Nikon S3

[ColColt]

I'm seriously looking at the Nikon S3 2000 Limited Edition reintroduction of this camera. From all I've read, even from Ken Rockwell,who gave it high accolades, seem to be very good. It comes with the Nikkor 50 1.4 S lens, box, instructions, etc. Any comments on this camera? Anyone have one?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/rangefinder/s3.htm

 

[benveniste]

I'm seriously looking at the Nikon S3 2000 Limited Edition reintroduction of this camera. From all I've read, even from Ken Rockwell,who gave it high accolades, seem to be very good. It comes with the Nikkor 50 1.4 S lens, box, instructions, etc. Any comments on this camera? Anyone have one?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/rangefinder/s3.htm

Are you looking to collect or to shoot? If the former, then it's strictly a matter of personal taste. If the latter, take a look at the difference in price between a mint and a "near mint" S3 2000 on eBay. Apparently running a few rolls of film through one of these things costs you about $1000 in resale value.

I've been drooling over this camera and the 2005 SP Limited Edition for years, but I lack the willpower not to shoot with them. If and when finances permit me to get a Nikon Rangefinder, it'll be a reconditioned vintage S3 or SP. This one is currently on my eBay watch list.

 

[ColColt]

I'm a shooter. I have no problem with using any camera be it a beater or a NIB 30 year old camera of any manufacturer. I once had a Colt Navy 36 caliber in a wooden box and red velvet liner. It wasn't an Italian replica but the real McCoy made by Colt. They did a rerun of black powder revolvers back in t he 70's and I got one. It was beautiful...so beautiful in fact I just couldn't shoot it and mess up that deep blue with black powder-I sold it. I don't keep things I can't use. Being a collector of anything is a costly hobby I don't want.

That's a good looking S3 on ebay. I too have two similar with the box, caps, etc that's on my watch list.

 

[James Page]

A real bargain at the current going rate of about $1500 for an In Box set from Japan on Ebay. The lens itself is worth that, in terms of Leica price/performance ratio.

Think of it this way: if Leica reissued the M3 and sold it with an updated non-asph summilux, would you buy it for $1500?

I have a millenium S3, and I use it. Why wouldn't you? It's a stunningly beautiful camera and a great shooter at a (currently) ridiculous price.

 

[ColColt]

Sure, I'd use it. That's what they're for.

 

[Xmas]

Sure, I'd use it. That's what they're for.

Difficult to change the lens or film limited choice/availability of lenses unless you like the 50s lenses or the few modern Cosina lenses.
A Canon VI, P or 7 is a real system rangefinder way faster handling.
And the Canon lenses from 50s wiped the floor with Leitz ones.
All hype.

 

[James Page]

Difficult to change the lens or film limited choice/availability of lenses unless you like the 50s lenses or the few modern Cosina lenses.
A Canon VI, P or 7 is a real system rangefinder way faster handling.
And the Canon lenses from 50s wiped the floor with Leitz ones.
All hype.

I respect your opinion, but I don't agree.

First, the S3 is much easier to load than the m2/m3. SignificNtly easier.

Second, the lens mount is easy enough once you know what you're doing. Neophytes ten to have trouble because they don't realize you have to set the mount to infinity b4 lining up the lens.

As for lenses, the s3 has a finder that accomodates the 35/50/105. It allows you to use the W- Nikkor 3.5 1.8 in S mount, which you can pick up for 500-600$. Its the eaxct same optical formula as the LTM version which routinely fetches up to $2000, and is in all respects as good as the 35 Summicron. As for 50's the Millenium 50 1.4 is a remarkably good lens, easily the equal of the summilux. As for teles, the 85 and 105 are both superb. Plus, if you like modern optics, there's a full line of VC lens, same otical formulas as the Leica versions, easily enough found on ebay.

I love my Leicas - an IIIg, an M2-r, an M4, M5 and M8. But in my mind the Nikon rangefinders are their equal, just different, and they are much less expensive both for bodies and optics.

 

[Paul Howell]

Any reason for a Nikon over a Leica or even a Konica Hectar M or for matter a late model Canon screw mount?

 

[darkosaric]

Of course you can buy cheaper cameras that will perform equally good, but it is very simple: if you can afford it - go for it.
Life is too short to safely remove hardware .

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . A Canon VI, P or 7 is a real system rangefinder way faster handling.
And the Canon lenses from 50s wiped the floor with Leitz ones.
All hype.

I've owned and used a Canon P and 7S and IIIc, IIIf, M2, and M4 Leicas, all with a variety of lenses, and much prefer the Leicas. The Canons bothl quit working. It took substantial trauma to kill two of the Leicas. Also, the 50mm f/1.4 lens from the 7S was not sharp wide open. I had to use it for indoor sports in those days until Kodak introduced T-Max P3200. Then I could use the Summicron at twice the shutter speed and get sharper photos. Using the Canons and Leicas side by side definitely favored the German engineering and manufacturing. Canon did introduce some convenient features before Leica, but I preferred durability and image performance over that.

 

[ColColt]

I believe Xmas if way off on his analysis of the Nikon S3. The camera as well as the 50 f1.4 lens have been lauded as one of the best there was...or is. The editors of Life magazine back in the 50's said the Nikon lens used on some of the rangefinders were the sharpest they had ever seen. I have two Leica rangefinders, the M2 and M4 with four lens and needless to say they are superb. Variety is the spice of life and being an old man with nothing else to spend his money on like wives, kids, grand kids, etc. I like to indulge myself now and then.

The only ting I don't care for with the NIkon S3 is the etched frame lines. I don't know if that would bother me or not.

 

[Xmas]

I believe Xmas if way off on his analysis of the Nikon S3. The camera as well as the 50 f1.4 lens have been lauded as one of the best there was...or is. The editors of Life magazine back in the 50's said the Nikon lens used on some of the rangefinders were the sharpest they had ever seen. I have two Leica rangefinders, the M2 and M4 with four lens and needless to say they are superb. Variety is the spice of life and being an old man with nothing else to spend his money on like wives, kids, grand kids, etc. I like to indulge myself now and then.

The only ting I don't care for with the NIkon S3 is the etched frame lines. I don't know if that would bother me or not.

Back in the 50s a US photo mag did a shoot out of the Zeiss /1.5 and the Nikon /1.4.

The Zeiss lens just edged the Nikon in performance but was rather more expensive.

The mag was using the slowest film and a solid camera support...

Buying cameras is called retail therapy. I know lots of people do that.

 

[ColColt]

Back in the early 50's when the Korean War was hot there was a renown photojournalist named David Douglas Duncan who was a war correspondent for Life Magazine. He used a "brace" of Leicas but didn't use the Leitz lens. Rather he took the advice of a friend and used Nikkor lens.

"For most of his work he(Duncan)he used a 50mm f1.5 Japanese Nikkor lens, but carried with him and used the 85mm f.2 and 135mm f3.5 Nikkor lenses. They were recommended to him by photographer Horace Bristol in Tokyo, and tests showed their superior resolving power. When the negatives began arriving in New York, according to Frank Scherschel, Life's assistant picture editor, they turned out to be the sharpest 35mm negatives the lab ever produced."

That quote was from "The Best of Popular Photography", p.77.

 

[Jim Jones]

My experience with that 50 and 80mm lens was not nearly as good. DDD was an experienced and excellent photographer, and I had recently upgraded from a Mercury II. I'm still nowhere as good as DDD, but doing better with a basic DSLR and lenses than with the Leicas and Nikons I used decades ago. It's the photographer, not the camera.

 

[ColColt]

I doubt any of us will be as good as Duncan, Eisenstaedt or HCB in this lifetime. Like most everybody, I have a few DSLR's also but prefer and think I do better with the film cameras such as the Nikon and Leica...hard to get away from what you grew up with.

 

[benveniste]

I doubt any of us will be as good as Duncan, Eisenstaedt or HCB in this lifetime. Like most everybody, I have a few DSLR's also but prefer and think I do better with the film cameras such as the Nikon and Leica...hard to get away from what you grew up with.

Since I'm writing this on APUG it shouldn't come as a shock that I like shooting with film, but I can't say I "do better" with film cameras, nor with vintage gear. But my goal has always been to be as good a photographer as my gear is at its job. I doubt I'll attain that goal.

The point was driven home that "it's the photographer, not the camera" to me this weekend. A friend of mine posted a shot on Facebook of Nick Ut and Mark Edward Harris taking shots with their phone while sightseeing in Boston.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I'm a shooter. I have no problem with using any camera be it a beater or a NIB 30 year old camera of any manufacturer. I once had a Colt Navy 36 caliber in a wooden box and red velvet liner. It wasn't an Italian replica but the real McCoy made by Colt. They did a rerun of black powder revolvers back in t he 70's and I got one. It was beautiful...so beautiful in fact I just couldn't shoot it and mess up that deep blue with black powder-I sold it. I don't keep things I can't use. Being a collector of anything is a costly hobby I don't want.

That's a good looking S3 on ebay. I too have two similar with the box, caps, etc that's on my watch list.

Those were made by Uberti, in Italy.
I have had one since the came out with the reissue, and I shoot it semi regularly.

 

[ColColt]

I've never seen anything from Uberti that looked anything close to the quality and bluing this one had. It was the 1861 model. I have another 36 and 44 cal from Uberti and they don't touch the quality of the one by Colt. This is the Signature Edition Colt by Colt.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I've never seen anything from Uberti that looked anything close to the quality and bluing this one had. It was the 1861 model. I have another 36 and 44 cal from Uberti and they don't touch the quality of the one by Colt. This is the Signature Edition Colt by Colt.

Do some research. Uberti roughed out the parts, Colt "finished" them.
The Navy is a really nicely balanced and accurate gun, but the Ruger Old Army is the best percussion revolver ever made - bar none.

 

[Xmas]

Still prefer my Canon P and /2 35mm...
They all still have original shutter material.

 

[HiHoSilver]

Breathtaking color case hardening, Col. You have fine taste.

 

[michaelorr]

I had wanted to ask about that, as to what a Colt Dragoon is (only owing to the line in True Grit when Mattie whipped one out and Rooster nearly popped a blood vessel.)
Other than that, i have avoided this thread because i haven't enough experience with MF or roll film in comparison to the 4x5 and 8x10 that i shoot, albeit for therapy not art. So after running 2 rolls of 120 through an old rolleicord and 2 rolls through a 35mm camera just recently, all i gotta say is the best camera to use is the one you find in your hand. I will complain though that i went to a contax 35mm camera some years back because of the disappointing 28mm Pentax lens. But, as 50mm lenses go, my Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 is just as lovely as anything i have seen. Being just my opinion, it is hard to to get to the right formula when a final decision could easily be any number of options. So go with what "feels good" in hand or whatever you have in hand, and make that work. The final result is due to the photographer, not the equipment.

 

[ColColt]

Breathtaking color case hardening, Col. You have fine taste.

It was a lovely revolver, no doubt about it.

 

[kivis]

Well four years later, I have bought a Mint condition Nikon S3 2000 with the kit lens (50/1.4) for $1300!! And I will use it!!

 

[NB23]

Well four years later, I have bought a Mint condition Nikon S3 2000 with the kit lens (50/1.4) for $1300!! And I will use it!!

Congrats!
I own two sets, in Black. Those Babies are sexy little things. The faint patch is the only drawback, but just shoot away!