I bought a Nikon F55

The Kildare Track

A
The Kildare Track

  • 2
  • 1
  • 28
Stranger Things.

A
Stranger Things.

  • 0
  • 0
  • 22
Centre Lawn

A
Centre Lawn

  • 2
  • 2
  • 33

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,906
Messages
2,782,871
Members
99,744
Latest member
NMSS_2
Recent bookmarks
0

perkeleellinen

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,906
Location
Warwickshire
Format
35mm
The Nikon F55 is the cheapest Nikon ever, even cheaper than an APS compact. I bought mine for £7 on an eBay BIN, had I had patience and bid on a few auctions I could have got one for £5, I have even seen them sell on open auctions for £1 – literally cheaper than chips. In fact, a fully working camera is worth less than its body cap.

My F55 came with the instruction manual which has a great and optimistic outlook. It starts by saying that this camera is sure to make photography a bigger part of your life and I do hope so as this will be my ‘carry everywhere’ camera for 2021. Mr and Mrs Smith from Llandudno, who bought this camera new were certainly enamoured by it, they placed an address sticker on the introduction page and highlighted the important parts of the manual – they really studied it. They placed the camera and lens serial numbers on the back where Nikon leave room for notes. I like to imagine the Smiths were upgrading from a P&S or maybe a bridge camera and this was indeed a big jump into serious photography. I think they must have been frustrated by the lag inherent in P&S cameras, the missed focus that occurs far too often and the red eye caused by the super powerful flash that seemed to go off even in bright sun. So many missed and ruined photographs. The camera is in great condition, the Smiths clearly took care of it, but then, they probably only used it for maybe two years before downgrading to a digital P&S or bridge camera, a digital DSLR being too much money. But soon enough they were no longer uploading their jpgs to an online printer and they just uploaded them to Facebook with a cable. In a year or two the Facebook app on their new smart phone meant they could do without a camera altogether as their mobile telephone allowed them to link their photos to Facebook. So seamless. That old F55 languished in a drawer, but Mr Smith did have the good sense to remove the batteries. A good decade later the Smiths moved house and cleared out all the old junk, the camera was part of a job lot a chap came to take and he tried his luck on eBay with the camera. He didn’t fancy his chances seeing completed listings for only £1 but thought he’d give it a go at £7. He was in luck as an impatient buyer snapped it up with an idea of coupling it to a 50mm and using it as an every day camera.

The F55 is so light and plastic, even the lens mount is plastic, but there is metal in the tripod socket and some of the take up spool. This is not a camera designed for frequent lens changes or for getting knocked in a war zone. It suits me fine in my carpeted home, even my car has carpet.

I do think these plastic, light and cheap cameras are more viable than the cult P&S cameras whose prices are entering the stratosphere. For not too much more bulk and weight you get full manual control, exposure compensation, Matrix Metering, freedom to use many lenses and accurate auto focus. If your Ricoh GR1v dies, you cry, if your F55 dies you spend another £1. I also think the Nikkor 50mm is better than the Yashica T5 lens. I do wish, however, that Nikon made an autofocus pancake lens like the Canon 40mm. That would really slim the profile.

thumbnail_IMG_3722.jpg
 

awty

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
3,646
Location
Australia
Format
Multi Format
Nice story.
I have 2, batteries cost more than the camera.
Has the same meter as a F6.
Weighs about 350 grams with the 50mm 1.8 D.
Just gave one to my daughter with a 24 -105 D zoom.
 
OP
OP

perkeleellinen

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,906
Location
Warwickshire
Format
35mm
I ought to add this camera is a downgrade for me - I used to have an F80 - the F55 does everything I needed the F80 to do, I only miss the grid lines in the viewfinder which were great for horizons.
 

Kino

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
7,763
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format
I would think these cameras will eventually "have their day", but they were born under an unfortunate star and in a bad time to be appreciated for their abilities.
 

film_man

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
1,575
Location
London
Format
Multi Format
Those cheap AF cameras that were the last to come out from Nikon and Canon are really good. I still have the Canon EOS 300 I bought new as my first SLR in 2002. You can have one for £5 or less today, it is the equivalent of the F55, tiny, light and yes the flash no longer works but with a 40/2.8 on it the photos come out as good as anything. I even used it with the 50/1.2L for a while just for a laugh which would make the whole rig slightly more expensive what some people pay for a Contax Twhatever or some other obscure cult compact. If my 300 dies I'll just get another one for the price of a cup of coffee, I may even splash out an extra £1 to upgrade to the 300V or 300X.
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,549
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,549
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Without going through the manuals of the 55 and 75 I can relate what I think are the two most important differences.

