Nikon F vs F2: fit & finish

[reddesert]

I don't really know which things people mean when they say "refined." I think some mean "the controls fall easily to hand and the displays are easy to read," and some mean "turning the controls feels like butter."

Some of the obvious issues (refinements) in the F-F2-F3 series are the improvements in back hinge, metering/display, and the move to AI indexing. But if you aren't going to use the meter then the latter two don't matter.

Without metering, I think the difference between them is pretty minor, compared to the difference of F/F2 versus later, smaller SLRs (like an Olympus, Nikon FE, etc). Apart from the meter, the F and F2 are both overbuilt machines that feel like winding a very solid industrial item with no looseness. If you get one in good condition it could likely last a lifetime.

Just to throw a wildcard in, if you are comfortable with the around-the-lens shutter ring of the Olympus, you could also consider a Nikkormat. They're about the same size as an (unmetered) F/F2 and also very robust, not the top of the line, but there are a zillion working ones out there.

The operational feel of the camera will also depend on the lens. Older Nikon manual focus lenses have a nice solid feel to the focusing and aperture, assuming they haven't been beat up. Some of them have been used very heavily and no longer feel as nice, so bear that in mind.

 

[250swb]

I think you need one of each, an F, F2, and F3. It doesn't matter which you start with but each brings something different to the party and they are all robust well built cameras. There is some magic in the F in it's simplicity, there is some common sense applied by Nikon in the design of the F2, and the F3 became the Swiss Army knife of professional manual focus Nikon SLR's. I like the sharp edges of the F, I like the round edges of the F2, and I like the combination in the F3. That said I like the Nikkormat's as well, and the FE and FM series. If you like Nikon MF SLR's of any type you are truly spoilt for choice, there isn't a bad one among them, and even the very cheap ones aren't outright rubbish.

 

[Paul Howell]

F2, plain prisms were made in much smaller numbers than the F, for much of the F production run the plain prism was the standard prism that came with the camera. The F2 came with a DE-1 non metered head which in most cases was upgraded at time of purchase to a DP1 or 2. Mine was sold with the DP1 as standard, the shop I bought it at in Santa Barbara did not offer the DE-1 as standard only the metered versions. I had both a plain, waist level and a Photomic for my F, seldom used the waist level or plan, when I traded in for the F2 didn't both to buy either. I did upgrade the metered prism from a DP-1 to a DP-3.

 

[__Brian]

I've never seen the bullseye with a incident dome, I take it the dome can be removed for reflective metering?

The Incident attachment screws into the Battery cover. and the 135mm FOV tube screws into it. So- if you see a Bullseye head with "plumbing" on the side, good chance it has the incident disk. The extension tube gives the FOV of a 135mm lens, and a second ASA index is used with it to set film speed. I used it a lot at air shows with a 500mm F8 Reflex-Nikkor. The front lever allows you to "dial in" the F-Stop of the uncoupled lens, then set shutter speed. I also have the Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 with compensating aperture for use with this camera. I've had Five Nikon F's given to me over the last couple of years. The Nikkormats use Copal Square shutters and fire with a "Clunk". The F is quieter than the F2. The Questar Modified Nikon F's have an extra release for mirror-up and do not waste a shot. There were some Nikon F bodies modified to take the F2 Photomic Finders- Marty Forscher built a battery compartment inti the rewind side, under the brass cover. I do not have one, but can see how it could be done.

The DP-2 of the Nikon F2S tend to be much less reliable than the other finders. The early DP-1 uses a carbon ring much like the F finders, and tends to not do as well as later DP-1 and DP-11 finders. The later DP-1 finders have the extended meter readout, like the DP-11 with 2 stops of underexposure indicated.

The eye-level finder of the F fits onto the F2 body, but does not have the Nikon Nameplate. Bet you could rig something. The F2 DE-1 and DW-2 fits onto the F after removing the nameplate from the finder. I have a DW-2 on a Nikon F.

 

[Pieter12]

F2, plain prisms were made in much smaller numbers than the F, for much of the F production run the plain prism was the standard prism that came with the camera.

A little research shows that a plain F prism will fit and F2 if you choose to go that way.

 

[Huss]

I had the F and now have an F2 (and F4). The F2 seems a bit more robust and handles better than the F. When I went shopping for an F2, there were surprisingly few with the plain prism, and those went for a premium as does the prism alone.

Crazy thing it's often cheaper to buy an F2 w/ plain prism than the plain prism by itself!

 

[Madeleine Ostoja]

Thank you for all the amazing feedback!

Sounds like the F2 is probably the way to go, they’re both roughly the same price on eBay these days.

I didn’t realise the F was both smaller and lighter than the F2, that would be a pretty important consideration for me but it also sounds like a small difference.

And yeah as I said in my first post I’m used to barnack loading so the hinged door vs removable back is really a non issue. In fact I kinda prefer the clean back of the F, I never use film memos

 

[drkhalsa]

Nikon reps showed a technique for dealing with the back for reloading. You grip the lens with one hand holding the camera/lens with the back facing up. Remove the back and slip it under your fingers holding the lens. Load with your free hand, then put things back together. Easier to do than describe, I've used the same technique with a Leica.

I have come to like the way the F back and reloading works. I use the method you describe and it has become quite easy.

 

[flavio81]

I'm thinking of picking up a Nikon F or F2, but I'm having trouble deciding between the two.

The feature improvements of the F2 aren't that important to me(...) I'd get both with the plain unmetered prism.

As many have pointed out, the F is quieter sounding. I would say it feels tougher in the hand. But internally the F2 is a better machine. How much better? That's a good question. Both are very reliable.

If you care for mirror lock up, get the F2. Otherwise the F with plain prism is great looking

I'm used to my barnack Leica and Rolleiflex, and so far I've never used an SLR that gave the same feeling of engineering quality.

Rolleiflex sets the bar very high, higher than many leica machines IMO.

Maybe you can try the Leicaflex, and the Canon F-1. Both have great fit and finish, IMO even better than the one in the F2. Still, I think the F2 is the greatest mechanical SLR ever made.

Or are there any other SLRs that feel as good or better to use? I was considering the Contax line as well for that C/Y Zeiss glass.

Sure:
Canon F-1
Canon New F-1
Pentax Spotmatic F
Leicaflexes
Hasselblad 500C/M (hey, it's a SLR)
Rolleiflex SL66 (ditto)
Probably many more cameras: Pentax LX, Minolta XE, etc. etc. And most Canon EOS cameras are very ergonomic.

The F2 isn't really very ergonomic.

C/Y glass is "made in japan" Zeiss. Not up to the same build quality than the lenses for the Contarex.

 

[Les Sarile]

Thank you for all the amazing feedback!

Sounds like the F2 is probably the way to go, they’re both roughly the same price on eBay these days.

I didn’t realise the F was both smaller and lighter than the F2, that would be a pretty important consideration for me but it also sounds like a small difference.

And yeah as I said in my first post I’m used to barnack loading so the hinged door vs removable back is really a non issue. In fact I kinda prefer the clean back of the F, I never use film memos

You didn't say if you want/need in-camera metering but If weight is a factor to consider than keep in mind adding a metered prism will add some weight and bulk. If you don't need/want interchangeable viewfinder and focusing screens then you might consider the lighter weight Nikkormats or FM series which are fully mechanical and requires batteries only for the meter. The FT3 and FM are usually on the low end as far as cost. The FM2 and FM3A adds changeable focusing screens and many more improvements and tend to be pricier.

Selection 71 by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[CMoore]

If you want a meter, i would think the F2 is the "obvious" choice.
I have a pair of F2s that Sover worked on. Fabulous bodies.
The only SLR i would choose over the F2s would be my Canon F1 New.

At any rate...............i hope you get the Nikon the suits you best.
Good Luck

 

[Madeleine Ostoja]

Yep don't need a meter, I figure if I want a metered SLR for convenience I'll go all the way and use a camera that has full AE like my OM2.

I have a Pentax SV on the shelf which is very well made and was a delight to CLA, but the viewfinder is pretty dim even after a thorough clean, I imagine the Spotmatics are similar.

I actually really like the look of the Canon F-1, but it's even more of a beast than the F and F2 haha. I also really love the ethos behind the LX, but I've heard it's getting riskier and riskier to own one, not only for the sticky mirror issue but also the shutters are starting to die. I also considered the Leicaflex, they look beautiful, but R glass is a bit spendy as a secondary system

 

[__Brian]

I always liked this ad for the F2.

 

[guangong]

Bought an F in mid 1960s new with lens in Japan for $120. I have and use F and F2, both with plain prism. No need for batteries. Both are well made durable cameras. Which ever one comes up in very good condition is the one to get.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you think you might like the LX then the F3. It is bit smaller than the F2, has built in metering, aperture preferred auto exposure. I had the F3P, made in small number for certified photojournalist, built in hot shoe, lacking the self timer, weather sealed, a few other modifications. Like the LX electronic shutter, although mine was stolen in 2001 after 911 when I was not allowed to hand carry my camera bag onto a flight from LA to Phoenix, it did not arrive, from I read online the F3s are holding pretty well. I liked the way the F2 felt in my hand, and was hesitant to give up the all mechanical F2, the F3 was in many ways just more modern and easier to use. The F3 with high point finders remain popular.

 

[mrosenlof]

You won't go wrong with either. The individual cameras' histories will matter more than the model.

 

[flavio81]

Yep don't need a meter, I figure if I want a metered SLR for convenience I'll go all the way and use a camera that has full AE like my OM2.

Applause. This makes total sense.

I have a Pentax SV on the shelf which is very well made and was a delight to CLA, but the viewfinder is pretty dim even after a thorough clean, I imagine the Spotmatics are similar.

I would expect the Spotmatics, particularly the F, to have a brighter viewfinder than the SV which is very old. Or in any case, try the Pentax K2, it has the Spotmatic shape and a very good viewfinder.

I actually really like the look of the Canon F-1, but it's even more of a beast than the F and F2 haha.

How can it be more of a beast? It feels better balanced in the hand. I have the F-1 here and the F2SB here, the difference is evident. Of course, without a metered prism the F2 is more handy. But you get a very precise quasi-spot meter on the F-1 for the same form factor than a plain prism F2!

 

[Les Sarile]

Yep don't need a meter, I figure if I want a metered SLR for convenience I'll go all the way and use a camera that has full AE like my OM2.

I have a Pentax SV on the shelf which is very well made and was a delight to CLA, but the viewfinder is pretty dim even after a thorough clean, I imagine the Spotmatics are similar.

I actually really like the look of the Canon F-1, but it's even more of a beast than the F and F2 haha. I also really love the ethos behind the LX, but I've heard it's getting riskier and riskier to own one, not only for the sticky mirror issue but also the shutters are starting to die. I also considered the Leicaflex, they look beautiful, but R glass is a bit spendy as a secondary system

Which Canon F-1? Clarification is always needed as it seems Canon was enamored with using F-1. I suppose it's not surprising that the NEW F-1 weighs less then the previous even though it looks larger.

Selection 72 by Les DMess, on Flickr


When it comes to meters, why stop at the OM-2 when the OM-4 offers the best spot metering in manual focus cameras? Of course the OM-4 doesn't have the aperture priority autoexposure duration of the OM-2 even with all the caveats imposed on it. But if ultra long aperture priority autoexposure is needed, then there is no camera ever made that can come close to what the LX can achieve. Of course size and weight are in favor of these three. But if interchangeable viewfinder is needed/wanted then clearly the LX has the added advantage in both size and viewfinder options to cover eye relief or magnification.

LX Viewfinders by Les DMess, on Flickr

I acquired both of my LX's over 10 years ago - one from KEH and the other from auction (not working for parts) and both continue to be fully functional. Having acquired many of these cameras, it is not unusual for any of them to have or develop issues.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yep don't need a meter, I figure if I want a metered SLR for convenience I'll go all the way and use a camera that has full AE like my OM2.

The totally uncluttered viewfinder is the single biggest positive aspect of unmetered SLRs for me - if I want/ need automation, then it's straight to the Konica Hexar AF...

I just wish Olympus had made a meterless variant of the OM1/ OM1n. While achievable today by rebuilding an OM1 body with some determination, it's going to be costlier than a Nikon F or F2 with plain prism - however I've found the F2 to not be as invisible (it did not spark joy) a camera to me as the F, which for all of its ergonomic dead-ends is overall a metaphysically more usable camera for me.

 

[John Koehrer]

Looks like a thread asking which is better M2 or M3 Leica. Or Chinese made K000 or Japanese. For that, no
contest when the manufacturing went to China they began using plastic(resin?) gearing. not all but enough to make a difference. Don't forget the Pentax K1000 being better than the KM or KX. blah, bah, blah...........
That's an opinion of course.

I'm in the Nikon F corner though. It's better in my hand.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm thinking of picking up a Nikon F or F2, but I'm having trouble deciding between the two.

The feature improvements of the F2 aren't that important to me — my main 35mm camera is a Leica iif so the "difficult" loading of the F is totally fine, I can't remember wishing I had 1/2000s available, and the better shutter button position is nice but I imagine you'd get used to either one. I'd get both with the plain unmetered prism.

So for me it would come down to subjective feeling between the two. I've held an F2 Titan for all of 20 seconds. I can't decide whether I like the sharp edges of the original F or not. I've heard people say it's feels a bit smaller in the hands than the F2, and I kind of like the idea that it's built on the bones of Nikon's best rangefinder. I also keep hearing the F2 is more refined, which appeals but I don't really know what that actually translates to. I'm used to my barnack Leica and Rolleiflex, and so far I've never used an SLR that gave the same feeling of engineering quality.

Anybody that can compare both, is there one that just feels better to shoot, features aside? Or are there any other SLRs that feel as good or better to use? I was considering the Contax line as well for that C/Y Zeiss glass.

If you're interested in engineering quality I'd suggest an FM to you.

 

[Madeleine Ostoja]

I just wish Olympus had made a meterless variant of the OM1/ OM1n

Amen to that! The OM line is a stroke of design genius, but I really wish they just went all out on a special edition or something, because both the samples I've owned have felt kinda fragile and clunky in use. It's a camera I should love but just don't

I've found the F2 to not be as invisible (it did not spark joy) a camera to me as the F, which for all of its ergonomic dead-ends is overall a metaphysically more usable camera for me

I think this is what I'll probably feel as well, and why I'm leaning towards the F even though the F2 is better in almost every way on the spec sheet (and to an extent in looks). It's the same reason I love my Leica iif so dearly, even when my cheapo Canon 7 has it beat in almost every way.

 

[madNbad]

I’ve owned a bunch of different Fs’ over the years. Never had any F with a number. Here are a few hints:
Later models strap lugs have stainless steel inserts. Early production were just brass and notorious for wearing through.

Find a finder that is threaded for diopters. This means if you wear glasses, the rubber coated FM eyepiece buffer will fit.

The last of the line were the “Apollos” with the same plastic tip on the advance leaver as the F2. May not seem like much but it makes advancing the film a lot easier.

Spend the money for CLA. Being in NZ this means shipping it somewhere, which will be a big part of the cost. These cameras are more than fifty years old and could use a check up. Once it’s done, it’ll last another fifty years.

I like the F because of the lack of any electronics, leaving on less thing that can cause a problem. Good luck with your search and come back for advice on lenses.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The OM line is a stroke of design genius, but I really wish they just went all out on a special edition or something, because both the samples I've owned have felt kinda fragile and clunky in use.

Overall, I've found that OM1n's are pretty good, especially compared to the number of wayward frame spacing FM/FE/FM2/FE2/FM3a etc that I've encountered. That said, OM1/1n's can be worn out just as much as a Nikon F can be worn out (I've encountered several that for all the lore about F's being indestructible felt much more delicate than my OM1n's) - though I vaguely recall being told that the 'n' generation of the OM1 & 2 had some mechanical improvements.

Then again, I've found that quite a lot of Nikkor designs from the mid 60s-early 90s can be pretty optically uninspiring (too much of the wrong kind of good & not enough of the right kind of wrong).

 

[flavio81]

I like the F because of the lack of any electronics, leaving on less thing that can cause a problem. Good luck with your search and come back for advice on lenses.

There are no electronics inside a Nikon F2....