Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Fungus isn’t unique or prone to attacking equipment from certain manufacturers. What causes fingus is high humidity and dust particles (always present microscopically), Lack of light and no air circulation adds to the problem. Zeiss issued a notice stating that fungus can begin to grow in even one day if relative humidity exceeds 60% and that, contrary to what some think, fungus on one lens does not “infect” other lenses - rather the conditions that caused fungus on the one lens will cause it on the others unless the situation is rectified.
I think keeping humidity below 50% and having good air circulation will prevent fungus. I live in Washington state, near a rainforest, cool temperatures and cloudy days. I have nearly 200 lenses and none of them - none of them - have fungus. The cameras and lenses in my camera room are out in the open - on shelves - and none are in cases They are between 62F and 75F year-round with humidity never being higher than 55%.
When I moved into my house, over 20 years ago, I kept my refractor telescope in its box in a dark closet for over 10 years without looking at it (rainy and cloudy here too much for astronomy). Anyway, eventually I thought I should check it, expecting to find an objective lens ruined by fungus. Big surprise: it was fine. The relative low humidity in the house saved it.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
This is a result of everyone buying the clean cameras and only the crap being left over. Be cautious about buying from a seller from Japan on eBay, many of the listings are fake. They list someone else’s local listing for a jacked up price, and then if you buy it they buy the local listing and forward it to you.
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
fungus, damaged coating on front window glass, weak RF patch- those are very common for 500~700$ bodies, if you can't say for 100% from pictures that the viewfinder is clean, don't buy it.
It really depends on the definition of 'better.' If you regularly shoot multiple focal lengths including the 28 and 35 it is arguably 'better' to have support for those built-in to the camera.
If you shoot only 35 and up, then the S3 might be 'better' as the 35mm view is life-size on the S3, but reduced magnification and a separate window on the SP.
If you shoot only 50mm, then the S2 might be 'better.'
If you shoot 50mm and greater, then the S4 might be 'better.'
This is assuming equivalent rangefinder patch contrast between all these models.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Some people may like to have a life-seize 35mm finder in their camera, but most normal people, who like to use a viewfinder to compose a picture, will choose a 0,7x seize 35mm finder, just as in an M2.
Erik.
I guess I am abnormal, then. A life-size viewfinder allows both-eyes-open, and there is no increase in size of the camera. What's not to like?
A life-size viewfinder allows both-eyes-open, and there is no increase in size of the camera. What's not to like?
Erik van Straten
Mentor
I guess I am abnormal, then.
There is nothing against this, but you will not see the frame in its totality. No problem when the composition of your picture does not bother you.
In addition: the size of the camera and the magnification factor of the viewfinder are two aspects that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
I don't mind that you are abnormal. There is nothing against abnormality as long as Gods blessing rests upon it.
Erik.
Try to get a life size 35mm viewfinder for an M body while keeping the camera the same size. Try to do that with an S2 or SP.
Unlike Leicas, the presence of the 35mm frames doesn’t compromise the magnification of frames 50mm and up. The SP gets around this by having two viewfinders, but then framing and focusing can’t be done without taking extra time moving between them.
Focusing accuracy is reduced with lower mag viewfinders, since magnification is part of the accuracy equation along with rf baselength.
All this makes the S3 unique among rangefinders for those discerning ‘abnormal’ shooters.
Unlike Leicas, the presence of the 35mm frames doesn’t compromise the magnification of frames 50mm and up.
The SP gets around this by having two viewfinders, but then framing and focusing can’t be done without taking extra time moving between them.Focusing accuracy is reduced with lower mag viewfinders, since magnification is part of the accuracy equation along with rf baselength.
All this makes the S3 unique among rangefinders for those discerning ‘abnormal’ shooters.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I think what Erik's getting at is that a larger viewfinder means more eye movement is necessary. 1:1 viewfinders at 50mm are relatively useable for most; personally, I even find the 35mm framelines in the Canon 7's 0.8x viewfinder a bit too big. I end up scanning across the entire frame, moving my eye around to make sure I'm not missing anything, so I definitely couldn't use a 1:1 35mm finder.
Smaller viewfinders might be "squinty" but at least I can take in the whole image in one go, making it far easier to compose quickly.
Smaller viewfinders might be "squinty" but at least I can take in the whole image in one go, making it far easier to compose quickly.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Clearly some people can't stand the extra large 35mm brightline on the S3. I think those people are shooting with only one eye open. If you just open both your eyes, you'll find that you can easily see the entire frame and you don't have to move your eye around. But to each their own, just use what you like.
S3 + 3.5cm f/2.5
S3 + 3.5cm f/2.5
Erik van Straten
Mentor
I think Coldkennels is right here. The movement of the eye means that you cannot see the whole image at once. It is necessary to see everything together to see the composition of the image. To see the composition of his painting a painter looks at it from a distance. When he is too close, he only sees some details. To look through a 1:1 finder that indicates the image of a 35mm lens is as if a painter looks at his painting from too close.
Erik.
Erik.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
You finally convinced me, I just threw my S3 in the garbage where it belongs. I can't believe I was so stupid to be too close to everything this whole time. I'm such an idiot.
S3 + 3.5cm f/2.5
BWF
Established
I love the S2 and SP. Both cameras, but particularly the S2, seem to shoot themselves and they are just a joy to use.
This is a nice compromise, too bad the 3,5cm finder goes for insane money.
Easier to see the 35 framelines with the SP and external finder when wearing glasses.
Easier to see the 35 framelines with the SP and external finder when wearing glasses.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
That is a waste of an expensive camera. You had better send it to me. Chrome or black?
Great shot, btw.
Erik.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
I use this Nikon finder on my Leica III when I use the new Heliar 40mm f2.8. A pretty good combination. I'm not surprised that this finder is expensive, everybody needs it on their Nikons S2 and S3.
I hope Cosina makes a version of this Heliar for the Contax, Kiev and Nikon users.
gelatin silver print (heliar 40mm f2.8) leica III
Erik.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Funny, I was going to suggest you send me a camera with a 0.72x viewfinder so I can finally be at peace. It's black, but I admit I'm still very envious of your black S2. And thank you.
That would be really nice. I would really like to see the 50mm f/1.5 Heliar in S-mount. But I doubt they will ever release more SC lenses after the poor sales of the earlier 8 lenses. Cameraquest still has most of them listed for sale 20 years later.
This is my setup. The viewfinder is about .8x life size if I had to guess.
edit: not sure what's going on with IMG tag.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Some just need to open both eyes.
I am starting a special club of people who have found enlightenment using the S3 35mm brightlines with both eyes open. You are the first member.