jimbo76
Newbie
In the past I have owned and used various Leicas from (from an M2 to an M6) and have been seriously contemplating going back to Leica, although it would have to be (due to "financial constraints") an M3 with either a 50mm Summicron or Summarit. But lately I became aware that there are some Nikon counterparts about... and became drawn to an S2 and a 3 that I have seen advertised, each with a 50/1.4. Not sure about the M3 viewfinder's eye-relief (but aghast at the price of a correction lens), whereas a user of an S3 hints that wearing specs (aka eye-glasses) would not be a hindrance.
A small point to some perhaps, but one I'm taking seriously.
Hoping there's someone out there who knows both makes well with impartial advice, as I'm already eyeing up an S3 !
A small point to some perhaps, but one I'm taking seriously.
Hoping there's someone out there who knows both makes well with impartial advice, as I'm already eyeing up an S3 !
Timestep
Established
The S2 viewfinder frame cannot be seen in its entirety with eyeglasses. Otherwise it is simple and uncluttered— exactly why I chose several S2's against SP's.
I understand that the S3 viewfinder has all three frames permanently displayed. ( I don't know about eye relief on this camera ) This would rule it out categorically for me.
I have a similar problem with the increasingly confused framelines and corners on Leica M4 and on models. The M3 is best ( or M2, if you would use 35mm.)
I understand that the S3 viewfinder has all three frames permanently displayed. ( I don't know about eye relief on this camera ) This would rule it out categorically for me.
I have a similar problem with the increasingly confused framelines and corners on Leica M4 and on models. The M3 is best ( or M2, if you would use 35mm.)
RanceEric
The name is Rance
If you wear glasses and use the 50mm lens primarily, I would go with the S3 over the M3 for sure. as Timestep said, with glasses, you can't see the frame lines on the S2 unless your eye is pressed close to the camera, but the S3 has a larger finder so the 50mm lines are still visible with glasses on (but you might have a problem if you try to use a 35mm lens with glasses)
I got my S3 (and all my Nikon RF gear) from Keh, which has a few S3's in stock..
I would go with the S3 and 5cm f/1.4 and then get yourself a metal, vented hood on ebay. They go for about $15. Then, with the price of having the body CLA'd, should still be under $1000 for the whole set
I got my S3 (and all my Nikon RF gear) from Keh, which has a few S3's in stock..
I would go with the S3 and 5cm f/1.4 and then get yourself a metal, vented hood on ebay. They go for about $15. Then, with the price of having the body CLA'd, should still be under $1000 for the whole set
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
I just finished shooting for two month with Nikon Rf's. I do that occasionally - just to avoid being too Leica centric.
Biggest difference is not really the viewfinder - they are all good to excellent. It is the precision of the focus. The long "throw" of the Nikon helicoil makes it easier to pinpoint focus. It is a bit slower initially - but when you learn the trick of "pre-setting " the focus as you lift the camera to the eye - it works well.
A major difference is the quality of the early Nikkor lenses - such as the 50f1.4. I have multiples of these, ranging from early 1950 (#5005xxx) to the Millennium version. Apart from some contrast increase in the later ones - they are as good as you will ever need. The 35's hold up well, even compared to late Summicron's, particularly the 35f2.5 - which is much cheaper than the 35f1.8 too.
Bodyshape on the Nikon is a bit akward - sharp edges and "boxy" - again, you get used to it. The focussing patch is not as sharply defined as the M's "box" - but again, it is a matter of experience.
Of course, it focussed "backwards" from the M and initially you spend a lot of time correcting this. I find that using M's and Nikon's at the same time is fraught with disaster - plenty of artsy, fuzzy, shots!
In short. they are different, but similar!
One added advantage is that Nikon's seem to survive better than M's. Yesterday I handled a mint S2 with 50f1.4 (early chrome dial - probably late 50's). It had obviously been sitting for at least a decade or two - not used. I carefully wound it on, checked the speeds and apart from a slightly optimistic 1 sec - they were all dead-on. I also handled a M2 (1957) - again, mint and had sat in a nice, dust free cabinet for the last 20 years. Very stiff shutter, all speeds were off, shutter was dragging badly. I would not had a problem loading a roll in the S2 and shooting it and get correctly exposed shots. The M2 would need a $100-120 clean and lube.
As a first Nikon Rf - either go for the S2 and a 50f1.4 or a S3 with the additional 35/105 frames - either one will have you drool over negatives!!!!!
If you check our Flickr - and tag "Nikon Rf Month" there are about 700 shots in bl/w done with Rf lenses, from 21f4 to 135f3.5 and bodies from Nikon S to late SP's.
