Nikon F2 hankering

[Huss]

.. The F4 is just bafugly and I wouldn't be caught dead using one. ..

HOW
DARE
YOU!



I love the F4 so much I have two. Genius of the design is the beee-yooo-tiful dials, and the fact that you can have the camera relatively small with the compact battery pack (the way I like it), or huge if you want to carry 8 batteries with it.
The F5 only has the huge option.
It's also why the F6 is so superior - you also can have it compact or big n fat. Which is why I have the F4 and the F6 - I like to decide for myself how I want my camera set up for my shooting needs.

 

[Pieter12]

So my advice if buying an F2 with a metered head is to test it thoroughly before committing to the purchase. Bring along a separate hand held meter

That is probably good advice for shooting reversal film with any old camera with a built-in meter.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

HOW
DARE
YOU!

I know, I know. But I can't help it. I find it as unappealing as pastel colored suit worn in a Miami Vice episode.

 

[Huss]

That is probably good advice for shooting reversal film with any old camera with a built-in meter.

The meters on the F2A was off by several stops - which would effect any film, not just reversal.
While the F2 is a great camera, it is a great OLD camera and let's not kid ourselves about that. Just because it is an F2 doesn't mean it is working correctly.

 

[Huss]

I know, I know. But I can't help it. I find it as unappealing as pastel colored suit worn in a Miami Vice episode.

You're dead to me.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

You're dead to me.

Well I mean.... I'm not gonna kick you out the cab if you have one, we'll just have to shoot in places we can't be seen.

 

[MattKing]

I know, I know. But I can't help it. I find it as unappealing as pastel colored suit worn in a Miami Vice episode.

Strangely enough, here is how I pictured you before this post:

 

[Les Sarile]

I wonder if I would like the F3 series as much as I like the F2.

Certainly dressing up the F3 is much cheaper and more readily available then for the F2 . . .

F3HP SB-16B AS-17 by Les DMess, on Flickr

F3 DW-3 MD-4 AS-17 AS-14 SB-21 AR-7 by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Strangely enough, here is how I pictured you before this post:

UNH UH!!! NOOOOO!!!!!

 

[beemermark]

I didn't realize that Sover had that much information on his website. Never stopped long enough to read it.
Turns out my black '72 has a correct, matching DP-1 series 2.
The silver '76 I just picked up however, has a slightly later DP-11 on it. The camera was made October '75 to January '76, the meter was made November '76 to March of '78.
I can't find the page for which meters to avoid though. Am I missing something?

https://soverf2repair.webs.com/DP1_ring_resistors.htm

 

[voceumana]

If you find the F3 has no aesthetic appeal to you, I wonder if you ever held one in your hands? If feels very right.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

If you find the F3 has no aesthetic appeal to you, I wonder if you ever held one in your hands? If feels very right.

yes, I have. A F3HP as a matter of fact, just recently too.

 

[BMbikerider]

1) No - it will be older and there is a good chance it has been ridden hard and put away wet.
2) No - how much winding do intend doing?
3)b
4) Yes/No - A sore neck, definitely; a bad back - depends on the current state of your back.

An F2 is a nice chunk of iron but no improvement over an F3 - it wouldn't be, would it?

1) No - it will be older and there is a good chance it has been ridden hard and put away wet.
2) No - how much winding do intend doing?
3) Yes - The meters, like the camera, are getting long in the tooth. The failure is the 'ring resistor,' and replacements are not available.
4) Yes/No - A sore neck, definitely; a bad back - depends on the current state of your back.

An F2 is a nice chunk of iron but no improvement over an F3 - it wouldn't be, would it?

Oh yes they are. They are being manufactured in UK look at https://soverf2repair.webs.com

You cannot believe everything you read curtesy of Mr Google

 

[mawz]

yes, I have. A F3HP as a matter of fact, just recently too.

I'll freely admit I think the HP finder sucks compared to the non-HP. If you don't wear glasses, the original F3 finder is on par with the F2, the HP finder is a disappointment.

So is that never to be sufficiently damned LCD display. It absolutely ruins the shooting experience on what are otherwise two of Nikon's best 80's-era designs, the F3 and the FA.

 

[Scott Micciche]

I'll freely admit I think the HP finder sucks compared to the non-HP. If you don't wear glasses, the original F3 finder is on par with the F2, the HP finder is a disappointment.

So is that never to be sufficiently damned LCD display. It absolutely ruins the shooting experience on what are otherwise two of Nikon's best 80's-era designs, the F3 and the FA.

I completely agree, and the non-HP F3 finder is more compact.

 

[Les Sarile]

I'll freely admit I think the HP finder sucks compared to the non-HP. If you don't wear glasses, the original F3 finder is on par with the F2, the HP finder is a disappointment.

So is that never to be sufficiently damned LCD display. It absolutely ruins the shooting experience on what are otherwise two of Nikon's best 80's-era designs, the F3 and the FA.

I think that both finders are best for people who wear glasses - or need more eye relief, given the 0.80X magnification provided by the DE2 viewfinder and 0.75X by the DE3. I believe all normal Nikon finders have a sub 0.90X magnification.

Nikon F3 - DE2 & DE3 by Les DMess, on Flickr

As much as I appreciate the 100% coverage I would prefer near to lifesize magnification better.

 

[mawz]

I think that both finders are best for people who wear glasses - or need more eye relief, given the 0.80X magnification provided by the DE2 viewfinder and 0.75X by the DE3. I believe all normal Nikon finders have a sub 0.90X magnification.

Nikon F3 - DE2 & DE3 by Les DMess, on Flickr

As much as I appreciate the 100% coverage I would prefer near to lifesize magnification better.

I generally disagree, I've had a couple of the really high magnification bodies (MX, OM-1n) and found the finders on those grossly inferior to the DP-11 or DE-2 finders in actual use. Magnification is always a tradeoff for brightness and eyepoint. Going 0.8x nets Nikon a superb balance between brightness, enough eyepoint to be usable by most glasses wearers and enough magnification to provide a really usable display.

0.75x is just enough smaller than 0.8x to be noticeable without any performance gains aside from being more glasses-friendly.

 

[Les Sarile]

I generally disagree, I've had a couple of the really high magnification bodies (MX, OM-1n) and found the finders on those grossly inferior to the DP-11 or DE-2 finders in actual use.

Can you clarify how they were inferior? Perhaps you had poor examples of one and good of another?
Maybe you wear glasses?

 

[Huss]

The problem I have with high mag finders in SLRs, like the one in my MX (almost 100%) is while the idea seems good, in use it is not. I cannot see the corners of my MX's viewfinder unless I jam my eye into the vf and peer around.
And if I was wearing glasses - much worse.
There is a reason that Pentax dropped the magnification to .90 on the LX - and the viewfinder is so much nicer to use.

 

[millardmt]

The A & AS are also AI finders, not that it will make much difference as long as the lenses you use with your F3 have the bunny ears as any of the F2's meters will meter OK.

No.

Pre-AI NIkkors (i.e., made before 1977) will NOT meter on AI Nikon bodies like the F2a, F2as, F3 (and many other later cameras) except in "stop-down" mode. Aside from metering, only cameras -- such as the F3 -- that are equipped with a hinged AI-tab -- (which can be flipped-up and out-of-the-way) -- will even physically accept pre-AI glass in the first place. [Nikon could have easily and inexpensively provided for a "flip-up" AI engagement tab on many of its cameras, analogue & digital, but did not because it wants users to forget about the tens of millions of F-mount Nikkor lenses the company made between 1959 and 1976.] A body (or finder) without a flip-up AI tab will -- with few exceptions -- break if a user attempts to mount an unconverted pre-AI lens.

The above is why so many Nikkor Pre-AI lenses have been converted to AI.

(This is also why so many users prefer the older cameras/finders, which depend upon the Nikkor "bunny ears" to allow full-aperture metering. I for one will always choose the Nikon F2sb finder over the later F2as finder, or the Nikkormat FT2 camera over the FT3, for example. The specifications are identical, but the latter models only work fully with 1977 (and later) lenses.)

Marc

 

[Les Sarile]

The problem I have with high mag finders in SLRs, like the one in my MX (almost 100%) is while the idea seems good, in use it is not. I cannot see the corners of my MX's viewfinder unless I jam my eye into the vf and peer around.
And if I was wearing glasses - much worse.
There is a reason that Pentax dropped the magnification to .90 on the LX - and the viewfinder is so much nicer to use.

At least Pentax provided a wide range of magnifications in their interchangeable viewfinder lineup: 0.55X, 0.84X, 0.90X, 1.0X and some with built-in diopter adjustment.

LX Viewfinders by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[SchwinnParamount]

It's not a thing. It's a short throw advance and it's extremely easy to do with very little resistance.

Exactly what Christopher said. I had the very same F2 that he sleeps with (and yes, I am enjoying that thought) for years. I worried about the hand cramping since I have a vascular disease that causes hand cramps and other stuff. The F2 doesn't cause cramps in either hand even when I was shooting a wrestling match and making 36 exposures (no auto-wind) in a single round.

 

[cooltouch]

To me, the bottom line is simple. If you're a Nikon user, you need to have at least one F2 in your collection. Doesn't matter which finder it has, either, cuz you can always use a hand-held meter or just guess if you have to. I've owned all versions of the finder, except the F2SB (DP-3), and if I had to choose a favorite, it would be a toss-up between the meterless DP-1 for its classic lines and the F2A (DP-11) -- the latter because almost all of my Nikkors are either AI or pre-AI modified to AI meter coupling style.

About the F2 motor drive -- dunno about the winder, never owned one. The MB2/MB1 combination is a thing of beauty. A tour-de-force of modern industrial design. It's worth owning one just to, well, to own it. I got used to carrying around heavy gear early on, so when I switched to Nikon and eventually to the F2, the weight of the body and drive was no big thing for me. I actually like the weight. It prevents camera shake caused by jitters.

 

[swchris]

The meters on the F2A was off by several stops - which would effect any film, not just reversal.

Yes, but you'll notice it more readily with reversal film since it's more sensitive to wrong exposure.

 

[swchris]

And the MD 3 motor winder, takes 4 AA batteries, 2 1/2 frames per second, not much weight. The MD 2 takes 10 batteries and has a larger motor, very heavy.

That's not 100% correct.

There are 2 motors, MD-2 and MD-3.
There are 2 battery packs (don't know the names right now).

Both battery packs can be used on both motors.

The bigger battery pack takes 10 batteries, the smaller one takes 8 batteries.

The difference in the motors is that the high end model, MD-2, has a hight top speed, selectable speed, and can rewind the film.

regards,
chris