Talk:Nikon rangefinder cameras

Reason for keeping the 24×34mm size

I'm pretty sure that the reason for keeping the 24×34mm size on the Nikon M and S is that the body casting did not allow a longer exposure frame, and the company did not want to have a new casting made specially for that. There was certainly no doubt on the corner sharpness of the Nikkor lenses, which were originally computed to cover the full 24×36mm format on the Canon, and were also sold in Leica mount. --rebollo_fr 10:49, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Answer to Rebollo_fr:

The body casting aperture width of Nikon S measures 33.8mm close to the film plane and the material thickness is about 1mm. Immediately in front of the shutter curtain there is no body casting what-so-ever which could possibly conflict with the light path from either side of the lens mount opening. The closest objects are the shutter curtains on the drums either side, but they are not likely to disturb the light passing them, although the right-hand drum at open shutter is full. Making the opening in the film gate casting 35,8mm is completely realistic at that time.

However I find it difficult to understand that either reason currently proposed, would make Nikon reluctant to change the gate size, considering the importance for them to comply with international standards. I'm pretty sure though, that their lens specifications dictate caution increasing the image circle, this being dictated by design rules and rooted in their pride as lens makers. The situation my possibly be rooted in a conflict between different departments in the house.

I see your point regarding Canon, but the lenses for the Nikon were new developments for the Nikon, not for Canon, and I don’t really believe Nikon worried too much about these things if customers wanted to use their lenses on Leicas, Canons or Contaxes for that matter.

With regards, Jan 25 May 2009

I read the story of the body casting not accepting the full 24×36mm format in a Japanese book on Nikon, otherwise very well sourced and documented. Close examination of the position of the curtain drums relative to the light path would be required, for the various lenses intended for the camera.

On the other hand, I find it very difficult to believe that Nikkor lenses had insufficient coverage. This would be a very contradictory situation where Nikon applied extreme caution on the lens quality on their own bodies, and very little on other cameras, whereas the Leica-mount versions were official Nikon products as well.

Moreover, I'm not convinced that the Nikkor lenses for the Nikon were new developments. (On the contrary, I heard that the main reason for the incompatibility between Nikon and Contax mounts was that the company did not recompute the "50mm" lenses to the same precise focal length specs as the Contax standard lenses.)

I'm not 100% sure of any of the things I said above, and would not add them to an article now. But I think we should not add that story of corner quality either, or at least we should make clear that this is a guess only.

Regards,

--rebollo_fr 10:28, 26 May 2009 (EDT)