Nikon F --- All it's cracked up to be?

[KoNickon]

I think he meant "big" as in "most used." I'm sure the 105/2.5 would have been in that group. Probably the 200/4 also.

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135813

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135813

In a book on "Mark and Liebovitz" lenses mentioned for Annie were the 24mm,55mm,35mm,80~200mm,180mm. The joy of an SLR is the seeing thru the lens. Mark at the time of book, was more Leica M. 1974.
I would think the use of lenses on the F2 to be same except the motor more reliable. Leica didn't manage a SLR for it's SL2, until it was almost retired..
I have no knowledge of it's reliability, good or bad.
Only a few used the Leica SL and SL2.
It was not as hardy as the Nikon-F.

 

[VinceC]

>>Classic F lenses from the '60s<<

The 21/4 mirror lockup; the 24/2.8 or 28/2; the 50/1.4 (sweet lens); 105/2.5; 180/2.5 (RF lens with adapter, HEAVY); 180/2.8 F-mount; 200/4; 300/4.5

 

[VinceC]

I've always heard great things about the 58/1.4. Also in F-mount, the 85/1.8 was a real workhorse in the '60s.

True the RF lineup was awfully full, but because development ceased in '59, there weren't many fast wides, just the 35/1.8.

Your RF lineup missed my favorite, the 28.

 

[Shac]

I love the F. For me it's the only camera that rivals the M4.

In many ways the F2 is more refined, practical and maybe even tougher, but there simply is something about the way the original F handles and feels that is very special. It's my favorite SLR.

Totally agree

 

[tunalegs]

I've never understood the love affair with Nikon Fs and F2s when it comes to practical, in the field handling. There are far better "users," meaning more practical and easier to use. I guess the Nikons are easy to repair and somewhat reliable, and they do have the history behind them. And yes, I've owned a few, but would much rather have a Leicaflex SL or Canon F1. The Nikon F3 is a different story.

Oh yeah, the unmetered Fs look good too. That seems to be a high priority for most rangefinder guys.

I don't think I've ever had an "unreliable" camera, save for the Canon AE-1 that jammed after 20 years of use. But I wouldn't expect my car to run for 20 years without a peek under the hood, so I'm not sure that can rightly be called unreliable.

In some respects the Miranda G was a better camera than the Nikon F. Smaller, more ergonomic, quieter, larger mirror - but narrower body, less-bizarre mirror lock up procedure, easier interchangeability of screens and viewfinders. No motor drive though, and the wrong name was printed on it.

The later Mirandas, once they moved the open aperture coupling inside are also better in some ways IMO. The meter in the mirror allowed one to use meter-less viewfinders. So you could use TTL metering without a big huge photomic prism, you could use TTL metering with magnifying viewfinder or the WLF. Looked pretty good too. The Nikon F always had a peculiar resemblance to the 1950s Miranda C too... :angel:

Topcon? I wouldn't call them pretty, but some do. Same deal with the better metering system. Robust, well made, shame about the tiny Exakta mount, but they still made some of the fastest SLR lenses of the era.

 

[Harry Lime]

Only a few used the Leica SL and SL2.
It was not as hardy as the Nikon-F.

Reliability never was a problem for the SL. It's probably one of the tougher SLR ever made. Pricing and a non-modular design was the problem. The SL and lenses were 2-3 times more expensive.

From conversations I've had with older shooters, weight was also a big issue. The SL and lenses weigh a ton in comparison to a Nikon system. This was a big deal for photojournalists working in the field.

IMO the worst feature of the SL is the very long throw of the advance lever. Very, very annoying.

But the viewfinder is astonishingly bright and contrasty.

If the SL has an Achilles heel I would say it's the flimsy meter cover at the front of the prism block. This design flaw is completely perplexing, when you look at the engineering of the rest of the camera, which is extremely high. As an example the baseplate is solid stainless steel and very thick. And there is that cover...

 

[Tom A]

The Leicaflex SL is the proverbial hockey puck camera. It is over engineered and overbuilt - you feel that. Heavy - but still with brightest viewfinder of just about any SLR. It has some problem areas - the lens mount lock was initially red plastic and it could (and would crack). Leica did replace it with steel later (and also on any camera that came in for service). The meter cells tends to be dead now - and they use 625 mercury batteries anyway. It is rare that you have something go wrong with a Sl - but when it happens, repair costs are staggering, usual exceeds the value of the camera. It takes hours to dismantle it for a shutter replacement.
The way to avoid the long advance arm throw is to go SL Mot. You never need a gym membership after that. 10 AA batteries and a motor that can be used to jump-start a car! A SL mot with motor and the first version 250f4 will make you tilt precariously! I got rid of my last SL Mot, black paint too, because it put too much strain on my back. Now I am using a R6 - not as confidence inspiring maybe, but much lighter. The optics are still world class, 60f2.8 Macro Elmarit, 180f3.4 Apo-Telyt, 100 f2.8 Macro etc. You would be hard pressed to find anything modern that surpasses these lenses.

 

[Tom A]

Leicafles Sl Mot, Elmarit 100f2.8 Apo. Neopan 1600 @ 800, developed in Stoeckler two bath. This is @ f2.8.
The Nikkor 105mm macro f4 is almost as good and much lighter!

 

[redisburning]

I have the 60/2.8 macro elmarit and agree it's fantastic. actually somewhere down the road I am going to convert it to F mount to use on my F3. Id love to have the 100 APO Macro, in fact now that I have the 50MP, 60ME AND OM50/2 it's really the only lens left on my list. Even if it were just a few rolls, I'd love to use one; it's too bad that there dont seem to be Leica R rentals.

of course I see the Nikon 55/2.8 AI-s at ~100 dollars on KEH and it's tempting to buy and compare.

Nikon F, OM-1, SL, XK, etc. are all pretty reasonably priced these days and I think now it comes down to how much of the system do you want/need and do you like a particular camera's quirks or not.

 

[L Collins]

Reliability never was a problem for the SL. It's probably one of the tougher SLR ever made. Pricing and a non-modular design was the problem. The SL and lenses were 2-3 times more expensive.

From conversations I've had with older shooters, weight was also a big issue. The SL and lenses weigh a ton in comparison to a Nikon system. This was a big deal for photojournalists working in the field.

IMO the worst feature of the SL is the very long throw of the advance lever. Very, very annoying.

But the viewfinder is astonishingly bright and contrasty.

If the SL has an Achilles heel I would say it's the flimsy meter cover at the front of the prism block. This design flaw is completely perplexing, when you look at the engineering of the rest of the camera, which is extremely high. As an example the baseplate is solid stainless steel and very thick. And there is that cover...

Not to derail the thread, but see http://leicaphilia.com/?p=72 for article about SL.

 

[KoNickon]

The thing about the Leicaflexes, and I am a big fan, is that by the time they came out, they were already behind the curve by a fair amount in terms of features. The F was executed as a modular system camera from the beginning, so the basic camera could be updated to add new finders and lenses.

 

[ray*j*gun]

I don't have the time to read all the responses so I'll probably repeat whats been said but.....reliable, fixable, I use the Photomic meter more for fun than anything, maybe sometime the plane prisim in black will be affordable, takes all my lenses and lets me see brightly, beautiful to look at and handle, great bang for the buck. Oh did I mention reliable?

 

[Harry Lime]

I've never understood the love affair with Nikon Fs and F2s when it comes to practical, in the field handling. There are far better "users," meaning more practical and easier to use. I guess the Nikons are easy to repair and somewhat reliable, and they do have the history behind them. And yes, I've owned a few, but would much rather have a Leicaflex SL or Canon F1. The Nikon F3 is a different story.

Oh yeah, the unmetered Fs look good too. That seems to be a high priority for most rangefinder guys.

The pop off back on the original F is sort of a PIA as is the tiny rewind lever. But then again it's basically a S-series rangefinder with a prismblock grafted on it and one of the earliest real SLR cameras.

I have the SL and prefer the F/F2/F3, mainly because they are lighter and smaller.

The F2 is far more practical and even tougher than the F and REALLY is close to indestructible. I had mine fully rebuilt by Sover Wong in London and he sent me some pictures of the interior. It's all heavy duty steel and brass. Looks more like a commercial washing machine than a camera.

 

[tunalegs]

Miranda released the C in the same year as the F, but it still used a two step speed dial, less awkward than the Nikon S2, but not great. The uncoupled TTL CdS Miranda meter would fit it.

TTL metering built into the body was not available until 1969 in the Sensormat line. The meter was stop-down only -- except on the Automex (1960? or so) which used a Rube Goldberg fully coupled selenium meter, which you just have to see to understand.

I owned a number of Mirandas, in fact my first SLR was a Miranda T, but they were most decidedly not very reliable, I would put them about on the level of early Yashicas build-wise -- but with a little care they were fine.

It was sad to see Miranda deteriorate and finally disappear. They were some of the most interesting cameras ever made IMO. I loved mine.

"wrong name was printed on it" Actually Miranda was well known, they used to run a lot of ads.

B&H found a brand new (never opened) Miranda T and sold it to me in about 1985 -- I could not resist.

The Sensorex got the meter on the mirror system in 1966, but it kept the external aperture coupling lever until 1970 or so. They did have a TTL prism which was uncoupled before this I think, along with the prism with the external CDS meter which could be fitted to the older cameras.

I agree the quality was only "average" Japanese, not Nikon level. But I have never had any problems with the Mirandas I owned (I still have a D) After Soligor acquired the company they ran it into the ground even though some of their nicer cameras were the last ones.

Do you have any pictures of your T?

 

[cary]

I have been a Nikon F user for over forty years. Used the same F in high school as a yearbook photographer, college-Brooks Institute of Photography and at work-Sandia National Labs. The F has never let me down, I have wanted a Leicaflex SL for years, but the price of the lenses have shot up.

Here is a photo of my cheap F system I threw together two years ago. I found the body in my closet, forgot I even had it. The concept was to put together a system for very little money, so I picked the least expensive Nikkor lenses, 28mm f3.5 50mm f2 and 135mm f3.5. The 50 and 135 have original Nikon chrome filters. All were purchased on that auction site for a total of $70. This combo takes great photos.

Photo taken with Nikon F, 85mm f1.8 and Broncolor Impact strobes and then scanned.

 

[steveyork]

You are kidding about repairs,right?
These ain't those fancy light leaking Leitz wonders.
What repairs!
Dirty, misused, ill treated, Nikon-F took it.
The Canon early breech mount and outside hanging cams, a pain,
The Leicaflex, the first an abomination with no true SLR view..the SL2 very soft in strength, compared..
When the bricks, stones and bullets were flying,you wanted a good shield.The Nikon-F.
It worked. It continued working.No motor drive!
I couldn't afford that much film..
IT, OK both still working..😀

Every Nikon I've owned, all in the last decade (F, F2, S2) required some type of repair. And the strong selling point of these cameras is that they are easy to repair (so I'm told) and lots of people repair them. That's what I meant.

 

[nikon_sam]

Cary...
I agree that the 135mm 3.5 is a great lens...

 

[John E Earley]

yep -- but don't have it anymore.

This is of course a very late T since it is a "Miranda," but still had the plain finder with no leatherette. The lens is a Soligar 5cm f1.9. Miranda Orion T's came with the Zunow 5cm f1.9 lens.

It is rare to find a camera with the strap still in the original cellophane. I know everyone will now say -- what a shame it was never used, but then there would be no pictures of it.

The box was finished like the Nikon S and M boxes of the period, the Japanese really knew how to present a product.

I just remembered those dates from memory, but I did mention that there was a metered finder almost right away, but it was uncoupled.

I nearly purchased a Miranda back in the mid 60's, but for this brave new world I chose a Nikon instead, my first of many.

 

[Ronald M]

Well sure, but few needed repair in the first decade of use, unless they were used professionally.

Marty Forscher, of Professional Camera Repair in NYC, made a living repairing them in 48 hours. The most common problem for me was keeping early corded motor drives working.

Marty referred to them as hockey puck cameras. As they went on, features were added and to him we not built as well.

A few years back I got a nice very clean F2. It runs amazingly well, smooth as a Leicaflex and that is better than any F I ever found, not to say I found every good one. I understand there were many internal improvements.