mark_pw
Established
In my perception, a standard Nikon RF kit with a 50mm f1.4 lens is at the price range of $400+
I've just found this at a very low price.
https://ebay.to/2p6V7rM
Do I miss anything?
I've just found this at a very low price.
https://ebay.to/2p6V7rM
Do I miss anything?
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Lens is reported to have slight fungus, slight could be a matter of opinion.
Shutter curtains are reported to be good, but pinholes can only be noticed on a real film test.
The camera might be worth only for what it is priced at.
For real users I would recommend the S2 over the S, it is so much better, even at more than double the price of this one.
Shutter curtains are reported to be good, but pinholes can only be noticed on a real film test.
The camera might be worth only for what it is priced at.
For real users I would recommend the S2 over the S, it is so much better, even at more than double the price of this one.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Looks like a decent user, lens looks so-so. But where he’s circled that nick, does it look like that plate is pushed in there? Doesn’t look straight across to me.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
In my perception, a standard Nikon RF kit with a 50mm f1.4 lens is at the price range of $400+
I've just found this at a very low price.
https://ebay.to/2p6V7rM
Do I miss anything?
It's an S with fungus. I wouldn't want it at that price.
raid
Dad Photographer
If your budget is $250, this is a reasonable set for taking photos with a Nikon RF camera until a few years from now the lens will cloud up .... maybe.
Peter Jennings
Well-known
You can find an S for not much more than that in much better condition if you’re patient. I’d also recommend an S2. Even so, a nice chrome S2 with lens shouldn’t cost you more than 500.
Mackinaw
Think Different
I sold a Nikon S parts camera for $250 several years back. If you're on a budget and want to try a Nikon rangefinder, I'd consider this camera.
Jim B.
Jim B.
mark_pw
Established
Thank you.
In your experience, how is a S2 better than a S. I usually take portraits of my kids and some random street photos.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Thank you.
In your experience, how is a S2 better than a S. I usually take portraits of my kids and some random street photos.
The viewfinder is larger on the S2 & 1 : 1 instead of a small peep VF that is slightly better than a Barnack Leica save for the IIIg ( I still prefer the Leica tiny VF over the one on the S because it is uncluttered)
The S2 is a lighter camera with a more durable covering than the real leather on the S and the S2 uses one key instead of two keys to open the back plus the lever film wind and crank rewind is a bonus to some.
The S2 is reputed to be more reliable than the S and many S2 cameras go on working 64 years later with no CLA in the interms as long as they get regular average use.
Plus the film frame format on the S is 24x34 as compared to the 35mm camera standard on the S2 of 24x36, standard format is my preference by a long shot.
The top shutter speed on the S2 of 1/1000 might be important to some but not to me.
The S is a 1930s camera in its feel and performance and the S2 is a 1950s machine in its feel and performance.
Livesteamer
Well-known
The S2 has a much bigger finder and a slightly improved shutter. Still, I like the S. My first rangefinder was a Nikon S with 50mm f2.0, I still have it. It is bigger and heavier than my Leica IIIc but they are sweet old cameras. This could be a low cost entry in the Nikon RF system. Clean 50mm Nikon S mount lenses are not expensive. Having said that, sometimes spending a little more will get you a much nicer product. I'll also add that the fact it is clearly well used says that it did a lot of good work for someone. Joe
mark_pw
Established
richardHaw
junk scavenger
thats an expensive junk class camera.
i bought S mount cameras in better shape for parts and they are cheaper and better than this one
i bought S mount cameras in better shape for parts and they are cheaper and better than this one