Fat Nikon's from the '70s and 80's

[blockend]

Nikon pitched themselves as a universal system camera. Everything from astronomy to micrography, through medical and sports photography was based around the same bodies. That meant compromises in metering to allow for different finders. The technology was available to create a conventional body, as Nikon did with their Nikkormat range, but it wouldn't have allowed for system diversity at the time these cameras were being sold.

I owned a plain prism Nikon F back in the 80s, and it was a lovely solid camera, whose only vice was the necessity to remove the back to load film. Two years ago I finally acquired a Nikon F2AS, a camera I'd always admired, but the Photomic head unbalanced the handling and it was just too heavy to tote as an everyday camera and I sold it. Someone mentioned Olympus, I owned an OM1 in the 70s and 80s and it was probably the nicest manual 35mm camera ever made. Compared to the Nikon F it was very lightly built however and compromises were made to keep weight down. If the OM1 had been built to the same standard as a Leica M I'd have certainly voted it best SLR.

 

[Steve Smith]

When you think of the look and size of the 1965 era Nikon F, you need to realize as well, in 1965 the attached was considered a "compact" car.

Perhaps in your country! (and the one to the south of you).


Steve.

 

[AgX]

Nikon pitched themselves as a universal system camera. Everything from astronomy to micrography, through medical and sports photography was based around the same bodies.

Though they were not the first. I assume the Exakta Varex to be the first system camera. Though too early, too bad marketing...

 

[blockend]

Though they were not the first. I assume the Exakta Varex to be the first system camera. Though too early, too bad marketing...

No, they weren't the first but they were the most comprehensive. The only company to give Nikon competition were Olympus, especially in microscopic and clinical disciplines. Nikon's metering electronics haven't worn well compared to other manufacturers of the same era, and I've known a sizable number of Nikon users with shutter problems, including myself, but the overall build quality is excellent.

 

[lxdude]

No, they weren't the first but they were the most comprehensive. The only company to give Nikon competition were Olympus, especially in microscopic and clinical disciplines.

Well, there was this camera called the Canon F-1...

I remember that in the 70's or 80's it made the Guiness book of World Records as the the largest photographic system.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

until the Pentax Spotmatic in 1960

Was that the Honeywell Pentax (Spotmatic) in the US?

s-a

 

[Les Sarile]

Was that the Honeywell Pentax (Spotmatic) in the US?

s-a

Honeywell was the Pentax distributor in the USA and according to this site - Asahi Optical Historical Club, Honeywell started distributing pre Spotmatic even. This one is a 1959 Honeywell Heiland H2. I only have a casual knowledge of this partnership.

 

[JimCee]

They used a lot of Nikons in Vietnam because Nikon was practically giving them away to journalists to "get the word out" on their SLR. Savvy marketing, the same way they recognized the sea change from rangefinders to the SLR. Nikon was an optical company first that got in to making cameras, just like Leica did. I think the F was an amalgamation of the best ideas from a lot of already existing designs from other manufacturers, but I'm amazed how they got so much right on their first try. Their F2 would be perfect...

It's also telling that, just like fifty years later, the Nikon F's mechanics are as sweet as ever while its electronics are anachronistic throw-aways. A lesson there, perhaps.

s-a

I suspect that, given the definite hazards associated with combat photography, the use of Nikon F and Leica M cameras during the Vietnam War had much more to do with their inherent ruggedness and lens quality than some "Savvy marketing". Most people who saw the photographs themselves wouldn't have known (or cared) what camera was used by the photographers.

As you state, both Leitz and Nippon Kogaku, were optical companies before they became camera manufacturers. The reputation of the Leica camera was well established, and the reputation of Nikkor lenses was established during the Korean Conflict when David Douglas Duncan adopted the Nikkor 85mm lens to fit his Leica cameras. http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/36/ The subsequent development of cameras by Nikon followed closely with some Contax designs, until the Nikon S2, SP and subsequent rangefinder models. The Nikon F camera became an instantaneous success with professional photographers, assisted in no small part by the integration of motor drives with the basic camera body as a standard component, but confirmed by the reputation of their lenses.

Jim

 

[chip j]

I was an Army photographer in Germany 1966-68, and the Canadian PXs there had new Photomic Tns for $95, and new Leica m4s for $165. I bought quite a bit of both systems, but never managed to hang on to them.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

I suspect that, given the definite hazards associated with combat photography, the use of Nikon F and Leica M cameras during the Vietnam War had much more to do with their inherent ruggedness and lens quality than some "Savvy marketing". Most people who saw the photographs themselves wouldn't have known (or cared) what camera was used by the photographers.

As you state, both Leitz and Nippon Kogaku, were optical companies before they became camera manufacturers. The reputation of the Leica camera was well established, and the reputation of Nikkor lenses was established during the Korean Conflict when David Douglas Duncan adopted the Nikkor 85mm lens to fit his Leica cameras. http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/36/ The subsequent development of cameras by Nikon followed closely with some Contax designs, until the Nikon S2, SP and subsequent rangefinder models. The Nikon F camera became an instantaneous success with professional photographers, assisted in no small part by the integration of motor drives with the basic camera body as a standard component, but confirmed by the reputation of their lenses.

Jim

Yes, Duncan was impressed by the Nikkor optics but I believe Nikon would have gone nowhere if combat photographers were the only one's to have bought Fs. Photographers talk to photographers but what Joe Consumer saw was photographers using Nikons, in magazines and on television, just like today, where every televised sports or news event includes a pan of the press box. That's what sold them, even before they had seen a print taken through a Nikkor. Duncan serves as a figurehead for something bigger and more diffuse for Nikon, just as Bresson does for Leica. Additionally, I've read that Nikon's success was not "instantaneous" at the consumer level (Fs were expensive!) but succeeded through a lot of work by the import company EPOI (Ehrenreich Photo Optical Imports). I think my first F from 1971 might have had an EPOI sticker on the box. In any event the second of these two videos mentions the importance of Fs being seen in use by pros and not just used by pros. There is also, at 8:00 in one or the other, a Leica III of some type:
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/04/23/designing-the-nikon-f-camera-video.aspx/

Regards,
s-a

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I'm still using my F Photomic Tn from the 60's. Got it new and yesterday it still worked great. The metered finder quit a long time ago but the body is a pleasure to use.

Jim

I use an FTN finder regularly for close-up and other work where TTL metering is handy. It was dead when I got it but a simple disassembly and cleaning of the switch and resistor contacts brought it back to life. These are very accurate meters.

 

[JimCee]

Yes, Duncan was impressed by the Nikkor optics but I believe Nikon would have gone nowhere if combat photographers were the only one's to have bought Fs. Photographers talk to photographers but what Joe Consumer saw was photographers using Nikons, in magazines and on television, just like today, where every televised sports or news event includes a pan of the press box. That's what sold them, even before they had seen a print taken through a Nikkor. Duncan serves as a figurehead for something bigger and more diffuse for Nikon, just as Bresson does for Leica. Additionally, I've read that Nikon's success was not "instantaneous" at the consumer level (Fs were expensive!) but succeeded through a lot of work by the import company EPOI (Ehrenreich Photo Optical Imports). I think my first F from 1971 might have had an EPOI sticker on the box. In any event the second of these two videos mentions the importance of Fs being seen in use by pros and not just used by pros. There is also, at 8:00 in one or the other, a Leica III of some type:
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/04/23/designing-the-nikon-f-camera-video.aspx/

Regards,
s-a

I joined the Army in July, 1963, before the Vietnam War really took off. The events that mark our increased engagement in the conflict/war were a commitment to increase troop deployments to 21,000 in July, 1964 and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in August, 1964. I purchased my Nikon F camera in approximately early 1965. By that time, I had seen many photography magazines and journals even before I joined the Army that featured the Nikon F, especially touting the motor drive equipped models and the new push-zoom lenses for the camera (e.g. the 85-250mm f/4.0 lens). These cameras were quite popular for sports and events photography, as well as photojournalists.

Based on production figures, 160,000 Nikon F cameras were produced between its introduction in Mar. 1959 to Aug. 1964 - http://www.destoutz.ch/typ_production_data_f.html . I wouldn't have much difficulty judging this to be a very successful camera, whether the cameras were being purchased by "professionals" or consumers. This early success certainly wasn't based on its use by combat photographers, and the subsequent use of the camera in that field simply demonstrated the essential fact that the camera was a rugged and optically superior tool in very adverse conditions.

Jim

 

[rolleiman]

The Nikon F3 High Eyepoint version had a bigger pentaprism with a larger viewing point, I believe to accomodate glasses wearers. These were the days when Nikon (and others) were making cameras to serve the demands of working photographers. Unlike today when they (the manufacturers) are deciding what we will have, whether we like it or not, with a new digi being launched about every six months or so....built in obsolescence has beome the name of the game.
Thank heavens for those "engineered for life" Nikons, Canons, Leicas etc., that are still going strong.

 

[kitanikon]

Screen shot from a documentary on anti-war protests at the Univ. of Wisconsin in 1967-69....me in front of of one slinging 3 barebone Nikon Fs and a Nikkormat as an AP stringer....when I got the gig, going Nikon was a done deal because that's what all the PJs had and I just went with the flow...I still have the 200/Q (my 2nd, the 7' MFD version) from then...

 

[John Koehrer]

Re: the Nikon system circa 1959. The system was the most complete and available from the get go. Keep in mind, the lens mount remained compatible with older cameras until the introduction of the G lenses.

Minolta in '73 and Canon came a bit later with the F1 in 1976. The XK was never popular for size which was even larger than the F and poor availability of accessory widgets.

 

[bobwysiwyg]

Honeywell was the Pentax distributor in the USA and according to this site - Asahi Optical Historical Club, Honeywell started distributing pre Spotmatic even. This one is a 1959 Honeywell Heiland H2. I only have a casual knowledge of this partnership.

My first 35mm SLR was a Pentax SV (still own it). Purchased at a PX in Vietnam in 1968. Somewhere I have some slides shot with it showing post-TET damage. They're post-TET because we were a little busy, and I might add a trifle scared, during TET that year.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

My first 35mm SLR was a Pentax SV (still own it). Purchased at a PX in Vietnam in 1968. Somewhere I have some slides shot with it showing post-TET damage. They're post-TET because we were a little busy, and I might add a trifle scared, during TET that year.

In 1971/72 I worked as an usher in a theater. A friend of the manager, in the military, brought in a PX catalog. By then PX was called something like Pacex. A 200mm f/4 Nikkor-Q, which retailed for US$199.50, was US$85.00. Other prices were similar. The man was pouring everything he had in to stereo equipment.

s-a

 

[clayne]

"See this system here? This is Hi-Fi... high fidelity. What that means is that it's the highest quality fidelity."
-Buck Swope