SimonPJ
Well-known
I have an SP which I use mainly with either the 3.5/1.8 or the 10.5/2.5. The only 50 I have is the Cosina Voigtlander 50/1.5 in Nikon S mount, which I have never warmed to using on the SP. I'm thinking of picking up a second body, along with a 'proper' Nikon 50/1.4
I'm considering getting an S3-2000 - for the new-Olympic 50, and for a better 35mm finder than the SP. The 50 can then live on the SP with the 35/1.8 on the S3.
But I'm concerned about the S3 finder. I have a Canon P whose finder is in very good condition. I find it great for focusing, but have never really got used to the jumble of frame lines. Even when I'm not wearing glasses I find the 35mm frame quite hard to see in the P finder.
How does the S3 finder compare with the Canon P? Is the 35mm frame more visible? Is the jumble of frame lines as intrusive?
if the S3 is not that much better for 35mm than the SP then maybe it would be better just to go for an S or S2 wearing a good external 35mm finder.
Finally, does the new 50 on the S3-2000 have a distinctive character which makes it worth having over a 1950's or 60's version? Is the only difference in the contrast and flare benefit of modern coatings?
Many thanks,
Simon.
I'm considering getting an S3-2000 - for the new-Olympic 50, and for a better 35mm finder than the SP. The 50 can then live on the SP with the 35/1.8 on the S3.
But I'm concerned about the S3 finder. I have a Canon P whose finder is in very good condition. I find it great for focusing, but have never really got used to the jumble of frame lines. Even when I'm not wearing glasses I find the 35mm frame quite hard to see in the P finder.
How does the S3 finder compare with the Canon P? Is the 35mm frame more visible? Is the jumble of frame lines as intrusive?
if the S3 is not that much better for 35mm than the SP then maybe it would be better just to go for an S or S2 wearing a good external 35mm finder.
Finally, does the new 50 on the S3-2000 have a distinctive character which makes it worth having over a 1950's or 60's version? Is the only difference in the contrast and flare benefit of modern coatings?
Many thanks,
Simon.
Look for VinceC 's threads on the Millenium Nikkor.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17270
I just picked up an S3-2000. I can see the 35mm framelines with my Glasses; but they are out there close to the edge.
The S3-2000 is not going for "that much more" at $2,300 than the original in EX+ or so condition. And it comes with the hood and case. The lens is probably the best 50/1.4 that Nikon has turned out. It is very smooth, well made, and will go 50 years like the original.
The lens is a Planar design, completely different formula than the original SOnnar lens. It is closer in size to the new Nokton.
I do not have a Canon P; but do have a freshly CLA'd VI-T. It is as good as that finder.
If you do not like using the SP secondary finder with the 35mm lens, I suspect you will not like the external finder on an S2.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17270
I just picked up an S3-2000. I can see the 35mm framelines with my Glasses; but they are out there close to the edge.
The S3-2000 is not going for "that much more" at $2,300 than the original in EX+ or so condition. And it comes with the hood and case. The lens is probably the best 50/1.4 that Nikon has turned out. It is very smooth, well made, and will go 50 years like the original.
The lens is a Planar design, completely different formula than the original SOnnar lens. It is closer in size to the new Nokton.
I do not have a Canon P; but do have a freshly CLA'd VI-T. It is as good as that finder.
If you do not like using the SP secondary finder with the 35mm lens, I suspect you will not like the external finder on an S2.
Last edited:
SimonPJ
Well-known
Thanks, Brian.
I had assumed that the new 50 has the same formula as the original Olympic 50, with the benefit of modern coatings. Do you know whether that's true? Or is it related to more modern Nikon SLR 50's?
I should have said more about what I'd be using the camera for. My rangefinder shooting began about fifteen years ago when I started to need to do ongoing photo documentation of workplace situations (indoors), and needed to be quiet and unobtrusive whilst doing it. For that work I tend to use Leica M's with recent lenses to ensure best possible results in often adverse lighting situations.
But like many here, I suspect, my initial experiences with rangefinders got me intrigued with all of the different technical approaches there had been in the history and evolution of the rangefinder camera. So now, whilst my work set-up is almost always the Leica one, at all other times I keep with me a camera (or two) from a long list of other rangefinder types for use wherever I am. Which tends to mean inside my family's house or the houses of friends, or inside restaurants, bars or pubs. Almost always of people going about their stuff. Also like many here, I think. Photography mainly for the enjoyment of exploring the signiature of different lenses and the handling characteristics of different bodies.
So my main reason for thinking about another body to add to the SP is to find a body that I will enjoy using the 3.5/1.8 on more. Whenever I use it on the SP the view through the finder whilst focusing just makes me think how much nicer it would be to be using the camera with a 50, 85 or 105!
Simon.
I had assumed that the new 50 has the same formula as the original Olympic 50, with the benefit of modern coatings. Do you know whether that's true? Or is it related to more modern Nikon SLR 50's?
