Seeking Counsel--Nikon FE vs F with Photomic Finder

[Camera-Enthusiast]

Hey Guys,

I just wanted to ask you guys for some advice regarding about a purchase I'm considering. I recently bought a Nikon FE from Adorama for 60 USD, it's completely functional and all imperfections are purely cosmetic, none affect picture quality. Now a day later I walk into another camera store to find a Nikon F, with a Photomic (presumably dead, all Photomics are Selenium meters, right?) and a 50mm 1.4. One of the early ones presumably with what's considered an inferior coating to other Nikkor alternatives for 150USD. Now I'm considering getting a refund for the FE and purchasing this Body and Lens, but what do you guys think, could I get a 50mm 1.4 for 90USD or less or should I settle for a later 50mm 1.8, which will be easier to find with a 90 dollar budget? In addition to this what should I look for in a Nikon F that might be of significance?
Thank you all for your time and thoughts on the matter,

Merle

 

[Two23]

I would want to be sure that the Photomic meter is working. Remember that these can't be repaired when they quit working.


Kent in SD

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would worry about the Photomic meter working and continue working in the future.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

 

[Camera-Enthusiast]

Sorry I should've specified, I'm not particularly interested in the prism's metering ability. I naturally assumed it was no longer functional. Seeing as plain prisms are rather pricey I'm willing to put with the bulky useless chunk mounted on there. I was just wondering if you'd buy the 50mm 1.4 separately and keep the FE even though this would be more expensive or whether you would go for the cheaper alternative, save the effort of looking for a 1.4 in good condition and put up with the added mass.

And if you have experience with Nikon's first F series SLR, could you point out some of the most common malfunctions?

 

[bdial]

Why do you want an F instead of a more modern camera?
The FE gives you faster flash sync, aperture priority automation if you want, it will be easier to load, a bit lighter, and it uses modern batteries. Changing lenses is also a bit faster if you're going to be using the meter.

If the finder is original to the F, then it is quite old, and will likely need service sooner.
BTW, according to Mir, the Photomic finder is CdS, and uses the dreaded mercury battery. So you'll need to cobble up some sort of conversion unless it's been modified. Given that it's not TTL, there isn't much to recommend it.

Not that I have anything against F's, I am rather fond of them and have owned 3 in my time. But if I were looking for a user F, I would be looking at cameras with either the plain finder, or an FTn and build dates from around 1969 and newer, and preferably newer than '72 or '73.

The 1.8 may be easier to find cheaper, I've never had a reason to look though. There are a ton of 1.4's around though.

Don't know about common malfunctions, have never had one malfunction

 

[MattKing]

Good luck with your quest.

A bit of pedantry though.

Don't you mean "counsel" rather than "council"?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Ask yourself what kind of photography you're going to be doing and what you may need out of a camera and lens. The Nikon FE and a common, optically excellent, 1.8 Nikkor lens might probably give you 90%-95% of what you need.

My thought: unless you really, really want an F, don't get an F. It's an outstanding, excellent camera - but may not be for everyone. You have to really want one - and that time for you may come later or never. It took me from 1988 (my first Nikon camera) until last year before I could no longer resist the F.

Non-AI 50/1.4 lenses are common as rocks - as are newer 1.8's. Between those two lenses you might never see a real difference in sharpness in your negatives or prints; you might never see a disadvantage or advantage in the speed difference of those lenses. Therefore, I'd choose the one that seems to have no optical or mechanical problems.

 

[Camera-Enthusiast]

To:bdial
Thank you so much for you input! I'm not looking for any priority mode or any sort of automation, for me the ideal camera is one that doesn't rely on batteries. Thanks for telling me that they're CdS meters, They're a nuisance and drain rapidly. As you pointed out the FE is more convenient in a variety of ways but I've been using a Mamiya 645 and an RB67 so anything will be light and quick in comparison to those two.

 

[Camera-Enthusiast]

To:Mattking
Oh, yes I did mean ''counsel''! My bad, English is not my first language. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Camera-Enthusiast]

Theo, thank you so much for your time and thought put into my question, I wasn't quite so sure as to how common said lenses, so thank you for your reassurance.

 

[Kirks518]

Why not buy the F, swap lenses, then sell the F for what you paid for it on the bay? F's go for anywhere from $75-$200, so in the end, the 1.4 will cost you less or nothing. Just a thought.

 

[trythis]

I'd suggest getting an FM or FM2, the FM will be cheap enough if its working well. The FE being battery dependent doesn't sound like what you want.
Shoot lots of film with whatever lens you have.
Just saw this quote:

"Making a picture that's technically what you want is where photography begins, not where it ends."
​

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Oh -- if the manual operation of the RB67 appeals to you (as it does to me as well), then you may indeed like the F.

There's really not a lot that goes wrong with them; they're rugged, basic, professional-grade cameras designed to last a long time. Just keep in mind that even the newest F is over 40 years old and may need to be inspected, cleaned, lubricated, and adjusted (CLA).

Even though it's not in your requirements, I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there repairs the metering heads. Or, you could wait until a nice one with a standard prism shows up. I had to wait a few years for that.

 

[chip j]

The 1.8 is a much better lens than the 1.4. (see Ken Rockwell)

 

[Xmas]

To:Mattking
Oh, yes I did mean ''counsel''! My bad, English is not my first language. Thanks for pointing that out.

Don't worry the meaning was perfectly clear, and your English is really good. English relies heavily on context, and is different dependent on which side of Pacific or Atlantic you are on.

Nikon Fs are all really old and some will have spent their life

On a motor drive others
In a knicker drawer

There only real problem as a camera is mirror damping. And this is not significant unless you don't hold the camera firmly.

The early lenses were only single coated later ones are multi coated.

If you want period photo signatures you need an early lens. I use a pre-AI lens on my more modern cameras.

The selenium meters may still be working all my Weston II and IIIs all are within 1/3 of a stop. The other parts in the meters may be more difficult to replace.

The shutter curtains can fail from damage or fatigue.

Good luck.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I agree the 1.8 is "better", but will you see that difference at f/2.8 and above - especially if you're not looking at the extreme edges? Depends on how you're using the lens as to whether you'll see a difference without getting a loupe out.

Anyway, check out his tests, with caveats, at:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/index.htm#index

But, yes, Ken's lens tests comparisons are well worth reading.

 

[blockend]

I had a plain prism F, and sold it twelve years later. Regretting the sale I bought a Nikon F2AS. None of the handling qualities of the meterless prism is present in the Photomic head Nikons. They're top heavy and the meter workings are out of date. They look cool if you can remember the era they operated in and have a sentimental attachment to it, but the later, smaller cameras are more useful as photographic tools.

My favourite Nikon 50mm is the f2, with the 1.8 close behind. If you like the build quality of the F but find the plain prisms too pricey and the heads to heavy, Nikkormats provide all the bomb-proof build of an F at a fraction of the price. One bounces around in the foot well of my car, a life I wouldn't subject any other camera to (including the FM and FE). It just keeps working.

 

[250swb]

Keep the FE and buy an extra lens to go with it (maybe a tele, perhaps a wide), then you'll have two lenses to use while you decide over the course of time which type of camera you really want.

Steve

 

[Nodda Duma]

Seeking Council

I have both setups that you are considering, and far and away I prefer my FE with the f/1.8 (early E type) lens.

Wide open the f/1.8 is a better lens optically than the f/1.4. Stopped down there is no difference.

The FE body is more capable and more robust than the F. It is one of the best bodies Nikon ever designed IMO.

(I also use an F3HP / Zeiss Planar T f/1.4 combo which I like. I load the FE with B&W and the F3HP with color.)

 

[Lamar]

If the F is calling you and you feel confident it is in good working order, then get it. You will eventually anyway. I love my F's. I have an FM and an FE2. Both are very nice bodies but for me the solid feel of the F in the hands beats them...... and the F2 for that matter. As far as reliability goes all 3 of my F bodies are working fine. Of course your mileage may vary but I've never had an issue with any of mine. I only had to send one of the FTn meters off to Sover for a CLA. I think Sover will do some limited work on the F.

Sorry I should've specified, I'm not particularly interested in the prism's metering ability. I naturally assumed it was no longer functional. Seeing as plain prisms are rather pricey I'm willing to put with the bulky useless chunk mounted on there. I was just wondering if you'd buy the 50mm 1.4 separately and keep the FE even though this would be more expensive or whether you would go for the cheaper alternative, save the effort of looking for a 1.4 in good condition and put up with the added mass.

And if you have experience with Nikon's first F series SLR, could you point out some of the most common malfunctions?

 

[Sirius Glass]

The 1.8 is a much better lens than the 1.4. (see Ken Rockwell)

No one believes that hack.

 

[Alan Klein]

I bought a Nikon F Photomic T with 50mm f/1.4 and a 135mm lenses when they came out in 1965 in Japan when I was stationed there in USAF. I was a great camera. A few years later I lost it on a NYC Subway. I wonder if the meter still works?

 

[Alan Klein]

At least I'm still clicking.

 

[John Earley]

My favourite Nikon 50mm is the f2, with the 1.8 close behind. If you like the build quality of the F but find the plain prisms too pricey and the heads to heavy, Nikkormats provide all the bomb-proof build of an F at a fraction of the price. One bounces around in the foot well of my car, a life I wouldn't subject any other camera to (including the FM and FE). It just keeps working.

Good advice in that above.

Also, the Nikkormats are easier to load than the removable back F's. I've owned 4 Nikon F's, 2 plain prism and 2 Photomics, and I usually ended up using the Nikkormats. I still own one F; great camera that's built like a tank but many have been used like one. I do own 3 Nikkormats and all still work fine.