Toccata
Member
Just curious as to what it was that made you choose Nikon over any other rf. Was it the lenses, the 1:1 vf, the solid but not overly complicated build, rarity or just a je ne sais quoi?
imhere
Peter
I like the 1:1 viewfinder, the longer rangefinder base, although the rangefinder patch is so so to say the least when compared with an M Leica and the titanium shutter.
enasniearth
Well-known
nikon
nikon
my decision was made in 1974 , cost was the main factor . the nikon s2 with a 5 cm 1.4 was quite a bit less than a leica m2 .
later i had a leica m5 with the 35mm 1.4 summilux . have gone back to the s2 now - it is a very simple camera that the use is second nature to me now .
the lenses are very high quality ,
some times i miss the summilux 35 1.4 . it had a weird magic - wide open it was sharp but lost contrast . the nikkor 35 1.8 for rf has similiar performance from 2.8 down , they are both top notch . i think the nikkor has more contrast wide open and the results look sharper .
nikon
my decision was made in 1974 , cost was the main factor . the nikon s2 with a 5 cm 1.4 was quite a bit less than a leica m2 .
later i had a leica m5 with the 35mm 1.4 summilux . have gone back to the s2 now - it is a very simple camera that the use is second nature to me now .
the lenses are very high quality ,
some times i miss the summilux 35 1.4 . it had a weird magic - wide open it was sharp but lost contrast . the nikkor 35 1.8 for rf has similiar performance from 2.8 down , they are both top notch . i think the nikkor has more contrast wide open and the results look sharper .
NikonSP
Member
My decision was made for me also. It is a family heirloom.
rbsinto
Well-known
I started with Nikon SLR equipment back in 1977, and have been loyal to them ever since because of the quality, reliability and ruggedness of their products.
Then, after being introduced to the Nikon F SLR about ten or so years ago, I became curious about and very interested in using the S3 and SP rangefinders which are mechanically very similar, and have virtually identical functional layouts, so that going from the F to an SP or S3 was seamless.
Then, after being introduced to the Nikon F SLR about ten or so years ago, I became curious about and very interested in using the S3 and SP rangefinders which are mechanically very similar, and have virtually identical functional layouts, so that going from the F to an SP or S3 was seamless.
Last edited:
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I tried the 2000 model but didn't take to it mostly because of the rf patch being so different than what I was used to in the M6. It would have saved me a lot of money if I has started with Nikon since I would have been able to afford only so many Nikkors.
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
It started with the F, we only had Nikon's and Hassys back home (family photo business), so the Nikon RF's seem logic to me because they have the same "feeling".
You see when you grab a Nikon from 1948 or one from today they just "meet" your hands and Eye the same way, remarkable design.
From a engineering point of view it's a no brainier, they just don't need CLA like the other fancy camera... ;-) Oh and the lens, they are just outstanding! All of them have "charisma" .
You see when you grab a Nikon from 1948 or one from today they just "meet" your hands and Eye the same way, remarkable design.
From a engineering point of view it's a no brainier, they just don't need CLA like the other fancy camera... ;-) Oh and the lens, they are just outstanding! All of them have "charisma" .
Last edited:
barnwulf
Well-known
I have used Nikon SLRs and DSLRs for a long time with my first being a new Nikon F. I bought a Leica M4 3 or 4 years ago and loved the Leica Ms. I found RFF and learned about the Nikon RF cameras and thought they were beautiful. Bought a S3 and loved the 1:1 viewfinder since I use a 35mm lens most of the time. I now have both a chrome and a black Limited Edition S3 which I shoot with for a couple of weeks at a time. I still mostly use my Leicas. Jim
Gary Sandhu
Well-known
1:1 viewfinder, the millennium nikkor 50
scorpius73
Well-known
Why Nikon? Cause I got the Nikon SP for a great price. Loved the way it looked and felt in the hand. So bought a re-issue S3 and a few lenses to round it out. The Millenium 50mm f1.4 is a great reason though.
telecentricity
Telecentricity
I started with Nikon DSLRs then stumbled backwards into film SLRs and finally Nikon RF. I love my SP because it is unique and perfect in its own way. Their VF is inferior to Contax or Leica but there is something compelling and intangible about using the Nikon. I guess the soul of a camera is really the images that it has made during its history. Amateurs probably don't play around with film rangefinders unless they find some special allure.
Timestep
Established
Bought my first Nikon S2 with 50mm F/2 lens in 1956. My dealer was a Contax man and it took considerable persuasion from me to have him order this Nikon in for me.
Two years later I obtained a second S2 body — I had considered an SP briefly , and my dealer offered to bring one in on spec for me, but my instinct was that the SP viewfinder would be confusing, so I stayed with what I knew worked for me.
This second body with 50mm 35mm and 105mm lenses ( and a recently added Voigtlander 21mm Skopar ) are still in regular use— restored by Pete Smith, and good for another fifty years.
Two years later I obtained a second S2 body — I had considered an SP briefly , and my dealer offered to bring one in on spec for me, but my instinct was that the SP viewfinder would be confusing, so I stayed with what I knew worked for me.
This second body with 50mm 35mm and 105mm lenses ( and a recently added Voigtlander 21mm Skopar ) are still in regular use— restored by Pete Smith, and good for another fifty years.
James24
Well-known
I started with a Nikkormat and then got an F....then in a blink 30 years have gone by, and I've had a load of the SLR kit, but along comes the internet and I find these neat Nikon rangefinder things can be got from across the ocean courtesy of eBay. So I just had to get one. Or two. 
Oh and why Nikon? Because Nikon is Nikon. It's the best. I have an incurable brand loyalty problem. I tried to fix it by buying a Leica M6 (which I like a lot) but it it didn't work.
Oh and why Nikon? Because Nikon is Nikon. It's the best. I have an incurable brand loyalty problem. I tried to fix it by buying a Leica M6 (which I like a lot) but it it didn't work.
marcr1230
Well-known
Nikons work 50+ years later - and almost never need the ole CLA.
The price is right. lots of quality lenses available - nice viewfinder
they look cool and take great pictures - 'nuff said.
The price is right. lots of quality lenses available - nice viewfinder
they look cool and take great pictures - 'nuff said.
_goodtimez
Well-known
I had used the F for years and the S2 looks like a little F. I bought mine a few months ago along with a 50mm f2 and a VC 35mm f2.5.
I love the S2 and the pictures taken with it are great.
I love the S2 and the pictures taken with it are great.
looked at within the context of their time,
1957-1960 when the NRF system was its largest
Nikon showed a lot more innovation than Leica
of course, that was predictable since Nikon was playing catch up to Leica
and Leica had over 90% of RF sales at that time
Out of the gate, Nikon introduced the SP motor with the SP in 1957 -
a pro quality motor (which could be mounted on EVERY SP) which is something Leica has NEVER had for its film M bodies to this day. Leica motors of that time were limited to special motor models and were terribly unreliable.
Leica never had a motor for half frame cameras. The Nikon motor for the S3M blazed along at 12 frames per second as I recall.
the 1957 SP had built in framelines for 28, 35, 50, 85, 105 & 135 lenses
it only took Leica until 1980 to equal that feat with six framelines in the M4-P
Leica never had a production 1000mm lens for its M lineup. Nikon had the 1000/6.3 in 1960.
Nikon had the 50/1.1 in 1956. Leica did not introduce a faster than 50/1.4 until the 50/1.2 Noctilux in 1966.
In many ways, Leica M's were laggards compared to the innovative Nikon Rangefinder system. Many Nikon owners of the time were embarrassed at Leica's lack of up to date technology.
Looking back a half a century later, Nikon Rangefinders are generally more reliable than Leica M's as they need CLA's much less often. Likewise Nikkor NRF lenses generally need cleaning due to their elements fogging up much less than Leitz lenses of the 1950's - 1960's.
Stephen
Stephen
1957-1960 when the NRF system was its largest
Nikon showed a lot more innovation than Leica
of course, that was predictable since Nikon was playing catch up to Leica
and Leica had over 90% of RF sales at that time
Out of the gate, Nikon introduced the SP motor with the SP in 1957 -
a pro quality motor (which could be mounted on EVERY SP) which is something Leica has NEVER had for its film M bodies to this day. Leica motors of that time were limited to special motor models and were terribly unreliable.
Leica never had a motor for half frame cameras. The Nikon motor for the S3M blazed along at 12 frames per second as I recall.
the 1957 SP had built in framelines for 28, 35, 50, 85, 105 & 135 lenses
it only took Leica until 1980 to equal that feat with six framelines in the M4-P
Leica never had a production 1000mm lens for its M lineup. Nikon had the 1000/6.3 in 1960.
Nikon had the 50/1.1 in 1956. Leica did not introduce a faster than 50/1.4 until the 50/1.2 Noctilux in 1966.
In many ways, Leica M's were laggards compared to the innovative Nikon Rangefinder system. Many Nikon owners of the time were embarrassed at Leica's lack of up to date technology.
Looking back a half a century later, Nikon Rangefinders are generally more reliable than Leica M's as they need CLA's much less often. Likewise Nikkor NRF lenses generally need cleaning due to their elements fogging up much less than Leitz lenses of the 1950's - 1960's.
Stephen
Stephen
MC JC86
Negative Nancy.
Reliability, simplicity, but most of all the recent decrease in prices. Plus all the sweet C/V lenses now available for them. A couple bodies and all the lenses you need for much less than my old M outfit. Oh, and they look awesome.
ljsegil
Well-known
Make nice photos too.
LJS
LJS
Highway 61
Revisited
For the fun of having people keep asking me "Oh, nice camera, is that a Leica ?" and then...
Note : during some recent trips in Toronto, Canada, I got MANY 50-60 years old people stopping me in the streets and telling me that they were so happy to see some Nikon rangefinders around the shoulder of somebody my age (I'm 43). That was really unexpected. One man even stopped his car, opened the passenger's window, and shouted at me : "That's a REAL camera you have there !"
Note : during some recent trips in Toronto, Canada, I got MANY 50-60 years old people stopping me in the streets and telling me that they were so happy to see some Nikon rangefinders around the shoulder of somebody my age (I'm 43). That was really unexpected. One man even stopped his car, opened the passenger's window, and shouted at me : "That's a REAL camera you have there !"
Contarama
Well-known
For me the answer is real simple...a nice clean black Nikon RF would look super cool sitting next to my F2 with eye-level finder! I could do all my wide angle stuff with a RF and my short to long tele stuff with a SLR.