What's your favorite film Nikon F Series ?

Nikkormat FTn, Nikkor H Auto 50mm f/2, TriX/D76 printed on AdoxMCC110 (1974).

Erik.

48015564593_5ac5798d4a_b.jpg
 
Remember that the K1000 was inexpensive, back in the day. My first good camera was a K1000 SE, the plastic-topped one. I think I paid $230 with the 50/2. By comparison, an FM2n was $500 or more. Nikkormats weren't available new.

I eventually upgraded to a Nikon FM, which was a better camera than the K1000. Everything was smoother, except the lens focusing.

I went to an FM2 from there; I felt the build quality of the FM was better. I guess the F2 was the pro equivalent of the FM, but I could never justify an F2, as the FM series were superior in every way except maybe ruggedness and nostalgia.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Yet, Nikon designated them as consumer camera.


I can't recall any Soviet professional camera (maybe in LF format), but I beat any wedding, school photog in USSR would use Nikkormat instead of any Zeniev.
Click to expand...

I think they were primarily designed to be less expensive. Sometimes, these cost-cutting measures cut features that pros wanted. Like a cap on the wind lever and shutter speeds on top instead of around the lens. I don't know, but I don't think Nikkormats had metal shutters either.
 
Smaug said:
I think they were primarily designed to be less expensive. Sometimes, these cost-cutting measures cut features that pros wanted. Like a cap on the wind lever and shutter speeds on top instead of around the lens. I don't know, but I don't think Nikkormats had metal shutters either.
Click to expand...


Nikkormats had vertical-travel metal shutters, made by (or patterned after?) Copal.
 
Smaug said:
Remember that the K1000 was inexpensive, back in the day. My first good camera was a K1000 SE, the plastic-topped one. I think I paid $230 with the 50/2.
Click to expand...


Mine was even less; right around $100 plus or minus a few dollars in 1979. I was fifteen and taking a photography class in high school and the old Minolta SR-1 I was using jammed while on a field trip, so the next weekend my dad took me to Bass Camera in Chicago to buy the K1000. A rare gesture on his part; if there hadn't been a school grade eventually associated with it I'd have been saving my nickels for a VERY long time to replace the Minolta!
 
Smaug said:
I think they were primarily designed to be less expensive. Sometimes, these cost-cutting measures cut features that pros wanted. Like a cap on the wind lever and shutter speeds on top instead of around the lens. I don't know, but I don't think Nikkormats had metal shutters either.
Click to expand...

I'm not finding shutter wheel to be very professional feature on my FT.
 
My favourite is a black F with a pentaprism....just because i used them for so long they're ultra familiar to my hands. Yes the F2 is more refined, the F3 even more racy. I never got over the bulk of the F4 & the F5 let me down when i got one....the battery power couldnt rewind a single roll of 35mm film so it was back and forth for repair, so i ditched it and pretty much stopped using 35mm if favour of 5x7. The plain F, like the M2 ....often improved; never equalled.
 
I have owned every single-digit (professional) F except for the F4 and F6 so I can't comment on those, but of the other four I have owned I will outline below.

TL;DR: F2 is my favourite mechanical body, F5 tops the other electronic bodies for me

F - Extremely close to a perfect camera in my opinion. Well built, beautiful design and extremely capable but also limiting depending on what kind of subject matter you like to photograph. An early chrome body with the eye-level prism is in my top 3 best looking cameras of all time. Limited to 1/1000, not the most ergonomic body.

F2 - Not too different from the F but the improvements make what I believe, is the best fully mechanical SLR ever made. Nikon made the body a little more ergonomic by taking away the harsh angles of the F and added a 1/2000 shutter speed. Don't get me wrong, I love my Leica's dearly, but a F2 Photomic with a pre-ai 50mm 1.4 is easily my desert island camera.

F3 - Easily one of the best designed SLR's ever made and a pleasure to use. I wholeheartedly regret selling mine and will definitely buy another eventually, but it's reliance on batteries knocks it down a few pegs in my book. However, LR44 batteries are widely available most everywhere on this planet, so it's kind of a null point.

F5 - It's big, it's heavy, it's an absolute battery pig (8 AA's to be specific) but it's such a beautiful camera to use. I don't have the largest hands, but I find the F5 to be the most comfortable camera I have ever used. It's molded rubber and magnesium alloy body is so well balanced that it makes the size and weight a non-issue for me personally. Another plus? You get the functionality of a modern Nikon DSLR without paying F6 money - I got my body which is in near flawless condition for about $300 USD last year, which is ~$500 USD cheaper than the cheapest used F6 body and about $2K cheaper than a new F6.

As for the F4 and F6 - I do plan to grab myself an F4 in the near future but really have no interest in buying a F6 until either A) I have the other 5 bodies and need it to complete the collection or B) I have a wad of cash burning a hole in my pocket that I just need to get rid of!
 
Smaug said:
I don't know, but I don't think Nikkormats had metal shutters either.
Click to expand...

Nikkormats had metal shutters, made by Copal. Indestructible. They had an X synch at 1/125 sec. The F had an X synch only at 1/60.

The F was superior to the Nikkormat only on one point: viewfinder precision. That was on the F 100%. The Nikkormats gave about 0.5mm more on film than the finder indicated.

Nikon made much more money on the Nikkormats than on the F. I don't know how many Nikkormats were made, but that must have been a lot more than F's. I think five times as much, at least. In the 1970's you could hear that typical sound of the Nikkormats everywere around you, at least here in Europe, in busy areas with many tourists.


Erik.
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned a preference for the Photomic viewfinders on the F. Now THAT's what an F is supposed to look like! And it was the face of photojournalism for probably fifteen years.

OEG6G3.jpg
 
I've liked every F version I own (original thru 3HP), but my two favorites are the F with plain prism, and an F2AS. Haven't got the F4, 5, or 6 yet, but plan to in the future to complete the set.


PF
 
I like the system...the F mount. I have a 715xxx early weird block F2 with a DE1. The lenses are the real gems though. My opinion. The quality you get for the used price is about as good as it gets.
 
css9450 said:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned a preference for the Photomic viewfinders on the F. Now THAT's what an F is supposed to look like! And it was the face of photojournalism for probably fifteen years.

OEG6G3.jpg
Click to expand...

You're quite right, of course, and that's a beautiful FTN you've got there.

Indeed, in newspaper, magazine, and TV images of historical events from the 1960's to early 1970's, the one thing that is evident in those images are throngs of reporters with the distinct FTN prism. It was the symbol of the press photographer.

I believe the current trend of admiring plain-prism F's and F2's comes from numerous things: admiring simplicity, less clunkiness, and not having to deal with sometimes failing metering heads.
 
And photojournalists covering the Vietnam War like Larry Burrows usually had a couple F's (original of course) hanging from shoulder straps for the normal and longer lenses and a Leica M2 for wider lenses.

I don't think there is an image of a photojournalist from the 1960 to 1970's that did not use a Nikon. If memory serves, the Canon F1 did not come along until much later, toward the end of the 1970's but it could have been earlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom