Nikon S3 2000

kena

kena

Established
Local time
1:08 PM
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
123
I've been on the hunt for an S3 2000 kit for a while now and had a few questions. From my research am i correct that these were produced in limited numbers for the japanese market and went for $6000 new?
I've seen lots of like new or mint on Ebay for 1500-1800 range. Why has the price on these plummeted? There is a black paint version for 2500 BIN. Seems like a great deal. Am I missing something? Thanks for any input, Ken
 
You are correct, the S3 2000 was produced in limited numbers, initially in a chrome body version. In the year 2002 Nikon produced a black body version to meet demand. I can't confirm the 6,000 USD price, but it was certainly a lot more expensive than the current second hand price is. Production is estimated at 8,000 units for the chrome S3 and at 2,000 units for the black S3.

This camera was a showcase for Nikon and a tribute to their past rangefinder line. The last Nikon rangefinders were produced in the early 1960s, from 1959 onwards the reflex F system took over and was met with a huge commercial success.

Just to be a bit more complete and give you another option, there is also the Nikon SP 2005. Unlike the S3 2000, which comes with the 50mm lens, the SP 2005 comes with the 35mm f/1.8 lens, which is the fastest wide angle Nikon ever produced for their rangefinder line. The SP 2005 was 8,000 USD new and produced in a limited batch of 2,500 camera kits, where the camera serial number matches the lens serial number.

These were mainly sold on the Japanese market, although I think some 200 SP 2005 kits were officially imported into the US. I'm not sure if they were available in other countries.

Here you can read a bit more about both "reissues". I think that the efforts at designing these reissues and the hand assembly of the cameras, as outlined in both articles, will explain their high retail prices when new.

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-s3/

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-sp/
 
The Nikon SP 2005 current value is also lower than the price at introduction. I've seen complete sets (SP, 35/1.8/ case/box) selling for between $4500-5500. I guess not much of a demand. Check out the cameraquest website.
 
The price on these kits has fallen for a few reasons. First, most of the decline has occurred during the last 5 years or so, and the world's economies have not exactly been rosy during this time. Next, film cameras are simply getting cheaper because of digital. Lastly, Nikon rangefinders aren't Leicas, and don't have the same perceived value.
 
Frontman said:
The price on these kits has fallen for a few reasons. First, most of the decline has occurred during the last 5 years or so, and the world's economies have not exactly been rosy during this time. Next, film cameras are simply getting cheaper because of digital. Lastly, Nikon rangefinders aren't Leicas, and don't have the same perceived value.
Click to expand...

I think when these cameras were first issued, many people thought they would become collectibles and so were snapped up as investments. Now that it has become apparent that they're not collectible and so not a good investment, but rather just good, new shooters, the prices have fallen as very few potential buyers are willing to pay the unrealistic prices being asked.
And as for them not being Leicas? They certainly aren't, and thank goodness for that.
 
I'd say the prices fell to the point that users could purchase them (somewhat cheaper than new film Leica body-lens outfits) then stopped falling. That would be basic market forces coupled with the general economic downturn. The S3-2000 kits were widely sold in the U.S. I purchased my silver camera new from B&H photo for about $2,300 six or seven years ago. They might eventually be collectible, but that would a long time from now -- decades perhaps -- when the market realizes that these were handmade with enormous respect as the last batch of mechanical cameras before the tech team went entirely digital.
 
I agree with Vince. What I saw in Japan was that S3 2000 kits basically remained on dealer shelves until prices came down enough that users started buying them. There was absolutely no rush of people snapping them up as investments to stash away in collections.

Compared to Leica users, the pool of Nikon rangefinder users is tiny. My guess is that most buyers of these kits are actually Leica shooters who are curious about trying something a bit different from what they're already shooting with.
 
I've always regreted that I can't get along with Nikon's rangefinders because they are definitely one of the best looking cameras ever made.
 
The only difficulty I experience is that they focus 'backwards' from Leicas. I like the focusing wheel.

I've been using S3 for film because it feels different from digital Leica. If I used M4 instead of S3 for film, I'd probably open the bottom without rewinding – thinking I was taking out the SD card.
 
Another reason for the drop in Nikon Rf values is that the lenses does not have a simple digital platform for them. The M-mount is almost an industry standard today with multiple manufacturers using it. Yes, I know you can get adapters etc - but that is not very attractive for users. I don't mind the drop in the prices - has alowed my to find lenses that were "collectibles" and expensive to drop to a reasonable value. To buy cameras as an "investment" is not that good idea - buy them to use instead, much more fun!
 
