Nikon Film Bodies (Value For Money Details)

[mdarnton]

There is really no reason to think that you have calculated the good value cameras here. What is more likely is that you have calculated the *bad* value cameras--the objects that have lost the most relative value would normally do so because no one wants to buy them; things that are desirable maintain their value. My Leica M4s cost around $400 new, and now they sell for c$1000 and more. That makes all of your Nikon examples look like serious losers, some much more than others.

 

[Glen Diamond]

There is really no reason to think that you have calculated the good value cameras here. What is more likely is that you have calculated the *bad* value cameras--the objects that have lost the most relative value would normally do so because no one wants to buy them; things that are desirable maintain their value. My Leica M4s cost around $400 new, and now they sell for c$1000 and more. That makes all of your Nikon examples look like serious losers, some much more than others.

It's true that most SLR's (Nikon or other) pale into insignificance to the majesty of top of the range Leica Rangefinders... Leica is the ultimate 35mm film camera, especially for Street Photography. This spreadsheet merely expressed my opinion that some of the higher end Nikon film bodies are good value for money.

 

[carylee2002]

I continue to use my Nikon F2A for everyday and have my F4s when i need to use for macro work using my Nikkor 60mm f2.8 lens. I even use an old FG-20 for lightweight use with Nikkor 50mm f1.8 E lens and get fantastic pictures. I truly believe that cameras made before 1980 is the best and the more mechanical the better. Even though the F4s is automated..just having matrox metering with old lenses is a plus.

 

[mdarnton]

My favorite Nikon is the FG. I wonder what the ratio is for that.

 

[markbarendt]

There is really no reason to think that you have calculated the good value cameras here. What is more likely is that you have calculated the *bad* value cameras--the objects that have lost the most relative value would normally do so because no one wants to buy them; things that are desirable maintain their value. My Leica M4s cost around $400 new, and now they sell for c$1000 and more. That makes all of your Nikon examples look like serious losers, some much more than others.

Giggle. Both comparisons are flawed. It is as if you are each asking which is better, salt or sugar?

Leicas are fine cameras, even fun to play with but, for example, my Nikon F5 system is a much better production tool set for my current work than any Leica ever made.

 

[Chan Tran]

Giggle. Both comparisons are flawed. It is as if you are each asking which is better, salt or sugar?

Leicas are fine cameras, even fun to play with but, for example, my Nikon F5 system is a much better production tool set for my current work than any Leica ever made.

Back in 77 when I was shopping for my first camera. I did considered the Leica M4 and I don't remember exactly but I think the M4 plus the 50mm f/2 lens cost more but not double the price of the Nikon F2AS and a 50mm lens. It was expensive but I could afford it. Today even with the F6 at $2300 new compared to M7 or MP plus the 1 lens the Leica is more than twice the price.
I went for the Nikon back then because I loved the SLR and didn't like the rangefinder.

 

[Chan Tran]

That's not a bad concept Chan, the lighter cameras are the cheaper they get.

That's why I felt cheated when I bought my Nikon Df. It's bigger than my F3 and yet it doesn't weight more.

 

[markbarendt]

Back in 77 when I was shopping for my first camera. I did considered the Leica M4 and I don't remember exactly but I think the M4 plus the 50mm f/2 lens cost more but not double the price of the Nikon F2AS and a 50mm lens. It was expensive but I could afford it. Today even with the F6 at $2300 new compared to M7 or MP plus the 1 lens the Leica is more than twice the price.
I went for the Nikon back then because I loved the SLR and didn't like the rangefinder.

For me it's the flexibility the F-mount, the focusing options, the metering, the flash options, the film loading, ...

 

[mdarnton]

Giggle. Both comparisons are flawed. It is as if you are each asking which is better, salt or sugar?

Of course it's silly. That's why I have parallel Leica and Nikon systems. One for some things, the other for the other, both for some.

 

[narsuitus]

Of course it's silly. That's why I have parallel Leica and Nikon systems. One for some things, the other for the other, both for some.

I agree!

I think my Nikon F2 and my Leica M6 are excellent cameras. I would not part with either.

My Leica can easily handle assignments that require lenses from 21mm to 90mm. My Nikon can easily handle assignments that require lenses from 14mm to 2000mm. When I need to shoot quietly, my Leica does a better job. When I need to use special lenses (such as perspective control, telescopes, or macro), my Nikon does a better job.



Leica M6 & Nikon F2 by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[fstop]

Seems many of you forget Leica made SLRs. An R-5 body lens combo that sold for $5000 new can be had KEH EX+ for $600

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I am not a Nikon guy, but for my money the cameras to get would be the F4, or the FE/FE2. The great thing about the F4 is the controls are all right there to see. Nothing hidden in a menu. The FE/FE3 (can't remember which of the two) has one of the best, most natural meter displays in a camera IIRC. I remember one was better than the other in some other ways as well, but I don't remember why.

 

[locutus]

Seems many of you forget Leica made SLRs. An R-5 body lens combo that sold for $5000 new can be had KEH EX+ for $600

Several things to keep in mind with Leica R is that most of the bodies (R3/4/5/7) are nothing to write home about (Leicaflex SL and R8/R9 being the exception) and the really desirable glass is still expensive compared to Nikon.

A combo you would really want to shoot R8 + 35/2 still sets you back ~1200$ that said, its one of my favorite combinations in 35mm ever.

 

[blockend]

That's not a bad concept Chan, the lighter cameras are the cheaper they get.

I think the opposite is true. Look at the current value of fixed lens Japanese rangefinders from Olympus and others. The price of such cameras new was generally lower than the cheapest SLRs from the same company, now they're up there with used professional SLRs. A friend sold his Nikon FM3 a while back, and a dealer offered him just short of £300! Light, well made bodies attract a premium. From the OPs list I'd opt for an original FM, which takes Nikon's lenses back to pre-AI days, or a Nikkormat if weight doesn't count.

The F4 is an excellent camera, but it's huge (especially with the common battery pack) and the autofocus technology was a work in progress. An F3 fits contemporary ideas of what a 35mm camera should be, and the price reflects that notion.

 

[cooltouch]

I'm surprised the F5 is not listed. It's been out of production for, what, over a decade now? And given the relatively cheap prices that F5s can be bought for now, it surely also shows many multiples of a price decrease.

I own an F, two F2s, an F3HP, an F4s, an FE and an FE2 (in addition to a few other Nikons) and I don't place much value in charts like this, other than a general curiosity only. Except for one F2 I've owned for over 25 years, all the other cameras are more recent purchases and I can honestly state that this relative discount over new rarely went into any buying decision. The only possible exception being the F4s, and then it was more a matter of amazement at how far the price had tumbled. But it's certainly not why I bought the camera. No, I bought the F4s because it is and always will be an excellent photographic tool.

 

[Mastrianni]

After years of working with both the F5, bought new for $2000+ and my F4s, I now just have the F4s. I also have an MB-20 grip, making it a plain F4. The weight differential between an F4 and F4s is not that much. My F4s still looks new after extensive use. The F5 was finally sold after the covering started to peel and getting some LCD bleed. In use, they are equally good cameras. But the F4s has held up better. I still think it's Nikon's best and most forward/backward compatible camera ever. Even my SB-26 works equal to my SB-800, and my AI-s 50mm f/1.4 works as well as my 50mm f/1.4D AF. I've sold all my other cameras and now just use my Contax G1 and Nikon F4s. The 2 that have held up the best over the years. (I also have Polaroid and Instax cameras) Sold the Rollei and G2, which were getting almost no use now. Both cameras below are over 20 years old.
Although I do have my eye on a Nikon FM3A. Thanks for the chart. I may have to pick up another F4s spare.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Most interesting, could I ask please on your comparison costs "when new" ? The F4s sold from 1980 to 1996, there was a more than moderate amount of inflation over that time, what year did you choose as the base cost? Similarly, if it was the year of introduction, the F3 looses out, or gains depending on where you are coming from, perhaps in comparison as it was made until 2001 and sold well past that year from new old stock, it was sold new parallel to the F4.

 

[cooltouch]

Most interesting, could I ask please on your comparison costs "when new" ? The F4s sold from 1980 to 1996,

You might want to double check your sources. The Nikon F4 was first available in 1988, not 1980. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F4

 

[Chris Livsey]

You might want to double check your sources. The Nikon F4 was first available in 1988, not 1980. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F4

Thank you for the correction, my source was the OP spreadsheet, but I made a transposition error, that does not I think make a material difference to my question?

If based on the price at introduction against the cost at discontinuation inflation would have been 4.6% /year on average. £10 becoming £14.29.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/resources/inflationtools/calculator/default.aspx

 

[cooltouch]

Ignoring inflation for the moment, the F4 can be bought now for about 10% of what it sold for new. Add in the 4.6% per year and it is selling for even less now than this 10% figure.

About the same as buying a 30 year old used luxury car. It may have been expensive when new, but the rigors of time have a way of being a great equalizer.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Ignoring inflation for the moment, the F4 can be bought now for about 10% of what it sold for new. Add in the 4.6% per year and it is selling for even less now than this 10% figure.

About the same as buying a 30 year old used luxury car. It may have been expensive when new, but the rigors of time have a way of being a great equalizer.

Never mind 30years in dig***l you payed £26,000 (inflation adjusted ) for a Hasselblad H3DII39 with lens in 2008, today £2,500, 10% again but in 9 short years.

 

[cooltouch]

Yes, and there is no analogy for that outside of the digital realm. By that, I mean it is true in general with digital/computational devices.

 

[fstop]

Several things to keep in mind with Leica R is that most of the bodies (R3/4/5/7) are nothing to write home about (Leicaflex SL and R8/R9 being the exception) and the really desirable glass is still expensive compared to Nikon.

A combo you would really want to shoot R8 + 35/2 still sets you back ~1200$ that said, its one of my favorite combinations in 35mm ever.

No that is what you want to shoot.The R-8 is the fugliest camera Leica ever made.

 

[fstop]

Ignoring inflation for the moment, the F4 can be bought now for about 10% of what it sold for new. Add in the 4.6% per year and it is selling for even less now than this 10% figure.

About the same as buying a 30 year old used luxury car. It may have been expensive when new, but the rigors of time have a way of being a great equalizer.

"You know you're not the first, but do you really care?"

 

[kivis]

After all these years, I still use my Nikon F since 1974 (bought used). Then later I bought a Nikon FE in , I think, 1980. They are my main go to's.