Re: Leica vs Nikon

[Paul Schliesser <paulsc@eos.net>]

>     I was talking to a knowledgeable collector of Nikon rangefinders 
>     today, who claimed that Nikon SP and S3 were more collectible and 100 
>     times better made cameras.  He was saying that Nikon started making 
>     them right after the War when they had the highest quality metal for 
>     guns.  I have heard some say that Nikon lenses were better than Leica 
>     or Contax lenses but this is the first time to hear that Nikon 
>     rangefinders were much better made than Leica.
>      What is your opinion?  I hope this would not make too much of 
>     uproars.

David,

The Nikon rangefinders are pretty much mechanical copies of the Leica and 
cosmetic copies of the Contax (I'm pretty sure that Contax accessories 
and lenses fit them, and vice versa). I'm pretty sure that the shutter in 
the Nikon RF cameras is copied from Leitz, and this basic mechanism is 
what is used in the Nikon F, on which Nikon's reputation is largely 
based. I'm waiting to see what Marc says in reply to your message.

Another thing, which I'd be interested to hear Marc's comments on, is how 
extensively they were distributed since they violated international 
patents. Were these cameras sold in Europe, for instance?


> He was saying that Nikon started making 
> them right after the War when they had the highest quality metal for 
> guns.

I think that this is a stretch. Look at the Nikon Historical Society's 
website:

http://romdog.com/nikonhs/

There is some information in there about the problems of trying to 
restore early Nikon RF cameras by rebuilding from parts, because there 
were so many inconsistancies in the manufacturing process and materials 
from batch to batch of the same model. Even things like replacing burred 
screw heads is a big deal since they are so hard to match. Because of 
this, the site gives the impression that Nikon weenies are very critical 
about whether the paint and plating match on all of a camera's parts.

Because Japan needs to import most of the materials used for camera 
manufacture, were they really sitting on huge piles of quality materials 
right after loosing a long and costly war? As Japan's sphere of influence 
shrank towards the end of WWII, they would have been increasingly cut off 
from their sources of supply, and stockpiles would dwindle. Please 
correct me if I'm wrong.

Having said the above, Nikon RFs are very solid cameras and some people 
still use them regularly. You can still get them repaired if you use 
them. They just don't inspire the same reverence in me that I feel 
towards Leica, Zeiss and Rollei stuff. Call me a snob, but the fact that 
many of the Japanese cameras from this era use stolen technology, and the 
fact that they undermined the European camera industry by offering copies 
of European cameras at a fraction of the price, dampens the enthusiasm I 
might otherwise feel for them. This is not to say that they didn't do 
some things right (like the way Nikon cultivated the pro market) and that 
the European camera companies didn't do a lot to contribute to their own 
downfall as market leaders.

Nikon RF cameras do command high prices as collectables, if this is what 
you judge them by, and Nikon weenies can be just as fanatical as Leica 
weenies. They were not manufactured for as long as Leica and Zeiss RFs 
were, so there are a lot fewer of them, and there are some very unusual 
and rare models. Scarcity and variety are what make collectables 
collectable!

- - Paul