I was hoping to garner some collective wisdom regarding the differences between the M5 and the S3 2000? I own the S3 and enjoy it very much, my only gripe being the rangefinder patch is a little low in contrast and can be cumbersome to focus quickly. I did add a blue gel filter over the viewfinder window and that improved things a little but still is not ideal. I have tried to resist the allure of the Leica but have succumbed to the charms of the M5. I like that it’s the ugly duckling in the Leica family but have never held one nor looked through the viewfinder. Hence my question, is the M5 viewfinder bright with contrast that would improve focus speed in comparison to my S3 or am I just being afflicted by GAS?
Leica M5 vs Nikon S3 2000
-
A
- Thread starter african_jon
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Chemicals for sale
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Enlarging Lenses - Bundle of Three
- Started by jdart3000
-
For Sale Interest check on many items
- Started by campy51
-
For Sale FS: Toyo View - Linhof Technika Flat Lens Board Adapter
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Nicholas Lindan
Advertiser
I have an M5 & an M3, but I have never held an S3 - making me equally unqualified to make the comparison.
The M5's viewfinder is standard Leica fair - the view through any 0.72 viewfinder M-series Leica (M2, M4 ...) would be comparable. Look through any of them and make your decision. The M5 feels decidedly bigger and the vertical strap arrangement is indeed rather bizarre and the case even more so, I recommend getting the 3-lug version. Getting an M5 serviced has become rather difficult. OTOH, it is superbly built. But, apparently so is the 2000 S3. I understand the S3's viewfinder can accommodate a 35mm FL field of view with a 1:1 finder, something you won't find in any Leica. For 90mm and 135mm lenses I can't say I am enamored of the 0.72 Leica finder.
Possibly the biggest drawback that I see to the S3 is the Contax lens mount. With an M mount there are lots of lenses to choose from, all the way from c. 1953 vintage to the latest Voigtlander bling. Personally, I like old Leica glass.
It is a bit more complicated than that. It is the Nikon version of the Contax lens mount. Voigtlander (the new one) issued some lenses for Nikon S about 15 or 20 years ago, so there are modern multi-coated lenses available. The S3 2000 is uber-cool (but so is the M5!).
I like my M5. I have a Nikon SP as well, I would think it would be quite similar to the S3. The Leica is certainly the more modern of the two and the spot meter is convenient. The rangefinder patch is easier for me to use on the Leica, though I can certainly focus fine with either one. As Mr. Linden pointed out there are WAY more lens choices for the Leica- screw mount to M. The Nikon of course has its own mount, slightly different than Contax (only wide angle lenses interchange between the two). They handle differently- get both and decide which one to keep!
I asked one more less known film photog why he has ditched this Nikon self remake. He told me it has feel of hollow tin.
He switched to M3 and added ELC M4 years later on.
M5 is obsolete camera, BTW. Nobody wants to touch it for service anymore from those who are still fit to provide service.
He switched to M3 and added ELC M4 years later on.
M5 is obsolete camera, BTW. Nobody wants to touch it for service anymore from those who are still fit to provide service.
More like an orphan than obsolete--meaning out-dated. The issue with the M5 its parts availability and qualified technicians.
I have an eye on a M5 recently serviced by Sherry K, late serial number. Access to a wide range of glass is another reason I am interested in the Leica.
Zacks Camera - a site sponsor - services the M5, and did a fantastic job on mine.
The M5 has a much better viewfinder and easier to use RF patch than the S3.
The thing to watch out for with the M5 is RF delamination. Mine did that (repaired by Sherry). The tell tale signs are what looks like drip marks on the RF patch. Mine had that, all seemed fine, then one day the patch was completely black and I couldnt focus.
The thing to watch out for with the M5 is RF delamination. Mine did that (repaired by Sherry). The tell tale signs are what looks like drip marks on the RF patch. Mine had that, all seemed fine, then one day the patch was completely black and I couldnt focus.
The same happened to my Leica M3 when I clonked the camera against something. Marty Forscher at the long-departed Professional Camera Repair in New York City repaired it. PCR closed in 2001.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/nyregion/11forscher.html
With mine I didn't even knock it. Just one day I pulled it out of the bag and that was that.
The Leica M3's finder had some of its lenses glued with Canada balsam. If you look through a M3 finder from the front while illuminating it from the back and see a crazed or wrinkled pattern, this is the old balsam becoming brittle. A failure is likely, but no one can predict the time. By the M5 era of the 1970s, I assume Leitz would have been using an artificial cement, but possibly they were still using Canada balsam. And possibly the new cement also fails after 45 years.
My suggestion would be to handle an M5 before buying one. I bought one, took it out of the box, looked at it, handled it, and put it back in the box to send back. It was much bigger than I thought it would be. People warned me about how big one of those Fuji 6x9 monster SLR's would be too, and I didn't listen. That one also got taken out of the box and put right back in, but it was a fun moment. When my wife saw it, she burst out laughing. Not exactly the response you want when going out to take pics. That thing would have attracted all manner of unwanted attention.
-
- Kodachromeguy
- Deleted
- Reason: Not pertinent
M5 is bigger than the S3 2000, but offers so much more. The only reason to get an S3 over an M is well, to be different. Ms have an amazing and superb selection of lenses, better viewfinders, better rangefinders, easier to focus as doesn't use a geared wheel, better positioning of the shutter speed button, the position of the aperture rings don't move when you focus, some (like the M5) have built in meters etc etc.
And if you have an M with the quickload system (introduced with the M4), it's much quicker to load than a Nikon.
