Infos on Different Nikon bodies

Just a collecting thing. It pretends to be sturdier, but it's actually much more easier to scratch in my experience. It should also be lighter, but the difference in weight is laughable: 20 grams less on the F3/T. All other arguments (being "more professional" etc.) are advertisement fuss and/or pretending.

The only reason why I bought a F3/T rather than a standard F3 is because it's the only way to own an F3 with metallic finishing. I dislike to the highest degree black-painted cameras.

 

I have owned and used the F2 and F3. I still own and use the F2 but traded the F3 for an F4 because I needed an auto focus body for my auto focus lenses.

I once owned two F2 titanium bodies but sold them for a nice profit when collectors drove the price to a high level.

By the way, I also own and use Pentax Spotmatic and Pentax ME.


Nikon Pentax Fuji by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

Well I remember some Leica "Safari" some Leica "Gold" and some different kind editions of other manufacturers in "Titan" - the problem with that edition cameras is the following :
Titan isn't that expensive and worthfull as a metal !
The only expensive exeption I remember is the russian answer to Mc. Donnell Douglas (F15) !
The MiG 25 is from 15% parts of titanium :


I guess with enough cash you also can buy it somewhere to build up a collection of jet fighters!
Seriously the sovjet empire crashed from economical reasons and titanium for MiG 25 manufacturing
was highliest expensive - but it is no "rare" metal !
The Titan edition cameras used just a small amound (the same is with "Gold " editions) of the metal !
(Leicas are not from massive Gold BTW).

So you may not see a worthfull investment with that cameras - with one exeption :

It is on EBay Japan at about 2.500 bucks and this camera is real rare !

with regards

 

Some years ago a group of asian entusiasm photograpers would have killing other people to get just one Y2K Pentax ! I remember pricing between 5000,- up to 8500,- bucks!
Today this camera is becoming cheap in comparison - I doubt on speculation that it will become more cheap in the future.
With all that Kind of Titan Cameras I didn't feel that way - that will become cheaper next.
Don't be confused from Y2K Pentax at about 1000,- bucks (because this cameras are used and just
"nearly mint")

with regards

 

There are many F3T made so it's only somewhat more valuable than the F3HP. The F2 besides from the titanium version which is rare some of the version like the F2AS, F2SB is more expensive than the F3/F3HP.

 

The F3/T version is just a materials difference, using titanium for the top and bottom plates, camera back and prism shell. Not a lot of weight savings and no other functional differences from a standard F3hp body.
I wouldn't pay more money for one, unless you really like the champagne finish of the first version.

I own several F2 and F3 bodies and love them all. The F3 has a few advantages over the F2 that may appeal to you:
- F3 is a bit smaller and around 100 grams lighter than an F2
- F3 with the HP finder is great if you wear glasses. Easy to see the entire frame.
- F3 has auto exposure.
- F3 can accept pre-AI lenses, as well as any AF lens with an aperture ring. (obviously all AI and AIS lenses also)
- If you use a motor drive, the MD-4 is awesome. The F2's MD-2 is bigger and heavier.

One disadvantage of the F3 is that the shutter is battery-dependent. Only one manual speed if your batteries die. A set will last for years, though. It's never been a problem for me. Also, as F3 bodies age the chances that the LCD display may have problems increases. If you can't get it fixed, you may need to replace the finder. F2 metered finders can also have problems, but there are a number of repair shops that can fix them.

 

Titanium is not employed at cameras for a value as precious material, but for its material characteristics, though indeed it is one magnitude more expensive than steel. Concerning the final price one should not overlook the heightened machining costs, though in camera manufacture these seem negligable to me.

 

Titanium weight for weight is around the same price as silver, we used to use it to make turbine blades for jet engines when I worked in engineering.

 

Today Silver is 3x as expensive as Titanium. But as it is in the same magnitude you are basically right.
Though silver products that are regarded as precious goods have quite some amount of silber, think of a silver knife-handle. In cameras not even the chassis is made from Titanium, but only some covers. Thus the absolute amount is small, even smaller is its value compared to the rest of the high tech apparatus.

 

You could right about the price, I was looking at the price of ingots on eBay, it's more than thirty years since I worked in engineering and the price of both metals fluctuate.

 

But as others already hinted at, the use of Titanium is a way to drive the price up beyond the actual added costs.

 

No, it would be useless. As repeated dozen and dozen of times on this forum and elsewhere, the LCD display is on the top of the camera body, not in the finder, which is a completely passive piece of glass.

No offense intended, but I am always amazed by how many people ("affirm to", in some cases...) have owned this camera and gives out tech hints, but failed to grasp even the basic concepts of it.

 

To your original question, right now, the F2, and its variants are now commanding record high prices. At a recent show I attended, there were four F2AS bodies which were tagged at just over $500 each. These were near mint condition, but it shows the state of the market. I own the F2 Photomic Tn, F3HP, F4s, and the F5. They're all used a lot, and I happen to like the F3HP a bit more than the others, although the F5 is a great piece of hardware.

You may notice that I didn't include the original F. Even though it's iconic, I just never got to like it. I have lots of other Nikons including FA, FE, FE2, EL2, Nikkormat FT3, among others. They all have features that stand out for me, and each model has its own assets.

I'm also a fan of the Pentaxes, both M42 and K Mounts. I really like the old ESII, mostly because it really heralded in the aperture priority function.

 

Yes AgX - that is exactly what I wanted to cover out with : " titanium isn't that expensive " !

with regards

PS : "Titanium is a way to drive the price up beyond the actual added costs " - I would like to add :
" to create an illusion of massive valuably - wich isn't comming from titanium - the actually valuably
is much more on the demand in concern of true rarity "

True rarity is absolute given with my example of Y2K Pentax !

 

Ok benjiboy you worked in engineering to make turbine blades. From your point is titanium necessary for photograpical equipment (just from special characteristics of some [classified] titanium alloys..) ?

From my point there are two main advantages. ( the first advantage in regard of weight photo industry picked up quickly an argument)

But folks (seriously) are we all such weak that many of us are not able to carry a 35mm camera ????

(I guess some of you indeed would feel "comfortable" with the remaining 89 gramms less of total weight?)

So benjiboy (hope you agree) it is Total Nonsence - right ?
( in particular as we should know the advantage of weight isn't that main characteristics of titanium)

Notice : special alloys from titanium are necessary to minimize (reduce) effects of interia !
Specialized steel based alloys had better characteristics in regards of tensile strenght, torsial strenght ( that all isn't realy urgent with Nikon bodys) but titanium has much less weight !

The second main advantage is the termal stability in hight temperature environments.!
You also have no need of this characteristics with 35mm camera bodys because of the film inside!
(at temperatures above 300 degree Celsius ) !

So what is the reason to use it for photo cameras ? It is just looking real nice (that titanium finish)
I definitivly agree !

with regards

PS : Much better than the "very nice finishing" from specialized plastics....remember F4 !
!

 

Titanium is'nt absolutely necessary to make camera bodies with, but it's property's of the strength of steel and the lightness of aluminium are desirable but expensive extra features that one can choose at an extra cost.

 

I stand corrected. Sorry to the OP for the mis-information.

At this point, I've owned/used so many cameras that certain technical details are sometimes forgotten.

 

In the used market, worth of course is just what someone is willing to pay. If I remember correctly, at the time, titanium material and ability to work them into form was a premium and therefore the additional cost as well as the limited production.

Like you, I too read too many articles that piqued my curiosity and I proceeded to acquire these mechanical marvels so that I can experience them first hand. I really enjoyed using them from the perspective of the era so I supplemented my web research with magazine reviews at that time. At the peak of these reviews, they actually disassembled them and run torture tests to see if they will continue to function correctly!



The Pentax LX, Nikon F3 and Canon New F-1 were dubbed the three kings as they were the pro offerings from each company commanding the top costs and were released nearly simultaneously. The Canon and Nikon models were expected upgrades from previous models but the Pentax LX was a surprising challenger. BTW, all three had titanium horizontal shutters. Because of this, you can point them at the sun with mirror locked up and they will not burn unlike the material used in the newer SLRs/DSLRs.

If you haven't already seen, there is a review of the Nikon F3 T - and numerous others, at http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/variations/f3t/index.htm. But beware, that site is evil and may contribute to the furtherance of more acquisitions.

 

Been working on electro mechanical products (only a couple cameras so far) for a few decades now and I can tell you everything that makes metal to metal contact will require some care sooner or later.

I have two LXs bought over ten years ago now - previous condition unknown, still working perfectly so I am not sure how common the sticky mirror issue is.



While all camera exposure features have been incorporated or superseded, the LX continues today as the only camera ever to be able to aperture priority autoexpose a scene for as long as it takes while monitoring the scene for changes in lighting and adjusting accordingly.

 

I bought my F3/T's simply because I liked the way they looked. One small bit of trivia is the exposure counter dial has white numbers rather than the strange blue numbers on the ordinary F3.



(yes, I have added a strap since this photo was made -- BTW, that is the proper lens hood for that lens, but it vignettes at 28mm)

The SR-71 is 85% titanium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird#Airframe,_canopy,_and_landing_gear

However, I am fond of the MiG-15, -17, and -21, which are beautiful aircraft.

 

They are beauties!

I have firsthand info on the Blackbirds but I would have to kill you after I tell you . . .

I personally prefer the radial engine types myself.

 

The closest I've come to an SR-71 is at the Evergreen Air & Space Museum in Oregon. Wish I could've seen one flying back in the day.

Totally agree about radial engines!