N55 won't use the internal sensor for TTL flash. But works fine if the flash (like SB-28) has its own external sensor.
N55 won't autofocus my AF-S 28mm 1.8 lens. But otherwise most of other functions will work fine with that lenses.

There are other differences, but those are the only two that make me decide which camera to pick up.

Also, as you see from my pictures, the fancy AA battery holder from the N/F75 will work with the N/F55 also!!
 

ChristopherCoy

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
3,599
Location
On a boat.
Format
Multi Format
If it came with the 50mm, that's a steal!
 

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,744
Format
35mm
I have my share of the plastic fantastic autofocus Nikons. I think I have more autofocus nikons than Canons. I just seem to find the Canons work better. For manual focus Nikon can't be beat but I've tried to love the autofocus Nikons and I just can't seem to click with them. The N80 is the closest I got to a Nikon autofocus I enjoy using.
 

Grim Tuesday

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
737
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
This camera is terrific and incredibly underrated. I gave one to my girlfriend who was hiking the Appalachian Trail and she took it over 500 miles before sending it back home for being too heavy. Camera looks good as new, despite being bumped around and rained on for weeks. Image quality with any of the Nikon 50mm AF lenses is as good or better than almost anything you will find that is "vintage" -- it's the clear winner of any image quality discussion between 35mms in my collection. It's almost as light weight as any of the compact '70s rangefinders. And, with accurate metering and autofocus the ratio of photos lost to focus or exposure error go way way down.

OP you should delete this thread before people catch on and drive the prices of this class of cameras over $200, they would be well worth it at that price!

I kinda see these cameras as a bit of a test on why people are shooting film. Is it because they enjoy the process of slowing down and using a mechanical camera? Or do they truly want some "look" that only film can provide, or for wet printing? If it's the latter, these cameras are a great pick.
 

gone

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
If they were available in black, they'd probably sell for twice as much. It looks a lot smaller and lighter than the old (and heavy) n8008s models I usually shoot w/ my manual focus lenses.
 

awty

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
3,646
Location
Australia
Format
Multi Format
If they were available in black, they'd probably sell for twice as much. It looks a lot smaller and lighter than the old (and heavy) n8008s models I usually shoot w/ my manual focus lenses.
The good thing is they often come with an equally ugly matching grey zoom lens for the same price.

If they were black, not so noisy and clunky and the auto focus was quicker and wasn't so indecisive missing the moment, I'd be happy to pay more. They are very easy to operate one handed.
 

Down Under

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
The universe
Format
Multi Format
The F65/N65 is a far better camera. It makes the F55/N55 look like the Dinky Toy is basically is.

Someone whose ideas and opinions I respect told me the 65s were among the last of the truly good amateur Nikons produced towards the end of the film era, before the digitals took off and flattened everything to do with analog photography. They are far better than the price they were sold for.

The 65s are easily found on Ebay at much the same prices. I own two and use them regularly - one has the accessory motor drive/power pack (aka the 'fancy' AA battery holder) which uses standard AA batteries and not the more expensive versions made to gouge more money out of photographers.

I bought one of mine new for A$270 in 2006 and picked up the other (with the motor drive included) in 2016 on Ebay for A$50. Both came with 28-80 G lenses which I sold as I didn't care for their 'softness'.

I own more cameras than I have fingers and toes (and fewer cameras than I have hairs on my head) but I try to use them a few times a year, usually when I'm on a day walk somewhere in the Australian bush and want to use up some of my stocks of outdated film. They always produce the goods and always surprise me by the sharpness and fine mid tones I get in my negatives, yes, more to do with Nikon lenses than the cameras but one needs the other to produce good images and my 65s do that well.

They have their quirks and when using them I'm constantly reminded they were an amateur camera. But then the late Galen Rowell used them in his mountaineering photography and to me, what was good enough for Galen is more than good enough for me.

An added advantage is my AF D lenses work equally well on my 65s, D700s and D800.

Grim Tuesday (#11) says it all as good as it gets for the 65 - yes, I'm aware that he was writing about the F55/N55, but if anything the 65 is far better.
 
