Nikon Rangefinder Vs. Canon Rangefinders Pros and Cons??

Okay, That's it.

The 5cm F1.4 Olympic Nikkor is the same optical formula as the Canon 50mm F0.95.

The Nikkor 5cm F1.1 was a nine-element lens, so even more light loss than the Canon.

Canon 7 with Canon 50mm F0.95 Wide-Open. Nikki "Tough-Day at Pre-K", and

Sunset. That would be the Sun in the picture, far right hand side. I positioned it there to test for flare and internal reflections.
 
Last edited:
VinceC said:
>>with nikon, it's a contax wannbe, isn't it?<<

Not really. In the 1950s, Nikon made the cameras that Contax should have made but didn't. The Nikon SP is a modern rangefinder camera that, except for its lack of light-meter and AE mode, holds its own with any M-series Leica. The Contax IIa and IIIa were good cameras with magnificent lenses, but no Nikon SP user ever dreams of one day stepping up to a Contax. In fact, from the usability point of view, even the Nikon S2 is a big step up from the Contax II/IIa. And I'm not going to dredge up the 1950s controversy about whether or not Nikkor lenses were better than Zeiss or merely just as good (suffice to say that range and variety of focal lengths and maximum apertures all surpassed Zeiss).
Click to expand...


i stand, informed!
thanks.
 
NIKON KIU said:
Lets not forget something, this is a rangefinder forum, if I wanted to have a camera with a light meter or a camera to change lenses with, I'd be posting in an SLR forum. Fact of the matter is, vintage rangefinder cameras are not practical, easy to use or cheap. The man wants to spend $550 for a camera and lens...go for the Nikon S2...who cares about parralex correction, we are not using SLRs here are we?
I the old days, the photo guys didn't change lenses in the field, they simply hung two or three camera from their necks with different lenses attached...thats the way to go!
Kiu
Click to expand...


holy crap, i agree with the crazy guy!!!!
;)
 
Thanks for the .95 shots Brian. That sunset picture is wonderful - that alone makes me wish I had the money for that Bargain one KEH has right now...

BTW, I use the selenium meter on mine regularly as well. The shot of John with the Sweeney/Jupiter was metered that way. Then, I like selenum meters and really need to get my PR-1 adjusted.

William
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NIKON KIU said:
On the other hand Buying a Nikon Assures that you CAN NOT use those inferior lenses :rolleyes:
Kiu
Click to expand...
I've heard it's a pain to use Contax lenses on Nikon S bodies if you're into focus accuracy. I didn't know that Nikon lovers thought of Contax lenses as inferior. Then again, anything not Nikon is frowned-upon, right?
 
gabriel, it must be embarrassing to have to use that inferior glass. and on a more imprtant note and meaning absolutley no disrespect...but i have fallen instantly in love with that gorgeous woman in the second photo.
no matter that she could be my granddaughter:)

joe
 
Milky soft

Milky soft

FrankS said:
That leaf shot, into the sun, is gorgeous!
Click to expand...
Yes , soooo milky soft...
Hey people....Man asked his question on the NIKON forum, RIGHT?
look at his original post....what name does it start with? It sure isn't Canon.
If I was out trying to buy a $550 camera and someone suggested a Canone@# for a fraction of what I wanted to spend... I be offended!!
Same story with the Canon 7... did the man ask about a $300 camera?
Here is my final say....For $550 grab a Nikon S2 or may be try that Lei@# brand.
Kiu
 
Focussing the Zeiss lenses on a Nikon S2 is easy once you re-shim the helical for it, and then recalibrate the Rangefinder. I did that for one of my 5 S2's.
 
It's not clear to me how images from Leica lenses came to be posted in a Nikon forum, though I do tend to be an inclusive sort of person. In fairness, here are some images from 1950s Nikkor lenses.
 
back alley said:
gabriel, it must be embarrassing to have to use that inferior glass. and on a more imprtant note and meaning absolutley no disrespect...but i have fallen instantly in love with that gorgeous woman in the second photo.
no matter that she could be my granddaughter:)
Click to expand...

The shame knows no boundaries. Imagine the stigma of a Jupiter-3! I'm anxiously waiting to get a negative with some shots taken with a 'cron, J-3 and the 'lux.

Don't worry Joe: no dis taken. She's a good friend of mine; they're both married to each other (the two in the picture). She is a very good looking gal. I'll tell her you said "hi" ;)
 
VinceC said:
It's not clear to me how images from Leica lenses came to be posted in a Nikon forum
Click to expand...
I apologize. I didn't know there was a specific rule to the Nikon area. I thought this was the Rangefinder Forum as a whole.

I thought it was on-topic (I thought I read something about a Canon rangefinder somewhere, which I've been informed takes LTM lenses, which to my knowledge includes Leica lenses).

My bad. Inclusiveness noted, though.
 
Well, we did "Film is Dead" a few weeks ago. Someone start a user vs fondler thread. Please.

In all fairness to "Man," I believe he started the thread with a sincere desire for pros and cons about the two RF systems and got some good replies.
 
Gabrielma,
I actually like your photos quite a bit.
And there are no rules in the Nikon area, except that you respect and use (or at least think about using) wonderful cameras of any pedigree. (For, aren't all cameras wonderful in some way or another?)
 
I also read this as a pro's and con's of each system. With the Canon, and Leica for that matter, you have a wide-selection of lenses. I keep a Nikkor on one Canon and a Summarit on the other. Fitting a Leica lens onto a Nikon Body will take some real doing.

The S2 is a superb camera, and great for a 50mm lens. Side-by-side, the finder of the S2 seems a bit clearer and less flare-prone than the Canon VI-t, the closest thing to a Canon P that I have. The S3 is easier for use with additional lenses, with lines for the 35-50-105. The finder of the S3 and 1x setting of the VI-T are too close to call. For the price of the S2 with 50/1.4, a buyer can get a Canon 7 or P, 50/1.4, and a 35/2.8. The $400 extra that an S3 will cost over an S2 translates to an 85/2 and 135/3.5 in LTM.

I can't bring myself to telling someone to buy a camera just because it has "Nikon" written on it. Even when working my way through school on commissions at a Camera Shop, almost 30 years ago. Handle a Nikon RF, and handle a Canon 7 or Canon P. Then decide for yourself. Also handle a Leica M3 or M2. You are within "striking distance" of a user M3 or M2.

And for the Canon 50/f0.95? Best $200 lens I ever bought.
 
Last edited:
From my Third Post on RFF:

"If you like shooting with "Classic Glass", the Nikon Rangefinders will run you less than a similarly equipped Leica. It is true that the collector's that buy them up to lock them in drawers drive the prices up on the best looking ones. BUT if someone actually used it, got a few dings in it, the prices become affordable. The prices of good user S3's have come down under $1K with the re-issue of the new one. S2 prices are below $500. The 1x magnification viewfinder spoils you. And lens prices for the Nikons are reasonable. I have picked up an 8.5cm F2 for under $200; a 5cm f1.4 for under $100; a 13.5cm f3.5 Black/Chrome for under $50. It's hard to find Leica glass nearly that cheap. If a lens does not have some wierd serial number on it, stamped MIOJ, in-the-box, etc, it actually gets affordable. The lenses are sharp and contrasty; and have a personality that is different from Canon and Leica glass from the same period."

I still stand by that remark.

From the thread:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2882#post2882

Which also has some shots of my two near mint SP's in it, one was sent to Shintaro for body repair and paint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom