chris00nj
Young Luddite
I realize it may be a contentious question, but I am curious as to why some desire the Nikon RF system.
I am fully aware of people's freedom be happy with whatever they chose. I certainly get weird looks because I still use film. However, I can justify my like of film and rangefinders in several easy-to-understand points. So that is what I am asking now.
From what I see, the Nikon RF doesn't have any advantages over a Leica:
I am fully aware of people's freedom be happy with whatever they chose. I certainly get weird looks because I still use film. However, I can justify my like of film and rangefinders in several easy-to-understand points. So that is what I am asking now.
From what I see, the Nikon RF doesn't have any advantages over a Leica:
- The Nikon RF has a lower quality viewfinder than a Leica M.
- The availablity of lenses are limited: basically any lens that Nikon made for their RF is available for the LTM.
- Zeiss lenses aren't fully compatible.
ferider
Veteran
I'm an M user.
That being said, the Nikon SP has certainly the best RF finder that I have ever seen. And regarding lens compatibility, the new 50/1.4 and 35/1.8 are not available in LTM, very unfortunately.
Cheers,
Roland.
That being said, the Nikon SP has certainly the best RF finder that I have ever seen. And regarding lens compatibility, the new 50/1.4 and 35/1.8 are not available in LTM, very unfortunately.
Cheers,
Roland.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
The Nikon RF cameras are great rugged cameras with fantastic glass.
I like a change from Leica and Canon RF cameras now and then and the Nikon RF camera fits the bill.
I like a change from Leica and Canon RF cameras now and then and the Nikon RF camera fits the bill.
You can pick up a Nikon RF and lens that is 50 years old and that has never been CLA'd, and chances are it will still shoot. A Leica will need a CLA every 15 years or so. Mine certainly have. I've never had a Nikon RF with a shutter capping problem. On the Leica, 1/1000th and 1/500th are the first to go without having regular CLA's.
The Zeiss lenses can be easily modified to work perfectly on a Nikon RF. I use a Zeiss-Opton 50/1.5 and Zeiss Opton 50/2 with mine, shimmed to work. Converting these lenses to LTM or M-Mount is a chanllenge. The Helios-103 is easily adapted to the Nikon. It's not easy to adapt to LTM. Just for fun, I'll be converting a Varob to S-Mount.
SO, in my experience: The Nikon is more reliable than the Leica.
The Zeiss lenses can be easily modified to work perfectly on a Nikon RF. I use a Zeiss-Opton 50/1.5 and Zeiss Opton 50/2 with mine, shimmed to work. Converting these lenses to LTM or M-Mount is a chanllenge. The Helios-103 is easily adapted to the Nikon. It's not easy to adapt to LTM. Just for fun, I'll be converting a Varob to S-Mount.
SO, in my experience: The Nikon is more reliable than the Leica.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Back in olden times Nikon made a motor drive back and a long roll (250 exp.?) back. When Nikon introduced to F it felt and handled about as much like an S series as possible. Your fingers knew where to go and what to do when they got there.
The SP had a built in 35/28mm finder. Some people liked the little serated focusing wheel on the body. Some people liked the "backwards" way the lenses turn to focus. The 105/2.5 lens was legendary and some people like a bit more than 90mm for portraits.
There were a lot of Jews, and others, who wanted nothing to do with any German products after WW-II, but would buy a Japanese camera. I guess that's still true to some extent.
The SP had a built in 35/28mm finder. Some people liked the little serated focusing wheel on the body. Some people liked the "backwards" way the lenses turn to focus. The 105/2.5 lens was legendary and some people like a bit more than 90mm for portraits.
There were a lot of Jews, and others, who wanted nothing to do with any German products after WW-II, but would buy a Japanese camera. I guess that's still true to some extent.
colker
Well-known
historicist
Well-known
I'm a M user and have owned a S2. The S2 rangefinder is probably on balance as good as the M (bright, nice colour cast - it was a bit like looking through a nice pair of Oakleys, 1:1 magnification) even though it lacks parallax compensation, etc.
It was a nice camera, and felt as nice as a M, albeit in a different way.
Personally I use 50mm and 35mm almost exclusively, so the lack of choice in lenses isn't too troublesome.
It was a nice camera, and felt as nice as a M, albeit in a different way.
Personally I use 50mm and 35mm almost exclusively, so the lack of choice in lenses isn't too troublesome.
Film loading is a big advantage over Leica M.
The Nikon viewfinder is 1:1 which no Leica offers, and is arguably better than any Leica, and offers more accurate focusing due to the higher viewfinder magnification and RF baselength.
Any Leica that offers the 28mm frameline compromises focusing by a reduced magnification for all framelines, whereas only the 28 and 35mm frames on the Nikon SP are reduced, with the focusing being done with the primary 1:1 viewfinder.
Zeiss Contax lenses can be modified for use on either Nikon or Leica (with an adapter) and so this is essentially a wash, or shouldn't be a comparing factor.
It's easier to think in Japanese rather than German. And the Nikons look much nicer.
The Leica focuses backwards. 
I don't own a Nikon RF, (too pricey - even more than Leicas!) but I'd love to own one. To me, they seem to be more rugged and - hey, there are plenty of Nikon Fs out there going strong (essentially a Nikon RF w/ mirror box).
Most of my 1950's Leitz lenses have gone stinko with haze, and most need cleaning or are no good anymore.
The Nikon lenses are still crystal clear. (and the goes for most Japanese lenses and binoculars)
The Nikon lenses are still crystal clear. (and the goes for most Japanese lenses and binoculars)
ZeissFan
Veteran
My only experience is with the Nikon S. While I find it to be a very good camera with an excellent lens, I think the camera AND the lenses are too heavy.
Like other makes, collectors have pushed up the price of the cameras, lenses and accessories to unreasonable levels.
I mean, come on, $5,000 for a lens hood? Anyone remember that one from several years back? I don't care how rare it is -- it's still just a lens hood. And that's the effect of having to compete with collectors for a limited number of cameras, lenses and accessories.
Like other makes, collectors have pushed up the price of the cameras, lenses and accessories to unreasonable levels.
I mean, come on, $5,000 for a lens hood? Anyone remember that one from several years back? I don't care how rare it is -- it's still just a lens hood. And that's the effect of having to compete with collectors for a limited number of cameras, lenses and accessories.
I'm sure the $5000 lens hood is a VERY GOOD lens hood. Don't you think you get what you pay for?
fbf
Well-known
The hood is plastic. I would think the hood worth 1 $ and the leather case worth about 4999$
photogdave
Shops local
They look way cool!
I wish I had the spare money for a frivolous purchase - I'd like to try one out one day!
I wish I had the spare money for a frivolous purchase - I'd like to try one out one day!
> Zeiss Contax lenses can be modified for use on either Nikon or Leica (with an adapter)
> and so this is essentially a wash, or shouldn't be a comparing factor.
I just don't like the handling of the adapters on the LTM and M cameras. I have three of them. I use the focus wheel on the Nikon and Contax, the adapter does not have it. The handling of the Zeiss Sonnar on the Nikon is "more solid" than using the same lens with an adapter on the Canon 7. The threads of the helical on the adapter do not go as deep, and I've had to combat wobble on mine. I did so by using Vacuum pump grease on two of them.
With that said, the Zeiss 5cm lenses can be adapted to Leica's by using the focus mounts of J-3's, J-8's, and others. But it is a little more involved and more expensive than simply setting the variable stand-off ring up 0.5mm and putting the lens back together.
So: I stand by the use of the Zeiss lenses on the Nikon. It is easier, faster, and cheaper to adapt them to a Nikon RF than it is to use them on a Leica.
> and so this is essentially a wash, or shouldn't be a comparing factor.
I just don't like the handling of the adapters on the LTM and M cameras. I have three of them. I use the focus wheel on the Nikon and Contax, the adapter does not have it. The handling of the Zeiss Sonnar on the Nikon is "more solid" than using the same lens with an adapter on the Canon 7. The threads of the helical on the adapter do not go as deep, and I've had to combat wobble on mine. I did so by using Vacuum pump grease on two of them.
With that said, the Zeiss 5cm lenses can be adapted to Leica's by using the focus mounts of J-3's, J-8's, and others. But it is a little more involved and more expensive than simply setting the variable stand-off ring up 0.5mm and putting the lens back together.
So: I stand by the use of the Zeiss lenses on the Nikon. It is easier, faster, and cheaper to adapt them to a Nikon RF than it is to use them on a Leica.
Yes, that is certainly true.
Did I mention the Conversion of the Summicron Rigid 5cm f2 and VAROB 5cm F3.5 (uncoated Elmar) to S-Mount?
sp9107sp
Well-known
$5555.00 lens hood
$5555.00 lens hood
it was the 2.1cm Nikon rangefinder hood. i believe the sale ended up not going through because the buy thought it was the lens also. there was some miss-communication.
jim
$5555.00 lens hood
it was the 2.1cm Nikon rangefinder hood. i believe the sale ended up not going through because the buy thought it was the lens also. there was some miss-communication.
jim