Biggest difference is not really the viewfinder - they are all good to excellent. It is the precision of the focus. The long "throw" of the Nikon helicoil makes it easier to pinpoint focus. It is a bit slower initially - but when you learn the trick of "pre-setting " the focus as you lift the camera to the eye - it works well.
A major difference is the quality of the early Nikkor lenses - such as the 50f1.4. I have multiples of these, ranging from early 1950 (#5005xxx) to the Millennium version. Apart from some contrast increase in the later ones - they are as good as you will ever need. The 35's hold up well, even compared to late Summicron's, particularly the 35f2.5 - which is much cheaper than the 35f1.8 too.
Bodyshape on the Nikon is a bit akward - sharp edges and "boxy" - again, you get used to it. The focussing patch is not as sharply defined as the M's "box" - but again, it is a matter of experience.
Of course, it focussed "backwards" from the M and initially you spend a lot of time correcting this. I find that using M's and Nikon's at the same time is fraught with disaster - plenty of artsy, fuzzy, shots!
In short. they are different, but similar!
One added advantage is that Nikon's seem to survive better than M's. Yesterday I handled a mint S2 with 50f1.4 (early chrome dial - probably late 50's). It had obviously been sitting for at least a decade or two - not used. I carefully wound it on, checked the speeds and apart from a slightly optimistic 1 sec - they were all dead-on. I also handled a M2 (1957) - again, mint and had sat in a nice, dust free cabinet for the last 20 years. Very stiff shutter, all speeds were off, shutter was dragging badly. I would not had a problem loading a roll in the S2 and shooting it and get correctly exposed shots. The M2 would need a $100-120 clean and lube.
As a first Nikon Rf - either go for the S2 and a 50f1.4 or a S3 with the additional 35/105 frames - either one will have you drool over negatives!!!!!
If you check our Flickr - and tag "Nikon Rf Month" there are about 700 shots in bl/w done with Rf lenses, from 21f4 to 135f3.5 and bodies from Nikon S to late SP's.
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
I'd really recommend finding a S2/3 somewhere and playing around with it for a few minutes to make sure you like it. I enjoy my Nikon rangefinders a great deal but the viewfinders can be a tad dim in the focusing area, certainly the Leica is generally easier to focus on a consistent basis.
That said, there is a certain "something" about the Nikons I just like. My Leica's are my primary cameras but the SP, for me, is a nice welcome change from time to time.
That said, there is a certain "something" about the Nikons I just like. My Leica's are my primary cameras but the SP, for me, is a nice welcome change from time to time.
Vincent.G
Well-known
With a Nikon, you may have a handful or mouthful with the whole camera back while reloading. 
DamenS
Well-known
LOL - "due to financial constraints" you would be purchasing what many consider the finest Leica camera ever - I should be so lucky
Personally, I would probably go for the Leica but this would be primarily because of the greater range (and sheer number) of lenses available.
If you are doing much close range shooting the Nikon s2 doesn't have parallax correction (nor does the s3 for that matter). I'm not a fan of the s3's permanently etched on framelines.
Personally, I would probably go for the Leica but this would be primarily because of the greater range (and sheer number) of lenses available.
If you are doing much close range shooting the Nikon s2 doesn't have parallax correction (nor does the s3 for that matter). I'm not a fan of the s3's permanently etched on framelines.
jimbo76
Newbie
Financially constrained as regards the cost of replacing the M6, 35 Summaron, and 90 Elmarit I foolishly parted with twenty years ago. Also when compared with the five or more thousand pounds which quite a few members of the Leica User Group forums seem happy to spend on a similar kit !
The M3 Single Stroke has slightly better eye-relief than the double stroke.
The S3 50mm frame has plenty of eye-relief, but the 35mm lines are very tight.
Overall- the M3 finder is crisper, and does not flare. The S3 finder will flare under certain conditions.
The S3 50mm frame has plenty of eye-relief, but the 35mm lines are very tight.
Overall- the M3 finder is crisper, and does not flare. The S3 finder will flare under certain conditions.
Frontman
Well-known
Another thing to get used to is the location of the shutter button, which is located near the rear of the top cover, whereas on an M it is near the front. It is easier to reach if you get in the habit of keeping your middle finger on the focusing wheel.
I use an S3, which seems to me to be more mechaincally refined than any of my M cameras. Winding is smooth, but the shutter release seems more precise, and more quiet. As Tom said, the Nikon cameras seldom require maintenance, my camera was made more than 50 years ago, and, judging by the hardware, it has never been disassembed for service, yet everything works perfectly on it.
I use an S3, which seems to me to be more mechaincally refined than any of my M cameras. Winding is smooth, but the shutter release seems more precise, and more quiet. As Tom said, the Nikon cameras seldom require maintenance, my camera was made more than 50 years ago, and, judging by the hardware, it has never been disassembed for service, yet everything works perfectly on it.
