Re: Nikon SP

[Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>]

At 09:50 PM 8/17/96 -0700,Stephen Gandy wrote:

>The SP also boasted an amazing array of optics including a 21, a 25,  a
>50/1.1,  a 50 mm macro, a 85/1.5, a stereo lens, and the longest lens
>ever available for a RF, the fabled 1000/6.3 (only 50 of these were
>made).

Well, not to quibble, but I routinely hook my Leica and Contax RF's to my
1300mm Questar and know of others who use even longer lenses with like
cameras.  Perhaps it would be fair to say, "the longest lens ever produced
for an RF".
>
>The SP has a very nice feel to it, every bit competitive to the M3.  The
>SP's finish was great, but not as good as Contax or Leica.  Time has
>proven the SP shutter superior to the Leica and Contax in terms of
>reliability   9 out of 10 M's rescued out of the retirement closets
>after 30 years need shutter work.  Inaccurate slow speeds and jammed
>shutter are VERY common with these old closet cameras.  In contrast, a
>SP stored under the identical conditions has much more accurate >shutter
speeds.  I know this from experience,  and am sure of what I >speak.  

Well, of a dozen or so closet queens, I've yet to see a functional Nikon RF;
all but one of the thirty or so early Leica M's which I am aware of being
stored in like conditions functioned flawlessly.  As Nikon used the Leica
shutter design but made from inferior materials, the end result is a weaker
system than Leicas.

>Nikon optics of the era were superior to Leitz in terms of  a much
>harder front surface coating and in terms of being clear as bell after
>decades of storage.   As discussed before in this newsgroup, Leitz
>lenses of the 50's and 60's are often very foggy after years of storage
>due to the condensation of the lubricant they used.  About 90% of the
>screw mount Summitars and Summicrons are scratched from lens >cleaning,
while the same is almost never true of a Nikon RF lens.   While >some
believe Leitz/Nikon/Contax lenses of the era are sharper than the
>other,  I have found that in practical terms there is very little
>difference.    

Zeiss developed vacuum-coating in the 1930's and slapped a patent on it.
This patent was enforceable in Germany but not in Japan following the end of
World War II.   Thus, Nikon lenses, through theft, had the same hard
coatings as did Zeiss lenses.  The "scratching" you speak of is much more
commonly the result of dried coatings, the residue of the soft mush produced
by the drip coating techniques Leica was forced to use until the Zeiss
patents expired in 1956.

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!