Leica MP versus Nikon SP

[Bully]

Dear Rangefinder-Friends,

this is my first post and please be generous with my english.
In the meantime I´ve read many threads and I like the way you talk.

But first of all some informations from me:

Since 2001 the Leica R7 (used) is my instrument for photography. I took a 20 year old Summicron 50 and began to learn. After 2 years of practice with this excellent SLR (journeys to norway, sweden and scotland) it got a mechanical companion, a Leica MP (black paint) also with Summicron 50 (both new).
In the meantime I also learned the different way to take pictures with a rangefinder, which is a more difficult job in my opinion.

I like the MP very much, everything seems to be built for a lifetime and because it´s a fully mechanical camera.
But a few months ago I first saw this limited edition 2005 of the black (paint?) Nikon SP and I read some posts from you about this "highlight".

But now my questions:

Could anyone who has both excellent cameras or had the chance to use both explain the main differences and the way of using them? Which one is the "real" king of (mechanical) rangefinders?
Where can I buy the SP and at which price?

After all my opinion is that these two are the quintessence of mechanical rangefinders. Do you agree with my statement?

I would be happy about every post I get!

Greetings
Bully

 

[hoot]

Hey, Bully,

welcome to RFF! Willkommen im Meßsucherkameraforum!

You're in a pretty difficult position, you know. Many people who can't afford a decent camera can always blame the lousy quality of their photos on their equipment. With your lovely combo of R7 and MP, cameras that will probably never go wrong, it is up to YOU and YOUR photographic skills to make the very best of these wonderful tools. Why worry about other cameras? Go out into the world and conquer it with your photography!

Ronnie / hoot

 

[former member]

I have the original issue SP (three), two M3's and an M2. Buy one of each. The MP is the more useful "tool" as many more modern lenses are available. The SP is the coolest camera of all time. With it, you will be buying mostly 1950's optics. Nothing wrong with that, it gives a classic look to your photo's. Buy Both.

Operation wise? The MP has a meter, the Sp does not. The M3 and M2 have better defined RF spots and brighter finders. The SP has a 1x view and a great set of finder lines right to 135mm.

Your English is excellent.

 

[Uncle Bill]

Welcome Bully,
Wow an R7 and a MP, really nice hardware! I would love to see some photos of Scotland sometime as it is the land of my ancesters. I would hunt for a vintage Nikon SP myself but then I shoot with a Leica M3 two stroke from the 1950's and I like my old cameras. Your english is excellent.

Bill

 

[awilder]

You can check with Steve Gandy at Camera Quest about price and availability. If you have an MP and an R7 you may be unhappy with the SP handling if you plan to go back and forth between bodies as all Nikons focus in the opposite direction of all Leicas. Same goes for f stop direction. Another minor point with Nkon RF (and F) is that the position of the shutter release is set further towards the back of the body making it less comfortable to reach with your index finger than the Leica MP. This was corrected on the F2 and F3. Lens availability is more limiited with Nikon RF but not that bad unless your looking for mint condition. Of course if your a big fan of the 105/2.5, Nikon's the way to go. Metering is Leica's biggest plus as well as auto indexing frame lines and slightly better RF optics. Mechanically, I'd give the nod to the Nikon based on previous experience with Nikon F bodies and in particular the attention to detail Nikon has lavished on this particular body. I've always liked the look of the SP especially the new one in black with the 35/1.8. I'm an owner of the current MP but I feel the build quality to be a tad behind the Leicas of the 50s & 60s. That said, the MP with still be a more user friendly picture taker but the SP will make a great show piece, fun to play with and built like a tank. The main reason to get one would be if you've got the money burning a hole in your pocket, love mechanical camera gear, a Nikon fan, nostalgic for the golden age of rangefinder camera design or simply a collector.

 

[former member]

Of course most Nikkor RF lenses are available in LTM mount and those can be adapted to M cameras. Nikon used the Leica standard direction for focus in the LTM version of the lenses, but F-Stop still is in the opposite direction of Leica. I use a 10.5cm F2.5 with my M3, the 90mm framelines do well for the 10.5cm- just use it as 100% coverage. The 8.5cm f2 and 10.5cm F2.5 are available, usually ~$300 or so. Less than a 90mm F2 Summicron.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Did I walk into Photo.net?

 

[CameraQuest]

The new SP 2005 is a near duplicate (except for very minor details) of the original SP of 1957. The SP was far more advanced than the M3 of its time, though you can argue the M3 had the better finder for 50/90/135 lenses. The SP had six built in framelines, something it took Leica only 23 years until 1980 to duplicate in the M4-P. The SP also had a dependable professional motor drive, 35mm 1st pro motor, something which Leica arguably still does not have. Then there is the craftsmanship. The new MP is superb, but the outer fit and finish of the SP 2005 is better -- to my eyes anyway. With its improved features, the current Leica MP is a better picture taking instrument than the SP 2005. Even so, given its historical context, the SP is a cooler camera to me.

 

[Hektor]

You're giving me GAS, Hurry up and sell out of stock.. ;-)

 

[wlewisiii]

Even so, given its historical context, the SP is a cooler camera to me.

Out of curiousity, how do you rate the S3-2000 against these two? As the SP-2005 has been forcing those prices down, I'm thinking more of one of them instead.

Thanks,

William

 

[sgy1962]

I would stick with the MP and put my money into some of the newer Leica optics -- 50mm Summilux ASPH; 75mm Summicron APO, ect. The body is just a box to capture light. The optics are what counts in film photography.

 

[VinceC]

Switching lenses with an SP or any Nikon rangefinder takes a bit of learning. In general, they have to be focused to infinity and lined up with a red dot. If you're in too much of a hurry and try to quickly mount non-50mm lens that is set to close-focus, you can accidently jam it onto the camera.

Going with the SP, you are confining yourself mainly to 50-year-old lenses. They are fantastic but not modern. They tend to be less expensive than their Leica counterparts, but they are still collectible and not cheap. Some lenses are all but impossible to obtain. The 21mm is highly collectible and sells for as much as an SP 2005, or more. The original 25mm Nikkor is also scarce and costly. The 50mm f/1.1 and 85mm f/1.5 are big, costly and reportedly show their optical age in use. The lenses can also be very heavy because they come from an era where weight signified quality, and the amount of brass is generous. The all-black 105mm weighs as much as the camera itself, 18 ounces or 500 grams. Chrome versions of the other lenses are easier to finder but always weigh more than the black version. The black versions tend to cost 50 to 100 percent more than their chrome counterparts but are optically the same.

The only difference between the SP and the S3 is the finder. The SP comes with its unique six-lens finder (actually this has parallax-adjusting frames for 50-85-105-135, plus a second mini-finder for 35 and 28mm). The S3 has a larger, brighter finder with frame lines for 35 - 50 - 105mm. All three are always visible, and the lines are etched translucent silvery white. There are also some small marks to indicate parallax at close focus. This makes for a very busy finder. I prefer it over the SP for shooting the 35mm and 50mm lenses, but not everyone likes the S3.

If you've ever handled a Nikon F, the controls on the SP and S3 are identical, but the camera bodies are slightly smaller.

 

[awilder]

Regarding the S3-2000, an owner mentioned a tendency for the 50/1.4 to accidently dismount when turning the aperture ring or maybe it was the lens barrel on rapid focus. Anyone hear such a thing?

 

[former member]

Never had that happen! The lens has a locking tab on it. If the tab breaks off, it is a problem. I have filed some of the locking tabs on the Jupiter and Helios-103 to work on the Nikon. The FSU lenses have a locking tab that is too thick for the Nikons.