Are the Nikon S3 2002 and Nikon SP 2005 not made of brass?

[tyleric]

Hello RFF members, I had a mint Nikon SP 2005 years before and I sold it with many regrets. Now I am searching for a black Nikon SP or Nikon S3. Just came across a used Nikon SP 2005 and I found that the scratched parts are not showing brass underneath the paint. It makes me wonder if it is really a "black paint" camera. May I know any experience for those two limited edition cameras from you guys? Are they not made of brass and won't show brassing like the original black paint Nikon S series bodies? Many Thanks!

 

[CameraQuest]

scratch deeper, its brass

 

[jonmanjiro]

scratch deeper

that's exactly what i was thinking 😀

 

[Beemermark]

scratch deeper, its brass

Take a screwdriver and scratch real hard -🙂

 

[tyleric]

Thank you for the replies... Sorry if it is looking like a silly question! It's quite rare to see some photos of the brassing Nikon SP 2005 and S3 2002 image on the internet I guess. Anyway, may I know what is the preference of you guys, as for a user, the limited edition of SP/S3 or the original SP/S3? Are the newer limited edition bodies gives a better and smoother operation? Any improvement, like better viewfinder from the previous old bodies? Many thanks again!

 

[keytarjunkie]

Thank you for the replies... Sorry if it is looking like a silly question! It's quite rare to see some photos of the brassing Nikon SP 2005 and S3 2002 image on the internet I guess. Anyway, may I know what is the preference of you guys, as for a user, the limited edition of SP/S3 or the original SP/S3? Are the newer limited edition bodies gives a better and smoother operation? Any improvement, like better viewfinder from the previous old bodies? Many thanks again!

Here's one with wear - you can see the brass above the viewfinder. It is pretty hard to find other photos though.

The newer ones are not smoother, in my experience. But I'm still working on breaking mine in. I'll let you know after a few hundred rolls. As for the viewfinder, the S3 Limited has thicker brightline frames than the original. Some like this and others don't. I'm not sure if there are any updated coatings or materials, but AFAIK they're all pretty similar. The biggest difference will be the possibilities of fungus, haze, and separation in the older bodies that the newer ones likely won't have (yet). Ebay is a graveyard of original SP's and S3's in Japan with bad viewfinders.

 

[tyleric]

Here's one with wear - you can see the brass above the viewfinder. It is pretty hard to find other photos though.

The newer ones are not smoother, in my experience. But I'm still working on breaking mine in. I'll let you know after a few hundred rolls. As for the viewfinder, the S3 Limited has thicker brightline frames than the original. Some like this and others don't. I'm not sure if there are any updated coatings or materials, but AFAIK they're all pretty similar. The biggest difference will be the possibilities of fungus, haze, and separation in the older bodies that the newer ones likely won't have (yet). Ebay is a graveyard of original SP's and S3's in Japan with bad viewfinders.

😛 Thank you for your reply!! Yet I am still in consideration between a SP or S3. I will probably just go for a fair condition of SP or S3 in fair condition and price.

 

[Erik van Straten]

My S2 brasses, but it is a very old camera, 1956. It is also extremely smooth. The paint does not bubble as on M-Leicas of the same period.

Erik.

 

[jonmanjiro]

I'm not sure if there are any updated coatings or materials, but AFAIK they're all pretty similar.

The optics in the reissue finders are multicoated and are glued together with modern optical glue. Light transmission was so improved with the SP 2005 finder that Nikon initially had a lot of trouble preventing unwanted flare. They solved the problem by hand painting each finder optical block with a special black paint. There used to be a good article on the SP 2005 on the Nikon website that covered this. Not sure if its still there though.

That said, a vintage SP with a finder that is clean and in good shape (both are critical) can be focused just as easily as an SP 2005. I assume the same applies to the reissue and vintage S3. I much prefer the SP over the S3 as a shooter though, and sold off my S3 cameras years ago.

 

[Highway 61]

That said, a vintage SP with a finder that is clean and in good shape (both are critical) can be focused just as easily as an SP 2005. I assume the same applies to the reissue and vintage S3. I much prefer the SP over the S3 as a shooter though, and sold off my S3 cameras years ago.

I can confirm that a vintage S3 with a clean and in good shape finder can be focused as easily as an S3 2000. Dare I say, it can almost be focused easier, at the end of the day. Both the two vintage S3s which I owned (still own one) had a finder that was more pleasant to use than the S3 2000 which I re-sold eventually, rangefinder patch wise. Plus, I didn't really like the thick, Cosina-like framelines of the S3 2000 finder.

 

[raid]

I still have not used my mint S3-2000. No brass shown.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I asked one photog (he was posting above average pictures in RFF gallery for sometime) why he switched from one of those late Nikons to Leica. He told me Nikon body was kind of hollow in feel.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I asked one photog (he was posting above average pictures in RFF gallery for sometime) why he switched from one of those late Nikons to Leica. He told me Nikon body was kind of hollow in feel.

They feel a bit hollow, true, the transport lever of the S2 above all. And they have that clumsy Contax-bayonet. But they are extremely reliable.