I should have said more about what I'd be using the camera for. My rangefinder shooting began about fifteen years ago when I started to need to do ongoing photo documentation of workplace situations (indoors), and needed to be quiet and unobtrusive whilst doing it. For that work I tend to use Leica M's with recent lenses to ensure best possible results in often adverse lighting situations.
But like many here, I suspect, my initial experiences with rangefinders got me intrigued with all of the different technical approaches there had been in the history and evolution of the rangefinder camera. So now, whilst my work set-up is almost always the Leica one, at all other times I keep with me a camera (or two) from a long list of other rangefinder types for use wherever I am. Which tends to mean inside my family's house or the houses of friends, or inside restaurants, bars or pubs. Almost always of people going about their stuff. Also like many here, I think. Photography mainly for the enjoyment of exploring the signiature of different lenses and the handling characteristics of different bodies.
So my main reason for thinking about another body to add to the SP is to find a body that I will enjoy using the 3.5/1.8 on more. Whenever I use it on the SP the view through the finder whilst focusing just makes me think how much nicer it would be to be using the camera with a 50, 85 or 105!
Simon.
It's hard to tell from the description. I believe it is a slight variation of the Olympic Nikkor. That lens is a Planar variation, not a Sonnar. My 1965 Neblette "Photographic lenses" gives it as the same optical formula as the Canon 50/1.2 and 50/0.95. It is seven elements in five groups, but different from the Nikkor 5.8cm F1.4 and 50 F1.4 SLR lenses.
The original 1964 Olympic Nikkor sells for more than the S3-2000 with the "Millenium Nikkor". That makes the new camera and lens a real bargain.
The original 1964 Olympic Nikkor sells for more than the S3-2000 with the "Millenium Nikkor". That makes the new camera and lens a real bargain.
VinceC
Veteran
The S-3 Millenneum lens looks identical to the very few photos I've ever seen of an Olympic ... in particular, both lenses share a distinctive "fat waistline" that is wider in the center and narrower on either end. The older design of the classic Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 from the 1950s is somewhat more prone to flare and usual optical effects as well as harsher out-of-focus effects in the background.
It's difficult to judge an S3 without looking through the finder. If you find the Canon P distracting, you might find the S3 to be worse, because along with the three framelines, it also has small etched notches to indicate parallax at closest focus. I understand Leica's show two framelines -- I don't use them -- so this is not a phenomon isolated to the S3. My personal feeling is that using 1:1 magnifcation with a 35mm lens is worth the extra busy-ness of the finder. But others find it annoying. It's very subjective.
It's difficult to judge an S3 without looking through the finder. If you find the Canon P distracting, you might find the S3 to be worse, because along with the three framelines, it also has small etched notches to indicate parallax at closest focus. I understand Leica's show two framelines -- I don't use them -- so this is not a phenomon isolated to the S3. My personal feeling is that using 1:1 magnifcation with a 35mm lens is worth the extra busy-ness of the finder. But others find it annoying. It's very subjective.
Last edited:
Bill58
Native Texan
I had a similar problem w/ my P plus I wear glasses and it was a pain in the ____ to see the 35 framelines, so I bought a CV35 VF and all is very well. the CV VF is awesome!
Bill
Bill
VinceC
Veteran
(... Looking left and right to make sure Nikon Kiu isn't sneaking up behind me...)
The wide-angle portion of the SP finder leaves a lot to be desired. Its magnification is something in the range of 0.3-to-one (one-quarter or one-third life-size). A nice separate 35mm brightline is leagues ahead. Even the cute and tiny CV mini-finder, showing 35 and 28mm framelines, gives a considerably better image (It has a one-half-lifesize image, or 0.5).
The SP finder is brilliant for fast-moving photojournalism situations and for someone who wears glasses to use the full range of RF lenses -- 28 to 135 -- without separate finders. But it accomplishes this with a serious trade-off in image qualilty for the wide-angle finder. A lot of times when I'm photographing someone, I frame with the 35mm minifinder, then go back to the lifesize finder -- with the dial set to 50mm -- and wait for the moment to take the photo.
The wide-angle portion of the SP finder leaves a lot to be desired. Its magnification is something in the range of 0.3-to-one (one-quarter or one-third life-size). A nice separate 35mm brightline is leagues ahead. Even the cute and tiny CV mini-finder, showing 35 and 28mm framelines, gives a considerably better image (It has a one-half-lifesize image, or 0.5).
The SP finder is brilliant for fast-moving photojournalism situations and for someone who wears glasses to use the full range of RF lenses -- 28 to 135 -- without separate finders. But it accomplishes this with a serious trade-off in image qualilty for the wide-angle finder. A lot of times when I'm photographing someone, I frame with the 35mm minifinder, then go back to the lifesize finder -- with the dial set to 50mm -- and wait for the moment to take the photo.