Is the Nikon F90/N90 series ugly?

[flavio81]

For those who aren't part of the Nikon clan:

I look at it and think: Yes, I also listened to Vanilla Ice, Milli Vannili, New Kids on the Block, and thought they were the coolest thing ever.

 

[flavio81]

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.

The Nikon F, with the original Photomic finder, is one of the ugliest cameras ever.

 

[MattKing]

I look at it and think: Yes, I also listened to Vanilla Ice, Milli Vannili, New Kids on the Block, and thought they were the coolest thing ever.

Now I understand where your opinions of Olympus OMs come from!

 

[flavio81]

Now I understand where your opinions of Olympus OMs come from!

Oooohh let the war begin!

I actually used an OM-2 for a while, i got it loaned with a 55/1.2. I liked it, really, but in no way i'd say it's a better camera than the Pentax MX or many other compacts. Wide open, the 55/1.2 was markedly inferior to my Canon FD 55/1.2 when looking at the prints. But that doesn't mean too much, we all know the Zuiko 50/1.8 is a great lens instead.

In other words, my only problem with it is that it is a truly overhyped/overrated camera line.

To elaborate more, the OM-1 is for example hyped as having really little vibration, etc. Yet it's not the case... its vibration robs sharpness (see Gary Reese OM Lens Tests), fortunately the OM-2 has lower vibrations. The same lens tests much better on an OM-2.

It is also touted as being strong, having "stronger parts than other cameras". Yet 1 out of 3 OM-1 or -2i found on the user market have some sort of problem. Compare this to a F, F2, or Nikkormat. Valid comparison, since Olympus pretended to sell the OM-1/2 as professional cameras.

And I HATE lenses without recessed front elements. Which most OM Zuikos (and Pentax-Ms -- fortunately not all) are.

To elaborate even further, the OM-1 and -2 are IMO part of a system where compactness was #1 and to hell with the rest. And I object with that, particularly when optics might be compromised. Pentax users, who have the choice between compact (Pentax-M) and bigger (Pentax K) lenses know that the "shrinked" lenses are going to suffer in some way --even being later designs than the K lenses! This has consistently been verified in objective tests and subjective opinions.

To elaboate further, that's why I love the early Canon FD lenses as well. As with the Contarex lenses, the emphasis was on pure optical performance, not compactness or lightness.

Some months ago a german couple came to my house to say hi. The lady had a mint OM-1N. So i tinkered with it. Again, a nice camera that i would have no problem using, but I'd prefer my Pentax MX, Canon F-1, Nikon FE, and F3 better. Even if some of those list are heavier.

 

[MattKing]

Was out with my OM-2s today, along with my Retina IIIc.
Here is the OM-2s, which clearly shows that beauty is in the eye of the beholder:

I've had that since buying it new in the late 1970s or early 1980s. I took that shot in 2010, to record the last roll of Kodachrome that went through that (or any of my other) cameras.
I still own 4 different bodies, and have owned others since I started with a brand new OM-1 (no MD) back in 1975.
In early years I sold all sorts of cameras - Canon, Konica, Leica, some Minolta, and a few others. In recent years I picked up a few Canon EOS bodies and lenses.
Nothing has suited me or worked as well for me as the OM cameras I have and had.

 

[flavio81]

Was out with my OM-2s today, along with my Retina IIIc.
.

Well, dear opponent, it seems we do are in agreement in something... The Retina IIIc is one of my dearest cameras.

 

[Prest_400]

I would agree that it has a certain 1990 dated looks to it, but isn't bad. As Ken Rockwell says about it "Looks like a VHS player but has the latest tech such as the LCD screen".
And if you did not keep up with the times, late 80s till mid 90s is in fashion again. My boss, 36, complains about the looks that the 20 year olds bear nowadays. So it is cool!

I suggest you to listen to The Weeknd - Blinding lights.

Say it's ugly if it keeps the model cheap. IMO greatly festured although not as elegant or compact as the Olympus/Pentax MX of yore.

1992 and at this time of year it's down to Bush or Clinton.

 

[blockend]

All the autofocus Nikons were ugly, as were other manufacturer's AF offerings. They followed the industrial design of the era, which consisted of compound curves and as many buttons as the body would fit. The off-road look applied to most things, and cameras were no exception. Automated functions require a power source and AA batteries were the cell of the day, requiring the body to grow a goitre to accommodate the juice. It was the era of more is more, and most people aspired to cameras with control proliferation, preferably as large as possible.

 

[blockend]

The Nikon F is a very good example of this.

I agree, and still rue the day I sold my mint plain prism F. The Nikon F was an elaboration of the rangefinder Nikons, which were somewhat uglier than most of their Canon and Leica counterparts.

I was being offered commercial work at the time, and felt slightly self conscious pulling out my 1950s tech when everyone was toting a Nikon F4 or EOS1. Soon as I bought an AF Nikon I knew we weren't meant for one another, but I persevered for a few years. Looking back, my enthusiasm for photography and the quality of my images took a dive with highly automated cameras.

 

[Helge]

The Nikon F, with the original Photomic finder, is one of the ugliest cameras ever.

It’s a masterpiece of industrial design and so is the straight pentaprism “pyramid” F.

 

[Helge]

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.

That design is different in nature in subtle ways.
And it was not really his design. It was inspired by a suggestion he made.
The mock-up proto looks quite different.
It was Canons attempt to “also have some of that international designer stuff” they heard of.

Colani was always the poor mans Philippe Starck who again was always the poor mans Ettore Sottsass.

Canon went right back to the look of the T50/70/80 series with the early EOS lineup.

It’s quite hard to see exactly where that mock Art Nouveau/H. R. Giger jam “organic” style came from.
The early examples are not bad, and go way back into the 80s late 70s as a supplement and addition to the light, playful rationalism of the 80s.

But suddenly around the early 90s it takes completely over, and becomes extremely mediocrefied, as it becomes the single acceptable style dejour.

Probably because it really is so middle of the road seeking, “soft and friendly”, and generically mock-playful that it never really satisfies or pleases anyone. But never makes anyone angry on the other hand either.

 

[blockend]

it never really satisfies or pleases anyone. But never makes anyone angry on the other hand either.

That has been commercial design philosophy for many years. Get an industrial artist in to make a prototype, then have a focus group remove all personality and style so the lowest common denominator aren't offended.

 

[Cholentpot]

I would agree that it has a certain 1990 dated looks to it, but isn't bad. As Ken Rockwell says about it "Looks like a VHS player but has the latest tech such as the LCD screen".
And if you did not keep up with the times, late 80s till mid 90s is in fashion again. My boss, 36, complains about the looks that the 20 year olds bear nowadays. So it is cool!

I suggest you to listen to The Weeknd - Blinding lights.

Say it's ugly if it keeps the model cheap. IMO greatly festured although not as elegant or compact as the Olympus/Pentax MX of yore.

1992 and at this time of year it's down to Bush or Clinton.

I was in grade school and the only one in the whole school to vote for Ross. When the tallies came in they announced Clinton wins with X number of votes and Bush loses with X number. They didn't tally my single vote. A good life lesson to learn at a young age.

 

[Helge]

That has been commercial design philosophy for many years. Get an industrial artist in to make a prototype, then have a focus group remove all personality and style so the lowest common denominator aren't offended.

I doubt Giorgetto Giugiaro took any of that crap from Nikon.
His F3, EM and L35AF are classics for a reason.

Though obviously the later designs after the F4 is not from his hand personally, but is from his studio.
IE some understudy doing a bad job by trying to replicate a style, while “updating it”.

The products that stand the test of time and become iconic/canonic are most often the ones where there has been the least amount of committee mulling and voting over every single aspect of the appearance and function.
The rest are just also-rans.

 

[blockend]

I doubt Giorgetto Giugiaro took any of that crap from Nikon.
His F3, EM and L35AF are classics for a reason.

The F4 isn't to my taste, the grip is a horror show but it's undoubtedly practical, in a Kurt Geiger kind of way. The F3 is prettier but already has the vestigial grip that was to make camera ergonomics better, and their aesthetics worse.

 

[warden]

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.

He was a very successful self promoter when I was in design school; laying himself over one of his car models, or grandly gesturing at something off camera, or just selling that he smoked cigars. He was made for social media before social media existed. I just googled him for fun and had a good chuckle at his biomorphing antics. Brings back memories!

 

[narsuitus]

Is the Nikon F90/N90 series ugly?"

No, the Nikon N90 is not ugly.

The best looking Nikon film cameras I still own are the Nikon F2, F4, EM, and N2000.

The best looking Nikon film cameras I have previously owned are the F and F3.


Best Looking by Narsuitus, on Flickr


Good Looking Nikon F4 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Huss]

The best looking Nikon film cameras I still own are the Nikon F2, F4, EM, and N2000.

The N2000 is so underrated. A great camera that you can get for super cheap. Just make sure to get one that the previous owner didn't let the batteries leak in it.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

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?

A lot of people clearly don't have a clue of what they are talking about!

 

[Huss]

But with a solid metal frame underneath!

How does that help if you drop the camera and the plastic cracks? If it was metal, chances are it would just dent.

I do think the F90 looks great.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Course sand paper will take care of that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would agree that it has a certain 1990 dated looks to it, but isn't bad. As Ken Rockwell says about it "Looks like a VHS player but has the latest tech such as the LCD screen".
And if you did not keep up with the times, late 80s till mid 90s is in fashion again. My boss, 36, complains about the looks that the 20 year olds bear nowadays. So it is cool!

I suggest you to listen to The Weeknd - Blinding lights.

Say it's ugly if it keeps the model cheap. IMO greatly festured although not as elegant or compact as the Olympus/Pentax MX of yore.

1992 and at this time of year it's down to Bush or Clinton.

Who gives a what Kent Rockhead thinks?!?

 

[Prest_400]

Who gives a what Kent Rockhead thinks?!?

The N90 does have a VCR vibe!
But don't worry, it will be cool again.

 

[Huss]

Who gives a View attachment 258273 what Kent Rockhead thinks?!?

He likes Hasselblads.

 

[George Mann]

How does that help if you drop the camera and the plastic cracks?

Have you actually seen one crack?