Nikon F2 hankering

[Chan Tran]

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.

Don't worry I think the F4 is ugly too. Miami Vice didn't have a red Ferrari.

 

[mawz]

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

I don't wear glasses.

The OM-1n finder is noticeably dimmer than the F2/F3 finders (this is pure physics, the lower magnification makes the projected view brighter, although focus screen design has a big impact as well on perceived brightness) as is the MX, although the MX is definitely the better of the two as it lacks the relatively dark and low-tooth focusing screens the OM's also suffered from (Pentax screens tend to be pretty good, Minolta had the best screens though). I also found the lack of eyepoint on both caused some eyestrain (same issue glasses wearers have with the F2/non-HP F3)

I've tried multiple examples of all 4 bodies here, although I've only owned multiple F2's (2) and F3's (3-4). I've owned a couple OM bodies (OM-4Ti, OM-1n) and many Pentax bodies including the MX. I could live with the MX, but it definitely wasn't as good an experience as the F2, non-HP F3 or LX.

 

[mawz]

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

That's not quite correct, there's 3 levels of non-AI compatibility with AI bodies

1. Flip up tab and locking MLU. This can mount almost every non-AI lens safely. It is necessary for safe use of certain old non-AI lenses which are not mirror compatible, like the 21/4, as well as the Voigtlander 12mm and 15mm, all of which project well into the mirror box. Basically only the F2 is really safe here, but the F3 and F4 can be made to work with a little care and some well-located foam (to protect against accidental mirror release smacking the lens barrel and damaging the mirror). No metering for this of course, the meter is blocked and only the 2 relatively modern CV lenses are really findable today.

2. Flip-up/retracting tab. This can mount any non-AI lens which clears the mirror.

3. Push-in type minimum aperture indexing sensor. This is only on certain lower-end cameras without an AI tab, as well as the FTZ adapter for digital Z mount. It allows safe mounting of non-AI lenses on these bodies, although without any metering capability for the F mount bodies. Mostly a digital thing as far as I'm aware, it's the cheap DX cameras that are most common for this type of setup (the sliding tab style of minimum aperture indexing sensor will be damaged by non-AI lenses). This sensor detects that AI-P and AF lenses are set to minimum aperture for body-based aperture control on bodies which do not have an AI tab to give that information.

 

[Les Sarile]

I don't wear glasses.

The OM-1n finder is noticeably dimmer than the F2/F3 finders (this is pure physics, the lower magnification makes the projected view brighter, although focus screen design has a big impact as well on perceived brightness) as is the MX, although the MX is definitely the better of the two as it lacks the relatively dark and low-tooth focusing screens the OM's also suffered from (Pentax screens tend to be pretty good, Minolta had the best screens though). I also found the lack of eyepoint on both caused some eyestrain (same issue glasses wearers have with the F2/non-HP F3)

I've tried multiple examples of all 4 bodies here, although I've only owned multiple F2's (2) and F3's (3-4). I've owned a couple OM bodies (OM-4Ti, OM-1n) and many Pentax bodies including the MX. I could live with the MX, but it definitely wasn't as good an experience as the F2, non-HP F3 or LX.

It's physics but the eye also adapts (pupil dilates) making an otherwise very dark scene seem relatively brighter.

Also, brighter screens unfortunately doesn't always mean better either. The Nikon FM3A has a very bright screen with a split image that won't blackout regardles of slow lens or combinations. Seems ideal but with a relatively wide angle lens in a relatively dark scene everything looks bright and in focus making it near impossible to attain critical focus.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, what were we talking about?

Oh yeah, the F2.

 

[mawz]

It's physics but the eye also adapts (pupil dilates) making an otherwise very dark scene seem relatively brighter.

Also, brighter screens unfortunately doesn't always mean better either. The Nikon FM3A has a very bright screen with a split image that won't blackout regardles of slow lens or combinations. Seems ideal but with a relatively wide angle lens in a relatively dark scene everything looks bright and in focus making it near impossible to attain critical focus.

That's true.

One of the challenges with screen design is balancing brightness with the tooth of the screen. More tooth is dimmer, but easier to discern critical focus. A smoother screen is brighter but harder to see focus. This is the root of many of the issues with AF bodies and manual focus, as those bodies are already losing light to feed the AF system they have screens that are very bright, but hard to judge critical focus on.

The biggest issue with the OM focusing screens, especially the early ones in the OM-1(n) are that they are neither bright nor particularly easy to discern critical focus with.