Last edited:

darkosaric

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
4,568
Location
Hamburg, DE
Format
Multi Format
I have expensive Nikons, but also F60, F75, F80, I had F55, F70, F801 ...you name it. And you are right. Sometimes I think best would be that I sell all my expensive cameras, there is almost no difference in my world between F55 or F2, only thing is 100% viewfinder, but those cute light plastic Nikons are reliable and good machines. With 28-80 AF, or with 50mm 1.8 AF --> they are awesome.
I have Lieca Minilux -- and I say: wow there is a manual focus, there is manual F stop and so on. Yeah, F55 has all of this as well, and it is not 600€.
 

darkosaric

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
4,568
Location
Hamburg, DE
Format
Multi Format
I thought the 35-80 4-5.6D might couple well.

No please, 35-70 and 35-80 are not so good, much better quality you will get from 28-70 or 28-80 AF (or G in later), they are also like 20-30€, not more.
If you can get 28-100 G --> this is also a good cheap one.
 
OP
OP

perkeleellinen

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,906
Location
Warwickshire
Format
35mm
Thanks for that, Darko. I'm hesitant on G lenses as the lack of aperture ring limits the cameras I can use it on, but I will take note of those recommendations.

I like silver (doesn't Nikon use the term 'champaigne'?) cameras because they signal 'amateur / tourist' in the same way hi-vis vests signal 'worker'. You can get away with a lot once people have made assumptions about you. I don't do street photography at all but I do think that like the protestor who can disrupt things because they are wearing a hi-vis vest, so I can get into situations that a more 'pro' looking camera would prevent. Having a small child in tow helps too and I become a sort of hopeless dad with a cheap camera I can't use. I've seen film of Gary Winogrand doing this - pretending to be hopeless with the camera to distract his subjects. So for me I go round the side of buildings, through gates - places where I'm unsure if it's public or private, fiddling with my little silver camera...
 

neilt3

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2014
Messages
1,007
Location
United Kingd
Format
Multi Format
I kinda see these cameras as a bit of a test on why people are shooting film. Is it because they enjoy the process of slowing down and using a mechanical camera? Or do they truly want some "look" that only film can provide, or for wet printing? If it's the latter, these cameras are a great pick.

I think quite a few people who usually shoot digital buy these camera's either because they want to do some black and white work and don't want to work on a computer to get the look of film .


Or people who have APS-C digital cameras who want to try out full frame on a budget .
You try find a full frame digital camera for £10 !
You can shoot an awful lot of film for what a full frame DSLR sells for .
 

Huss

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
9,058
Location
Hermosa Beach, CA
Format
Multi Format
You can shoot an awful lot of film for what a full frame DSLR sells for .

I shoot film 99% of the time but I would never make the argument that it is a better deal financially if you shoot a lot.
Roll of Fuji C200 - about $5. Same thing for a cheap roll of B&W. Dev and DECENT scan - about $20. So $25 for 36 exp.

Sony A7 full frame digicam sells for $300 used. Which is 12 rolls of 36exp film dev and scanned....
12 rolls is not an awful lot.
 

Cholentpot

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
6,744
Format
35mm
I shoot film 99% of the time but I would never make the argument that it is a better deal financially if you shoot a lot.
Roll of Fuji C200 - about $5. Same thing for a cheap roll of B&W. Dev and DECENT scan - about $20. So $25 for 36 exp.

Sony A7 full frame digicam sells for $300 used. Which is 12 rolls of 36exp film dev and scanned....
12 rolls is not an awful lot.

Where are you finding an A7 for $300?
 

darkosaric

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
4,568
Location
Hamburg, DE
Format
Multi Format
Analog is cheap is you develop yourself. The moment you need to pay somebody else for development, prints ... it gets tricky.
I got Nikon D700 for 350€, that is decent price for a full frame, and smaller mpix is better, files are smaller and easier to store and edit.
 
OP
OP

perkeleellinen

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
2,906
Location
Warwickshire
Format
35mm
Higher up-front costs with digital, higher overall costs with film assuming you use a lab and shoot frequently.
 

Huss

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
9,058
Location
Hermosa Beach, CA
Format
Multi Format
Higher up-front costs with digital, higher overall costs with film assuming you use a lab and shoot frequently.

12 rolls of film is not that frequent. Let's not kid ourselves, you can also buy used digital cameras for peanuts now.
I'm not being pro-digital - I'm a film shooter but I do it for the love of film/the process/the look, not because it is economically sensible.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom