really comparable to my M3. The problem is that I have more trouble seeing the full 50mm frame than I do with my M3. It might have something to do with my glasses but I can just barely see the edges of the frame and I usually have to move my eye around to fully see them. The rangefinder window is also tinted a deeper shade of blue than my Ms, which might enhance contrast in the patch but it's a little distracting (in my mind at least).

Another big difference is the shutter speed dial. The SP has a standard dial the same as the one used on the Nikon F. There's also more space around the 50mm frame in the SP finder. The finder tint is more of an amber colour - like looking through a mild warming filter (at least it is on my SP 2005).

 

[Tom A]

I use both M and Nikon Rfs. Like both systems. The M's were my work cameras for decades - the Nikon Rf's became my "plantings" some 15 years ago.
Optically, early Nikkor lenses are better than early Leica lenses (35f1.8/50f1.4/85f2 and of course the 105f2.5).I do have a black Olympic, a black S3 Millennium - but missed the third version - a "standard" black S3. Corrected the situation while in japan last month. Numbers match - but it has been modified, F2 advance , "wrong" self timer lever and it does have a titanium shutter. Doesn't really matter - as I am not a collector - just a user.