They also have a slightly different frame size, not 36x24mm but 35.5x24mm. Very convenient when cutting the developed film because there is more space between the frames.

NikonS2/SSkopar50mmf/2.5/TMY400/AdoxMCC110

Erik.

 

[Highway 61]

They also have a slightly different frame size, not 36x24mm but 35.5x24mm. Very convenient when cutting the developed film because there is more space between the frames.

Hmmm. I just measured my Nikon S3 (made in 1958) film frame and it is a solid 24.0mm x 36.0mm. The space between the frames is indeed large enough so that you can cut your negatives strips without any hassle, but I'd rather think this is due to the film advance geartrain design. Actually, unless you can keep the film leader very short by loading the film in very subdued light or even in the dark, it is difficult to shoot more than 36 frames with a Nikon rangefinder, in general.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Hmmm. I just measured my Nikon S3 (made in 1958) film frame and it is a solid 24.0mm x 36.0mm. The space between the frames is indeed large enough so that you can cut your negatives strips without any hassle, but I'd rather think this is due to the film advance geartrain design. Actually, unless you can keep the film leader very short by loading the film in very subdued light or even in the dark, it is difficult to shoot more than 36 frames with a Nikon rangefinder, in general.

Only the S2 has this different frame size AFAIK, not the S3 or the SP. The earlier Nikon cameras, before the S2, have completely different sizes to meet the photo paper size in Japan in the early fifties.

With older Leicas I always have difficulties when cutting the negatives, the images are so close together.

More recent Leicas have more space between the negatives.

I always print the whole negative. When having pictures taken with a Leica and taken with the S2 together, the difference is easily seen. The Nikon pictures work more squarish wile the Leica pictures look more like a bath towel.

Erik.

 

[Highway 61]

Only the S2 has this different frame size AFAIK, not the S3 or the SP. The earlier Nikon cameras, before the S2, have completely different sizes to meet the photo paper size in Japan in the early fifties.

The Nikon One and the Nikon M had a 24 x 32 frame. The Nikon S had a 24 x 34 frame. The S2 was the first to have a 24 x 36 frame. Yours being an actual 24 x 35.5 might be due to a machining artefact. CNC machining didn't exist back then. For instance, I have two Zeiss Ikonta 521/16 6 x 6 folding cameras. One has a film gate noticeably smaller than the other, with one rounded corner, while the other has four perfect square angles and a larger film frame. Both were made at about the same time.

I always print the whole negative. When having pictures taken with a Leica and taken with the S2 together, the difference is easily seen. The Nikon pictures work more squarish wile the Leica pictures look more like a bath towel.

I always print the whole negative too, printing a black border : I have filed down my enlargers' film carriers. I have lots of prints, off several 135 format cameras (Contax rangefinders, Nikon rangefinders, Nikon SLRs, screwmount and M Leicas, Minox 35, Rollei 35...). All look rectangular with a 2/3 ratio. Even if your S2 has a 35.5 x 24 film frame I can't really see how the prints would look squarish. The nice print of the photo of Rome (taken with a Leica M3) you sent to me doesn't look like a bath towel even side by side with my own prints (printed the exact same size with the very same border BTW). 😉

I have to check my cameras by measuring their film gate but from darkroom memories I would say that both my two Nikon S2 (chrome finish, "chrome dial" and "black dial") don't have smaller frames than my S3 and SP. I often got surprised with how big the image was, on negatives coming from those cameras. I will double-check them asap. This is interesting.

 

[keytarjunkie]

I thought the S2, S3, S4, SP, and F were all slightly shorter than 36mm; the F2 was Nikon's first truly 24x36mm camera in the professional line. And truth be told, my negatives from these cameras are not quite 2x3 ratio (according to photoshop). But you all are generally more knowledgeable than I.

 

[jonmanjiro]

The Nikon One and the Nikon M had a 24 x 32 frame. The Nikon S had a 24 x 34 frame. The S2 was the first to have a 24 x 36 frame. Yours being an actual 24 x 35.5 might be due to a machining artefact.

FWIW Rotoloni surmises in his rangefinder book (third edition) that the Nikon S2 film gate may be "35.5mm?" (complete with question mark).

My assumption has always been that the actual S2 film gate is 36mm wide, but the baffles around the shutter towards the mount are a little deeper(?) than Leica cameras so cut off more incoming light along the vertical edges of the negative to create the "35.5mm" wide effect. I haven't confirmed this with actual measurements though.

Frame spacing varies according to focal length, spacing is narrower with wider lenses (incoming light at the edges comes in at a more extreme angle so gets deeper in behind the light baffles) and wider with longer lenses.

 

[css9450]

With older Leicas I always have difficulties when cutting the negatives, the images are so close together.

I have a very old Voighlander where each image touches the ones adjacent to it, which is REALLY tedious when I cut the negatives into strips to fit the plastic sleeves!

I should probably measure the picture area and see if it is 36mm or something larger; if the former it suggests the frame spacing is a little on the shy side.

 

[keytarjunkie]

Okay. Here's an image from my S3 Limited with a red 2x3 box on top of it. Apologies that the negative is not ~completely~ flat, but you get the idea. My F has the same aspect ratio.