Nikon and Canon in 1954 - competing with Leica

Quick comparison Nikon S2 vs. Canon IVSb2 - vs. Leica M3, which came out in the same year.
Music by Snoozy Beats, FMA (freemusicarchive.org)

[@kaydenbush]

I love simple camera showcases like this

[@justinstein2032]

If the Canon is like the other Barnack copies of the time, the viewfinder itself corresponds to a 50mm lens. It doesnt need framelines bc you use the whole window for framing your shot. So you dont need an external viewfinder. Although it does look cool.

[@Elimnio]

Correct, i only use the external one because it makes it easier to frame the image especially with eyeglasses. And it looks cool, you're right :-)

[@michaelcase8574]

The Nikon is a bit more fidely mounting lenses.

[@Elimnio]

yes, definetely, so far all good because I only have one lens :-)

[@randallstewart1224]

When Nikon copied the Contax RF mount, for some reason they used a slightly different back focus distance to the film plane. The lens of each brand will mount on the other, but the focus systems will be slightly off. Depth of field will cover the focus error on wide angle lenses, but not as to the longer and telephotos. Nikon actually mounted some of their lenses to fit the Contax specification for use on Contax bodies. These lenses bear a "C" added to the naming on the lens ring. As for the Canons, I happen to have both the IVSb2 and VI-T bodies. I prefer them to my 7 or 7Sz because they are smaller, lighter, and have serviceable shutters. IMO the VI-T (for the VI-L if you are more traditional) are the pinnacle of Canon rangefinder achievement.

[@Elimnio]

Thanks for clearing that up, I always wondered if it is possible to use those lenses on the Nikon. I do have a Canon 7 as well as shown in my other video. I always wanted a 7sz but never found one for a reasonable price in good condition. And since the VI-T is really nice as you mentioned, theres not that big of a need to get an 7sz.

[@momentarylapses5784]

I think your first point only applies to the 50mm as it's the only internal mount lens. If you try to interchange between the contax/nikon 50mm lenses they don't quite fit perfectly. So much so it feels rather uncomfortable even trying and I won't bother. The external mount lenses however (wider and longer), work fine.

[@randallstewart1224]

@@momentarylapses5784 Decades of discussions of the point are to the contrary. Although my first 35mm camera was a used Contax II in 1959, I disliked it (and its uncoated 50mm 1.5 Sonnar) enough, so that I switched to an SLR and eventually sold the Contax without ever personally testing those waters.

[@jeffd67]

i thought the C following nikkor stood for coated

[@peoriavideosltd6822]

@@jeffd67 Nikon used the C on the lens to indicate that it is Coated ("Nikkor-S-C") but the ones made in Contax specification have an additional "C" elsewhere on the lens barrel in addition to the one on the lens nomenclature ring.

[@eatenbyopium]

nikon better

[@codiecrieg2480]

Nikon S2 was great camera but grip is made from plastic and rangefinder patch was barly visible so in my opinion thay couldn,t win with leica even barnack. About Canon i have no idea becouse i didnt own any of them but it is really familiar to barnack but a bit bigger i guess and more like m3

[@Elimnio]

on my S2 the patch is really nice, but maybe not as strong as on a good M3. The canon ivsb2 is just slightly wider than the Leica iiif, other than that it's nearly the same size. I'm doing a barnack camera comparison as soon as I get my Leica iiif back from service. However I don't own the bigger iiig or m3.