Nikkormat controls are made for RF camera users!

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,291
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Just this past week, I acquired (for the cost of shipping) three Nikkormats, two FTn and an FT-2. As I was learning my way around these cameras, I had to look things up in a couple spots -- like how to change the film speed setting for the FT-2 meter (pull out on the tiny tab at the tip of the shutter speed lever, while moving the film speed indicator?!), what lenses will work (pre-AI, AI and AI-S with "rabbit ears", but not AI-S-G or later F mount lenses -- and yes, I've currently got a 70-200 zoom off a D70 mounted, which works as long as I remember to do stop-down metering). Looks like I can get a "nifty fifty" for around $40, 35mm and 135mm for similar money, and a mid-range zoom for about that much again.

But tonight I was watching a YouTube video about Nikkormats, and I realized something that I'd missed on the first run-through: there's a reason Nippon Kogaku chose this control layout for an SLR, even though the "standard" by the time the FT family came out was for the shutter speed and film speed settings to be on top of the camera. The reason is because this control setup is almost identical to a couple of my late 1950s 35mm rangefinder cameras. Aperture on a ring, shutter speed on another ring (often with a lever on one side or the other), and focus on the ring nearest the filter threads on the lens. The top plate displayed only meter output and frame counter (just like an FTn or FT-2), and one or two such had an in-viewfinder meter needle as well.

The Nikon F and its descendants was an upgrade for those who jumped on the SLR bandwagon before TTL metering (or any kind of metering) appeared in SLRs, the first great professional 35mm SLR -- but the Nikkormat FT line was an upgrade for those who'd been using mid-line fixed-lens RF cameras like the Petri 7 line, or Yashica Electro -- used to metering through any mounted filter, perhaps even with the viewfinder at the eye. Now they could see what was in focus, with a camera that worked much like what they were used to.

And they could do it with Nikon lenses.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,676
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
Really? When shooting F, F2, F3, I avoided matts as I did not like the placement of the shutter speed dial on the front, I used a Leica IIIG and my favorite a Canon 7 as my second body as the controls were more similar to a standard SLR, I know that Om1 users for most part liked the similar shutter speed dial on the front. Maybe if I got a matt as my first Nikon body might got use to having the shutter speed on the front which can operated along with the aperture with the same hand that is supporting the lens.
 

Ko.Fe.

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
3,209
Location
MiltON.ONtario
Format
Digital
RF was my first camera I got pictures with. I used M4-2 extensively as only camera for years. Daily. I have IIIf now as well.

I have Nikkormat as well, why wouldn't I for 20 CAD. It has absolutely nothing to do with RF. Which is VF in the right eye and rest of the face is not obstruct. Controls could be anywhere. Nikkormat is just another SLR. Didn't OM has same controls?
Believe me, if it would be same as RF, I'll ditch Leica in no time.

Some just have no clue what RF photography is....
 

awty

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
3,643
Location
Australia
Format
Multi Format
The film winding crank on the Nikkormat can be modified to fit the M4-2 if you happen to bend the one on the Leica, like I did. Also the view finder prism will fit the Nikon F eye level finder if yours happens to missing some mirror. So far my Nikkormat has saved me a couple of hundred dollars.
Leica would of been long gone by now If Nikon and or Canon kept producing rangefinders.
 
OP
OP

Donald Qualls

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
12,291
Location
North Carolina
Format
Multi Format
Paul Howell said:
Really? When shooting F, F2, F3, I avoided matts as I did not like the placement of the shutter speed dial on the front, I used a Leica IIIG and my favorite a Canon 7 as my second body as the controls were more similar to a standard SLR,
Click to expand...

Well, that's my point. If you had a 1950s vintage fixed-lens RF for a few years and then wanted to switch to an SLR, the Nikkormat (FT series -- the EL had the same control layout as "conventional" SLRs) would have felt much more natural -- even the viewfinder would seem fairly familiar, with the biggish split prism in the center that works much like an RF patch.

awty said:
Pity they dint use a leaf shutter, then they wouldn't be so clunky.
Click to expand...

That would just have made it clunky in other ways. They'd have needed a shutter like the Seiko MV models in an RB67 (though not as big), open when cocked, closes before the mirror flip, then fires, and likely couldn't have managed an instant mirror return as a result (which would have required not only resetting the mirror under spring power, but also reopening the shutter prior to cocking). Or else put the shutter behind the mirror, in which case I don't see any advantage over the vertical travel, metal Copal Square that Nikon chose (and which got the Nikkormat a higher flash sync speed than the early Nikon F models with horizontal traveling cloth shutters. Or put the shutter in the lens, like RB67 (and Bronica?), which pushes up the price and weight of each lens -- and still prevents building for instant mirror return.
 

Ko.Fe.

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
3,209
Location
MiltON.ONtario
Format
Digital

Thank you for info!

I have read how many are fine with Canon P. It has different from M VF. It is pity Canon was able to copy LTM version, but never got to parallax correcting (moving) framelines. Nikon was even more primitive with VF. Basically not different from my family FED-2.
Canikon RF cameras are better build than Leica, imo.
Yet, even by now here is next to none who is willing to keep Canikon RF for serious use. I just watched video with one known photog from NYC who is still using using Leica MP from 2001. His project called Dear Newyorkers.
 

narsuitus

Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Messages
1,813
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
This thread explains it.

Before this thread, I never completely understood why I did not care for Nikkormat cameras. My employer supplied me with 2 or 3 of them but I never used them because I did not like the ergonomics and the lack of an interchangeable prism.

Plus, when I started using 35mm SLR cameras, I was not making a transition from 35mm rangefinders but from medium format.
 
Last edited:

Kino

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
7,757
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format
Donald Qualls said:
The reason is because this control setup is almost identical to a couple of my late 1950s 35mm rangefinder cameras.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting observation, Donald. Makes sense; kind of like a intermediate camera to lure rangefinder users over to the SLR form factor and allow them to be comfortable.

Frankly I love the Nikkormat and Nikkomat cameras; they are pure camera. Astoundingly robust, precise and no frills cameras designed to get the job done with a minimum of fuss.
 

Huss

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2016
Messages
9,058
Location
Hermosa Beach, CA
Format
Multi Format
awty said:
..
Leica would of been long gone by now If Nikon and or Canon kept producing rangefinders.
Click to expand...

Kind of revisionist what if thinking.
Nikon and Canon quit RFs because nothing they had matched up to Leica, so they ceded that market and, correctly, went for the SLR market.

It's funny how nowadays some will claim that, for example, a Nikon SP is better than a Leica M. Even when the SP came out it did not match up and that was the best of the best from the Japanese.
Needing two separate viewfinders. Needing to manually select frame lines. Having a much fainter rf blob instead of the superbly defined rectangle in the M. Having the shutter release button in the uncomfortable position from the Nikon F (there is a reason Nikon fixed that when they released the F2). And worst of all, using the Contax style mount requiring the razor wheel to focus. Sure you can manually crank on the lens itself, but that has ill effects on the focus gearing in the body.
Plus that mount results in the aperture ring on the lens to rotate when focusing, and it is much more fiddly to change lenses.

I had an SP and actually replaced it with an S2 because they SP - for all the reasons listed above - did not match up to any M, while the S2 was charming in it's own simpler (and much cheaper) manner, with a lovely viewfinder for a 50mm lens, which is all that I would use on it.

Ms from M4 onwards also are much quicker to load. There is no fiddling with threading the film. If you actually pay attention to Leica's very simple instructions (which bafflingly to me for some reason most 'experts' ignore), all you do is drop the film in only needing to make sure the film leader is in the tulip. No need to line anything up. Attach base plate. Wind on. Done. This has worked perfectly over hundreds of rolls of film in every Leica I have that uses that system.

If anything I think Canon with its LTM mount RF cameras had a better chance of competing, as there was no goofing around with a Contax style mount. But there you have it.
 

SchwinnParamount

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,774
Location
Tacoma, WA
Format
4x5 Format
I have a couple of the FT2 bodies. I love the cameras but I hate the ISO setting device. The little tab you pull out gets really stiff and difficult to pull, especially since it is so tiny. On one of the bodies, I've given up trying to change the film speed. I never shoot with either of the cameras because I have an F2 and an F3.
 

Kino

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
7,757
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format

A drop of 91% alcohol placed strategically on the lever with a syringe, along with a bit of manipulation, tends to free it up...
 

George Mann

Member
Joined
May 14, 2017
Messages
2,844
Location
Denver
Format
35mm

My ASA lock doesn't work. So everytime I change the shutter speed, it moves to a different value.

