Nikon S2 vs Nikon S3?

My S2 and black 1.4 are at the repairman. Finally got tired of the creaky focusing noise and the 1/30th and below being finicky.
 
AGO_rear.jpg


Toronto, ON, August 2010.

Nikon S3, W-Nikkor-C 28mm f/3.5, vintage 2,8cm Nikon external finder, Fuji Provia 100F.
 
Nicolas, here, in The Netherlands, your pictures do not show up. I get a message from "Google Safe Browsing" instead:

"tripod484.free.fr is gerapporteerd als een website die kwaadwillende software bevat. U kunt een detectieprobleem rapporteren of het risico negeren en deze onveilige website bezoeken."

"tripod484.free.fr has been reported as a website that contains malicious software. You can report a detection problem or ignore the risk and visit this unsafe website."

Erik.
 
nikon s2 s3 sp

nikon s2 s3 sp

over the last 47 years since I started shooting rangefinder cameras

I have found the s2 my companion , it was with me when I hitchhiked across many states in 1980

if you wear glasses the s3 is not as nice ,

although with the s2 there is only one reflected bright line 50mm,and there are no parrelex marks -- you have to think more about frameing -however the rf spot is very bright and all the lenses are about as great as you need for film .

in the end the lens focuses on the film , the camera is just a box that exposes the film for the correct time .

the film doesn't know if the camera is black or chrome -- the film doesn't know if the lens is a rare type

just shoot
 
Thank you, Pan!

I agree with enasniearth that the S2 is the nicest of the Nikon rangefinders, but although the film does not see if the camera is black or chrome, I prefer black.

Erik.
 
For the sake of argument, the Nikon S4 is the true improved S2:

-keeps the manual film counter, lack of self timer
-improved shutter speed dial and auto flash sync
-50mm brightlines with added 105mm marks - and parallax notches for both - more useful than the S2 but less busy than the S3
 
Erik van Straten said:
Thank you, Pan!

I agree with enasniearth that the S2 is the nicest of the Nikon rangefinders, but although the film does not see if the camera is black or chrome, I prefer black.

Erik.
Click to expand...

I do love the original black paint cameras however they are beyond the means of most folks ,
I think if we are going to pass on the enthusiasm we have had for the nikon rangefinders it doesn't matter what one shoots film with , only that it is a nikon
 
Erik van Straten said:
Nicolas, here, in The Netherlands your pictures do not show up. I get a message from "Google Safe Browsing" instead:

"tripod484.free.fr is gerapporteerd als een website die kwaadwillende software bevat. U kunt een detectieprobleem rapporteren of het risico negeren en deze onveilige website bezoeken."

"tripod484.free.fr has been reported as a website that contains malicious software. You can report a detection problem or ignore the risk and visit this unsafe website."

Erik.
Click to expand...
This is a hoax, happens randomly. This webpage directory in which my pictures are hosted and linked to is a personal folder I am the only person to have some rights on and it is with no embedded software at all. It just cannot contain anything malicious. There are image files I uploaded myself in it only.

If you use Firefox to read this thread instead of a Google-made browser (i.e., Chrome) then you should see the photos.
 
I always use Firefox! But no photos from you, unfortunately. But if I click on the "broken link symbol" the message comes from Google, apparently. How this is possible, don't ask me.

Can't you load them up with Flickr?

Erik.
 
I always use Firefox. This is the message I get: tripod484.free.fr is gerapporteerd als een website die kwaadwillende software bevat. U kunt een detectieprobleem rapporteren of het risico negeren en deze onveilige website bezoeken.

Lees meer over schadelijke webinhoud, waaronder virussen en andere malware, en het beschermen van uw computer op StopBadware.org. Lees meer over bescherming tegen phishing en malware van Firefox op support.mozilla.org.

Translated:
tripod484.free.fr has been reported as a website that contains malicious software. You can report a detection problem or ignore the risk and visit this unsafe website.

"Read more about harmful web content, including viruses and other malware, and protecting your computer at StopBadware.org. Read more about protection against phishing and malware from Firefox at support.mozilla.org."


Erik.
 
Using Firefox, Highway 61 photos show for me only as a small broken icon while those from most other users are fine. When looking at the same thread using Apple Safari, the photos show correctly in the thread. A puzzle.
 
Erik van Straten said:
"Read more about harmful web content, including viruses and other malware, and protecting your computer at StopBadware.org. Read more about protection against phishing and malware from Firefox at support.mozilla.org."
Click to expand...
A few second thoughts about this boring little problem.

At the end of the day, Firefox (depending on its version and how it's been setup) may display this indeed and not only in The Netherlands, true (see below). But this is Google which initially blacklists the webpage at which is hosted my personal folder "tripod484.free.fr/rff" and reports it to the StopBadware.org servers.

This is typical of a false-true positive to malicious webdata etc.
The "tripod484" data storage-sharing space was created by me long ago. Why this name ? Because at that time my Gitzo tripod was in front of me. And the 484 number has to do with personal events of mine. That's it. In the "/rff" folder are hosted photos, drawings and repair manuals I used to share with RFFers since my registration here. Nothing else and no software whatsoever. I upload my personal data there using an FTP software I am the only one to use, there is a password to do the uploads and this is done from an immune personal machine using a securized personal Internet connection.

I guess the "free.fr" domain name server may now be blacklisted by Google because it's a domain name server, provided to individuals who use it to store and share some data online, by an independent Internet provider not being keen to get under control of one of the big GAFA whatsoever.

This is probably to force people to use controlled solutions like FB, Google Drive, SmugMug, Pinterest, Instagram etc.

My Flickr account has reached its 1,000 photos limit and so far I leave it as it is. I could open another John Doe account for sure, just for the sake of getting some BBCode links to post photos here, but is it really worth it ?

I have a smartphone working with Android (on which this thread displays without any problem, my photos included - go figure) so I have a Google Drive account. I can think of using this storage-sharing space to share photos here at the RFF if this dumb problem lasts.

Like Doug said, if you stay a bit farer from any Google thing (using a 100% Apple background for instance) for browsing, no problem then. Some friends of mine using an iPad tell me they can see the photos with no hassle.

With Firefox, if you are brave enough to unmark the box "Block the harmful websites" in the "Security" paragraph of the "Private life and security" options menu for a while, you will realize that my photos display in this thread instantly, instead of the "broken link" small icons. Those are 864x664 "saved for the web" jpeg files weighting less than 300KB each, which cannot corrupt anything.

Well, I now have reported a "false-true positive" to Google through the Firefox form (not too sure whether it will work, or not).

Addendum : Erik's photo at post #66 is a gem actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom