Mark Hansen comment on Nikon RF

P

Platinum RF

Well-known
Local time
6:06 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
529
http://www.zeissikonrolleirepair.com/page04.html

My Take on Nikon RF Cameras:
As a repair person I take a keen interest in the used market and one area that has been of particularly fascinating is the Nikon Range Finder market. The entire line of cameras including the SP suffer from the same basic flaw as the Leica cameras--a cloth shutter curtain, and a range finder with a short base. The basic camera is designed to look like a Contax II, but the shutter is a pure rip off of a Leica design, to keep things simple. This is where the similarities between the German products and the Japanese knock off end. The built quality is like many price point cameras from Nippon--kind of cheap, with loads of soft brass parts, and little or no hardened parts. They will take some nice pictures, but don't expect them to last as long as the German cameras, because they won't.
So, considering the above, it is a real mystery to me why they continue to fetch such high prices on the used market? The only thing I can think of is that people are familiar with the name and so they feel safe purchasing the cameras; or perhaps they already have a Nikon SLR and are just brand loyal. Keeping the built quality in mind, they could be a good investment though, as those being used are doomed to wear out soon enough.
So forget Nikon, save money, and go Contax IIa, or Leica S.M!
 
Can't speak to the Leicas, as I've never owned one, but the Nikon RFs seem to me to be way more durable than the Contax counterparts. That shutter mechanism on the Contax is way too complicated to hold up over decades without extensive service.
 
Platinum RF said:
From Mark Hansen:

The built quality is like many price point cameras from Nippon--kind of cheap, with loads of soft brass parts, and little or no hardened parts. They will take some nice pictures, but don't expect them to last as long as the German cameras, because they won't.

...or perhaps they already have a Nikon SLR and are just brand loyal. Keeping the built quality in mind, they could be a good investment though, as those being used are doomed to wear out soon enough.
So forget Nikon, save money, and go Contax IIa, or Leica S.M!
Click to expand...

I thought the S3-SP had the same shutter mechanism used in the Nikon F (http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-f/). Yeah, those F's sure have a bad reputation for 'build quality'. And who would be 'brand loyal' when the Nikon F's just fall apart, unlike Mark's favorites? ;)

My perfect rangefinder would have a Leica rangefinder with a Nikon shutter set up. I'm just one data point, but the S2 and SP I had just kept cranking away while my Leica bodies have required more frequent shutter adjustment/tuning, even after thorough and expensive clean-lubricate-adjust by the big names.

The quoted endurance testing of 100K actuations mentioned above for Nikon S and F shutters should be fine for most non-professional users, I think.
 
... and I always wondered why somebody would replace the precious cloth - shutter of his Nikon SP, S2, S3 with some ordinary mass-production titanium-foil shutter from a Nikon F or F2 ... :eek:
 
This is not a new posting on his website. See also (same page) his comment on Leicas, which I'm sure will raise eyebrows here.

Even assuming the Contaxes are beautifully made "under the hood," the proof is how many of them are working properly now compared to the Leicas.
 
Mr. Hansen's comments leave me frankly surprised, as my experience with Nikon cameras is vastly different from his.
I've got three vintage Nikon rangefinder cameras, an SP and two S3s, all purchased used; one from a fellow photographer, one on ebay, and one a Bargain grade body from KEH. In all three cases the cameras functioned right out of the box and have given me years of trouble free service, exactly like my beater F and F2, they all just keep on working.
 
bobkonos said:
Phew...one less repair person I have to think about using.
Click to expand...

From everything I have read and heard about Mark he is honest, and very skilled , and goes beyond what some of the other repair people do. We are all entitled to our opinions and to brand loyalty, which at times is blinding ; and can lead us to making bad choices on what really is a better product. You might be glad that someone has the where with all to go out on a limb and speak his mind.

Strictly your loss.

Tom
 
Mark has opinions like everyone else, and some of them are sure to raise eyebrows. I don't agree with all of them, especially concerning Leica rangefinders. But I've dealt with Mr. Hansen with Rolleiflexes and I think a Zeiss TLR and he's quite knowledgable and good with those machines. In all my dealings with him he's been super nice and has shared his knowledge--and his opinions--really graciously.

At the time when I was shooting TLRs, I went to Karl Bryan for work on my Autocord, and Mark for work on my Rolleiflexes. He always treated me right. I just thought I'd share that so people don't judge him too harshly.
 
I agree that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. My experience with Nikon RFs is very different from his, but I have not been inside any. I loved my S2 with it's cloth curtain and have to admit I've lusted after titanium shutters of the S3 and SP, not to mention the same handling as my F/F2. For me it was not just the glass, though that would have been enough. Combined both glass and handling and IMHO you have a world class camera.

B2 (;->
 
I have a couple of quite old Nikon S3 cameras, and they are actually older than any of my Leica cameras, save my M3, but unlike my Leicas, the cloth shutter curtains in my Nikons still look fresh and are perfectly light tight. in addition, I have never had to have the rangefinder or shutter speeds adjusted in my Nikon rangefinders. So far, I have had to replace both curtains in both of my Leica M4's, and one curtain in my M3, and all of my Leica M's have required a CLA at one time or another. I have my dislikes about Nikon rangefinders, but reliability and quality are not among them.
 
Have no basis to speak to the issues here, except one.

Have no basis to speak to the issues here, except one.

It's true that the base leg of the Nikon rangefinders is about half as long as the rangefinder on the Contax II and others, including the Kiev. The base leg on the Contax is nearly the full width of the camera.

Now I can imagine the shorter base leg is not a real issue on the 50mm lens, even though the long base leg would be a bit more accurate. Where the long base leg really pays off in on longer focal lengths like 85-100mm.

The question is, since the Nikon appears to be a fairly accurate copy of the Contax other than the shutter, why did they shorten the RF base leg so severely. Once that question comes up, it leaves an opening for what other areas may have been substandard.

Just sayin'

Give the guy a break. They're only cameras.

And am I putting my Kiev up against the Nikon... not hardly, but it shows a verifiable difference where the Nikon was slightly
un-engineered in the design phase.
 
I just compared the Nikon rangefinder base with my other cameras and found it to be a bit wider than the Canon 7, quite a bit wider than the Canon L, P, and VT cameras, and much wider than any of the fixed-lens rangefinder cameras which I have. I don't think it is an issue worthy of mention. And when comparing the viewfinder of my S3 to my Contax II, I don't believe the extra base overcomes the dimness and squintiness of the Contax finder.
 
> I assume the Contax RFs have longer base lengths.

Yes but this regards the prewar Contax RFs (II and III) only.

The postwar Contax models have the same baselength as the Nikon - ditto for the Leica M. And yes this is more than enough.

I'm now waiting for Platinum RF's next post in this thread, which will probably regard the death of film, and all professional (get : actual and serious) photographers having switched to digital already. :D
 
...I really do not know who he is trying to convince with this posting? It would seem that he could expect a rather negative response to his attack on such a beloved product? Just what was his intention? Perhaps nothing more than an attention gathering post. As for his ability to impart gracious opinions he did not do so here. When I first read this my first reaction was to, ...well, I won't go there but still this arrogant posting has done more harm than good for him in this photographers mind. ...bless his heart. :)
 
Looking at Mr Hansen's website I note that he seems unable even to spell correctly the names of several cameras . . .

I especially like "... Rolleimajic (which spell check humorously corrects to Problematic) I and II..." [my added emphasis]

His other comments are often equally amusing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom