Bosk
Make photos, not war.
Is it purely an indication of their rarity and value to collectors, or am I missing something else?
I'm really just curious!
I'm really just curious!
dexdog
Veteran
I think that you have characterized it well.
steamer
Well-known
They are really nice cameras and the glass is great. But why that expensive I don't know. Maybe the Japanese money? I saw an S with 5cm 1.4 in a shop window in Tokyo yesterday for about $2400. That is outrageous even for Japan.
Perhaps Kiu or Vince have a more definitive answer.
Cheers,
Steamer
Perhaps Kiu or Vince have a more definitive answer.
Cheers,
Steamer
x-ray
Veteran
Even beaters bring more than they're worth IMO. They're great cameras but were made for a short time relative to Leica M's. The same is true for the Contax classic RF but the Nikon S2, S3 and SP are much more usable and more modern cameras.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
some models were made in small numbers and for a short period of time before the F tookover.
collectors are willing to pay more for them.
they were always high priced when new.
Joe Ehrenreich made sure they sold for top shelf prices as befitted a professional grade 35mm rf camera with some of the best lenses in the 1950s.
collectors are willing to pay more for them.
they were always high priced when new.
Joe Ehrenreich made sure they sold for top shelf prices as befitted a professional grade 35mm rf camera with some of the best lenses in the 1950s.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
Post-war Contaxes are, IMO, a much better bargain. Great build and superb glass. But I use cameras - none of them stay on the shelf.
x-ray
Veteran
I purchased one of the new S3-2000's and really love it but find it interesting that the price is relatively low compared to a new Leica M or even used. The S3-2000 comes with a spectacular 50 1.4 that I feel is better than my tabbed Summicron 50. I compared the two and the Nikkor has much lower flare and is equally sharp or better. It's actually about as close to my 50 asph summilux as I've found. The interesting part is the total package of the body and lens is roughly the same price as I paid for my 50 asph summilux. It's like buying the lens and getting the body free. I also purchased a 35 2.5, 85 2 and 105 nikkors for very reasonable prices. Very clean lenses are very cheap and CV lenses are available too.
A great comparison of the Nikon S3 2000 50/1.4 and Summilux.
http://www.imagere.com/edsarticles/fast50shootout.htm
That is kind of off topic, the reason for the Nikon prices is three fold in my eyes, low production numbers in a short period of time, the first cameras made by a dominant legendary company and Nikon nuts, just as crazy as Leica nuts.
http://www.imagere.com/edsarticles/fast50shootout.htm
That is kind of off topic, the reason for the Nikon prices is three fold in my eyes, low production numbers in a short period of time, the first cameras made by a dominant legendary company and Nikon nuts, just as crazy as Leica nuts.
dexdog
Veteran
rover said:
Not a slam, but I think that Nikon collectors are crazier than leica nuts. Kinda makes sense, given that Nikon RFs were in production for a relatively short period of time, compared to leica.
Nikon RFs had great of lenses. I recently bought a late model black 35/1.8 nikkor in Nikon RF mount to use on my Contax RF cameras. Great performer, easily as sharp as my 35/2.8 Biogon, somewhat smaller and lighter, and faster too.
R
rpsawin
Guest
Hmmmmm.....Leica nuts, Nikon nuts....kinda sounds like profiling and that's just wrong.
Bob
Bob
ZeissFan
Veteran
It would have to be primarily because of collectors, because they are the ones that would pay more than your average user for a camera. That has the effect of pushing up the price of a product.
Supply vs. demand.
Mechanically, the Nikon S is equally Leica and Contax. Nice cameras although the S is unnecessarily heavy.
Supply vs. demand.
Mechanically, the Nikon S is equally Leica and Contax. Nice cameras although the S is unnecessarily heavy.
dreamsandart
Well-known
I had a S3, S4 and SP and found them well built and solid cameras. Even a long sitting used Nikon RF rarely needs shutter work although the internal focus cam did need re-lubrication for smooth work, where as an unused M-series although having a great shutter needs more periodic servicing to keep it working in top form.
The lenses have harder lens coatings that have held up better in general then there Leica counter parts too. And especially the new 50 f1.4 has gotten very high praise with as noted here performance comparable with Leica's best. The classic 50s/60s Nikon lenses offer a look that many photographers want.
