Nikon F Series advancements

[CMoore]

Just curious what others think. My experience with Nikon is rather limited.
I owned the F3 and F2.
I think it was mostly the Meter/Display that i liked better in the F2 so i sold the F3. I am sure i could have lived with either.

Anyway...................if you had to choose just one iteration that represented the biggest change or most advancement from one model to the next, which two models would that be.?
I suppose the F3 offering AE was a big change from the F2 to the F3. Maybe that was it.?

I was, sort of, thinking that maybe the Changes/Advancements in the F4 Vs F5 is where Nikon made its biggest inroads from just one model to the next.

What do you guys think was the biggest change in the F Series when looking at two successive models.?
Thank You

 

[Paul Howell]

I agree that it was F2 to 3, electronic shutter, aperture preferred metering, meter no longer in the head, and the P model, weather sealed. There was an AF model as well, then came the F4 with AF.

 

[madNbad]

The biggest jump was from the F to the F2. The swing out back, repositioned the shutter release button, added 1/2000 shutter speed, integrated meter circuitry into the body, introduced an expanded selection of metering heads, motor drive connections without having to modify the body and a whole slew of other upgrades that made it a more dependable and easier camera to use.

 

[narsuitus]

Anyway...................if you had to choose just one iteration that represented the biggest change or most advancement from one model to the next, which two models would that be.?

In the late 1960s, I started with the F. Loved its dependability. The features I did not like were:
1. Removal of base plate and camera back to change film.
2. Motor drives that were not interchangeable from one F body to another and
3. Mirror lockup that wastes one frame of film.
4. Position of shutter release button not ergonomically positioned.
5. Top shutter speed of 1/1000 second.
6. Top X synch speed of 1/60 second.

In the early 1970s, I traded my two F bodies for two F2 bodies. The features I liked were:
1. Uses hinged back for changing film.
2. Motor drives that were interchangeable from one F2 body to another.
3. Mirror lockup does not waste one frame of film.
4. Position of shutter release button moved to make it more ergonomic.
5. Top shutter speed of 1/2000 second.
6. Top X synch speed of 1/80 second.

Over the decades, in addition to the F and F2, I have also used the F3, F4, EM, N70, and N2000.

Today, I still use three F2 bodies.


Nikon F2 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[jimjm]

IMHO, I think it was the transition from the F2 to F3. The integration of electronics into the camera's core function was the biggest change, with the shutter now being electronically controlled. Metering cells, display and most other components now were built into the body, rather than the finder.
The F3 is little bit smaller in size and weight from the F2, and the motor drive is a huge improvement from those available for the F2 and F.
The F2 made a number of functional and ergonomic improvements over the F and the battery circuit was moved to the body which allowed for smaller finders. However, some parts are interchangeable between the two, like focusing screens and prism finders (if the name plate is removed). They both still function and feel like mechanical cameras, whereas the F3 was the first pro-level Nikon to make the jump to electronics-dependent.

 

[Pieter12]

Biggest leap was the F4.

 

[madNbad]

Biggest leap was the F4.

Hard to argue with that pick. Autofocus, auto exposure, built in motor and a flash sync at 1/250th. Set the mark for all future cameras.

 

[CMoore]

Interesting and informative replies..........Thank You
Yeah, the F3 was a VERY Different camera than the F2, wasn't it.?
More than i had previously considered.
For Nikon.......I suppose it was the dawn of "Modern Tech" for the 35mm SLR.

I am almost angry that i did not bond more with my F3.
A few reasons i guess.
.....I had just gotten a pair of F2S and sent them both to Sover Wong.
This was about 5 years ago. So it WAS going to be difficult to favor the F3 when i got that pair back from him.

Also at the time, even though not that long ago, i was more addicted to shooting 100% manual.
Truth be told, i would not mind having that AE feature at hand.
But that is normal i guess.
As time goes by, i will probably become interested in Auto Focus for the first time, with a 35mm SLR.

 

[Huss]

Biggest leap was the F4.

Yep, I have all the Fs and the F4 is obviously the biggest leap.

AF, built in motordrive, much more advanced shutter to 1/8000 sec, multi modes, multi metering, full exposure info in VF etc etc.

The F2 was just an improvement on the F. The F3 was an improvement on the F2 from a handling/haptics and ease of use perspective (Auto exposure!).
The F4 blew the F3 out of the water on everything apart from size.

 

[RDW]

You can make a valid case for any of them, but for me maybe the F5. Put every Nikon SLR in chronological order, and it looks different to everything that came before it, but similar to everything that came after it, including the dSLRs. This was the first camera with the familiar 2 dial interface and rear 'game pad' AF selector, the first to have full compatibility with G lenses (not to mention VR), the first single digit F series with a top LCD, and (arguably) the first with AF that is still competitive today. Some of its design elements are recognisable even in the Z series cameras. It's the first 'modern' Nikon.

 

[mshchem]

I have beautiful examples of the F, F2 and F3. When I shoot film with my F mount lenses I always use a F5. F5 is intuitive to anyone who has ever used a F type camera. I've never handled a F6 I'm sure they would be great.

 

[neeksgeek]

I’ve used all the pro F-series cameras except the F5 and F6. I have a soft spot for the F3, but if I had to pick one that was the single biggest leap, I agree with those who’ve said it’s the F4. If I had to get another 35mm camera (nooo!), it’d be an F4.

 

[Pieter12]

maybe the F5.

From what I have been told by a well-respective repair technician, the F5 has been plagued by mirror failures and parts are NLA.

 

[mrosenlof]

I would go with the F4 as the biggest technical leap. I've only owned F2 and F3, so my recollection of the 4,5,6 might not be perfect

F to F2 -- great changes, but kind of incremental, evolution if you will
F2 to F3 -- a jump with Auto Exposure and electronic shutter control
F3 to F4 -- a bigger jump IMHO, AF, full AE, Matrix Metering (?) integrated motor, **Vertical running shutter**
F4 to F5 -- seems like refinements / evolution from the F4
F5 to F6 -- more evolution in a smaller package. I readily admit I don't know the feature changes here.

I have no interest in owning an f4 or f5, if I'm going to carry something that big, it's not going to have tiny 35mm film in it. I would like of like to fondle an F6 for a while, but probably don't want one of them either.

 

[RDW]

From what I have been told by a well-respective repair technician, the F5 has been plagued by mirror failures and parts are NLA.

For really long-term reliability you probably don't want anything later than an F2. If an LCD bleeds or a circuit board fails on one of the battery-dependent cameras the only source may be a spares body. Even some of the F6 parts are now reportedly hard to find.

 

[Huss]

I have no interest in owning an f4 or f5, if I'm going to carry something that big, it's not going to have tiny 35mm film in it. I would like of like to fondle an F6 for a while, but probably don't want one of them either.

I get that but there is more to it. An F5 etc allows for more exposures with much quicker loading and quicker handling with vastly superior AF than any MF offerings.
Different tools for different jobs etc.

 

[Huss]

For really long-term reliability you probably don't want anything later than an F2. If an LCD bleeds or a circuit board fails on one of the battery-dependent cameras the only source may be a spares body. Even some of the F6 parts are now reportedly hard to find.

Spares bodies are also aging at the same rate. There is no way of knowing if that spare will last.

 

[RDW]

Spares bodies are also aging at the same rate. There is no way of knowing if that spare will last.

Yes, and even worse for early digital bodies that use proprietary rechargeable batteries that are no longer made and definitely have a finite life. Whereas old mechanical cameras can go on and on if you can find someone with the skills to work on them. My Leica IIIa is 85 years old, works fine, and can still be serviced.

 

[Pieter12]

F4 uses AA batteries.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Can't answer the question directly. My only experience was with an F back in the late 1960s borrowed for one project and the new F6 I got last fall. There's definitely a huuuuuge improvement between those two versions.

 

[unityofsaints]

Can't answer the question directly. My only experience was with an F back in the late 1960s borrowed for one project and the new F6 I got last fall. There's definitely a huuuuuge improvement between those two versions.

Improvement from the F6 to the F, right?

 

[Paul Howell]

Spares bodies are also aging at the same rate. There is no way of knowing if that spare will last.

Spares are for parts, I just got a beater Minolta 9 for parts. Expensive as it takes twice the time to salvage a part, but my local repair shop will work on my 9 as long as I have a extra body. Saying that it is still a toss of the dice, even though my beater body works no telling how long a donated part will.

 

[Jim Jones]

Narsitus gives a good rundown of the advantages and disadvantages of the various models in post #4. The biggest jump may have been from F1 to F2, but that depends on how one uses the camera. For some, having a Polaroid back for the F1 was valuable in the studio. However, I remember seeing only ONE Polaroid back in my life, and it was sitting unsold in a camera store. There might have been more demand for the 250 exposure back. The F1 metered viewfinder was a monstrosity, although it did improve the exposure accuracy of Kodachromes over a treasured Weston Master II. After two missteps via Praktica and Miranda, I bought a F1 in 1967. and a Nikkormat a little later. A FM-10 and old Nikkorex were bombs. There has been neither need nor desire to try any others until the d*****l age..

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Improvement from the F6 to the F, right?

Wink or no wink, you've got that exactly backwards.

The F6 is an efficient, integrated photographic tool. The F was tough enough to hammer nails and didn't need a battery. However, anyone using an F to make pictures rather than as a carpentry implement would be thrilled to have an F6 instead.

 

[Huss]

The electronic rangefinder mechanism on my F6 failed a while back (since repaired). Nikon in LA said it was not unheard of.. This camera was babied by me.
Never had a focus mechanism failure on my F.

Of course, to be fair I could still focus the F6 manually, just had to ignore the electronic focus aids which were now incorrect. The F6's manual focus screen really is spectacular, and frankly much better than what is in my F.