Nikkormat FTN vs. Pentax MX

[abruzzi]

My two favorite 35mm cameras, just out of curiosity I put them both on a scale (a relatively high quality postal scale.). Both cameras had a roll of Acros 100 (36 exposure) loaded. The Nikkormat had the Nikkor-S 50mm f1.4 lens attached and the Pentax had the Pentax-M 50mm f1.4 attached. No accessories on either camera.

Nikkormat: 1108g
Pentax: 767g

I just thought it would be interesting since I’ve spent a lot of time with my Nikkormats and Nikon F2s over the last couple of months, then yesterday I picked up my MX and was surprised at the difference.

 

[jimjm]

Not surprising, the Nikkormat's a beast but it's almost a decade older than the Pentax. A more appropriate comparison might be with the Pentax Spotmatic. There's something about the sound/feel of the vertical-travel metal shutter in the Nikkormats (and FE/FM series) that I'v always liked. Sometimes it's just the control layout and feel of the camera that draws us to our favorites. I have several Nikkormats and appreciate the quality, but never got on with the location of the shutter dial (until the EL came out). Same with Olympus OM1/OM2, which have the best VF I've ever used, but the shutter speed ring was inconvenient. For me, Nikon F and F2's get used the most, followed closely by the FM2n and F3.

 

[Les Sarile]

My two favorite 35mm cameras, just out of curiosity I put them both on a scale (a relatively high quality postal scale.). Both cameras had a roll of Acros 100 (36 exposure) loaded. The Nikkormat had the Nikkor-S 50mm f1.4 lens attached and the Pentax had the Pentax-M 50mm f1.4 attached. No accessories on either camera.

Nikkormat: 1108g
Pentax: 767g

I just thought it would be interesting since I’ve spent a lot of time with my Nikkormats and Nikon F2s over the last couple of months, then yesterday I picked up my MX and was surprised at the difference.

Comparing the weights of the Nikkormat FT3 to the MX as they are of the same era - body only since there is also a big weight difference between an M and the Nikkor lenses of similar speed:
Pentax MX: 499g
Nikkormat FT3: 747g

For me, the smallest full info mechanical body of the MX belies the biggest fixed viewfinder available in an slr - was a real eye opener.
Also as Jim points out, the traditional control locations on the MX was also more convenient then the Nikkormat.

 

[blockend]

Strange comparison - the definitive heavy metal workhorse vs the smallest 35mm SLR ever made.

 

[mrosenlof]

I like the shutter speed control around the lens mount. But Olympus did it right and Nikon, as usual, did it backwards.

 

[abruzzi]

Yeah, there was no logic to it other than they are my two favorite 35mm cameras. I keep wanting to like other cameras more for various reasons, I come back to these—the featherweight and the heavyweight. I actually like the Nikkormat shutter ring. It allows me to adjust exposure with my left hand, and hold and take the picture with my right. I love the microprism only screen on the FTN so much I found a microprism only screen for the MX as well.

And I weighed them with equivalent lenses because that just seemed appropriate.

 

[abruzzi]

I like the shutter speed control around the lens mount. But Olympus did it right and Nikon, as usual, did it backwards.

that brings up another thing I like--both cameras orient focus and aperture in the same direction (I would say the "correct" direction, but its simply a matter of what you're used to.) They also orient in the same direction as my Bronica. All this makes moving from on to the other seamless.

 

[Les Sarile]

I like the shutter speed control around the lens mount. But Olympus did it right and Nikon, as usual, did it backwards.

If you mean shutter speed control on the lens mount then the Nikkormats did this long before Olympus did.

 

[mrosenlof]

My two 35mm SLR systems are the Nikon F and Leica R. It messes with my head that all of the controls are reversed, focus, aperture, shutter speed, which way to turn the lens when mounting.

 

[abruzzi]

Yeah, the Nikon and Pentax turn opposite ways when mounting lenses, but that’s not as bad as the old Pentax semi auto 55mm, f1.8, where the focus was normal, but the aperture was backwards.

another odd thing, when I mount a Pentax lens, I just mount it like normal, but when I mount an AI lens on my Nikon FM2n, I still spin the aperture ring end to end. Rationally, I know it doesn’t need it, but my wrist is still wondering “how will it meter if I don’t do this?”

 

[BradS]

I caught myself doing the Nikon shuffle on my Nikon F2 with (non-metered) DE-1 prism finder.
Muscle memory.

 

[Chan Tran]

I like the size of the Pentax MX. It has good weight.

 

[M-88]

I like the shutter speed control around the lens mount. But Olympus did it right and Nikon, as usual, did it backwards.

I thought it was only focusing, lens mounting and battery insertion that was done backwards on Nikon

As for the subject of this topic, Nikomat is older than MX. I would compare FM instead and even in that case, Pentax would win personally for me. Arguments like "durable, heavy workhorse" doesn't really work anymore, every machinery breaks eventually. We're not going to war, we can carry a camera on a strap and if we drop and break it, it's not that expensive to get it replaced.

And don't get me started about archaic Non-AI lens coupling on Nikomats and how "convenient" it is nowadays

 

[abruzzi]

Yeah, but I much prefer the feel of shooting my Nikkormat to the feel of shooting my FM2n. This was just a weight and size comparison between my two favorite cameras. The FM2 is ok, but I don't really like it that much.

the other thing I much prefer about my FTN is that the focusing screen is a microprism dot, with no split prism. I can’t get that on an FM (from what I’ve seen.). My MX came with the usual split prism with a microprism collar, but I was able to find the factory microprism focusing screen. (I used to prefer the split prism, but as I’ve become used to the microprism, I’ve found I much prefer that only with no split prism.)

 

[reddesert]

My two 35mm SLR systems are the Nikon F and Leica R. It messes with my head that all of the controls are reversed, focus, aperture, shutter speed, which way to turn the lens when mounting.

Pick one of the systems and use it only for selfies. Then the controls will work the same direction on both.

Pentax MX/ME, Nikon FE/FM, Olympus OM, Canon AE-1 ,and similar cameras are all similar generation SLRs that were smallified? Whatever the opposite of "embiggen" is, compared to the 1960s generation of SLRs like Nikkormats, Spotmatics, Canon FT-something. I think it's generally agreed that the first of these was the Olympus OM-1 (1972) and most of them were a reaction to the OM-1. The FE/FM didn't come out until several years later; Nikon has generally been rather conservative. Anyway, they all take pictures and are way cheaper than back in the 70s-80s, so one can try them out to see what fits one's hands and eyes best.

 

[M-88]

Yeah, but I much prefer the feel of shooting my Nikkormat to the feel of shooting my FM2n. This was just a weight and size comparison between my two favorite cameras. The FM2 is ok, but I don't really like it that much.

the other thing I much prefer about my FTN is that the focusing screen is a microprism dot, with no split prism. I can’t get that on an FM (from what I’ve seen.). My MX came with the usual split prism with a microprism collar, but I was able to find the factory microprism focusing screen. (I used to prefer the split prism, but as I’ve become used to the microprism, I’ve found I much prefer that only with no split prism.)

Indeed we all have our preferences and I'm not judging you by any means. One of my friends prefers large cameras because he can't get a decent grip on smaller bodies...

I never got used to microprism. Zenit, one of my first cameras had it. Then OM-1, my subsequent camera had it too. But as soon as I discovered plethora of focusing screens of OM system and 1-13 spit screen, I never looked back, it's easier for me to use, especially in low light.

Pick one of the systems and use it only for selfies. Then the controls will work the same direction on both.

Pentax MX/ME, Nikon FE/FM, Olympus OM, Canon AE-1 ,and similar cameras are all similar generation SLRs that were smallified? Whatever the opposite of "embiggen" is, compared to the 1960s generation of SLRs like Nikkormats, Spotmatics, Canon FT-something. I think it's generally agreed that the first of these was the Olympus OM-1 (1972) and most of them were a reaction to the OM-1. The FE/FM didn't come out until several years later; Nikon has generally been rather conservative. Anyway, they all take pictures and are way cheaper than back in the 70s-80s, so one can try them out to see what fits one's hands and eyes best.

Not exactly FTN, but from what I've heard, they thinned down Nikomat EL2 and thus FE was born. Wish they kept that whimsical battery chamber under the mirror box though, it got quite a few people wondering where the battery was

 

[miha]

My two 35mm SLR systems are the Nikon F and Leica R. It messes with my head that all of the controls are reversed, focus, aperture, shutter speed, which way to turn the lens when mounting.

This is why I got rid of the Nikon.

 

[abruzzi]

Indeed we all have our preferences and I'm not judging you by any means. One of my friends prefers large cameras because he can't get a decent grip on smaller bodies...

I do like the weight of the Nikkormats, and wish the MX weighed a little more. In my opinion, there is a lot of complaints of the weight of things and making them lighter. For me, while there is "too heavy", you only get there when you get to the size of Pentax 67. For smaller cameras, heavier is better because of inertial damping.

Obviously, I like both cameras for very different reasons, and both are excellent camera--as are many others. I wish both had a little faster shutter because sometimes that can provide flexibility. But I spent the last two years, since getting back into film, trying a couple dozen different 35mm SLRs, and this is where I have ended up. I'm not going to not shoot my other cameras, and most of them I'll keep, but these are holding the top place for my go-to cameras to carry with me every day.

I'll still try other cameras, (I do want to give Olympus a go since I do like the shutter speed ring on the Nikkormat) but I'm hesitant to get into another system that requires a whole new set of lenses. My pre-AI Nikkor collection is very usable, and my Pentax-M collection is getting there.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Not surprised. Nikkormat is build like quality tractor.

 

[M-88]

I do like the weight of the Nikkormats, and wish the MX weighed a little more. In my opinion, there is a lot of complaints of the weight of things and making them lighter. For me, while there is "too heavy", you only get there when you get to the size of Pentax 67. For smaller cameras, heavier is better because of inertial damping.

Obviously, I like both cameras for very different reasons, and both are excellent camera--as are many others. I wish both had a little faster shutter because sometimes that can provide flexibility. But I spent the last two years, since getting back into film, trying a couple dozen different 35mm SLRs, and this is where I have ended up. I'm not going to not shoot my other cameras, and most of them I'll keep, but these are holding the top place for my go-to cameras to carry with me every day.

I'll still try other cameras, (I do want to give Olympus a go since I do like the shutter speed ring on the Nikkormat) but I'm hesitant to get into another system that requires a whole new set of lenses. My pre-AI Nikkor collection is very usable, and my Pentax-M collection is getting there.

For some of us (me for example), smaller form factor helps overcome our physical limitations. I'd much rather carry an additional lens for the weight I'm comfortable with, instead of heavy body. If everything in this world was so simple, there would only be one camera for everyone

 

[Besk]

My problem with the lighter cameras is camera shake at slow speeds. (My F2 feels much better than my FM.)
How does the MX feel at slow speeds compared to the Nikkormat?

 

[jwd722]

I have Nikons, many many Nikons but I have had an MX for 35 years and love it. Small size is a real plus.
The camera with a 50 f1.7, a Tamron 28 f2.5, Pentax 135 f3.5 and a Pentax 200 f4 fit in a very small bag an are very lightweight. Can't do that with Nikon!

 

[Les Sarile]

I do like the weight of the Nikkormats, and wish the MX weighed a little more. In my opinion, there is a lot of complaints of the weight of things and making them lighter. For me, while there is "too heavy", you only get there when you get to the size of Pentax 67. For smaller cameras, heavier is better because of inertial damping.

Here's one way to add some weight to the MX . . .

And that fast lens really compliments that gigantic viewfinder making it super easy to nail critical focus wide open.

 

[abruzzi]

Here's one way to add some weight to the MX . . .

ha ha. The MX is pretty light, and I do wish it was a bit heavier. I frequently have the 85/2 or 50/1.4 on it which gives it a bit of heft. If I could find one at a reasonable price, I’d get a 50/1.2, but they’re a bit more expensive than I would like.

 

[CMoore]

Here's one way to add some weight to the MX . . .

And that fast lens really compliments that gigantic viewfinder making it super easy to nail critical focus wide open.

I lived "Over The Hill" from Santa Cruz for 25 years.

To quote my Father (RIP) ........ have never heard of anybody GRADUATING from UC Santa Cruz.

My photo teacher loved Pentax.
I believe the KX was her favorite. But when she got some Grant Money to shoot in Mexico in the early 1980's... she took her MX.
I imagine Size/Weight was the reason.