'New' Nikon F? - Grays of Westminster (UK)

[TheFlyingCamera]

They spend 3K to advertise a 5K camera, but because of the buzz, and all the people calling about it, they sell a further 10 cameras that they wouldn't have, so that's how they make back the cost.

 

[John Hermanson]

When I still had my old F, I tried to find a plain pentaprism for it. Literally every one I inspected had horrible prism damage caused by the rotting foam that was pressing against it inside. This damage is caused purely by time. Wonder how this "new" one looks or if someone intervened and eliminated the problem in time. John

 

[dougjgreen]

I had no problem finding a plain prism for mine. And fortuitously, it had a small ding on it, which prevented it from reaching the collectible prices that they often do nowadays. I paid something like $78 for mine a few years ago, and it's optically fine. I now use it on one of my F2 bodies. I sold my last F body with a non-working FTn Photomic head a couple of weeks ago, to make room for a nearly pristine fully working Nikkormat FT3.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I'd think that any Nikon F that has been in a box for 40+ years will need some work done in order to be fully usable:
Foam probably needs replacing, lubricants, including the shutter ones, are likely to have hardened, springs haven't been exercised & so on...

As a user, this "new" camera would probably need at least a CLA.
Lightly but constantly used cameras are more likely to be in good working order.

 

[Mark Layne]

Instead of usind the word 'new' they should have said 'mint, or pristine, or still-in-the-box-that-was-never-opened-since-the-sixties'.
Sorry, but what's the point of taking pictures with a 50-year old veteran, heavy, bulky and left-behind camera that should be found only in a museum?
:rolleyes:
(sincere apologies to all Nikon F fan clubs from around the world, I fully respect your devotion to this venerable ancestor)

What's the point of taking pictures at all?