so many cameras, so little time and money

[marcr1230]

I really like the idea of getting an SP 2005, I also like the S3 2000.
also in play - the original SP. If I got the SP 2005, I guess it would be hard to use for fear of getting a microscopic scratch on a beautiful camera. On the other hand, cameras are made to be used. So what about the original SP which can be had for 1/2 or less the price of an SP 2005. I'm conflicted left and right. advice please

 

[ZeissFan]

As always, you must ask yourself if you're going to be a photographer or a collector? Will you be spending more time admiring your photos or the camera?

I think if you're going to be a photographer, then you have to accept that it will show signs of use. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't take care of your gear. It just means that signs of use are ... well ... signs of use.

By the way, that's different from people who beat the hell out of their gear. No problem with that. It's their gear. You just don't want to be the sorry SOB who buys it from them.

 

[splitimageview]

I have had 3 SPs, one of which was the SP 2005. It was actually too gorgeous. I was constantly concerned about scratching it or otherwise marring its beautiful finish.

The ugly duckling of the three has a virtually perfect RF patch and viewfinder/framelines, and an extremely quiet shutter. And no worries about messing up the cosmetics.

The last one had a really faint RF patch, something to be aware of when hunting for an older SP.

 

[wjlapier]

I have had 3 SPs, one of which was the SP 2005. It was actually too gorgeous. I was constantly concerned about scratching it or otherwise marring its beautiful finish.

The ugly duckling of the three has a virtually perfect RF patch and viewfinder/framelines, and an extremely quiet shutter. And no worries about messing up the cosmetics.

The last one had a really faint RF patch, something to be aware of when hunting for an older SP.

I'm a shooter and eventually sold my S3 2000. Too pretty to use for me.

If I was to it again, I'd go with the original SP.

That all said, I'm very happy with my M3 😎

 

[jonmanjiro]

I use an SP 2005 as a shooter. After the first few marks and small dings, I'm not nearly as worried about adding more marks as I initially was. And the black paint is really tough. You'd have to hit the camera pretty hard to mark it badly.

I've also been on the lookout for a vintage SP for some time, but with an SP 2005 to compare with, finding one with a finder that comes close in terms of focus patch contrast etc. is not easy at all. I've been spoilt by the SP 2005!

 

[splitimageview]

I got lucky with my beater SP, it nearly matched the SP 2005, viewfinder just a tiny bit darker.

 

[rbsinto]

I have two S3s and an SP, all vintage users with fairly good rangefinder patches. But even if I had the re-issued bodies instead, they'd be treated exactly the same. They're tools for taking photos, and I can't spend my life worrying about how a scratch or nick might impact on the price if and when I ever decide to sell them. I live and shoot in the Here and Now.

 

[splitimageview]

Ideally that's the way I'd like to shoot, but with something as pricey as the SP 2005, I have to protect the investment...had to do a series of trades and good deals to even have the opportunity to obtain one. 🙂 So, in my case the beater SP was a better choice. Another nick or scratch isn't going to alter the value at all. 😉

 

[splitimageview]

Speaking of nicks/scratches, I had some clear vinyl stickers printed up for the SP/S2 baseplate, drop me a PM if anyone would like one.

 

[micromontenegro]

I can tell you what I did: I got an unused S3 2000 (thanks, Jon!) and I am using it as intented: to take lots of pics. I do try not to bang it into things!

 

[cysasam]

Take pics, try to keep off rff (to prevent GAS) 😉

 

[furcafe]

Good to hear that you're using yours as a shooter, because I haven't been babying the 1 you sold me, either! 😛 The black paint is indeed pretty tough. So far the only visible wear that I've noticed is along the top edge/seam of the back where it meets the main body (that part often rubs against jacket zippers, etc.); my S3 2000 is brassing in the same place.

FYI, I have a good condition late chrome SP (titanium shutter), that has an RF patch that's pretty close to the 2005. If you're still seriously looking for 1 to use as a shooter, just send me an email.

I use an SP 2005 as a shooter. After the first few marks and small dings, I'm not nearly as worried about adding more marks as I initially was. And the black paint is really tough. You'd have to hit the camera pretty hard to mark it badly.

I've also been on the lookout for a vintage SP for some time, but with an SP 2005 to compare with, finding one with a finder that comes close in terms of focus patch contrast etc. is not easy at all. I've been spoilt by the SP 2005!

 

[BillBingham2]

While my S3-2000 is too beautiful to use, I still used it when ever I'm shooting film. I purchased an M4-P and M6 both new years ago and used them. I use my S3-2000 with care, same way as I did my Nikkormat FTn come to think of it.

Just use and enjoy her.

B2 (;->

 

[VinceC]

I can vouch that the SP-2005 has chrome underneath the black paint, in several places. Not the tougher olive green primer undercoating of the original SPs and S3s.

I bought the S3 2000 and SP 2005 for their new fair street prices at the time, and have used them accordingly ever since. Pricing, with fast lenses, was attractively competitive to a new Leica or new pro-line SLR. Nikon RFs have been my go-to cameras for a couple of decades now, and it has been a wonderful opportunity the past several years to really use brand new Nikon ones instead of old beaters.

 

[brobbins]

Vince,

Since there are no chrome SP2005's, it is surprising that Nikon plated parts with chrome prior to painting. Which parts of the camera show chrome under the black paint?

Thanks.

 

[VinceC]

Upon closer inspection, it appears to be confined to the removable back wearing down to bare metal on the SP 2005. My original SP and S3 (both chrome) also wore to bare metal on the removable back without much evidence of thick primer. Both original chrome cameras have heavy dark green primer on the parts of the camera body that have black trim (chrome is mainly the frontplate and topplate, the rest is black). Interestingly, the chrome S3-2000 seems to have a black primer underneath on the black-parts of its removable backplate. So I've been using it a couple of years longer with no scraches yet showing bare metal.

 

[furcafe]

Per my earlier post, my S3 2000 & SP 2005 have both worn down to the metal in the same spots on the removable back. Whether that metal is brass or chrome, I have no idea; it is silver in color.

Upon closer inspection, it appears to be confined to the removable back wearing down to bare metal on the SP 2005. My original SP and S3 (both chrome) also wore to bare metal on the removable back without much evidence of thick primer. Both original chrome cameras have heavy dark green primer on the parts of the camera body that have black trim (chrome is mainly the frontplate and topplate, the rest is black). Interestingly, the chrome S3-2000 seems to have a black primer underneath on the black-parts of its removable backplate. So I've been using it a couple of years longer with no scraches yet showing bare metal.

 

[NIKON KIU]

You guys are BAD influence on people,
How dare you put wear on a New Nikon RF?? 😱

Kiu 😀
PS: OP should get all three

 

[jonmanjiro]

Looks like brass under the black paint to me!

 

[VinceC]

>>Looks like brass under the black paint to me!<<

You're right! In most places, it's brass. On the rear part of the back (the most easily scratched for me) it's chrome. I still think the original cameras and the S3-2000 had slightly more resistant finish than the SP-2005, but I'm also tough on equipment.