Thank Leica for the Nikon S3 2000

H

Huss

Mentor
Local time
1:25 AM
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
9,859
Stunning really what Nikon went through to recreate the S3 2000 (and later the SP).

Full story here:

https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-s3/index.htm#id03

In the spring of 1994, driven by the surge of enthusiasm for Leica and other classic cameras, Mito Nikon initiated a new project to reproduce a Nikon's rangefinder camera which had once enjoyed great popularity for its outstanding performance.
Click to expand...

They must have lost money on those cameras. But wow.
 
So, they were trying to still Leica thunder, but got pooped. ?
Maybe because FED was still making FED-5 until 1991. Plenty of non Leica, but new RF back then.
Huss, you could still find NNU FED-5 on eBay :).
 
Raid, They're all beautiful, but the SP has always been the one that caught my eye. The 2000 with the 35mm 1.8..... is hard to stay away from. It's just a dream though. I buy cameras to use, & i like printing from bigger negatives...so it will stay a dream.
 
I had a Nikon S2 to use for a time many, many years ago (about 1970-71).

(I remember the time period because I took the very last photo ever made of my father with it at my grandmother's apartment the Sunday after Christmas in 1970...)

It was a nice camera, the body felt a lot like a smaller, trimmer version of my Nikon F. But I liked the feel of the Leica M3 that my grandfather had more.

G
 
raid said:
Do you guys like the Nikon S3 2000?
Click to expand...


I've never hold one in my hands, but I prefer the S2 to the original S3 or SP. This has to do with the fact that for the S3 and SP no correction lenses are available for the eyepiece. For the S2 these are difficult to find, but I have a couple of them.

Erik.

This is my S2.

47957677763_511dd712a7_z.jpg
 
I once bought a Nikon S3 2000 with the 50/1.4 strictly to get the lens.
I have still not used the camera. I may do this soon.
 
I never hold in my hands either. The reason?
Just like Huss, I prefer new (in condition) cameras to old ones. And I trust in Nikon build more than in Leica.
But then I asked known photog why he switched from S3 2000 to M3, the answer was, "it felt like empty tin"

The lens it comes with is good on pictures. Too bad I'm OK with just a J3 for 50 on film.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
I never hold in my hands either. The reason?
Just like Huss, I prefer new (in condition) cameras to old ones. And I trust in Nikon build more than in Leica.
But then I asked known photog why he switched from S3 2000 to M3, the answer was, "it felt like empty tin"

The lens it comes with is good on pictures. Too bad I'm OK with just a J3 for 50 on film.
Click to expand...

I have a Nikon S2, and in no way does it feel like empty tin! Comparing it to my Leicas, it does not feel as incredible, but it still feels pretty darn incredible!
And the film advance on the S2 feels smoother and more solid than any of my Ms.

;)
 
Huss said:
I have a Nikon S2, and in no way does it feel like empty tin! Comparing it to my Leicas, it does not feel as incredible, but it still feels pretty darn incredible!
And the film advance on the S2 feels smoother and more solid than any of my Ms.

;)
Click to expand...

I was talking strictly about S3 2000. The original Nikon RF seems to be not like S3 2000. But they all have VF without parallax correction. Which is not Leica level, but FED-50. :).
 
Ko.Fe. said:
I was talking strictly about S3 2000. The original Nikon RF seems to be not like S3 2000. But they all have VF without parallax correction. Which is not Leica level, but FED-50. :).
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that, strange that there is no parallax correction.
And because of that and the cluttered frame lines in the VF, I find the S2 nicer to use as it only has the 50mm frame lines.

But the black S3 2000 is sooooo pretty! Almost as nice as my spray can black paint Kiev 4AM..



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top