Once my meter became "jumpy", I decided to go meterless.

I recently bought an EL to replace it with.

I also have an F2, which is like shooting with a lead brick in comparison.
 

logan2z

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
3,716
Location
SF Bay Area, USA
Format
Multi Format
I've owned a few FT3s and, while the ISO setting device is a bit fiddly, I've never found them hard to pull out. But I shoot almost exclusively with 400 speed film so I don't need to reset the ISO very often.
 

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,810
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
It has to do with the type of shutter. The vertical travelled shutter like that of the Nikkormat it's easier to put the shutter speed dial in front. Also the in lens shutter is also easier to put the control near the lens mount. Both the Leica rangefinder and many SLR have horizontal travelled shutter and thus the shutter speed dial is on the top. Nikon said this because they had to figure out how to move the shutter dial to the top on the FM while using a shutter similar to that of the Nikkormat.
Modern cameras don't apply because once the shutter is electronically controlled the shutter speed dial location is not relevant.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,873
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Paul Howell said:
What about the OM1?
Click to expand...
They are special - they needed the space up top for other things.
Olympus was also working with a brand new design, so they could start from scratch.
There would be a lot fewer responses to this thread if Donald had titled it something like "Nikkormat control layout reflects Nikon's rangefinder heritage".
 

awty

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
3,643
Location
Australia
Format
Multi Format
Maybe they were trying to entice those with fixed lens cameras towards Nikon SLR multiple lens option.
 

Down Under

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
The universe
Format
Multi Format
I stopped buying batteries for my FT2s a decade or longer ago. The shutter works fine without battery power, as do all the speeds in the entire range. A Gossen Luna Pro does the exposure figuring out for me, the entire slows me down for a few seconds buy my photography has always been 'static' anyway, buildings don't walk away or move on while I'm fiddling with the Gossen dial and moving the reading to the camera.

ELs are fine cameras in their own auto way but entirely electronic, so batteries are a must. I find it amazing that these mid-1970s SLRs keep on functioning after almost half a century, but in my entire time of using them (and I bought them new) one has never broken down on me.

Would be that Nikon applied such superb workmanship to their current digital models...
 

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,425
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm

Did you know that the Nikon F shares the exact same body as their Nikon rangefinder but with the addition of the mirror box, pentaprism and bayonet mount?
See Nikon F camera history -> https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-f/index.htm
So there is no SLR more like a rangefinder then the Nikon F . . .
 

SchwinnParamount

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,774
Location
Tacoma, WA
Format
4x5 Format
Now you did it! I was supposed to be in the darkroom to develop the 2 rolls of FreeStyle Edu Ultra 200 I shot today...but no. Now I'm reading your Nikon articles. Oh, I'll get the planned work done today... but I'll be late for the dinner my lovely wife is making and I will be up late. Thanks Les!
 
Last edited:

SchwinnParamount

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,774
Location
Tacoma, WA
Format
4x5 Format
"However, for combined use with any telephoto lens with a focal length of 135 mm or more, the optional reflex box had to be added rather than using a rangefinder integrated in the body. As a result, telephoto lens models increased, and the 35-mm single-lens reflex cameras (hereafter called SLR cameras) stood out as having the advantages of the reflex box integrated in the cameras."

Oh, you want telephoto? Shoot. We have to either redesign our cameras or give you a new and better viewfinder. Hence the SLR. I love this bit of insight.
 

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,425
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm

Been married long enough to know it would be a bad idea to be late for your lovely wife's dinner . . .

I think it's the best site for insight into Nikons. I just wish the others put as much info on their cameras!
 

reddesert

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
2,401
Location
SAZ
Format
Hybrid

Les, this is an often misinterpreted piece of Internet folklore. The linked article says that they based the Nikon F prototype on the body of the SP. There are a lot of similarities between the F body and the SP/S-series rangefinders, like the faceted appearance and the location of the wind lever, shutter dial, and release button. But the F body is about 1 cm wider than the S-series rangefinders (SP body width 136mm, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_SP ). It's not the same body casting.

Arguably the SLR that is most like a rangefinder is one of the utterly insane Alpa SLRs that has both SLR viewing and a rangefinder. I've never seen one in person. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpa-Reflex_Camera and https://www.mikeeckman.com/2019/06/alpa-alnea-model-7-1952/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…