I recently sold my S2, and that was my favourite Nikon RF because it had a 50mm only VF and so was not cluttered with other frame lines (the S3 2000 shows 3 at the same time!), seems to have a brighter rf, and can be had at a great price.
Much much less than an S3.
And if you have an M with the quickload system (introduced with the M4), it's much quicker to load than a Nikon.
I recently sold my S2, and that was my favourite Nikon RF because it had a 50mm only VF and so was not cluttered with other frame lines (the S3 2000 shows 3 at the same time!), seems to have a brighter rf, and can be had at a great price.
Much much less than an S3.
I guess you're comparing to the RF Nikons, but I find F2 and later Nikons much faster to load than a Leica. I do like the shutter speed dial on the M5--not sure why they didn't carry it over to later models. Probably because the M5 tanked, they just went back to the last design that sold well. Chickens!
I was also surprised by the size of the M5, it feels like the size of my Spotmatic when I am using it. This is not necessarily a negative, of course. I found I liked the size, fits well in my hands. Pieter12 mentioned the shutter speed dial- yes, really nice feature in combination with the built in spot meter.
Definitely quicker than the RF Nikons, but I also find it quicker than my F2, F3 etc. For me it is until you get to the autoload style cameras (such as an F4 or Leica R8/9 or even a Pentax P30T) that those cameras are quicker.
With the F2 type loading, I am always fiddling threading/loading/make sure the film catches by winding on. With the Leica quickload - drop in, extend leader, close back. That's it. No messing with threading plus I also get 1-2 more shots per roll as nothing is wasted.
The M5 size balances much better with bigger lenses than the smaller M bodies. Using a Nokton 50 1.1 or 35 1.2 for example. Or any of those new 0.95 lenses. Even the incredible (but too big) Zeiss Distagon 35 1.4 is a much better fit.
Yep, that is why I got the S3, I was trying to resist the Leica hipsters!! The rf being1:1 is very nice, although the lines are a little distracting. Plus it was half the price with a lens.
i just wish the patch was better
That's another reason to get an M5. Not immediately recognized as Wetzlar bling.
Yep, that is why I got the S3, I was trying to resist the Leica hipsters!! The rf being1:1 is very nice, although the lines are a little distracting. Plus it was half the price with a lens.
i just wish the patch was better
The perfect Nikon RF, for me, is the S2 with the S3 shutter speed dial. Or the S3 with the S2 rf patch and only 50mm frame lines. Or only 35mm frame lines. But just one set of frame lines!
Otherwise, the S2.
Yah, agreed. It does get some noses outta joint, but the M5 does actually offer serious benefits from a shooter's perspective. If you want an M with spot metering and complete exposure info in the VF, M5 is the only choice.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2011
- Messages
- 98
- Format
- 35mm RF
You'll find the rangefinder patch of a Leica M much improved over an S3.
In the past, about 10-15 years ago, I used a pair of M5's, and at another time had an original Nikon S3 for a summer. I always thought that the M5 was the best metered film M followed closely by the M7. It's a very pragmatic, intuitive camera. A sensitive meter and easy to read/use match/needle layout. It's one of those function over form beasts, because it is bigger than the traditional M. The rangefinder patches of the several M5's I've had my hands have all been good. Only 0.72x viewfinder mag but easy to see 35-50-90 lines. One consistent of all the Leica's that have passed through the house over the last 25 years (a shameful number) is that the contrast and clarity of the rangefinder patch have all been very good; the same, no variations.
Nikons aren't like that. Small, light, with the gorgeous 1.0x viewfinder, but the rangefinder patches are all over the place. The S2's range generally from good to excellent, but the S3 I had was very faint, even after I cleaned all the rangefinder mirrors.
Not sure I would've kept the M5's in the long run, given their size, and because I now prefer meter-less cameras, but the only reason I sold them back then was because I was at the time getting out of rangefinders. I sold the S3, however, because of the lack of contrast of the rangefinder patch. In the Nikon lineup I prefer the S2, solely because of rangefinder patch issues.
I now shoot an M2 for a rangefinder.
In the past, about 10-15 years ago, I used a pair of M5's, and at another time had an original Nikon S3 for a summer. I always thought that the M5 was the best metered film M followed closely by the M7. It's a very pragmatic, intuitive camera. A sensitive meter and easy to read/use match/needle layout. It's one of those function over form beasts, because it is bigger than the traditional M. The rangefinder patches of the several M5's I've had my hands have all been good. Only 0.72x viewfinder mag but easy to see 35-50-90 lines. One consistent of all the Leica's that have passed through the house over the last 25 years (a shameful number) is that the contrast and clarity of the rangefinder patch have all been very good; the same, no variations.
Nikons aren't like that. Small, light, with the gorgeous 1.0x viewfinder, but the rangefinder patches are all over the place. The S2's range generally from good to excellent, but the S3 I had was very faint, even after I cleaned all the rangefinder mirrors.
Not sure I would've kept the M5's in the long run, given their size, and because I now prefer meter-less cameras, but the only reason I sold them back then was because I was at the time getting out of rangefinders. I sold the S3, however, because of the lack of contrast of the rangefinder patch. In the Nikon lineup I prefer the S2, solely because of rangefinder patch issues.
I now shoot an M2 for a rangefinder.
I shoot Nikon rangefinders because there are excellent lenses available in the S-mount that are much less expensive than M-mount lenses. I actually have no problem with ergonomics and focusing. But that may because I used to shoot a Contax IIa.
I have an M5 and M4. Also had an M3. I LOVE my M5!!!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |