Show me some meterless Nikon F Love

[Huss]

One of my Fs with a newly acquired 45 GN

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Nikon F is 57 years old. Still works. Will probably be working in 2073. Which other cameras will be?

 

[summicron1]

Nikon F is 57 years old. Still works. Will probably be working in 2073. Which other cameras will be?

Leica m3 or m4, Canon f1, other nikons.

Little else. Those are what Marty Forsher called the hockey puck cameras, and for good reason.

 

[Huss]

Nikon F is 57 years old. Still works. Will probably be working in 2073. Which other cameras will be?

Most of the other decent cameras from that era and before, through to the early 1980s...
Actually, the currently produced Leica M-A would be on that list too. Maybe even the M-P and M-7.

 

[ColColt]

I'll have to add the Leica M2 to that list.

 

[cooltouch]

I've owned a few Fs over the years. Currently I own one. It's an early one, came with the original Photomic non-TTL metered finder (the one with the round window), the first version of this finder too -- with the semaphore to turn the meter on and off. Somewhere along the way, I picked up an eye-level finder for it, which is what I currently have installed on the camera.

I appreciate the F for its ruggedness and durability, but to me it is awkward to use, from an ergonomics standpoint. And I don't like having to remove the back to change film. In this respect, I think the F2 is miles better. I have a couple of F2s, one with the eye-level finder. I too like the simplicity of the non-metered, eye-level finder. No distractions in the viewfinder. I have a Luna Pro F and SBC and a Pentax Spotmeter V, as well as a reasonably accurate light meter app on my smartphone to handle metering chores. When I need a meter.

 

[narsuitus]

I appreciate the F for its ruggedness and durability, but to me it is awkward to use, from an ergonomics standpoint. And I don't like having to remove the back to change film. In this respect, I think the F2 is miles better.

I agree!

The ergonomic reasons you gave plus the interchangeability of motor drives convinced me to make the switch from the F to the F2 back in 1972.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
I appreciate the F for its ruggedness and durability, but to me it is awkward to use, from an ergonomics standpoint. And I don't like having to remove the back to change film. In this respect, I think the F2 is miles better.
...

That was my thinking as well, but perhaps there's something beyond logic in appreciating the plain-prism F.

[skip to last paragraph to avoid nostalgic reminiscing]

Until 1988, I'd never owned a Nikon. Jason Schneider's vol. 3 book on camera collecting proclaimed the F3/T as a modern camera destined to be a future classic, so I decided to get one. That weekend I went to Camera World on 5th Ave. in Portland and got a beautiful black F3/T. That started my interest in Nikons and I went to the local library (remember those?) to learn more. Initially I wanted the Nikon FTN because so many photographs would show crowds of press photographers with their easily identifiable chrome FTN heads.
Yet, reading about the F2 and how many improvements it had over the F, I convinced myself the F2 was the camera to get. Over the next ten years, I bought five F2's. I couldn't pass them by. Even so, I still found something attractive about the F.

Now that I have one, I think there's something about the simplicity, the ruggedness, the honesty (if that makes sense), of the camera.

Yes, the shutter release is in the wrong place, the wind lever isn't smooth like the F2, the back has to be removed for film, the self-timer and timing functions aren't as sophisticated as on the F2, the mirror lock-up isn't intuitive and wastes a frame, yet the camera is wonderful.

I'm not interested in buying F2's anymore, though I wonder how I'd feel about a plain-prism F2. My F2's with metered heads just feel clunky and a bit awkward.

 

[Les Sarile]

I appreciate the F for its ruggedness and durability, but to me it is awkward to use, from an ergonomics standpoint. And I don't like having to remove the back to change film. In this respect, I think the F2 is miles better.

I don't know about miles better but I seem to remember that Nikon listed about 10 "improvements" when it released the F2.

 

[Huss]

I don't know about miles better but I seem to remember that Nikon listed about 10 "improvements" when it released the F2.

10?

Hmm, looking at my F and F2 I'll see how many I can spot:

1/ Shutter goes to 1/2000
2/ Shutter position improved
3/ Hinged back
4/ Improved film wind lever
5/ Film rewind button on base of camera
6/ Better focussing screens (brighter?)
7/ Battery in body for metered heads
8/...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

8. Self timer has selectable delay times up to 10 seconds.

9. Long exposure times from 2 to 10 seconds on T setting.

10. Improved mirror lock-up.

 

[blockend]

I don't know about miles better but I seem to remember that Nikon listed about 10 "improvements" when it released the F2.

Improvements are in the eye of the beholder. Each successive F gave some photographers what they wanted, while taking away something else. They were unapologetically aimed at professionals for whom speed of use was everything. The F2 was an ergonomic evolution of the F but only added new metering options. The F3 provided automatic exposure and electronics. The F4 was a bridge camera between the manual and autofocus eras, but is technologically antique by modern standards, the F5 did everything the F4 did better, but lost the analogue dials. The F6 was an acknowledgement that the body-system professional 35mm camera was dead, and a last technological hurrah before the digital tsunami.

Depending on ones methods and equipment, any one of those Nikons could be the best, but to my eyes the plain prism F offered an unassailable visual archetype of what a professional SLR camera was, and each subsequent model diminished that aesthetic slightly for speed.

 

[narsuitus]

8. Self timer has selectable delay times up to 10 seconds.

9. Long exposure times from 2 to 10 seconds on T setting.

10. Improved mirror lock-up.

11. Improved motor drives (interchangeable vs. custom fit)

 

[Les Sarile]

Improvements are in the eye of the beholder.
. . ., but to my eyes the plain prism F offered an unassailable visual archetype of what a professional SLR camera was, and each subsequent model diminished that aesthetic slightly for speed.

No doubt individuals are affected but ultimately the company business has to "grow".

 

[blockend]

No doubt individuals are affected but ultimately the company business has to "grow".

That's true, but in a post-film manufacturing world we have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. From that perspective we can see what were innovations, and what was a passing fad.

 

[Les Sarile]

That's true, but in a post-film manufacturing world we have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. From that perspective we can see what were innovations, and what was a passing fad.

That the product is successful or not we can look in hindsight. But this is with no regard to hindsight as all manufacturing companies have to do this. Developers have to develop, engineers have to design, etc. so that new customers can be brought in as part of new releases. It is just the nature of the business.

 

[blockend]

That the product is successful or not we can look in hindsight. But this is with no regard to hindsight as all manufacturing companies have to do this. Developers have to develop, engineers have to design, etc. so that new customers can be brought in as part of new releases. It is just the nature of the business.

That's true, but isn't the point I was making. Professional SLRs were all about speed of use. To provide that speed required capabilities non-professionals did not always need, like auto advance, zone metering, auto focus and a heavy chassis. For non-pros these meant weight and complexity, and rapidly changing technology, which were the opposite of what some photographers required. That's why cameras like the F have currency and desirability beyond, for example, the F4 which was three iterations and almost thirty years on. Progress wasn't a straight line, it was full of dead ends, fads and infant technologies which only showed themselves in hindsight, a perspective that wasn't available at the time.

From a 2016 standpoint there is no objectively better, only different.

 

[Les Sarile]

From a 2016 standpoint there is no objectively better, only different.

Or so you say at least . . .

 

[cooltouch]

And the Minolta SR1s is prettier still..

(I also have the Nikon F and F2 with plain prisms. The Minolta looks like some kind of Art Deco masterpiece)

I like the XD-11 better. Your photo's a lot better than mine, though.

As for the Original Canon F-1 vs. the Nikon F2 -- I suspect this is a comparison that will continue as long as 35mm SLRs exist. They both represent the epitome in Japanese mechanical SLR technology, which occurred during the early 1970s. My first "Pro" camera was a thoroughly beat-up Canon F-1 (the 1st version of the Original F-1). I picked it up for the relatively cheap price of $140 as I recall in 1984 because of how poorly it looked. But it never missed a lick in all the years I owned it and all the hundreds of rolls of film I put through it, and its meter was always spot on. In 1990 or so, I acquired my first Nikon F2 and I was deeply impressed. At last, I'd found a camera that I felt was equal to my beloved F-1s. To this day, I can't really think of one without thinking of the other. I've owned F2s ever since. Currently I own two Canon F-1n's and two Nikon F2's. And that's the way things are likely to stay. I also own a New F-1 and an F3HP, another paired relationship that is just as enduring.

I do own a Nikon F and I do have a meterless prism for it, which is the prism currently installed. I don't have any photos handy of it at the moment. I think the F looks best with the meterless prism because, lets face it, even the smallest of the F's metered prisms is a huge lump that sits atop the camera.

 

[cooltouch]

[QUOTE="blockend, post: 1786005, member: 43186" ]
From a 2016 standpoint there is no objectively better, only different.[/QUOTE]

I understand where you're coming from, but I just can't buy into this. Many of the points you mention are confined to relatively recent camera technology -- say the Nikon F4 or EOS 1 and beyond for pro use. But the earlier pro-level cameras did not have all this complexity. They had durability and ruggedness, very accurate meters, and the flexibility you get with system cameras. And in this respect, when you compare earlier models with each other there are real differences that matter. For example, to me, the Nikon F2 is objectively better than the Nikon F in a number of important ways. Ways that matter to me, at least. Does that make it a subjective difference? Well, perhaps, but I don't think so. To me, the F2 is more ergonomic than the F. It just feels better in my hands. Some of the improvements that were mentioned above: It has a higher top shutter speed. Three of the F2's metered finders will meter down to 10 seconds. The F2 has the capability of shooting at shutter speeds in between those that are engraved on the dial. Film loading was much improved. It's motor drives are vastly superior to the F's. I could go on . . .

 

[Huss]

I like the XD-11 better. View attachment 155286

The SR1s is so svelte, sculptured and minimalist in comparison. The smoothly sloped prism, peaking in a natural elegance unspoiled with the jarring addition of a hot shoe. The rewind crank, simple and proud. Uncluttered by a dial around it.
The shutter speed dial. Lone, sleek and proud.

 

[flavio81]

The old F-1 is a good camera, but it's a beast and even makes Nikon's pro cameras look cute.

In which sense "it is a beast"? Mine looks prettier and slender than the F and F2. For starters it has a smaller prism (if you compare with the metered Nikons).

For me the Canon is the prettiest by a mile...

 

[flavio81]

Yes, the shutter release is in the wrong place, the wind lever isn't smooth like the F2, the back has to be removed for film, the self-timer and timing functions aren't as sophisticated as on the F2, the mirror lock-up isn't intuitive and wastes a frame, yet the camera is wonderful.

Yet i never found a problem with the shutter release position, the wind lever of the Nikon F is smooth enough, plus it feels reassuring to use. The removable back in fact is something I like - it lets me load film without having to be careful not to let the film back door get hit by something. The self-timer just works fine, i don't need the ultra long shutter speeds.

The only problem is the Mirror lock up, but then it's not something that I use frequently.

 

[flavio81]

I don't know about miles better but I seem to remember that Nikon listed about 10 "improvements" when it released the F2.

From the top of my head i can remember some of them:

- brighter viewfinder image
- "better" shutter release position
- quicker film wind action
* - easy fit/removal of motor drive
- intermediate shutter speeds
- ultra long shutter speeds
* - totally redesigned mechanism
* - battery inside camera body (i'd say this is the main improvement)
* - faster top speed
- faster sync speed
- easier metered prism removal
- ability to use the cumbersome, rube-goldberg-like shutter-priority EE accesory
- contoured body
- lighter weight
- hinged back.

I'd say the items with "*" are the real, significant improvements.

 

[flavio81]

I like the XD-11 better. Your photo's a lot better than mine, though. View attachment 155286

As for the Original Canon F-1 vs. the Nikon F2 -- I suspect this is a comparison that will continue as long as 35mm SLRs exist. They both represent the epitome in Japanese mechanical SLR technology, which occurred during the early 1970s. (...) I also own a New F-1 and an F3HP, another paired relationship that is just as enduring.

I own a mint Canon F-1 and a Nikon F2A and after pondering this question for almost a year, i must say the Nikon F2A is the better camera. But only because i find the Nikon viewfinder brighter and better, and the fact that i can see the aperture and the shutter speed. And the ergonomics are a bit better.

But on the other hand if comparing the Canon New F-1 versus the Nikon F3, i prefer the Canon by a mile. I sold my F3 without regrets. The Canon "New F-1" (or F-1N) is the best 35mm SLR i've used, it comes close to perfection. I own two of them.