Will the real best manual Nikon SLR please stand up?

[Huss]

A lot has been said of the Nikon F and F2 series cameras. That they are the best mechanical SLRs ever built.
I use them. And Nikkormats. I also use the Nikon FM2n. Which got me to thinking... if I wasn't 'posing' which camera would I actually use to 'get the shot'? And as much as I love the feel and gestalt of my Fs and F2 s (with DP12, DP11 and DE1 heads), the FM2n is far superior as an imaging device. Ergos are much much better. It's smaller, lighter, quicker to use. Has a mechanical shutter that goes to 1/4000 sec. More discrete. Insanely reliable.

So why is it that amateur photographers claim that the F and F2 were the best ever? When pros who used these things to make money - whether at war or in a studio - moved on to the FM/FM2? They could still have been shooting the F2 and turned a cold shoulder to the FM2. The obvious answer, of course, they used the best tool for the job.

Is it because in this throw away digital age we love nostalgic big old heavy mechanical things? And the F2 indeed is bigger and heavier than an FM2. And I unashamedly admit that an F or F2 just looks so 'pro' as you saunter down the street with it looking for 'that' shot, while an FM series camera looks like any 80's consumer level piece of kit.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The F and the F2 are extremely reliable mechanical devices with very precise viewfinders. That is why professionals relied on them in the sixties and early seventies. In those years the word "ergonomics" was seldom heard.

Erik.

 

[css9450]

Having owned both for many years, I'd pick the FM2 (or FM2n) as the better shooter.

 

[Huss]

The F and the F2 are extremely reliable mechanical devices with very precise viewfinders. That is why professionals relied on them in the sixties and early seventies. In those years the word "ergonomics" was seldom heard.

Erik.

I understand that, but they left them behind when the FM series came out.
Which naturally suggests that pros thought the FM series were better, as they wouldn't have otherwise used them.
An argument could be made that they wore out their F/F2s, but if that was the case why are there so many ones still out there working just fine? As well as plenty barely used ones still available.

 

[Huss]

Having owned both for many years, I'd pick the FM2 (or FM2n) as the better shooter.

I've found that too.

 

[css9450]

I understand that, but they left them behind when the FM series came out.
Which naturally suggests that pros thought the FM series were better, as they wouldn't have otherwise used them.

I don't think they abandoned the F2 at all. Some pros kept their F2s, some used the FM only as a backup...

 

[James24]

I've owned all of the above over the past 40 something years. It has to be the F2 for me.

 

[Ronald M]

F2 is precision, viewing, focus, meter head, plain prism, right angle. It does what I need for film.

My FE2 is just a consumer camera

My Nikkormat FT is smooth, takes great pics, focus leaves some to be desired. Ok for $60

 

[Dwig]

The F2 viewfinder, and in many ways the F's, is superior to any and all of the FM/FE clan. The VF covers the whole frame accurately instead of cropping to what would be visible in a common slide mount. Also, the Photomic finders for both the F and F2 place the meter display closer to the optical axis of the finder making it much more visible to eyeglass wearers. Despite the reliablility of the FM/FE clan, the F and F2 are as reliable in general use and a much stronger and more rugged.

 

[Shac]

Which pros are we talking about? If primarily photojournalists did they perhaps move to the FM/FE series b/c of weight issues? Carrying 2 or more bodies plus lenses all day??????

 

[dtcls100]

My vote is for Nikon FM3a. All the advantages of FM2n and FE2 (1/4000 shutter, 1/250 flash synch, works without batteries, OTF flash, smaller and lighter than F and F2, still solidly built) plus better stock interchangeable focusing screen and fill flash compensation button. While the FM3a is definitely not my favorite camera or even favorite Nikon camera (love the F6), it certainly is my favorite Nikon camera that works without batteries.

While some folks go on about the F and F2 being built so ruggedly that you "could hammer nails with them", that is really nonsense. Try using a camera -- any camera -- as a hammer and you will end up with a broken camera. Cameras are precision instruments. That said, I have seen plenty of cameras of different models with lots of wear, dents and dings that still work.

While unquestionably very well made, some of the components of the F and F2 are surprisingly delicate. Look at Sover Wong's website (famous Nikon F2 repair guru) and the F2 user manual and you will see that you aren't supposed to leave a Nikon F2's shutter cocked overnight for risk of weakening the shutter springs and throwing off the shutter timing and synchronization between the shutter curtains. While a number of older photo books discuss whether to leave shutters cocked or not, I don't recall reading any user manuals for the various other cameras I have owned making any mention of this and I often leave the shutters cocked overnight (since I typically use them with motor drives) and they work fine years later. Sover's website has a photo of those F2 springs -- they look pretty delicate. Also, alot of the internal metal used in the F and F2 are pretty subject to corrosion. The pics on Sover's website show alot of the internal parts as being made of dull, rust prone steel. Opening up the inside of a somewhat more recent well made cameras (like an OM-4) reveals that many of the gears are made of stainless or chromed steel. This not surprising, given the tremendous advances in metallurgy between 1971 (when Nikon F2 was released) and 1987 (when OM-4T was released). I am sure camera makers were not oblivious to these advances and that you would see similar advances in a Nikon F3 and further improvements in later models.

Alot of the cachet surrounding the Nikon F, Nikon F2 and Canon F1 arises out of the fact that tons of professional photographers used them and because they had interchangeable finders (often deemed a definitive mark of a "pro" camera even though most photographers never bought any of the alternative finders). Interestingly, top "pro" digital cameras (like Nikon D3, D4, D5 and Canon 1X series) abandoned the idea of interchangeable finders. Indeed, an article I read about the Nikon F6 (the only pro F series Nikon without interchangeable finders) pointed out that interchangeable finders were dropped for the F6 because: (1) weather sealing of the pentaprism area was much improved if it was non-interchangeable) and (2) very few buyers of the prior Nikon F5 ever bought any of the interchangeable finders available for that model.

I am not really trying to bash the Nikon F or F2. I have handled them and shot some photos with them in the past and thought they were great cameras. In fact, I am tempted every so often (including yesterday) to buy an F2, given the allure and cachet of a top quality mechanical Nikon. It would undoubtedly be fun to have one and to shoot some frames with one. However, when I actually think about using it as a practical photo taking machine, I remember that it would not be as good for me as any of the other 35 mm cameras I own -- Nikon F6, FM3a, FE2, Olympus OM-4T, OM-2n, or OM-1n because of some combination of size, weight, and lack of more modern features.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Most people grow out of asking "What is the best _____" sometime around puberty, when they realize that "best" in one context may not be "best" in another. You want to stop bullets? Try an F. A design icon and arguably the most important SLR in history? F again. You want a lightweight, easy-to-use snapshot camera that allows the use of F-mount lenses? Try an EM. I have both and they're both "best" for different values of "best".

Cheers,

R.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I've owned all three (F, F2, FM2N) and prefer the F. The FM2N film advance feels horrible to me, and doesn't ratchet (so you can't double-half stroke it), and the DOF preview button/lever hits squarely on my knuckle when I hold the camera. Used it for years as a back up SLR with an MD-12 attached, but the MD-12 is now completely unreliable, so the camera sits. The two F's I have just keep going and going, and they don't hit my knuckle when I hold them, and the film advance lever ratchets. They have bright viewfinders with solid matte screens and easy to find diopters for these aging eyes. Hope they both last as long as I can still take pictures.

Best,
-Tim

 

[sevo]

While unquestionably very well made, some of the components of the F and F2 are surprisingly delicate. Look at Sover Wong's website (famous Nikon F2 repair guru) and the F2 user manual and you will see that you aren't supposed to leave a Nikon F2's shutter cocked overnight for risk of weakening the shutter springs and throwing off the shutter timing and synchronization between the shutter curtains.

Well, or not. Almost every professionally used F2 never had had its shutter uncocked for more than 0.3s, a side effect of them almost inevitably being used with a motor drive. I have yet to see a F2 with weakened spring - or a shutter that has de-synchronised for reasons other than stripped gears...

 

[rajmohan-fotograf]

I like the F2 and F3. Perhaps they have shortcomings when compared with later models, or in some users' opinions, but my F2 and F3 give me much pleasure, and they help me make images with which I'm happy.

 

[benmacphoto]

My vote is to the F2. The best manual Nikon SLR.
They are very well made and feel great to use.
Lens compatibility is a big plus, not to mention the different viewfinders and focusing screens.
It's a versatile camera that keeps on going.

 

[css9450]

The FM2N film advance feels horrible to me, and doesn't ratchet ...

That's one of my favorite features.... So buttery smooth with just the right amount of mechanical feedback. But it just goes to show, one man's preference is another man's undesireable.

 

[Fraser]

It's not very fair comparing a camera from the early 70s with in the case of even the fm wasn't available until the late 70s. And your even talking about the fm3a which didn't launch until 2001!

 

[Huss]

Well, or not. Almost every professionally used F2 never had had its shutter uncocked for more than 0.3s, a side effect of them almost inevitably being used with a motor drive. I have yet to see a F2 with weakened spring - or a shutter that has de-synchronised for reasons other than stripped gears...

Page 37 in the F2 owner's manual:

One of my near perfect condition F2s has issues with the 1/2000 speed that Sover said was because the previous owner most prob left the camera's shutter cocked for too long.

FYI the FM2 owner's manual has no such warning.

 

[Huss]

It's not very fair comparing a camera from the early 70s with in the case of even the fm wasn't available until the late 70s. And your even talking about the fm3a which didn't launch until 2001!

I think you're missing the point. The question is really asking why do some people today state that the F2 is/was the best ever, when the overwhelming number of pros did not agree just by the fact that they moved on to the FM series.

I use them all, and I love the way my Fs and F2s feel and look but sheepishly admit to myself that my Fm2 is better and easier to use. It's just not as cool!