Used SP or new S3?

[Jarle Aasland]

There are currently a few SP's listed on eBay. I understand that SP prices are now lower than they have been in a long while. I'd like to get one, but I'm not sure if eBay is the best place (I'm also sick and tired of being outbid in the very last seconds -- some people seem to pay whatever it takes to buy these things).

I'm looking for a user camera, and won't mind a few scratches on the bottom plate, etc. Also, does it matter if I get a titanium or cloth shutter? I realize that the titanium shutter is more robust, but is it worth the extra money?

I've also considered getting a new S3 (2000 edition) instead. BH photo now sell them for $2295, incl. the 50mm lens. It's still expensive, but Christmas is only a few months away :)

Thanks,
Jarle

[Brian Sweeney]

I personally went with the SP instead of the S3-2000. I had one SP, and had the big top plate/bezel dent taken out my Shintaro, and had it painted Black. I had enough money saved from a lot of Ebay profit taking to add the S3-2000. I passed on a BIN from a solid Ebay seller -who I had bought an S2 from previously- and grabbed a near mint SP from Photonet a few days later. A few months later I picked up a solid user SP with an F1.4 lens for under $920, add a lens repair for $70. My "user" S3, with a perfect finder, ran under $900 with the lens. (Okay, so the camera shop selling it thought it was an S2 and put a BIN on it)

What to watch for: Lots of prisms in the SP, in the primary and secondary finders. Look for the RF patch to be bright. It should be almost as bright as the S2. Look for separation in the finder. The titanium shutters are durable, but the cloth shutters are more quiet.

Am I tempted by a $2,300 NEW S3-2000? You better believe it! And that LENS! I tell myself that most of the people buying it are not going to use it, so many mint condition S3's will make their way to the used market. So few SP-2005's, that will not happen.

[VinceC]

It's a tough decision.

It seems to me that a Nikon RF user/collector is eventually going to wind up with an SP, so the main question is when and how.

I bought my cameras in order of price ... a Kiev 2a, then an S2, then an S3, then an SP. The S3 and SP are identical except for the finder. Also, their controls and handling are identical to a Nikon F, minus the mirror box (and the SP and S3 are a little smaller).

For what it's worth, I tend to use both cameras equally. I'm currently favoring the S3, but I go through cycles. When I was doing newspaper work, I carried both.

The SP wide-angle minifinder is really easy for eyeglass wearers to see the 35mm and 28mm frames, but I do sometimes get disenchanted with the smallish view. The S3 is wonderful for 35mm lenses ... though a bit hard for eyeglass wearers to see the whole frame ... I tend to concentrate on the corner of the picture where framing is most critical. For those who don't wear glasses, the S3 finder can be very capable of shooting 28mm lenses. Its full coverage actually seems pretty close to 25mm. With the S3 finder, you can easily see the difference between th4e 35mm and 50mm lens frame, and the 28mm is about that same distance beyond the 35mm frame. You can also see, using the parallax etchings, that parallax isn't a hiuge factor with really wide lenses, especially since the Nikon S mount only focuses to 3 feet (probably that's the system's biggest shortcoming). In general, the SP is best for 28mm lenses and the 85 and 135mm lenses. The S3 is of course optimized for 35-50-105mm, and that's a dynamite group of rangefinder lenses. Throw in a 21mm or 25mm CV and you're in business for the rest of your life.

I'm not acquiring cameras these days, but the S3-2000 is awfully tempting. I think, adjusted for inflation, that must be quite a bit less than these cameras cost in the 1950s and early 60s.

And Brian is right about the new version of the 5cm 1.4 lens. That's a super-rare version that's probably worth half the cost of the camera itself. I assume it's got a formula very close to the SLR 50mm/1.4 of the 1960s, and that is an extraordinary lens. It keeps the contrast, tones and sharpness of the original RF version, reduces the wide-open vignetting while increasing wide-open contrast and makes the background out-of-focus areas much, much smoother. I'm attaching a portrait of two Bosnian war survivors I took in 1996 with a 1960s-vintage Nikkor SLR 1.4 on an early digital camera, the NC2000, shot wide open and with the digital crop factor giving it a 75mm field of view. It's one of the best lenses I've ever shot with.

[CameraQuest]

the reason that chrome S3 2000's are so relatively cheap is that Nikon produced far too many of them for the marketplace, about 8000 chrome S3 2000 to fill enthusiastic dealer orders. Unfortunately for Nikon, many of the orders were cancelled by dealers who returned the cameras.

Many including myself believe the later 2000 Black S3 2000's were actually remanufactured chrome S3 2000's. While the chrome S3 2000 is the least expensive it has ever been, don't expect it to appreciate in value any time soon. The black SP is what collectors really wanted from day one. Nikon did not make the same mistake with the black SP 2005, producing only a total of 2500 world wide and not even officially selling them outside of Japan.

Used SP or new S3? in terms of the body, the used SP is an easy choice to my mind. I never liked the often flary and NOT parallax corrected S3 finder. The complication is the excellent new version 50/1.4, which is the redeeming factor of the S3 2000. End game, buy what you want and have fun with it!

Stephen Gandy

[VinceC]

The S3's have always been sort of unloved castoffs compared to the highly desirable SP. The original S3 production run was something like 14,000 cameras, making them a lot more scarce than the SP. But the SP has always commanded the higher price. It's just a more innovative, more sought-after camera. Most people think its unique appearance is just gorgeous, and many of the best examples are locked away in display cases, out of circulation and not being used.

Now that Nikon has almost doubled the number of S3s in the marketplace, I would never expect them to have much collectible value compared to the SP. But both cameras are eminently usable.

[Brian Sweeney]

When I'm packing the Nikon's its the SP and S3 in a medium sized bag. The S3 gets the 3.5cm F2.5 and the SP gets the 5cm or 8.5cm. But I got the SP first.

[Jarle Aasland]

Thanks for all the replies so far. Very interesting.

What's the 'best' place to buy a S3 2000 these days? Anyone sell black bodies, and how much more should I expect to pay for the paint job..?

Jarle

[Brian Sweeney]

The "paint job" is going to run at least ~$700 more. I've seen them under $3,000. Considering a trip to Shintaro would run $700, it is good price. Gee, remember when a black body F2 ran a whole $20 extra! You would not be able to get an original black S3 for anywhere near that. Of course, the paint job alone is half the price of a user SP.


http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-S3-Limited-Edition-Kit-BLACK-As-New_W0QQitemZ7548522946QQcategoryZ15234QQssPageNam eZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[VinceC]

The black S3s are also fairly scarce and so will be the only really collectible S3s, keeping their prices up.

There is always the option of a $5 spray-can of black furnace paint. I used to shoot a lot of military subjects and decided my chrome cameras were too shiny and attracted too much attention, especially in the desert. So I removed the front plates, sprayed them with black furnace paint, baked them in the oven, and put them back on. That was 15 years ago, and they've actualy worn quite well. I wouldn't recommend that for anything but really beat-up user equipment, but I knew I'd own and use these cameras for the rest of my life, and so far I've been right.

[Brian Sweeney]

If you are going to use this camera on a daily basis, chrome is more durable than black paint. These days, "Black" looks cool, and is associated with professionals. It meant less glare, not getting shot at "on location", and not reflecting studio lights into the image. If you are going to use the camera, Black Paint will chip and mar. Look at original Black Paint cameras that get used. They wear. Chrome tends to be more durable.

The Black Paint S3's will hold there value, and appreciate as they are fewer in numbers. That is if you leave it in its box and case and use it sparingly. If this is a shooter, the Chrome S3-2000 from B&H saves almost $800 and will deliver the same quality photograph.

[VinceC]

Completely agree with Brian on the durability of chrome. Black paint always gets scratched and worn, whereas chrome just takes on a more pleasant sheen.

[Jarle Aasland]

Well-used black bodies are also very, very nice. I don't mind brassed corners, etc. (I never sell any of my stuff, so I'm not too worried about resell price, etc.). Still, $800 is a lot of money for some black paint..

In any case, I'll wait a while longer before buying anything. I'll probably change my mind many, many times..

Thanks again,
Jarle

[Simon Larbalestier]

I purchased a black S3200 a while back and use it on a regualr basis along side my Leica -M's
Prices seem to have dropped a lot since the introduction of the 2005 SP

[x-ray]

I just went through the same decision process. I purchased an SP from a dealer and when it arrived it was nothing like it was described. It was scratched, dented, finder seperating and full of fungus and the lens had scuffs on the coating and chips in the glass. It was not an 8+ camera as described but a 6- at best. The dealer refunded my money withour a problem. I called Jimmie Koh at Koh camera about an SP that he had. I've bought from Koh for about twenty years and had him do all my Hasselblad and Rollei SL66 repairs. I trust Jimmie. I asked him about a new S3 2000 and SP fpr daily use. He said without any hesitation to buy the S3000. His reason was age of the camera and reliability of a camera that old. He wasn't trying to push the s3 because he didn't have one but had two SP's. I took his abvice and bought the S3 from B&H. I must say I like the SP finder a little better but not that much better so I'm very happy with my S3 and a nice set of lenses, 25 CV, 3.5cm 2.5 nikkor, 5 cm 1.5 nikkor (new design), 8.5cm 2 nikkor and 10.5cm 2.5 nikkor.

I've been selling some old stuff from the studio on ebay. Everything was good equipment but things I just didn't use. I raised another $2,500 and thought about the SP that Koh has but deceided to add another body to my M leicas. I like the Nikon but honestly the Leica M is a much more usable camera to me. Mostly I say this because I've used Leica M's since 1968. I just like the position of the release, the focusing and bayonette system and the RF plus single window VF/RF with auto switched lines. I've shot tens of thousands of rolls in my M's and they're part of me now. So what did I do today? I have purchased from Clasic Connection before and been very pleased with everything including the service. I called Sam today and purchased a factory demo .85 MP chrome with red leather. This is totally unlike me but I thought it would be a real kick on the job. My wife thought it would be a real fashion statement ;<). This isn't me, the guy who wears blue jeans and flannel shirts to shoot CEO's and corporate execs. Well it arrives tomorrow afternoon and I'll see how I feel about red or whether it will go back for a black .85. I think I'll love it since I still have my black M6 and chrome M2. I guess I've had this secret desire to be wild ;<) since I saw a paisley and a pink Alpa in the 70's. Now don't you think a paisley MP would look cool? Absolutely!


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

www.x-rayarts.com

[Simon Larbalestier]

A fascnating and very honest story thanks X-ray and i agree with you that in most cases the Leica M's are a much better camera in daily use. I purchased my S32000 when they had been out a year or so partly because i really like the 1.1 viewfinder with its etched focal length markings ( i'd become very used to using the VC 50mm brightline finder on my Plaubel 670) Alex's detailed review of the camera on the photo.net site and it's black paint body, persuaded me in 2003. The way i work i tend use two m bodies and the S3200 and when i look back through my notes and contact sheets on this current project of mine at least 50% were taken with the S32000 because at the moment of shooting it was less obtrusive and faster to use. Where i'm shooting perhaps the reto looks of the camera allow the subjects to relax more as they don't take it seriously. A little bit different when i shot with a Nikon F3P - one shot and the moment was gone - i'd get 4-5 with the S3.
However having said all this the cost of equiping a decent Nikon RF kit can be very expensive....Oddly enough the S32000 kit and the new SP kit (i thinks) does NOT come with a body cap or rear lens cap and finding a rear lens cap for the Olympic 50 1.4 rear element wasn't easy and certainly not cheap. It's brassing nicely now although Luigi has offered to make me a case with a built in grip that i'm now considering........

Simon
www.simon-larbalestier.couk

FS Voigtlander SC35 2.5 Skopar (Nikon RF fit)

[x-ray]

Simon:

Your work is outstanding!

Don't get me wrong I really like the Nikon S3 and have lusted after the SP and S3 since in College in the 60's. A friend used S3 and SP cameras and I used M Leicas. It's just been a camera that I've always loved and wanted. I think my biggest problem is having used M Leicas for thirty eight years and getting to the point they become a part of me. With time and use the S3 will become the same.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

[Simon Larbalestier]

Thanks X-ray
Enjoy the new .85. in its red leather coat. A very bold choice. If the red begins to bother you too much i'm sure you could cover it with Luigi's beautiful half cases............

Simon

[x-ray]

I was thinking about a layer of black electrical tape like C Bresson. HaHa! I had a friend that did this to his F back in college.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

[Simon Larbalestier]

Hmmm but it gets all sticky - leather's more sensual - (so i'm told)

[Rayt]

I just got a S3 2000 in black and frankly am a bit disappointed with the finder. The viewfinder is nice and big and bright but the rangefinder patch is low in contrast and a bit dim. I could hardly focus it in low light. It was extremely difficult to focus on a busy pattern like tree branches etc. I borrowed a friend's S2 before making my purchase decision and while the viewfinder on the S2 is smaller and darker the RF patch is higher in contrast and much easier to focus. Even my IIa's rf is better than the S3's. So is the S3 2000 for collectors only? I am not even comparing it to the M6 finder but it bites big time.

[VinceC]

The S2s have always had the brightest, most contrasty rangefinder patches.

My S3 is one of the 1950s versions. Its rangefinder isn't quite as bright as the S2's, but it's still workable. It in no way can be compared to an M-series Leica. But I've never had trouble with low-light focusing ... the 1:1 viewfinder and the longer focus throw generally make it quite accurate for low-light work.

[Brian Sweeney]

You might want to check the optical path and have another Nikon RF user look at it. I found a sync wire in the optical path of my oldest Nikon S2. Stranger things have happened. You might have a misaligned/bad prism or some other problem.

The S2 finder is (slightly) color coded like the Contax, has higher contrast. The S3 finder is not. The patches on my original S3's are not as good as the Leica M3, but compare well with the Canon 7.

I noticed you were looking for lenses in another thread. Did you buy just a body?

[Rayt]

Maybe I am just not familiar with it yet. Didn't mean to be so rough on it. I'll just have to use it and see what happens. Looks and feels like the Nikon F which go me into this whole photography thing.

[Brian Sweeney]

The Nikon finders were never as good as the Leica M3. The SP finder compares well with the Canon 7; kind of hard to rationalize spending 10x as much on a near mint Nikon SP as I did on a Canon 7. But that's why I was a Psychology major for two years before going into computers. Came in handy for buying old cameras!

[furcafe]

Welcome to 1958! :p

I have an S3 2000 & an S2 (CLAed/repaired to move a wire out of the way of the optical path like Brian's). As Brian noted, the main reason the S3's RF patch doesn't stand out as much is that the rest of the finder isn't tinted like that in an S2 or Contax. So what you gain in overall VF brightness, you lose in RF patch contrast; now you can see the design tradeoff in going w/1 approach as opposed to the other. As Vince & Brian have pointed out, none of the Nikon RF VFs are as nice as a Leica M, but they should still be plenty useable in lowlight. I have no problem using my S3 2000, but was already somewhat familiar w/similar RF VFs like that on the Canon P.

I just got a S3 2000 in black and frankly am a bit disappointed with the finder. The viewfinder is nice and big and bright but the rangefinder patch is low in contrast and a bit dim. I could hardly focus it in low light. It was extremely difficult to focus on a busy pattern like tree branches etc. I borrowed a friend's S2 before making my purchase decision and while the viewfinder on the S2 is smaller and darker the RF patch is higher in contrast and much easier to focus. Even my IIa's rf is better than the S3's. So is the S3 2000 for collectors only? I am not even comparing it to the M6 finder but it bites big time.

[umana]

Hi. If YOUR S3's view/rangefinder is disappointingly poor, and not so contrasty, I am afraid that it is a problem of YOUR camera. If, as I suppose, you bought it new, I suggest you to contact your Nikon dealer, or any Official Nikon Repair Service, and pretend it perfectly revised, and fixed. They will probably fix for free even a used Millennium S3...

I had more that TEN of the S3 2000 set cameras, and all of them were terrific, with a marvelous, bright and very contrasty view/rangefinder.

Best wishes, Luigi

[Simon Larbalestier]

The rangefinder patch on my S32000 which i purchased brand new is also bright and contrasty
not always easy to focus quickly in poor light but the 1.1 viewfinder compensates for this in eye relief. I used an M6 .85 before and found the S3 more relaxing when holding up to the eye for a long period time. Granted it's no match for the M3's viewfinder but it certainly delivers the goods.
Simon

[awilder]

I've not seen the S3 2000 but have seen an SP 2005. The RF patch is what I expected, not as bright & contrasty as an M but as good as any other RF design from the 50's that doesn't use the M style rangefinder design. The SP compensates nicely with it's 1:1 viewfinder mag. and long focus throw to give pinpoint accurate focus. The viewfinder arrangement also allow easy viewing of the 28/35 framelines even for eyeglass wearers, something not possible on most M's except the .58 mag. but then you loose focus accuracy.

[VinceC]

The S3/SP finders also make it very comfortable and natural to use longer telephotos ... 105 and 135mm. There's no reduction in magnification, so it's easy to focus and precise to frame.