From 1968: How to Hold a Nikon

[semi-ambivalent]

and don't forget to extend that pinky!

Veruschka taught him that.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

Lens is a Nikkor-S 35/2.8... With respect to using an index finger to focus, just tested that theory. The only Nikkor I can't easily focus that way is my 85/1.8. Mainly because of the grease being a bit coagulated. My 55/2.8 is as easy to focus as my 50/1.4 Nikkor-S. So, it can be done with post 1973 Nikkor lenses with the rubber grip.

-J

 

[RalphLambrecht]

the older Nikon manuals such as the one for the FMand FE show how the camera should be held. now, that I only have one functional hand left.I prefer the heavy mass of the D800so I can shoot single handedly.

 

[jerrybro]

I prefer a heavier camera body. I have never used an autofocus or auto everything 35mm slr camera. All mine are manual focus and manual exposure. I have used an auto exposure F3 and was very satisfied with the results. But, for critical exposures, I still bracketed. My absolute best technical work was using the F3 and 55mm Micro Nikkor to shoot slides that were projected to be 6 ft tall. Ektachrome 64T, over or under 1 stop (don't recall), unreal detail.

I used my MicroNikkor on my daughters Dsomething and was quite surprised. First, the camera was lighter than the lens. Second, once I zoomed in on the exposure the results were passable.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

the older Nikon manuals such as the one for the FMand FE show how the camera should be held. now, that I only have one functional hand left.I prefer the heavy mass of the D800so I can shoot single handedly.

I seem to recall Nikon in an ad mentioning how the mass of its cameras helps steady them. An oblique slap at Olympus, I thought, who had mountaineer Sir Christian Bonington shilling for them in ads that made a deal of the light weight of the Olympus cameras. (Glad the weight works for you.)

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Yeah +1 on the focus with a finger, especially with the older lenses the more you used them the smoother they got (unless you dropped it). Remember the F's have the shutter release towards the rear edge of the camera, from the shooting angle its hard to see where it is. The moved it forward for the F2 and then Right in the Middle for the F3.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I seem to recall Nikon in an ad mentioning how the mass of its cameras helps steady them. An oblique slap at Olympus, I thought, who had mountaineer Sir Christian Bonington shilling for them in ads that made a deal of the light weight of the Olympus cameras. (Glad the weight works for you.)

Interesting - I switched from Olympus to Nikon about ~1993; I'm quite sure the combination of more mass and a slightly larger body to hold on to helps with sharpness. The larger body was one of the reasons for my switch.

 

[kitanikon]

Interesting - I switched from Olympus to Nikon about ~1993; I'm quite sure the combination of more mass and a slightly larger body to hold on to helps with sharpness. The larger body was one of the reasons for my switch.

I replaced some of the larger earlier Nikkor lenses as Nikon introduced more compact versions, liking their balance on the "naked F"...only to reclaim some of the older larger/heavier versions when I got the larger dSLR bodies, liking the balance that the larger lenses had on them.
...while keeping the more compact versions for the smaller dSLR bodies...and the F.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I replaced some of the larger earlier Nikkor lenses as Nikon introduced more compact versions, liking their balance on the "naked F"...only to reclaim some of the older larger/heavier versions when I got the larger dSLR bodies, liking the balance that the larger lenses had on them.
...while keeping the more compact versions for the smaller dSLR bodies...and the F.

Lenses like the 50/2, 28/3.5, and 35/2.8 balance perfectly on the naked F and Nikkormats, they're also excellent performers. I had a 35/2.8 and traded it off (for a 9 1/2" Dagor in Compound) because the corners were slightly darker than the 35/2 at apertures larger than about f:4. I kinda wish I'd kept the 2.8... the 2 was free.

 

[Photo Engineer]

How about the original Nikon Zoom? A monster that now can be made to fit in the palm of your hand. It was a sensation in its time!

PE

 

[E. von Hoegh]

How about the original Nikon Zoom? A monster that now can be made to fit in the palm of your hand. It was a sensation in its time!

PE

Zooms. Feh.

 

[Sirius Glass]

[h=2]From 1968: How to Hold a Nikon[/h]But would that work for Minolta?

Interested readers want to know!

 

[John_Nikon_F]

[h=2]From 1968: How to Hold a Nikon[/h]But would that work for Minolta?

Interested readers want to know!

Ask Ralph or Fred.

-J

 

[RalphLambrecht]

How about the original Nikon Zoom? A monster that now can be made to fit in the palm of your hand. It was a sensation in its time!

PE

Yes, I remember the 43-86mm; not an optical master piece, but the focal lengths and range were just right!

 

[markbarendt]

If I held my cameras like that, people would wonder if my arthritis was acting up.

I agree.