Nikon F introduction........

[Les Sarile]

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.,

The Canon F-1 competed directly with the Nikon F2. I don't think Canon and Nikon's model releases and dates were mere coincidence.

Selection 43 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Seems most have forgotten that Canon's first slr was the Canonflex. I didn't pursue it much but I can't seem to find anything on what Canon released with this model and wondered if anyone else did? I can't imagine that Canon didn't have the resources to provide a more appropriate rollout like Nikon did.

 

[MattKing]

Pentax, Minolta, Canon............ they never did this, right.?
Not to the degree Nikon did.

It wasn't a matter of degree.
It was a matter of a different product, for a different segment of the market.
A road that I drive on from time to time has a number of businesses on it that specialize in maintaining large commercial trucks. One of them has a sign up all the time that trumpets: "Oil Change + ??? special - $999.00 + tax.
I understand that to be inexpensive, for the market they are serving.
That market buys different trucks, but the purchase decision is based as much on the associated service resources, as it is on the trucks themselves. And if you drove in with a truck that wasn't part of the industry, you may or may not be able to get an a convenient appointment - the working fleet truckers get priority.
Nikon F's weren't sold to professionals with the service as an afterthought. Corporations and individual professionals often bought the cameras with either a service plan or at least an understanding about the extra-ordinary service that was available - and they spent more than the near loss-leader prices that the New York advertisers listed.
Canon was the other company that did this - to a certain extent - but not quite as early as Nikon did it. And a lot of it was more the national distributor - not Nikon or Canon themselves.
When the Winter Olympics were in Vancouver, if you were registered with Canon as a professional photographer, and used a purely pro level body, they would lend to you - for free - just about any lens you needed to cover the games, provided you agreed to certain co-promotion terms. That sort of relationship just wasn't and isn't available to the vast majority of photographers.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

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.

 

[MattKing]

There were also niche pro lines - e.g. Olympus and their photo-macrography and micro-photography equipment.

 

[GregY]

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

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).

 

[GregY]

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).

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

It seems to me that what really drove 35mm was - because of that portability - it became the staple for photojournalists, street photographers, and travel documentarians.

That said, with today's developers and films, I've gotten 35mm to do pretty spectacular things. Even Tri-X when done in very dilute Pyrocat-HD using low agitation techniques can produce very very low grain, high acuity images.

In comparison, the older films were not all that great even in larger formats. I processed some Super-XX from 1961 a couple years ago using long/dilute D-23 and Pyrocat-HD. I got very usable images, but it was a reminder that this generation of film was very grainy compared to what we're used to today.

 

[chuckroast]

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

That's why I still shoot my own Nikons. They are a source of joy and - with modern films and careful development - I get surprisingly good results.


Here is a scan of an 8x10 print from a Tri-X neg developed with Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:300 with only 4 agitations over a full hour:

 

[Paul Howell]

Film has improved to the point I dont shoot MF or LF just for the grain, TMAX 100 has such small grain that until I get to 16X20 not really noticeable. TrxX, GAF 500, HP4 of the 60s were very grainy, resolution fairly low, contrast, a bit more than modern emulsions. Royal Pan X, gezz, grain the size of marbles. I shoot 6X9 and 4X5 sheet film when shooting zone, 6X9 when I think I will print 11X14 and larger.

 

[BMbikerider]

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.?

Probably a combination of reasons and providing a reliable motor-drive for the press guys, lenses for the day were quite outstanding and made of durable metal. (Canon went over to part plastic construction quite soon on). Also a service department that was 2nd to none. However as for the service now-a-days, Nikon seems to have lost the plot since the introduction of the Digital cameras. Spares For older cameras are hard to come by which is why my main film cameras are a F2A and a Nikkormat FT3. They can usually be repaired and continue to work. When was the last time You saw a Nikon D100 up for sale or indeed working?

 

[reddesert]

One can take a good or bad photograph with nearly any camera, but professional use requires a distinct level of functionality and/or reliability or the reputation for both. (I've never been a professional.)

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). Clearly, from the design of the F, they were positioning it as the system camera. The US importer, Joe Ehrenreich of EPOI, is said to have had a lot of influence in breaking it into the US pro and government market. Both Nikon central and he may be responsible for the associated professional support, schools, etc.

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.

 

[250swb]

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.

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?

 

[Mike Lopez]

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.

Using the serial number, I was able to find that my F was manufactured in August, 1963. I like to tell myself that it left the factory on the day that MLK gave his big speech at the Lincoln Memorial. The thing is so reliable that it might just accompany me to the grave.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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?

The non-reversed image is one of big improvements for slrs.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[GregY]

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.

I was a loyal F user for decades (for SLR). I hated the grip size of the F4....finding it just didn't fit my hand....so i used Canon EOS until the F5 came out. I walked in and traded all the Canon stuff for the new F5 and lenses....and disaster struck. My F5 wouldn't rewind 2 rolls before the batteries died. Nikon had it more for the first 3 months i owned it than i did..... That was the end for me. Sold it off. But i still have an inherent soft spot for black Fs and of course the F2 Titan.
Back to the Minolta XK & Pentax LX....... by that time Nikon and Canon pretty much had an impenetrable wall & superb pro service.

 

[Paul Howell]

There were an number of reason I did not trade my F2 for a LX, one my employer at the time paid half the cost of a F3P, second, the wire I was working for used Nikon, I could memo out a second Nikon body, lens, and other gear as needed, and last the world wide Nikon service centers. Currently I use Minolta AF, although the F5 has a somewhat faster motor drive, the Minolta 9, 9xi, and 800si have good AF, the 9 and 800 a vertical batter grip, the 9 is rugged, made out of stainless steel, heavy but robust. I have a F4, not bad, just does not fit me as well as the F2 or 3, and the AF although not bad, better than the Minolta 9000, but not as good as later Minolta AF bodies. On the other hand if I had to do it all again, would have gone Canon EOS.

 

[GregY]

I did take a Pentax LX to Nepal in 88...w/ a 24 and 80-200... but mainly used my Leica M6. The LX was cool and handled well. I liked their wide angles..... but the zoom IMO didn't match the Nikkor 180 2.8 or 80-200

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

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).

The book is called This Is War!, and it is an excellent book. The following link has a story about David Douglas Duncan and his time Korea, at the end he is pictured in Korea, in 1950, holding his Nikon rangefinder.

Korean War: Classic Photos by David Douglas Duncan

David Douglas Duncan's pictures from the Korean War: the best, truest photographic chronicle of America's brutal 'Forgotten War.'

www.life.com

 

[Paul Howell]

Others JPs of the day had Leica lens modified for the Nikon rangefinders, some the opposite Nikon lens modified for their Leica's. I wanted a SP with a 3 lens set and motor drive, even in the late 60s were just too expensive, wound up with a Leica IIIG and Canon 7S.

 

[reddesert]

The photo of David Douglas Duncan shows him with a Nikon lens on a Leica screw-mount rangefinder body. If you search around on the web, there are interviews with him about it, for ex https://www.bandwmag.com/articles/david-douglas-duncan-the-making-of-a-master He says they modified the lenses to fit the body. Later (I'm guessing it was later), Nikon lenses in M39 screw-mount were a factory product. In 1950, the Nikon body available was a Nikon M, which is a collector's item now - with the odd 24x34mm frame size. I have only ever seen one under glass in a museum.