A lot of people seem to think so for some reason, but I find its styling to be like the Porsche-design Contax slrs, which I like.
What do you'all think?
What do you'all think?
Is the Nikon F90/N90 series ugly?
-
A
- Thread starter George Mann
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Body cap for M42 Pentax mount
- Started by multivoiced
-
Want to Buy (Rada? Rollex?) Roll film back for Kodak Recomar No. 18 camera
- Started by alanshaw
-
Sold Rollei Rolleinar 2 Bay II
- Started by skylight1b
-
For Sale Beseler 8053 35mm Negative Carrier for the 23C models
- Started by mgb74
-
For Sale NIKON 20mm f/2.8 AF-D
- Started by Acere
Forum statistics
Is there a series? I’m mean is two cameras a series?
It obviously belongs to the same school/style as the F4 and F801/8008, all of which I regard as the last really attractive Nikons.
After that, industrial design as such descended into the nightmarish, everlasting hell of blobby, inflated, sack of flour design, with kooky ovals and whimsical bean shapes.
And there we still largely are (with a few retarded attempts at a stilted return to (retro) form, without really wanting to admit it).
The F90x/N80s is probably the best Nikon camera to get if you want AF.
It’s not fully compatible with new lenses. But who wants that anyway‽ They are expensive, ugly and tailored to digital.
The 90 will take just about any lens from a 77 Ai to late nineties AF with no qualms what so ever.
It’s not quite as attractive as the 8008, but is better than the F4 in most ways.
It obviously belongs to the same school/style as the F4 and F801/8008, all of which I regard as the last really attractive Nikons.
After that, industrial design as such descended into the nightmarish, everlasting hell of blobby, inflated, sack of flour design, with kooky ovals and whimsical bean shapes.
And there we still largely are (with a few retarded attempts at a stilted return to (retro) form, without really wanting to admit it).
The F90x/N80s is probably the best Nikon camera to get if you want AF.
It’s not fully compatible with new lenses. But who wants that anyway‽ They are expensive, ugly and tailored to digital.
The 90 will take just about any lens from a 77 Ai to late nineties AF with no qualms what so ever.
It’s not quite as attractive as the 8008, but is better than the F4 in most ways.
Last edited:
Why would anyone care, I have never bought a camera because it looks good, in this case function over form.
The F90 models were not the most comfortable models to hold that say the F801/801s but they did the job. I have just recently bought another F4 (basic model) because it has everything I want or need in a camera. Batteries are cheap, built like a tank and produces the goods every time. I also have an F6 which is a wonderful tool but side by side the F6 does not feel as robust as the F4. It probably is, but doesn't feel like it.
The F90 models were a bit of a hybrid, a sort of bridge between the F801 and the F100 which is probably why they were in production for less time than some models
The F90 models were a bit of a hybrid, a sort of bridge between the F801 and the F100 which is probably why they were in production for less time than some models
People who virtue signal like that, are usually subconsciously liars and hypocrites.
Of course industrial design matters. And it matters to just about anyone, whether they want to admit it or not.
It’s a trite old card to pull in an attempt to seem authentic and down to earth.
For starters: Photography is an aesthetic discipline and realm.
Why would that sensibility and want not extent to anything the photographer deals with‽
Why is it always a tank?
A tank actually isn’t build that well. It can stand an impact, but mechanically it actually requires more maintenance than a regular car.
Also, it’s quite easy to build something very solid. Ask the Soviet Russians.
What really matters and sells is elegance and usability.
It’s faster and better overall, especially AF and metering.
It’s has just about any bell and whistle you could want, save mirror up (which is almost completely pointless considering how well dampened the mirror is).
I think the F70 is far, far uglier.
I don't think the F90 is ugly. I think the N90 and N90s logo looks more beautiful than the F90 / F90x logo though.
The camera, to me looks like out of the 1990s, i mean, dated in a nostalgic way, like lookint at a Terminator 2 poster.
Cameras like the F2 or even the F3 have a more "timeless" quality. The F3 looks contemporary IMO.
Definitely not 1990s. There is a rather sharp and abrupt cut around 91 or 92 where all electronic industrial design get blobbyfied.
The F4, N801 and F90 are just rounded/beveled.
Last edited:
I never thought of F90/N90 as ugly. Ugly is what I would call an Argus C3. [Now all Hell will break loose on this thread. I really stepped into that one.]
I was a working Photojournalist, Air Force Combat Photographer, when your life is on the line, a story is needed, the mission is critical, function matters, looks, dont give a rat's behind. Your comment is just an prime example of those who have no clue.
MattKing
Moderator
For those who aren't part of the Nikon clan:
Photography is all about aesthetics. So people who say they don't care about the design of their camera usually have no talent to make attractive photos.
The F90 has a well proportioned and harmonious design, the only problem is that it's all glossy plastic.
“Form follows function”. Look into the origin of that mantra and what was derived from it.
Design and visual appeal matters especially in a stressful and high demand situation!
It might be different things that attract, but the interplay between and really deep visceral realization that function and look are not separate, means it’s no less important.
If something is beautiful it inspires confidence that the creators thought of everything and cared. And the object/product will also to a higher degree explain itself.
The Nikon F is a very good example of this.
It’s beautiful through and through. From first sight til you retire it to the shelf.
Last edited:
But with a solid metal frame underneath!
For those who aren't part of the Nikon clan:
It is not as photogenic as some. It definitely looks better in person.
A lot of people say that it is not the most comfortable to hold, but it happens to fit my small hands like a glove.
Yes, that's a regrettable phenomenon which is present in almost all today's cameras. I guess all the cameras in one series must have the same sort of design no matter if they are completely plastic or with a metal body. So now you see high-end full metal bodies with a price tag of 8000,- € that have a plastic look.
I think it looks a lot more handsome if you put an AF lens with a rubber focusing ring on the camera. 
It also looks surprisingly good with manual-focus Nikkors mounted on it.
It also looks surprisingly good with manual-focus Nikkors mounted on it.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,660
- Format
- 35mm
Why would you say something as hurtful as that?
Do you not find a brick with a nose and glasses a thing of beauty? They're so nice looking that I've been given two for free! I think the owners wanted to share the joy.
I think it's Luigi Colani's fault (designer of the T90 and the Canon EOS series). He did it!! And this started in 1986.
I salute you, sir.
| 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:  |