David Murphy
Veteran
Yes, well a couple of points. First of all one reason some like Nikon rangefinders is because many of them are now new mechanical cameras, or nearly so. Yes they are expensive new (or recently out of production), but their new Leica counterparts (e.g. MP) are extremely expensive. There are many vintage Nikon RF bodies too. There are also new lenses, they were made by Voigtlander and Nikon (I own four of them) and they are excellent. You can still find some of these from Voigtlander dealers.
I own and use a very nice S now (I'm poor🙂 ), but my goal is an SP. The S is easier to use than a Leica III series, more modern, but heavier. The price is about the same. The more advanced Nikons like the SP are comparably priced to later Leica M's.
By the way, it's a myth IMO that the Leica M is hard to load, it's a breeze, and more positive than a typical hinged-back 35mm camera since once can witness the film transporting on the sprockets better. The Nikon is also easy to load, and much easier to load than a Leica III series, it's price rival.
Primes: The Nikkor 5cm F1.4 is cheaper than say a Summarit 50mm F1.5, and the 5cm F2 is usually cheaper than a Summitar 50mm F2. They deliver comparable image quality (although I think the Summarit may edge the 50/1.4 Nikkor).
Also, of course, the work and struggle of gathering accessories and lenses is part of the appeal of Nikon RF, as is the admiration of the craftsmanship. Leica M, while being comparably expensive in many ways, has the advantage of numbers of production - in that I can buy just about any capability that the system is capable of (wide angle lenses, mirror boxes, macro, telephoto, etc.), although I may pay dearly for it. In the Nikon RF universe, some capabilities are just about non-existent due to low part counts on the used market (e.g. F1.1 primes) even if one has the money!
Admittedly the appeal of Nikon RF system is not all based on reason or financial good sense. It is a solid system though, and a reasonable one to pursue, with many positives. Unless Nikon decides to make more camera bodies, even if sporadically, it will remain in danger of falling totally into the realm of wealthy collectors.
I own and use a very nice S now (I'm poor🙂 ), but my goal is an SP. The S is easier to use than a Leica III series, more modern, but heavier. The price is about the same. The more advanced Nikons like the SP are comparably priced to later Leica M's.
By the way, it's a myth IMO that the Leica M is hard to load, it's a breeze, and more positive than a typical hinged-back 35mm camera since once can witness the film transporting on the sprockets better. The Nikon is also easy to load, and much easier to load than a Leica III series, it's price rival.
Primes: The Nikkor 5cm F1.4 is cheaper than say a Summarit 50mm F1.5, and the 5cm F2 is usually cheaper than a Summitar 50mm F2. They deliver comparable image quality (although I think the Summarit may edge the 50/1.4 Nikkor).
Also, of course, the work and struggle of gathering accessories and lenses is part of the appeal of Nikon RF, as is the admiration of the craftsmanship. Leica M, while being comparably expensive in many ways, has the advantage of numbers of production - in that I can buy just about any capability that the system is capable of (wide angle lenses, mirror boxes, macro, telephoto, etc.), although I may pay dearly for it. In the Nikon RF universe, some capabilities are just about non-existent due to low part counts on the used market (e.g. F1.1 primes) even if one has the money!
Admittedly the appeal of Nikon RF system is not all based on reason or financial good sense. It is a solid system though, and a reasonable one to pursue, with many positives. Unless Nikon decides to make more camera bodies, even if sporadically, it will remain in danger of falling totally into the realm of wealthy collectors.