 

[Steve Roberts]

I bought my lightly-used F2 about four years ago. When I bought it the film advance lever stand-off spring plate was broken, apparently a common problem. Worst case scenario is that the broken off piece falls into the innards and considerable dismantling is required. Second issue was that the battery compartment plastic tab that holds the metal electrical contact broke. Nikon must have started with the battery compartment and built the rest of the camera around it. It's a long-ish job if you do it yourself or (I suppose) an expensive one if you have to pay to have it done. Another common fault. Battery comps are available but I could only find them offered in bulk quantities so made my own (details posted on another thread somewhere). As has been said, the ring resistor in the metering head does wear but despite what someone else said, I had no trouble buying a modified replacement from the US. It wasn't expensive and was easy to fit.
A nice camera when everything is working and especially good for copying work (which was the last thing I used mine for a couple of weeks ago). The accuracy of the WYSIWYG viewfinder is excellent. IMHO though not a camera to take hiking (unless someone else offers to carry it for you!).
Steve

 

[millardmt]

That's not quite correct, there's 3 levels of non-AI compatibility with AI bodies

1. Flip up tab and locking MLU. This can mount almost every non-AI lens safely. It is necessary for safe use of certain old non-AI lenses which are not mirror compatible, like the 21/4, as well as the Voigtlander 12mm and 15mm, all of which project well into the mirror box. Basically only the F2 is really safe here, but the F3 and F4 can be made to work with a little care and some well-located foam (to protect against accidental mirror release smacking the lens barrel and damaging the mirror). No metering for this of course, the meter is blocked and only the 2 relatively modern CV lenses are really findable today.

2. Flip-up/retracting tab. This can mount any non-AI lens which clears the mirror.

3. Push-in type minimum aperture indexing sensor. This is only on certain lower-end cameras without an AI tab, as well as the FTZ adapter for digital Z mount. It allows safe mounting of non-AI lenses on these bodies, although without any metering capability for the F mount bodies. Mostly a digital thing as far as I'm aware, it's the cheap DX cameras that are most common for this type of setup (the sliding tab style of minimum aperture indexing sensor will be damaged by non-AI lenses). This sensor detects that AI-P and AF lenses are set to minimum aperture for body-based aperture control on bodies which do not have an AI tab to give that information.

Thank you. This is interesting.

I must admit I didn't know about your point #3 at all. I do own a D700 (& D3s) but I really have only the foggiest notion about Nikon's other digital cameras' capabilities and constraints. Disinterest (and encroaching dementia, no doubt) have finally stilled my curiousity.

I did know about the dangers of non-retrofocal lenses, however; I destroyed an F2 mirror with the Nikkor 21/4 all by myself about 20 years ago!

Thanks again, Marc.

 

[millardmt]

Okay so I've got myself in a pickle. I've been reading up on the F2 and gone and got myself looking for a nice example. I think I need some advice from folks who are more experienced than me.

Which models should I be looking to avoid and what would I miss/expect compared to the F3HP I'm currently using? Obviously no A mode on the F2, but being mechanical it'll be more reliable right?

If you're used to using one does the winder cause hand cramp like a reviewer said? Should I be concerned about meter accuracy? Will I get a bad back regularly carrying round my neck for 6hrs? Thanks!

Dear RokkorZ,

I apologize for having posted some off-topic comments in your thread. Anyway, in my opinion, you can't go wrong with any of the F2/finder combinations. They are the finest cameras ever made -- period! (My several vintage Leica M's (M4, M5) don't come even close, design or build-quality-wise.)

I did have and use a beautiful F3AF for some years, but the damned LCD panel started to 'bleed' -- so that was that as far as I was concerned.

By the way, I used to shoot for money 40 years ago and I never experienced any hand cramp with a pair of new F2a's, with or without MD-2 drives.)

Marc

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

How do you go from manufacturing cameras, to manufacturing golf club shafts? Wouldn't that be a significant change in equipment? Or can a shutter maker machine just roll out a shaft with a different combination of buttons pushed?

I wonder what happened to all their manufacturing files and what it would take for another company to acquire them and start making parts again.

I wonder if Nikon still has their files from things like the F2, and if, theoretically, they could start manufacturing them again to the same standard as the original was.

Mamiya has made golf clubs for decades, its not a new business for them.

 

[Huss]

..you can't go wrong with any of the F2/finder combinations. They are the finest cameras ever made -- period! (My several vintage Leica M's (M4, M5) don't come even close, design or build-quality-wise.)

..

I have all those, and wouldn't agree with that statement. But that shows we have differing opinions! (not saying one is better than the other, they are different rf vs slr etc)

 

[Mamulcahy]

I just bought a nice F2/DP-1 from Japan. I’m in the queue to have Sover Wong do an overhaul so it will live longer than me!