Untimely since I use M-series I sold my Nikon gear just because it duplicates my M-system and the familiar Leica ergonomics are different. I don't need 2 RF systems, but if you have the funds to do so, are getting into a RF system new, or just want something different the Nikon RS system is still an attractive. ( A NEW S3 2000 with 50 f1.4 isn't overpriced if you think about it )
I've never heard anyone say the original Nikon SLR cameras are not built like tanks, and the RF cameras are have the proven reputation to be just as good.
Both Nikon/Leica are fine cameras/lenses, it comes down to ( like in the 50s early 60s ) a personal choice.
The lenses have harder lens coatings that have held up better in general then there Leica counter parts too. And especially the new 50 f1.4 has gotten very high praise with as noted here performance comparable with Leica's best. The classic 50s/60s Nikon lenses offer a look that many photographers want.
Untimely since I use M-series I sold my Nikon gear just because it duplicates my M-system and the familiar Leica ergonomics are different. I don't need 2 RF systems, but if you have the funds to do so, are getting into a RF system new, or just want something different the Nikon RS system is still an attractive. ( A NEW S3 2000 with 50 f1.4 isn't overpriced if you think about it )
I've never heard anyone say the original Nikon SLR cameras are not built like tanks, and the RF cameras are have the proven reputation to be just as good.
Both Nikon/Leica are fine cameras/lenses, it comes down to ( like in the 50s early 60s ) a personal choice.
BillBingham2
Registered User
I'm a bit of a nut, both a Nikon and Leica nut. If I could get a Nikon (not a Cosina) with a built in meter, I would slim down to Nikon.
While I love the leica feel in my hands and they do have great lenses, it would be great to have an SLR and RF that work (focus, fstops, etc turning the same way) the same.
Why are Nikons holding their value, let me try to explain, at least IMHO.
Leica has a sound, Nikons do too. For me, I like each. I think the Leica is smooth, but the Nikon is crisp.
Nikon took what Contax started and took it to the next level. The SP is a Nikon F in rangefinder, rock solid and fast. Changing film is, well faster in an S2 than it is on an M6.
While Leica went with automatic frameline switching, Nikon went with a different way. Some like it better, I do because I only want to see the frame I am working with. I do not like having a mix of 75 and 50 when I am using a 50 or seeing the 135 when I have a 35 mounted. While I do not have an SP yet, I just like a clean viewfinder.
The SP is a world class RF that equals Leicas of thier day and much later. Nothing from anyone else of the same era comes close.
Again, this was MHO, you mileage may vary.
B2 (;->
While I love the leica feel in my hands and they do have great lenses, it would be great to have an SLR and RF that work (focus, fstops, etc turning the same way) the same.
Why are Nikons holding their value, let me try to explain, at least IMHO.
Leica has a sound, Nikons do too. For me, I like each. I think the Leica is smooth, but the Nikon is crisp.
Nikon took what Contax started and took it to the next level. The SP is a Nikon F in rangefinder, rock solid and fast. Changing film is, well faster in an S2 than it is on an M6.
While Leica went with automatic frameline switching, Nikon went with a different way. Some like it better, I do because I only want to see the frame I am working with. I do not like having a mix of 75 and 50 when I am using a 50 or seeing the 135 when I have a 35 mounted. While I do not have an SP yet, I just like a clean viewfinder.
The SP is a world class RF that equals Leicas of thier day and much later. Nothing from anyone else of the same era comes close.
Again, this was MHO, you mileage may vary.
B2 (;->
FrankS
Registered User
I am drawn to all the major RF camera manufacturer's cameras of that era: Leica M2 and 3, Contax IIa, and Nikon S. I'd have an S2 or Sp if I could afford one. Canon is in there too but I haven't got one.
They are like different women to me, and I love them all. (This is just a figure of speech/ turn of a phrase, and not to be taken literally.)
They are like different women to me, and I love them all. (This is just a figure of speech/ turn of a phrase, and not to be taken literally.)
VinceC
Veteran
Collectors, especially from Japan, drove up the prices up in the late 1980s. The cameras are also fairly rare. They were in meaningful production really for just nine years before the Nikon F created the SLR era.
I've nevery considered Nikon RF cameras to be all that expensive compared to Leica equivalents. Nicer user-condition (not mintish collector cameras) S3s and SPs seem to run in the $900 to $1,500 range, probably a little bit more than Leica M4s and M4Ps, the cameras that come closest in functionality. Lens for lens, the Nikkors tend to be somewhat cheaper than their Leitz counterparts, especially in user rather than collector condition. Collectors want the weird, exotic lenses, whereas patient users can spend less than $1,000 to build a complete set of classic user lenses: 28/3.5, 35/2.5, 50/1.4 and 105/2.5.
When I built my system not quite 20 years ago, I spent probably $2,200 on three bodies and about the same on the above named lenses, plus an 85/2, a 135/3.5, a 35.1.8 and a 21/4.5 Zeiss Biogon. Adjusting for inflation, the prices/value of the cameras and lenses have probably gone down since then. But I'm one of the weird few who thinks of them primarily as user cameras.
I've nevery considered Nikon RF cameras to be all that expensive compared to Leica equivalents. Nicer user-condition (not mintish collector cameras) S3s and SPs seem to run in the $900 to $1,500 range, probably a little bit more than Leica M4s and M4Ps, the cameras that come closest in functionality. Lens for lens, the Nikkors tend to be somewhat cheaper than their Leitz counterparts, especially in user rather than collector condition. Collectors want the weird, exotic lenses, whereas patient users can spend less than $1,000 to build a complete set of classic user lenses: 28/3.5, 35/2.5, 50/1.4 and 105/2.5.
When I built my system not quite 20 years ago, I spent probably $2,200 on three bodies and about the same on the above named lenses, plus an 85/2, a 135/3.5, a 35.1.8 and a 21/4.5 Zeiss Biogon. Adjusting for inflation, the prices/value of the cameras and lenses have probably gone down since then. But I'm one of the weird few who thinks of them primarily as user cameras.
Last edited:
bobkonos
Well-known
Collectors certainly drove up Nikon rf prices but in part because so few were made compared to Leica. I was concerned only with having a Leica M system in the 1980s., so Nikon rf cameras were not on my radar screen, but they were a relative bargain 20+ years ago.
I am now lucky enough to have both but the increased value of the Nikon rf cameras and lenses has kept me from doing no more than exercising them-shame on me. Life is short-I am going to start using that S2, a camera that is much easier to load than my M3.
I am now lucky enough to have both but the increased value of the Nikon rf cameras and lenses has kept me from doing no more than exercising them-shame on me. Life is short-I am going to start using that S2, a camera that is much easier to load than my M3.
NIKON KIU
Did you say Nippon Kogaku
I have news for you folks, Nikon RF prices have come down the last two years, Just a couple of days ago there was a black dial S2 with lens offred right here in RFF classifieds for under $500(did you see Rover?)!
Now considering that adding up total production of all the S2 S3 S4 and SP is under 100,000 cameras(do note that the Canon P alone was produced more), The Nikons are bargains!
Granted that the Nikon in Mint shape commands premium prices but the price of user examples have become reasonable. Unless you have to have the S4, just about all others could be had for halfway reasonable prices
S2 ~ $500-$700
S3 ~ $1000-$1500
SP ~ $1200-$1700
Not too steep considering a Leica M3 sells around $500-$1000 and the Canon P sells for around $300-$500
The lenses are as Vince said, very reasonable unless you have to have the 2.1cm F4(only 200 produced),2.5cm F4, the 5cm F1.1 or the 8cm f1.5...the rest are all under $300
Keep fishing and you'll get one at a descent price.
Kiu
Now considering that adding up total production of all the S2 S3 S4 and SP is under 100,000 cameras(do note that the Canon P alone was produced more), The Nikons are bargains!
Granted that the Nikon in Mint shape commands premium prices but the price of user examples have become reasonable. Unless you have to have the S4, just about all others could be had for halfway reasonable prices
S2 ~ $500-$700
S3 ~ $1000-$1500
SP ~ $1200-$1700
Not too steep considering a Leica M3 sells around $500-$1000 and the Canon P sells for around $300-$500
The lenses are as Vince said, very reasonable unless you have to have the 2.1cm F4(only 200 produced),2.5cm F4, the 5cm F1.1 or the 8cm f1.5...the rest are all under $300
Keep fishing and you'll get one at a descent price.
Kiu
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Profiling is wrong. But anything can be "profiling" by your indication (i.e. film nuts, healthy nuts, saturated fat nuts, bad-tasting nuts...etc.). Using a buzzword to mischaracterize an opinion is also wrong.rpsawin said: