Nikon F or not ??

[davidswiss]

I have and am very happy with an F2S photomic but have an opportunity for a very nice F with eye level finder. I've never used an F but always been interested. Does anyone here have or used both and can compare ? Just want advice on whether it's worth getting the F.

 

[Mackinaw]

I have an F (with eye-level prism) and an F2 with the DP-1 prism. I much prefer the F2. To me, the controls, hinged back, overall ergonomics, etc. are much better on the F2. My F just sits in a shelf in my den. I'll probably sell it soon.

Jim B.

 

[Bobbo]

I have both, and the F2 gets used while the F generally sits in the curio cabinet. An F2 is more refined (swing-out camera back, for starters), more pleasant to shoot (everything is rounded) and has better features. If you can score a DE-1 for cheap, do that. Mine lives with a DP-2 like yours, as it's significantly cheaper than the DP-3 or -12 while also being more reliable than the -1 or -11. I'm not paying more for a prism than I did the camera.

That said, I would never say an F with an eyelevel is bad -- it's superior to any consumer-grade SLR of its era; and there's a reason it single-handedly killed many other camera styles as a tool of journalism. It's just not as good as its 12 years later replacement (which is the "duh" moment of the year).

 

[Contarama]

Yes if it's not to expensive. You will always be able to resell.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

I've always wanted an F since it was 'the camera' to have when I was growing up. Since getting back into cameras such as I have, I look at them now and wonder how the pro's that used them put up with the ergonomics. I guess the rest of the mechanics of the camera made up for them. My hand starts to cramp up just looking at the shutter buttons now. I still harbor an insane desire for a good, black body F2 or FM2, even though I don't shoot film now. Just something about a good mechanical Nikon that makes me want one to go with my FE which I bought new oh so many years ago.

 

[former member]

I used both extensively. Go for it- depending on price. The F is quieter due to the slower sync speed. It has more quirks. The F2S- I have that version, but end up using the F2Sb more.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I have both a black Nikon F (plain prism) and a black Nikkormat FTn but only one lens for them both: a Nikkor H Auto 50mm f2. I never use them, but I love to look at them.

The Nikon that I use a lot is an original black paint Nikon S2 chrome dial. Rangefinders are so much nicer to shoot with.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_v...43324/sizes/l/ (look on flickr for a sharper version)

gelatin silver print (nikkor 50mm f1.4) nikon s2

Erik.

 

[wes loder]

The ergonomics never bothered me and I have used Nikon Fs for taking thousands of pictures. That are simple mechanical reasons the release is set to the back of the camera—the same reason the release is in that position on a Leica III and other Leica copies. Remember that the Nikon F, and all RF Nikons use a version of the Leica shutter.

 

[nikon_sam]

I have both and have used them a bit...currently the F has film and the F2 is sitting on my desk, empty and batteries removed in MD-2.
They are different and in some areas the same...you have the F2 so you know how it sounds, the F is much quieter and feels smoother. Many complain that the shutter button on the F is placed in an uncomfortable position, I have an AR-1 on both bodies so that's a non issue for me. The non-hinged back on the F is also a no big deal, you get used to it.
I don't have a lot invested in either body and could easily sell them for way more than I paid...that being said I have no plans on selling any.
If the price is right I would give it a try, its a fun camera to use and has a high cool factor in my book.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Long ago I used my black Nikkormat FTn a lot.

gelatin silver print (nikkor h auto 50mm f2) nikkormat ftn

https://www.flickr.com/photos/erik_v...02299/sizes/l/ (look on flickr for a sharper version)

Erik.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

There's no accounting for personal preference with use. I used an (several) F for many years, so it feels like an old friend. It's just familiar and comfortable like a broken-in pair of jeans. All the notable improvements on the F2 are just that, but personally I'd take the F every time. If i really used an SLR, i could be seduced by an F2 Titan with a plain prism though....

 

[Dogman]

I had a plain prism F and an FTn. I used them for newspaper jobs in the early 70s along with a plain prism F2. Later as I added more F2 bodies, I stopped using the F bodies and lost them in a home burglary. I never noticed any particular ergonomic differences in the F and F2 handling except for the removable back on the F. I preferred the F2 because of that as well as the MF-3 auto rewind back when using the MD-2 motor drive that left the leader out for easier darkroom handling.

Yes...get the F. It's a great camera and part of the history of 20th Century photography.

 

[KoNickon]

Sounds like we're comparing an F with the eyelevel finder (no meter) and an F2 with a metered finder. Not exactly a proper comparison is it? Assuming you can find a working Photomic finder for the F, you're going to have a bulkier and heavier camera than a metered F2. And replacing batteries for the Photomic F finders is a hassle, since you have to remove the finder from the body. For the F2 the battery compartment is easily accessible on the camera bottom plate. Changing film speeds on the metered F finders is a PITA -- the spring on the film speed dial seems too strong and the dial itself is hard to grip. Very easy on the F2. The F2 is just a joy to use, I think.

 

[hap]

Consider an FT3. Kaa chunk! cheap and can soothe the hole in the nikon soul. Agree with Erik....S2 and I even have a SP. You already have an F2....isn't that good enough?

 

[Bingley]

If you follow Renato Repetto on Insta, you’ll know that he uses both an F and an F2, using the F somewhat more. A very fine photographer, IMO.

I had an F with the photomic meter back in the 70s. It was a great camera, but I found it very large and heavy for travel. It ultimately sat on the shelf at home until someone made off with it while we were having some work done on our house. A few years after that, and as I returned to photography in a more serious way, I experimented w/ a number of SLR cameras (Minolta and Pentax) before going back to Nikon. I got an FM2n and a Nikkormat FTn. Then I picked up an F2 from a member here, with the basic eye-level prism, and thought “ah-ha! This is what all the fuss is all about.” I’m now using the F2 for a lot of my 35mm landscape photography. The large vf captures everything recorded on the film, the ergonmics work for me, and the thing is rugged as hell. The F may be a better bargain in today’s used market and it’s still a very capable camera, but the F2 is more refined.

 

[x-ray]

I have both as well and use my F the most. No particular reason other than it’s the one in my bag with my lenses. For the moment my F2 is locked in the safe.

The F2 has a more comfortable winding lever with the plastic tip although late F’s had the plastic tip also. I like the swing out back on the F2 and the button rewind.

I’ve owned and shot a bunch of Nikons and other film SLR’s in my work and feel the F2 is the best of all. It’s one robust and dependable camera. For several years I used F2’s for my 35mm SLR work and Leica M’s for RF’s. IMO the F2 is the Leica M of slr’s. I shot thousands of rolls through 3 bodies and had 2 motors on them. The only issue was a rewind gear In one of the motors failed and NPS repaired it for something like $60 including next day FedEx.


Really the little differences are no big deal and both are a joy to use.

 

[Pál_K]

All things being equal, the F2 is more capable and has better ergonomics than an F.

To elaborate: an F2 with one of its metered finders (of any type) is better than an F with one of its metered finders; an F2 with a simple prism finder is better than an F with a simple prism finder.

However, as you can see below, I have numerous F2’s with different metered prisms but my F’s have only a plain prism. In that comparison, which I think addresses your question, I prefer the plain prism F. It’s just less clunky and reduces the photographic process to its basics.

I prefer my F2’s to have metered finders because that reflects the common configuration when the F2 was introduced; I prefer to have my F’s with a plain prism because that also reflects the common configuration when the F was introduced. But, as I mentioned, the plain prism F is more enjoyable for me to use for basic photography. Also, a black plain prism F is just beautiful.

 

[hap]

All things being equal, the F2 is more capable and has better ergonomics than an F.

To elaborate: an F2 with one of its metered finders (of any type) is better than an F with one of its metered finders; an F2 with a simple prism finder is better than an F with a simple prism finder.

However, as you can see below, I have numerous F2’s with different metered prisms but my F’s have only a plain prism. In that comparison, which I think addresses your question, I prefer the plain prism F. It’s just less clunky and reduces the photographic process to its basics.

I prefer my F2’s to have metered finders because that reflects the common configuration when the F2 was introduced; I prefer to have my F’s with a plain prism because that also reflects the common configuration when the F was introduced. But, as I mentioned, the plain prism F is more enjoyable for me to use for basic photography. Also, a black plain prism F is just beautiful.


filedata/fetch?id=4809496&d=1668657390

Nice family!

 

[Nitroplait]

I own 2 Fs and 3 F2s and would sell the F2s before the Fs.
The F has just so much more character and historical significance, the F2 is boring in comparison.
I don't care if the latter is better made or have evolutionary improvements, I am a hobbyist and do this for fun.

 

[Malcolm M]

I have one of each.

There is no doubt that the F2 is a better camera. The F was launched in 1959, at a time when the concept of a camera that was not unusably awkward was a novel concept. The wind-on is a bit ratchety, and the shutter release too far towards the back of the camera (the design traces its roots back to the pre-war Contax). Metering heads rarely work nowadays (apparently there are carbon contacts that wear) and make the whole camera top heavy. The earliest versions (where you had to set the maximum aperture of the lens against the ASA) are too much of a pain to bother with. Spare plain prisms are worth their weight in gold. Apart from the meter, the rest of the camera will probably outlast civilization.

It has to be first choice camera for a sixties weekend.



Basically, if you want a piece of photographic history, buy it. If you don’t, you’ll probably kick yourself later.