with the cost of a nikon s3 and 50 f1.4 lens roughly equal to the cost of an m6 with 50mm summilux, i wonder if anyone with experience of both cameras can speak to their relative merits as picture takers. i have used nikon RF models over the years, and always found them to be fine cameras, with brite rangefinders and good handling characteristics. i especially like the 100% magnification of the viewfinder. combined with the longer RF base (as compared to an M6) this makes for super-accurate focusing (roughly 2x the effective baselength of the m6 .72). any thoughts on whether the new s3 might be a good user camera -- especially now that so many of the voigtlander lenses are being made in the nikon RF mount. thanks!!

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), February 28, 2002

Answers

As to "picture takers" I can't say, because I can't seem to get past the difference in "build". Not that the quality of the S3 isn't good - it is. But I guess I would have to call it the basic architecture or engineering of the camera & lens - the lens mount, for example, and also rangefinder flare. The Nikon also just feels too "tinny" to me. Hard for me to feel comfortable with it having become accustomed to SM and BM Leica rangefinders.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), February 28, 2002.

If you think that current Leica viewfinders are Schisophrenic, wait till you try the Nikon S3 with all three bright lines visible (more or less) at once. I still think that the SP had it right, though.

-- Bill (bmitch@home.com), February 28, 2002.

Roger,

You're right that the Nikon RFs are fine cameras. I had an S2 that I really liked, but I always thought its shutter was a little more 'cla-chunky' (for lack of a better word) and couldn't shoot as slow as on an M.

I've always had issues with the Contax/Nikon RF mount. The M mount represents much better engineering. The Nikon/ Contax mount tends to dry out and get a little sloppy. Also, I think you'd find the opposite focusing direction from the M distracting.

In short, I'm sure the S3 will make fine pictures, but I think Nikon's aim here is for the collector market, not for the user. Plus, if you think Leica prices are expensive (say, on a lens shade) try coming to terms with some of that Nikon RF stuff, if you can even find it!

It's a looker though, isn't it?

-- Carlin (carlinm@abac.com), February 28, 2002.

thanks for your input. a couple of follow up points: first, as for the brite lines all being displayed at once, i like this. it is a good way of previewing lenses. as for the superiority of the sp in this area, remember that while the sp has a selector switch, it simply adds add'l lines, it doesn't remove the ones already there (i.e. once you get to the lines for the 135, all the other lines are displayed as well). there is also no question in my view that the s3 finder (simple albada type) is FAR less flare prone than either the sp finder or any of the leica finders precisely because it does not have superimposed "floating" lines. you pay a price for every convenience, and flare in the finder bothers me more than the lack of selectable (and parallax corrected) lines. in terms of build quality, there is a lot of aesthetic judgment at play here, but i think the nikons exude quality to a far greater degree than the leicas. they are modeled (externally and vis-a-vis the RF) on the contax cameras which, in their day, were widely regarded as superior to leicas in terms of build quality. it was the dodgy shutters and mechanicals that let the contax products down. that is precisely why nikon copied the RF and external design of the contax iia, but copied the innards of the leica. but, again, this is all subjective. i think part of the problem may be that it is rare today to see a true mint nikon RF camera of any kind, and so few people have a fair benchmark of comparison. a dead mint sp is a sight to behold, and certainly the build quality equal of any RF design. as for the mount, i'm not sure what to say, they are so different. and i don't just mean how the lens is fixed, but the concept of an integral helical as well. the nikon design has the HUGE advantage of compactness. with the inboard helical, nikon could make its lenses much smaller and (possibly more important) much lighter. i think there may also be an advantage in terms of the RF interface. i also like the positive engagement of the lens in the nikon (really contax) design, at least in virgin samples. but whether the light touch of the helical appeals to any given user is a matter of taste. i hated it initially when i first handled an sp years ago. after a few weeks, however, the combination of the light touch and super large, super clear, super accurate RF made for lightning focus. when i went back to my m2 (at that time), it felt like i was moving in slow-mo. anyway, just another taste thing. finally, as for the idea that the s3 millenium is a collector-only camera, i disagree. admittedly, it is a reproduction camera made in small numbers. however, the m6 (as erwin puts points out in his great m7 article) is really just an m3 with a light meter -- no real changes at all. when the m3 was current, serious news photogs chose the nikon RF system over leica. there was a real debate about which system -- leica or nikon -- was better (thrilling to think what course the nikon RF system would have taken over the years had not nikon gone the slr route -- what would an sp with forty years of nikon innovation look like??). viewed in that way, why shouldn't a reissue of the s3 be a genuine alternative to the m6?? again, i think more of a taste thing than anything else. i really don't think there is anything fundamental to the m6 design that makes it any more superior to the reissue s3 than the m3 was to the original nikon product. in the end, i think leica without a doubt currently has the edge for the simple reason that the company makes a large and wondrous array of state of the art optics for its cameras. the lens is always the most important part of any camera. while the new 50 1.4 that comes with the millenium s3 is a modern design, the only other new tech lenses for the camera are from voigt (and then onlythe 21, 25 and 35 for now). again, thanks for your thoughts.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), February 28, 2002.

Is the Nikon S3 all mechanical What is the top shutter speed?

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), February 28, 2002.

Roger, I don't believe that the Contax was ever considered superior to Leica in quality of construction. But it certainly had better lenses, and on paper, at least, better features (combined RF/VF, bayonet lens mount, removable back, self-timer, etc.). A major reason that many photojournalists preferred Nikon was their being stroked by the importers (Joe Eisenrich(sp)) where Leitz, like Zeiss, didn't think they needed to compete with those upstart Japanese. Ha!

-- Bill (bmitch@home.com), February 28, 2002.

Dear Roger and Everyone,

Here in Japan I see the new Nikon S3 in camera stores all the time. I even played with one. No question the construction is excellent. The lens is excellent too. The the 35/50/105 lines displayed in the finder remind me of the Canon P. But my question is: What's the point of it all. Nikon is not going to build a system around this camera. And if it did, reviving the old Contax/Nikon mount would be a little like bring back spats. It's an okay mount but not a great mount--not much faster than the Leica screw mount.

Voigtlander has three stunning lenses that fit Contax/Nikon mounts, which is great if you have an old Contax / Nikon / Kiev that you dearly love. But otherwise they are like the flowers born to blush unseen and waste their fragrance on the desert air.

It is primarily because of thoese three stunning lenses--35/2.4, 25/ 4 and 21/4--that I toyed with the idea of getting an old Nikon S2. With 50mm lens they are about the price of a mint Leica M6 classic. Not insanely expensive (though back in 1987 I nearly bought one for $300 at K&S in Palo Alto). The truth is: I hated the feel as much as I appriciated the craft that went into the camera.

The new Nikon S3 is a beauty. I am sure it takes beautiful pictures. I know that having a beautiful camera does inspire beautiful pictures somehow. If this camera will be your divine spark, get it. It is a better investment than Enron stock.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), February 28, 2002.

I wonder why Nikon brought back the S3 instead of top of the line SP? A warehouse full of spare parts that somebody stumbled on (perhaps the japanese IRS)?

-- Bill (bmitch@cmcast.net), February 28, 2002.

"Is the Nikon S3 all mechanical What is the top shutter speed?"

All mechanical. No meter or electronics. Top speed 1/1000. Synch at 1/60. Film loading, controls, and layout similar to Nikon F, but without reflex mirror box.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), February 28, 2002.

"I wonder why Nikon brought back the S3 instead of top of the line SP? A warehouse full of spare parts that somebody stumbled on (perhaps the japanese IRS)?"

Bill - almost certainly because the S3 has a much simpler (read 'cheaper') finder. 3 permanent brightlines instead of the switchable 50/85/105/135 frames + 28/35 peephole finder, as I imagine you know. It was a lot cheaper to plate out 3 silver lines on a sheet of glass than put in all the moving parts for the SP finder - just like it was in 1962 when the S3 came out the first time.

BTW if you runs across one, the Canon "P" screw-mount body is very comparable to the S3 - life-size view, 35-50-100 frames permanently visible - and with a very tight build - except for the squeaky stainless-steel-foil shutter. If parts and servicing wern't such a problem I'd consider it, as a user, a very strong competitor even to the M2/M4s - the perfect excuse to buy one of those screw-mount 35 ASPHs from 2-3 years ago.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 01, 2002.

mr. Bill , your mention about "Schizophrenia " ?

-- Puchong Lau (doctorpuchong@hotmail.com), March 01, 2002.

I have spent about half my life living and working around the Japanese people, and travelling a lot in that beautiful country. I have the opinion that Nikon made the S3 for the same reason that Nissan and Toyota came out a few years ago with "classic" re-makes of several new car models for their domestic market. Just to show that they can do it. It's a brief marketing effort to satisfy a small demand for something retro. (Even their new motorcycles are going through this stage). Those vehicles look like restored versions of cars from the 1940s or early 1950s, but are, in fact, very new. However, I don't see Toyota or Nissan keeping those models very long. And I would not be surprised to see Nikon moving on to something else, leaving the S3 to become a rare collectible. Except for the tendancy of the Japanese to honor their long tradition of indigenous arts (like kimonos, pottery, paper-making, and so forth), and the associated artesians as "living trewasures", I don't see Japanese camera makers staying with a proven brand identity for very long, as Leica has done with the M series.

At least Ford can keep the Mustang namesake alive for 35-plus years. Same can be said for GM and the Corvette. But can you think of one Japanese car company that has kept the same brand name (other than the bland Camry or Corolla lines) long enought to establish a cult following, world-wide? It's not in their nature to stay with slowing- evolving consumer goods that rely as much on sentimental value or historic impact (like the M cameras), as campared to the latest technological "improvemewnts". They prefer to move along to someting else that is newer, better, has more bells and whistles, etc. Does anyone remember the Emerson, Lake and Palmer album cover (greatest hits version) showing the 1600s-era Japanese ladies in kimono and surroundings(in the woodblock print art style) listening to music on Walkmans and phonographs players?

-- Steve Brantley (sbrantley@nccommerce.com), March 01, 2002.

This is an old thread & I've already argued w/Bill Mitchell about Leica v. Contax build quality/engineering, etc. on another thread (I voiced the opinion that, far from having "dodgy shutters & mechanicals," the Contax was superior to the TM Leica on all counts), so I'll limit this posting to voicing my opinion re: the Contax/Nikon RF lens mount issue. I'm probably the only 1 who feels this way, but I disagree w/Carlin, et al. & believe that the Contax/Nikon RF mount is actually more intuitive & ergonomically comfortable than the Leica M mount. By that I mean that I've found it much easier, w/the Contax/Nikon hanging on a shoulder/neck strap & lens facing away from me (which is the way I usually carry a camera), to unlatch the lens w/my left hand & then use my right hand to rotate the lens clockwise & remove it (I'm right-handed, BTW) than use the opposite hands for each task, which I'm forced to do w/the M cameras. To me, changing a lens on the M's is easier only if the camera lens is facing towards me (viewfinder up)--only then can I use my left hand to unlatch the lens & my right hand to rotate the lens counter-clockwise & remove it. I've also used Leica thread mount cameras (Canon P) & disagree that the Contax/Nikon RF mount is comparably slow--I think it's significantly faster--but maybe I just don't have as much practice w/the LTM. Bottom line: if I could afford 1, the S3 Millenium (or original) would be a fine shooter, but, like Alex pointed out, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for new lenses from Nikon!

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), March 11, 2002.

I asked this question on the Topica RF list a while ago, & Stephen Gandy opined that it was already a gigantic pain for Nikon to bring back the S3 (they had to grab old factory hands out of retirement to teach current workers the old-fashioned manufacturing techniques, start up a special production line, etc.), so that reproducing the SP would have been too much.

---

I wonder why Nikon brought back the S3 instead of top of the line SP? A warehouse full of spare parts that somebody stumbled on (perhaps the japanese IRS)?

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), March 11, 2002.