It's interesting that - irrespective of who was actually first - the only camera that ever gave the F a run for it's money was the Canon F1. (And I've used/owned Spotmatics, Minoltas, Ricohs, Leicas, Yashicas, etc.) Canon went directly after the pro market with that camera and did really smart things - like lend sports photographers great big huge glass with their logo on the barrels so you could see "Canon" from the stands of a auto race or football field.
Part of what drove the popularity of the Nikon F was the Viet Nam war. Soldiers in theater saw these cameras around the necks of photojournalists. When they left Viet Nam, they'd often transit through Japan or go there on leave. There they found Nikon all over the place at a very cheap price. I recall looking at Nikon pricing in Hong Kong in the early 1970s that hands down beat anything I could get in the US even when factoring in the cost of shipping.
I have been a Nikon shooter since the 1970s and currently own a Nikkormat Ft, a Nikomat FtN, a pre Apollo F Photomic, an Apollo F Photomic, an F2, and an F3 (well there's the D750 but that's for snapshots). All of them work, all of them have reasonably decent working meters and I have accessories for the Fs like waist level finders and non-metered prisms. Some 60-80 years after they were born, they are still tanks that just work. They need the occasional seal job and/or CLA but that's about it. Oh, and bonus, the AI/AIS lenses are similarly built to last and work just fine on my D750 (who needs autofocus). THAT is why Nikon won and won big - Never obsoleting their mount and building things for constant hammering by pros. Even in their new Z digitals, they have an adapter ring to let these old lenses live another generation (I think, I've read, I don't own a Z). You buy a camera, you invest in glass.
I will say that, after the F3, I lost interest. The F4-5-6 were just digital cameras in film drag with too much weight and too many gadgets and features to be of much interest, at least to me. I also don't think they were anywhere near as durable as the prior models. Although I've shot the vast majority of my 35mm stuff on F bodies, I'd have to say that the very best camera of that generation was the F2 which is just a superb instrument. The F3 comes close but they used a stupid little LED to display cameras settings that I hate so hard.
That said, the tragedy is that I shoot very little small format with 120/4x5 being my default. But I do make sure to shoot every camera in my stable - including the Nikons - once or twice a year.,
Pentax, Minolta, Canon............ they never did this, right.?
Not to the degree Nikon did.
Long time ago I bought a pair of $60 Nikon binoculars. They came with all sorts of 'litter' - a 'Welcome to Nikon' brochure, the usual warranty card, a coupon for an issue or two of Nikon World (?) magazine, all high quality color glossy stuff.
It made me feel like I had joined something and that Nikon was glad to have me.
Never had that from another camera company.
The event that drew me to Nikon was something else. When I was 9 or and visiting my parents' friends, the husband, on learning I was interested in photography, took me aside and showed by his Nikon gear. It was all in a large leather Nikon bag that unfolded to show* a pair of F bodies, ranks of lenses all bayoneted to the mounts in the case, pull out drawers underneath with accessories and filters. I had never seen the like before - I was hooked.
* This memory has, I'm sure, been embellished with fantasies. I can't find a case that matches what I remember.
Time line, Nikon F 1959, Topcon Super RE 1963, Canon F1 March 1971, Topcon Super DM 1971 Nikon F2 Sept 1971, Minolta XK 1973, Pentax LX 1980 , Nikon F3 1980, Canon F1 New 1981. Nikon had the systems camera market to themselves for 12 years. As Topcon left the market in 1977 there were only 3 then 4 options. That there was not excellent SLRs from Leica, Minolta, Konica, Pentax, Olympus and for those with deep pockets the Alpa. Great cameras used by many pros, just not what I think as full system cameras.
You're not wrong Chuck. For anyone who's ever stepped up to an enlarger..... they get quite an awakening the first 120 negative they print....let alone a sheet of film.And the irony is that all of them were fundamentally constrained by the format. It's always an eye opener for - say - a Leica aficionado to see what a $300 Mamiya TLR or 645 can produce. The format matters more than the body mechanics (assuming even just decent bodies).
Because Nikon was the "first" with a complete system camera, viewfinders, focusing screens, factory mod motor drive, bulk film back, and a very wide range of lens from a fisheye to 2000mm it was adopted by the new services, major news papers, Nat Geo and other magazines, the U.S Army, Air Force, and I think the Marines but not the Navy, and NASA. Once adopted and invested in the Nikon System when the other systems came out there was a hesitancy to change over. Not that some did, the Navy used Topcon D and Super D until Topcon left the market in 1977 then used Canon F1. In addition to the system Nikon also built out a large network of repair centers. In addition to service centers I could rent Nikon lens or a spare body in most large cities from various camera shops. Auto focus changed all that, if you going to buy an auto focus body why stick with manual focus lens? As Canon had the best AF and great pro level lens with L lens, Canon replaced Nikon as the pro level 35mm.
And the irony is that all of them were fundamentally constrained by the format. It's always an eye opener for - say - a Leica aficionado to see what a $300 Mamiya TLR or 645 can produce. The format matters more than the body mechanics (assuming even just decent bodies).
Well yes and no, the Nikon F and other 35mm were not a competitor of MF in terms of resolution, gain, and with some system ability to make adjustments. It wasn't until the late 60s and early 70s that film quality got the point that 35mm became the norm for News and Photojournalism. What Nikon brought was portability, long lens, and factory modified for a fast motor drive. The other factor was slides, although there were 6X6 projectors, really expensive. In commercial, fashion, industrial, and landscapes MF and LF continued to dominate. In the late 70s I freelanced for the Sacramento Union, they shot Fashion Wednesday for the Woman's Insert, with a Hasselblad.
You're not wrong Chuck. For anyone who's ever stepped up to an enlarger..... they get quite an awakening the first 120 negative they print....let alone a sheet of film.
But in their era were they really constrained? Newsprint & magazines don't require big negatives. Look at what National Geographic did with Kodachrome slides. The 21st century isn't much better come to think of it....look what an iphone snapshot looks like on a computer screen.
There's a thread here somewhere about 'the best 35mm slr ever' or something similar. It doesn't matter to me. My tactile response to a black plain prism Nikon F...is the same as the first time i bought one. You can keep you fancy metering and AF. There's no camera quite like it View attachment 342678
Pentax, Minolta, Canon............ they never did this, right.?
Not to the degree Nikon did.
Other members have mentioned that these 3 tried to get their cameras into the hands of Nikon users, but it was too late, Nikon was entrenched, plus the other 3 did not have the "system" or support that Nikon did.
Does anybody know.........was that something Nikon did as a company, through meetings and brainstorming.?
Or was it the genius of one or just a few people that came up with this idea. It seems, circa 1960, they offered the reportage photographers a portable 35mm paradigm that was very well made, and rather unique in its scope.?
Not to beat a dead horse, but being born in 1960, i am old enough to have seen Nikon camera hanging from the necks of people at auto races, in Vietnam courtesy of television, and people shooting for Life, Nat Geo, and of course the Rock and Roll world.
Even circa 1980, if i were at any kind of event that was ................ a big deal, news worthy............ most all the pros had that Nikon logo.
It still fascinates me to this day.
At the risk of repeating myself..........does Nikon owe that huge success to a deliberate team effort, or was it just one, or a few people that came up with the winning recipe.?
After Hasselblad developed and perfected the concept of a slr camera system. Then Nikon, having a pattern to build on, had the initiative to build a camera system for 35mm slrs.
I got a Nikon F in 1985 because my first SLR had broken and I wanted something ultra-solid. At the time they were "old" (or at least middle-aged) and relatively affordable, in 1985 film-camera-market terms. Plus you got access to widely available used lenses & equipment. Now it's still functional and I'm the one who's middle-aged.
Even if developing a medium format SLR system was ground breaking in 1948 for medium format the worlds first SLR camera was actually the 35mm Ihagee 'Kine Eakta' in 1936, so lots of time for Hasselblad to absorb and spin the hype. And before you say it, the non-reversed image was introduced in 1943 along with patents by the inventor of the Duflex camera for an unreversed SLR camera, and they were on sale in 1947. That the early Hasselblad's 'perfected' the SLR is open to discussion if reliability is taken into account, but you can fill in the blank as to when the first Hasselblad non-reversed finder was introduced to match the 35mm opposition?
Pentax, Minolta, Canon............ they never did this, right.?
Not to the degree Nikon did.
To some extent it was matter of taste, different ways of looking at functionality. The Minolta got a lot right with the XK, but having tp have a separate body with integrated motor drive, was not well received by the press shooters. Then Canon and the T90, same concept just done right. There was lot to like about the Pentax LX, I was close to trading in my F2 for one. Perhaps the LX has not held up as well as the F3 or F1new, but in 1980, that thought never crossed my mind. The mistake Nikon made was not developing a brand new AF mount based on micro motors, trying to hold on to the legacy of the F mount hurt them with the F4, by the time the F5 came along it was too late, and Canon EOS 1N and V still had better AF.
Nikon got an early start in the reputation department before most of us were around, when David Douglas Duncan used their rangefinder lenses in about 1950 during the Korean War and this was widely reported back in the US (at a time when "made in Japan" didn't have the same good connotations it does now).
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?