Nikon S3 v.s. the Canon P

xayraa33

xayraa33

rangefinder user and fancier
Local time
5:25 PM
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Messages
6,678
In some ways I think the Canon P camera was a better camera than the Nikon S3, like the parallax corrected frame lines in the viewfinder & the hinged back and cheaper selling price then and now. Other than the optional fitted motordrive and snob appeal of the S3 and maybe the vast line of Nikkor r/f optics available for it. But then again the Canon lens selection was also very good and vast, & up to 1960 , most of the Nippon Kogaku glass was also available in the LTM mount to suit the Canon P, and others that used the M39 mount.
 
In a lot of ways I always look at photography as a very simple thing. Sensitivity to light, and control of the time and intensity of exposure. I look at the Canon P as being a great example of that. Canon introduced it as the "lesser" model to the VI series by taking all the bells and whistles out, and left a perfectly simple machine for photography. Add in the high mechanical standard of it's construction and it is a great.

Having never handled a Nikon, is the viewfinder big and bright? Another great tool, just a little different way to go about doing what the P does. Although the SLR was a frieght train coming down the tracks, I think the Nikon RFs would have been more successful had the lens mount been made 100% compatible with the Contax mount. Nikon lenses built a great reputation on their own merit, but being able to use Zeiss lenses also would have made the cameras compatible with existing Contax shooter's lenses and perhaps would have sold more camera bodies to those folks looking to "upgrade" but keep their glass.
 
Last edited:
The S3 has fixed marks in the brightline frames for Parallax adjustment. The finder is big and bright, and has a 60mm baselength. That is probably the only place where it has a technical spec "superior" to the Canon P. On the other hand, I did not have aproblem focussing the Komura 200mm lens with the Vt. I will someday own a Canon P, but do not have one yet.

The 35mm framelines are hard to see on the S3, and the finder has a tendency to flare. This is probably due to it having a 1x finder and a FOV for 35mm lenses. It is not too bad, and putting a "sunshade" over the finder to block direct sun shining into it helps.

Functionally, the Canon 7 is superior to both. It is closer to the Nikon SP.

Nikon S3 w 5cm F1.4 @F4.

The Nikon's are quieter. Even The Titanium shutter of the SP is quieter than the Stainless Steel curtains of the Canon 7. The Cloth shutters of the S3 and SP are quieter than the Vt.

But for value, the Canons are a bargain compared to the Nikons. The Nikon S2 is a great shooter for a 50mm lens.
 
Last edited:
Canon P + Nikon S adapter = S3P?

Canon P + Nikon S adapter = S3P?

I believe the S3 was better made than the Canon P. Canon RFs' weak point is the shutter that tends to suddenly die. Nikon's shutter is basically stronger.

The Canon P is relatively cheap. I've played with the idea of putting a Nikon S adapter on one. That way you could quickly change lenses.

It would have been nice if Nikon made a mount that was totally compatable with Contax lenses. But I believe it, like the Leica thread mount RF, were doomed to extinction after the introduction of the Leica M mount. The Contax / Nikon mount is too complex and fragile compared to the Leica M mount.

What I wish someone (like Cosina) would make Contax and Nikon S adapters for Leica Thread mount cameras. These are great for turning cameras like the Canon 7s into fast action tools. I wrote about this in the Nikon Historical Society Journal, March 31, 2005 ("The Nikon 'S' to Leica Adapter / Coupler").
 
I use the Canon P and the Canon VI-L rangefinder cameras. Both are wonderful cameras and both are very well made and designed. The P shutter may wrinkle but it is not known to be defective. I prefer using the above to my M3. I'm always nervous that I may get a scratch on my mint M3 whereas I am really at ease with the P and VI-L. The Canon lenses are very well made and usually are rather sharp. I like using the 35mm//1.8 and the 50mm/1.8 most of the time, and sometimes I use the 85mm/1.9 lens [it is heavy]. There is nothing wrong with the Canon P camera. It is one of the best designed rangefinder cameras by Canon, in my opinion.
 
"I prefer using the above to my M3. I'm always nervous that I may get a scratch on my mint M3 whereas I am really at ease with the P and VI-L."

Certainly you can see that this is your problem and not the camera's.
 
I must admit, I keep having to fight the urge to buy an S3 for it's RF advantages and having a Contax mount retrofitted. I don't know if it would be possible or not, but if the only real difference is the helical, then swaping out the guts from a Contax IIa or even a Kiev II should work and allow Zeiss lenses to focus properly... :D

OTOH, the Canon 7(pre-S as I like selenium meters) and P are the only LTM cameras that have ever really tempted me. If I could actually afford to have two different mounts, I'd probably be seriously scrounging for a 7.

William
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gah, these zombie threads of late are really rather funny. Amazing the difference 5 years brings...
 
Interesting "zombie" thread. The S3 was introduced in March 1958 and the Canon P was introduced in December, so it's natural for the Canon to aim for improving on its competition. Have not used the Canon P. The thing I always liked about the S3 is that has the classic ergonomics and control interface of the Nikon F, minus the mirror box. Very quiet shutter. And, of course, back in the era, the Nikon bayonet-mount lenses were much faster to change than the screwmount lenses. Since these cameras were aimed at photojournalists and others with a lot of lenses to switch between, that made a big difference. You can walk around with an S3 and two extra lenses in your coat pocket, and you know you can swiftly changed between them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom