Nikon S3 2000

[Range-rover]

I agree when I had my Leica's, first my M3 transport went and it wasn't the
same after that, then my last Leica the M4 shutter went pop! So far the
Nikon's hanging in there.

Range

 

[daveleo]

I have no experience with the cameras being discussed; but let me comment on the structure of the external plates (mentioned above).
External plates that deform under impact greatly reduce the peak shock force on internals (as long as there is enough clearance to accept the deformation).
In shock events, soft and ductile is good for continued operation. Thick and stiff is bad for the internals.

(Sorry for the lecture - retired engineer if you didn't already guess it.)

 

[VinceC]

Thanks for the engineering insights into internal vs external chassis. For what it's worth, Nikon continued the internal chassis philosophy with Nikon F and F2. Both are considered to be quite rugged and reliable.

 

[ChrisLivsey]

Nikon continued the internal chassis philosophy with Nikon F and F2. Both are considered to be quite rugged and reliable.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/martsharm/4683329492/


Not embedded as I don't have the copyright, I did see the camera at Manchester UK though.

 

[rbsinto]

I remain shocked that they built an antique camera from scratch. Nikon long ago built a prototype to replace the SP.

SPX?
From what little information is available (a short blurb on the Camera Quest site) it seemed like an interesting camera.

 

[ray*j*gun]

My 2000 kit is one of my favorite film cameras. When I got it I also bought 2 cv lenses new (21 and 75) and a beautiful 35 Nikor. I bought one of the last that B&H had and have never regretted making the decesion to go Nikon RF. The 1,4 lens that came with the kit is every bit as good as any Leica lens I ever saw and with the Amedeo adapter I use it on my M2.

IMO these 2000 kits are a steal, and will not ever be this affordable again. The lens alone is worth the money. Also any lens you find on the market for Nikon RF will be under-priced compared to LTM or M mount.

 

[VinceC]

There's been a bit of economic inflation since you bought $300 cameras. $300 in 1967 is equivalent to $2,100 today, so the price of a good used original run SP has remained about constant, or dropped.

 

[VinceC]

That makes sense. I learned about SPs in the late 1980s, literally months after the prices suddenly began to soar. There was a couple of years when it seemed that US buyers were snapping them up at $300 to $500, then taking them to Japan to double or triple their money. The market dynamics suddenly caught up with this and the US prices very quickly jumped up. I was living in Europe at the time, where they were expensive regardless, so I bought most of my gear over the phone using airmail deliveries of Shutterbug Ads.

 

[Highway 61]

If you can find a mint, titanium shutter, black SP in the box for $2100 let me know. 😀

I bought mine for $950 off eBay five years ago. It's a mint, late 1962 production run titanium shutter SP. Chrome not black. But I prefer chrome. No box but original user's manual and leather case.

Sparkling viewfinder, bright and contrasty RF patch, accurate shutter, not a mark on it but for a tiny 1mm paint loss on the right vertical trim (from having been in the case).

IMO, a way better deal than a SP 2005.

 

[Range-rover]

Nothing beats the deal I got for mine, $300.00 for the S3 and a well used 50mm f1.4
lens, it's a little rough but it takes sweet pictures, now to fine that SP deal!

Range

 

[jonmanjiro]

I'll take an SP 2005 over a vintage SP any day thanks very much. For about $4000 you get the best 35mm lens ever made for Nikon rangefinders bar none AND a lovely black paint SP that is guaranteed to have a good finder and not have any damage from someone's dodgy and inept repair attempts. It's quite a shock to pick up a vintage SP in a camera shop, look through the wide angle finder and notice that the field of view covered is downward and off to the left from what it should be or that the half mirror is detached from its mount and moving freely so focusing is impossible (both true stories and there's many more!). I found it very hard to find a problem free vintage SP in a condition I was happy with so gave up. Not so with the SP 2005, it's a safe bet that the camera is working properly and hadn't been damaged or badly "repaired" by anyone. I find the S3's finder too busy for my liking so would never choose one over an SP.

 

[Frontman]

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!

I have a 2005 SP, and two early SP's. The 2005 is certainly not inferior in any way. One of my old SP's has a silk shutter, the other titanium, both work equally well. The silk shutter curtains are still supple and glossy, despite being 50 years old.

The 2005 SP benefits from better glass and coatings for the viewfinder, and as the cameras were individually handmade by Nikon's best techs, the fit and finish is amazing.

 

[Jan Van Laethem]

The 2005 SP benefits from better glass and coatings for the viewfinder, and as the cameras were individually handmade by Nikon's best techs, the fit and finish is amazing.

If you also take into account that, according to certain sources, Nikon lost money on both projects and sold the camera kits under their real manufacturing value, I think both the S3 2000 and the SP 2005 are worth saving up for. I'm glad I got both.

 

[Highway 61]

I have a 2005 SP, and two early SP's. The 2005 is certainly not inferior in any way. One of my old SP's has a silk shutter, the other titanium, both work equally well. The silk shutter curtains are still supple and glossy, despite being 50 years old.

Not too sure if Nikon used the same noble "Habutae silk"of the classic cameras on the reissues.

Many S3 2000 cloth shutters seem to develop holes in them, out of the blue.

For about $4000 you get the best 35mm lens ever made for Nikon rangefinders bar none AND a lovely black paint SP that is guaranteed to have a good finder and not have any damage from someone's dodgy and inept repair attempts.

As said above I have a $950 mint late 1962 titanium shutter SP with a perfect finder, and I can swear that nobody took it apart, ever. I also bought a mint classic W-Nikkor-C 35/1.8 from Darryl Schaeffer for $750.

So this costed me way less than $4000 and this stuff is every bit as good as the 2005 one IMO. 😉

As for dropping $4000 onto this... ahem. :angel:

 

[jonmanjiro]

Not too sure if Nikon used the same noble "Habutae silk", used on the classic cameras, on the reissues.

Many S3 2000 cloth shutters seem to develop holes in them, out of the blue.

Suddenly on the Internet, out of the blue, two or three has become "many" 😀

As said above I have a $950 mint late 1962 titanium shutter SP with a perfect finder, and I can swear that nobody took it apart, ever. I also bought a mint classic W-Nikkor-C 35/1.8 from Darryl Schaeffer for $750.

So this costed me way less than $4000 and this stuff is every bit as good as the 2005 one IMO. 😉

As for dropping $4000 onto this... ahem. :angel:

I'm glad you found a nice SP (and 35/1.8) at a reaaaallllly good price. I unfortunately was not as lucky. Maybe Japan's humid climate has taken its toll because quite a lot seem to have varying degrees of finder separation and/or fungus or haze and have been opened up.

I've tried both vintage and reissue 35/1.8s and the reissue is definitely a better performer wide open and more flare resistant.

As for dropping $4000 on it, if you can afford it and have the desire why not :angel:

I love black paint cameras so it was an easy decision for me 🙂

 

[enasniearth]

I'm glad you found a nice SP (and 35/1.8) at a reaaaallllly good price. I unfortunately was not as lucky. Maybe Japan's humid climate has taken its toll because quite a lot seem to have varying degrees of finder separation and/or fungus or haze and have been opened up.

I've tried both vintage and reissue 35/1.8s and the reissue is definitely a better performer wide open and more flare resistant.

As for dropping $4000 on it, if you can afford it and have the desire why not :angel:

I love black paint cameras so it was an easy decision for me 🙂[/QUOTE]



I have used Nikon rf cameras for many years ,
I agree with Jon's assessment of the older sp and s3 cameras , many have picked up flare , haze fungus and separation in the last 60 years .
Even the really beautiful looking ones I have seen with some finder deteriation .
The going price to have one completely serviced is $300 - $400
Many sp have a low contrast rf patch and the wide angle 28/35 finder has black spots .
Most Leica cameras from the same time period are also in need of service .
It is the age of rf cameras and the fact that the finder systems are very complicated with many glass surfaces , prisms and half mirrored silver or gold glass surfaces .
When you consider the price of a new Leica camera with a 35 f2 lens the black sp kit seems like an incredible deal in comparison.
I had one and sold it / it was too much to have in a carry around camera and the thought of dropping or damaging it , well it sat on a shelf in the original box .
I use the Nikon s2 with separate bright line finders for wide angle as I have for 38 years now .
Sure they are not as convenient , you get used to the camera you use every day and it becomes habit from it familiarity .

 

[Highway 61]

Suddenly on the Internet, out of the blue, two or three has become "many" 😀

The Internet is for sure the best lupe out there... 😀

Still, I'll remain stuck with my vintage Nikon RF fleet. I used to own an S3 2000 but resold it eventually - I prefer the real McCoy as for the chrome finish and the general feeling it provides. There is a bit of haze at the end of the RF tunnel but the RF patch is as good as the S3 2000 one was.

None of my RF cameras is 100% perfect any longer but, hey ! They work well. And I will probably stop working myself before they do.

I never handled any of the SP 2005, I'm pretty certain I would love it, sure. But the price is an absolute red light for me. Reaaaalllly too expensive... 😱

Ah, and I still own one of those reissue toys, that is the Millenium 50/1.4 you had sold to me... I see no reason not to like it, even when mounted on my user S2 ! 😉

 

[DominikDUK]

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.

Had a good laugh. Sorry but the Contax' are way better build than their Leica counterparts the only drawback was the shutter and even the shutter was a better construction than the Leica one. Many people seem to forget that the Contax was the working photographers tool the Leica RF were the rich man's toy at least before WWII and shortly thereafter. The Nikon RF is another story.

 

[rbsinto]

I've got two vintage S3s one a real beater and the other a mechanically and optically excellent example and one of the re-issued ones as well.
Truthfully, the rangefinder patch in the good vintage body is every bit as good as the one in the re-issued body, with the beater's finder being close behind.
I also have a user SP that is a decent shooter, which if I won the lottery I'd replace with a re-issued black body, only because I really detest chrome cameras. Otherwise its fine for taking pictures.
Perhaps I'm just extremely lucky but the years have been kind to the trio of fifty-odd year old bodies I own.

 

[Jan Van Laethem]

Perhaps I'm just extremely lucky but the years have been kind to the trio of fifty-odd year old bodies I own.

I don't think it's just being lucky. The way Nikon rangefinders stand the test of time is a testimony to how well they were designed and how well they were built. In that respect I see no difference between the vintage cameras and the 2000 and 2005 reissues.

These cameras will most probably outlive most of us.