What's the Appeal of a Nikon RF?

Seems that Nikon and Leica collectors pay outrageous prices for some rare stuff. The Nikon collectors may have the edge, though. Not as many made.

My fun in collecting cameras is to find the "junk store prize" and getting cameras and lenses that need repair. I have not done too badly with just running into stuff. $90 got me a Black Leica III with Elmar, Leica IIIa with Summar, Nikon M with 5cm f1.4, Rolleiflex V, and Rollei TE.
 
Funny- I found the second Nikon M at the same "antique store" a few feet away from the first one bought there a few months before, in a different dealers showcase.

Does not happen EVERY weekend. Every 4th weekend.
 
* for something different (most RF shooters have M-mount bodies)
* the lens choice is limited (not necessarily a bad thing as it reduces GAS!) but the lens quality is very high
* they look cool
* they focus the right way
* the Nikon 1:1 finders are very easy on the eyes (can shoot with both eyes open)
* Nikons are more reliable than Leicas
* prices are reasonable as long as you stay away from the collector items
 
The Nikon lenses are not expensive unless one goes for the truly rare stuff. It's hard to find a 50/1.4 Summilux for $150 unless it's junk; it's not that difficult to find a quality 50/1.4 Nikkor for Nikon RF for that price.

35mm and 85mm are similar. Cameraquest has very good prices on some nice 35/2.5s ($200 for EX+, $249 for mint-) and had 50/1.4 for $150, and 85/2 for $225 and mint- black 105/2.5 for $350.

http://cameraquest.com/frames/nrf_for_sale.htm

One has to really get lucky to find Leica glass that is in similar condition for those prices.
 
For those of us that actually take pictures, I can load an SP much easier than I can an M. I got my first M when I was 18; I'm 47 now and still can't load an M quickly. ;)
 
digitalintrigue said:
For those of us that actually take pictures, I can load an SP much easier than I can an M. I got my first M when I was 18; I'm 47 now and still can't load an M quickly. ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe you are using a wrong M? ;)
I had the same problem with M3 and M6. But for some reason I load M5 much easier and faster. Go figure! ;)
 
I think the problem is me, I'm just not compatible. ;) And I've had about every M there is a few times...
 
You know, You name a kid NICOLE, call her NIKKI all her life, and she prefers a Leica M3.

What can you do.
 
For me the charm of the Nikon Rf's is the fact that until 15 years ago I never owned one. I had used them - occasional "trading" with other shooters in the 60's and 70's - so there was a great deal of the mystique surrounding them. I started with M's in the late 50's - and still use them - but there is something about an S2 and a 50f1.4 or a SP with the 28/35 that is appealing.
The lenses are good, in many ways better than Leica's offerings at the time and they are robust. I have had very few Nikon Rf's that has given me trouble. I had a S4 that capped the shutter, a S2 with a weak rangefinder spot and a S3 with iffy shutterspeeds. I just like them because they are different.
It is easier to pin-point focus with a Nikon. The longer throw makes it less likely to "overshoot" the target.
OK, the "toothy" focussing wheel is not the brightest of designs and changing lenses is a bit of a hassle. Easier to keep several bodies and just leave the lenses on them!
Some of the lenses are wonderfully vintage, the 25f4 has a great vignetting, the 21f4 (F-mount with adapter) is sharp - but you certainly never have to edgeburn a print!
The 35f1.8 (both the old one and the new one) are spectacular performer- sharp and nicely moderated contrast. The 50f1.4's (old and new) will give Leica's f1.4's a run for the money! - And the 105f2.5 is still one of the best "short" tele's for a Rf.
As for cost - stay away from the collectibles, the original Rf mount 21, the 50f1.1 (not that great a lens anyway) and the 85f1.5 is slightly better than the Summarex from Leica = but that doesn't say much!
I usually shoot M's for a couple of months, then switch and shoot Nikon Rf's for a while as i cant really shoot them side-by-side as the "wrong way" focussing is difficult to cope with.
I you have to ask - i suggest you splurge on a S2 and a 50f1.4 ( will cost you less than a Leica M and a lens anyway) and try it out.
Oh, another benefit - Nikon Historical Society has the best "conventions" - in 2010 it is in Bruges/Belgium - great beer and usually very good programs. I have been to about 5 of these meets already and I am going to the one in Belgium too.
 
I have never used nikon RF, but I did try Contax and it's russian counterpart - Kiev. Nice, but just didnt feel right to me, so it was rather a quick affair. I do like Nikkor LTM lenses though - thier glass is superb. I have Nikon 10.5cm and used to have 8.5cm and both are awsome. Next I want to try 5cm/1.4 in ltm. So far Nikkor glass worked out great for me in RF world. And I was always a Canon shooter when it came to SLRs.
 
Krosya,

You need to do the S2 thing, it's a light year or two better than a Contax or Kiev. I moved to an S2 after hitting my head up against a couple of Kievs and a FED-2. They took the good parts, kept many and brought in some great parts.

B2 (;->
 
Brian Sweeney said:
A Leica will need a CLA every 15 years or so. Mine certainly have. .
Click to expand...

And mine certainly haven't.

I've been using Ms since the early 70s. Keep using them, and they keep working. Let 'em rest too long and they gum up and need a repair -- not a CLA.

If you want an improved Contax with a limited choice of mostly out-of-date lenses, Nikons are great. I can't see why anyone would buy a Nikon to take pictures (instead of as a collector/fondler/someone desperately trying to be different/oversated gourmand) since about 1980.

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Last edited:
Richard Jenkinson said:
I didn't know that Nikon/Contax/ lenses had a "best before" date.

When do they become "out dated"?

When they reach such date, will they stop taking great photos?

Izan ontsa,

P.
Click to expand...

Dear Richard,

Fair point.

To expand:

If you like the look of 50-to-80-year-old lens designs, without much option of anything more modern, or (for most focal lengths) sharper, faster and with more even illumination, and if you actually like the ergonomics of a Contax, and you really dislike Leicas for whatever reason, yes, that's the appeal of Nikon RFs.

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
If you want an improved Contax with a limited choice of mostly out-of-date lenses, Nikons are great. I can't see why anyone would buy a Nikon to take pictures (instead of as a collector/fondler/someone desperately trying to be different/oversated gourmand) since about 1980.

Tashi delek,

R.
Click to expand...
Roger,
For some it's a challenge!
For some it's a blast from the past.
For some it's the camera!
for some it's all what you said.
For me it's all the above.
2508395954_c565e00789_o.jpg

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Kiu
PS Image courtesy of Jonmanjiro
 
Last edited:
I had the Nikon S2 out today, with the Zeiss Opton 50/1.5 on it. I shimmed the camera's helical and adjusted the RF to work with Zeiss lenses. The viewfinder is much nicer than the Contax finder.

The Leica MP is not much different from the 1957 Leica M2, which is the same age as the Nikon SP. Add a meter to an M2, nice feature- buy certainly not the full technological marvel of the 21st century. M8- well, nothing gets older more quickly than a Digital camera. Leica M7- add 1970s style Automation to a Leica M2. And its resale value is no where as good as the MP which is "less advanced."

So the real question could be, "What's the appeal of any of these fossils?"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom