Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/10/04

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: New Zeiss Ikon
From: bdcolen at (B. D. Colen)
Date: Mon Oct 4 07:12:14 2004

I was indeed thinking SP, Karen - and everyone else. The S3 was a
stripped down SP - the kind of entry level camera Leica should have

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of
Karen Nakamura
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 9:29 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: New Zeiss Ikon

>Dream on, Mark. Feature for feature, capability for capability, M3 v 
>S3, the S3 - as a body - would win hands down. But this is one on which

>great minds will clearly NEVER agree! :-) (My biggest single photo 
>equipment regret is that I didn't ever own an S3, and that I don't own 
>one today. ;-) )

I own both an S3 and a M3 and I can say that the M3 is a better camera:

The M3 has:

* Faster lens changing (the S/Contax bayonet is a pain)
* Availability of third party lenses
* Switchable framelines (the S3 is fixed)
* Brighter finder / rangefinder
* Long optical  (69mm) and effective baselength (63.7mm)

Only 14310 S3s were sold between 1958-1967 while the M3 had a long 
record and over 225,000 sold.

Now, if it was between an SP and an M3, then the SP might be better. 
Unfortunately, I don't have $3000 to buy an SP. Remember that even 
back then, the SP was priced incredibly high (Y98,000).


Karen Nakamura
Leica Users Group.
See for more information

Replies: Reply from mail at (Karen Nakamura) ([Leica] Re: New Zeiss Ikon)
In reply to: Message from mail at (Karen Nakamura) ([Leica] Re: New Zeiss Ikon)