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.
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.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 NikonI like the shutter speed control around the lens mount. But Olympus did it right and Nikon, as usual, did it backwards.
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.
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...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.)
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 wasPick 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.
This is why I got rid of the Nikon.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.
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...
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 everyoneI 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.
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 . . .
I lived "Over The Hill" from Santa Cruz for 25 years.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?