Yes, and I was surprised to find out how many of those lenses, even with the adapter, won't go on a Leica M9 / M8.

e.g. the Nikon 5cm f1.1 and 3.5cm f1.8 have rear elements that interfere with the rangefinder.

I sold my 2.5cm f4 because it can't even focus with the adapter on an M9.

I haven't confirmed whether I can use the 2.1cm f4 yet (I think I can).




Tom A said:
Another reason for the drop in Nikon Rf values is that the lenses does not have a simple digital platform for them. The M-mount is almost an industry standard today with multiple manufacturers using it. Yes, I know you can get adapters etc - but that is not very attractive for users. I don't mind the drop in the prices - has alowed my to find lenses that were "collectibles" and expensive to drop to a reasonable value. To buy cameras as an "investment" is not that good idea - buy them to use instead, much more fun!
Click to expand...
 
I agree the corporate decision to rebuild the S3 and SP was unexpected and, from a Western viewpoint, weird. But I'm not sure there would have been much market at all for a new design or updated feature specs that included integrated electronics AND retaining the original S-mount. The robustness of the original SP/S3 design has been tested by half a century of use.
 
All I can add, that as a owner of a S3 they are design different and takes
awhile to get use to them but there a real nice cameras.

Range
 
From an engineer stand of point, the Nikon RF as well as Contax IIa/IIIa use inferior material compare to Leica, the top plate is paper thin, maybe only half of the Leica M2/M3/M4.
 
The fact is Nikon only made about 14,000 S3 cameras in the first run. They were unpopular then, I actually would have never considered buying an S3 to save something under $60 over the SP. It was a pointless (price point) camera. I know they sold many to the PX shops, I personally knew anyone but collectors who owned an S3 until the reissue.

Nikon then flooded the market with 10,000 plus more of them, and by the time they brought out the black model they almost doubled the number of cameras originally built.

But what about the cameras -- the reissue S3 and SP? In the late 1950s the SP was simply amazing to me, and I have owned a number of them, including motor driven ones. But in 2000 it was a truly inferior piece of equipment, the product of engineering egos gone wrong.

When Nikon built the SP they had a chance to build a rangefinder equal or even superior to the Leica, and include an electronic meter. Nikon had no parts or molds from the original SP, they had a clean slate, an opportunity to build a great SP, but instead they religiously copied a 40 year old design, which had already been eclipsed by the M3 finder when the SP was first released.

Just to add insult to injury Nikon proved they could improve the 50 1.4 and the 35 1.8, even as they made an inferior SP with a cloth shutter!

They could have built a collectible, worth more -- but they chose not to -- and the market spoke clearly, revaluing the camera bodies lower every year.

I owned two of the new S3, never used them, but kept right on using the far better S2 I have used since 1965.
Click to expand...

Every time I see one of the re-issues, I wish it had a meter. Isn't the MP a sort of pinnacle refinement of the M? I'm surprised Nikon didn't opt to follow a similar route, putting all the best, in one single package.

I wonder if any manufacturers will release a new full frame digital body....
 
Platinum RF said:
From an engineer stand of point, the Nikon RF as well as Contax IIa/IIIa use inferior material compare to Leica, the top plate is paper thin, maybe only half of the Leica M2/M3/M4.
Click to expand...

Strangely enough that doesn't appear to affect the quality of the images they make :angel:

Point is taken, the Nikons do "bruise" easily but the shutter is more robust and less likely to require adjustment than the Leica. I have a horse in each of these races so can't loose :D
 
Platinum RF said:
From an engineer stand of point, the Nikon RF as well as Contax IIa/IIIa use inferior material compare to Leica, the top plate is paper thin, maybe only half of the Leica M2/M3/M4.
Click to expand...

From a user stand of point, the Nikon RF have superior shutters compared to the Leica ones, they almost never require service thanks to their balls bearings design. Just leave a film Leica body for a couple of years unused somewhere and see by yourself what happens then, even with a late and $$$$ one.

The Nikon RF (brass made) top plates are resistant enough and they don't show those infamous Leicameter bright marks, in general.

The Contax IIa/IIIa have nothing to do in this discussion, they share a bit of their external design with the Nikons (and the built-in focusing helical) but the comparison stops there.

The reissue Nikons are questionable tools at some point I agree, even if you are fond of the original models. My chrome 1962 SP, with its titanium shutter, was probably a far better buy than the SP 2005, and at 30% of the price. OK it's chrome, not black. Well... who really cares.
 
While it may cosmetically bruise, I rarely if ever see Nikon RFs suffer damage that affects their ability to take pictures. It's widely discussed throughout RFF that Nikon camera need far fewer adjustments and cleanings over their lifetimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom