Turns out they got it right in 1959 (Nikon F)

philosomatographer · Dec 6, 2011

2F/2F said:
You were an idiot...and an @$$hole! Welcome to a real camera.

Ouch!! Unfortunately this real camera does not have compact 21mm f/2.0 or 250mm f/2.0 lenses that fit it like Olympus does, and somewhat noisier, but it is nice indeed... And it makes up for it with other very interesting lens choices.

L Gebhardt · Dec 6, 2011

I would be excited about the new camera too if I got that many nice prints off of the first roll. Good job there, for you must take most of the credit. I've had what I think is the same experience with some new hardware, where it all comes together on the first roll and you think wow this camera/lens is great. Then the next ones might be back to your normal percentage of keepers and you realize it was really you, and not the new equipment.

As for your comments about bokeh, I find it to be one of the most important features of fast lenses. Why buy a fast lens if you aren't going to use it wide open, after all they all look about the same at f/8. And if it's used wide open you need to be concerned about how it renders the whole scene, and not just the focal plane. But that doesn't mean I only like the perfectly creamy kind of bokeh. In your first image of the car with the bent antena the jittery bokeh adds a nice energy to the image, almost as if it's a live scene with motion in the background. In a shot of a pretty face or a flower it might not work so well.

Ian Grant · Dec 6, 2011

The Nikon F was a late runner, the grand-dadies of all 35mm SLR's were wmade in Dresden. 3 companies were at the forefront Exacta, followed by Zeiss and then under it's new American owner, Chales Noble, KW with the Praktiflex in 1939.

While Exacta made a system camera before WWII it was KW with the introduction of their Praktina cameras in 1952 who inroduced the first truly modern full prodessional 35mm SLR with accesories like a motor drive, 400ex back etc.This was later due to be upgraded as the flagship Pentacon Super.

If East German build quality had been better then the market today might have been very different. The first SLR available for sale with TTL metering was a Prakticamat beeting the Spotmatic into the shops by a few months.

Nikon however had built their reputation on their lenses and rangefinder cameras and the first adverts for the Nikon F in the UK are alongside the Nikon S3 and SP.

Ian

Les Sarile · Dec 6, 2011

philosomatographer said:
Dude, my daily cameras are an Olympus OM-3Ti, a Leica M3, a Mamiya RB67, and a Linhof Technika. I have quite a broad perspective I believe... They are each a bit better at something than the Nikon F, yet I have never had such a percentage of perfectly focused quickly-made images than with the Nikon F.

Maybe the next acquisition should be an AF body like a Nikon F4/F5/F6 or Canon EOS-1/1N/1V? All have 100% viewfinders, excellent AF and can achieve very high frame's per second. These are the ultimate 35mm film bodies that can surely help you burn through rolls of film and give you a higher percentage of perfectly focused quickly made images . . .

Seriously, the enthusiasm is contagious and I look forward to seeing more from your F.

jp498 · Dec 6, 2011

philosomatographer said:
Why is it that these days, people seem to care more about the out-of-focus ares in an image than the in-focus areas? Strange trend started by internet forums... I wish the word "bokeh" had never been uttered. I used to care about this too, but I have resolved to not obsess about it so much anymore - it really is the subject matter that counts...

Of course, I agree - the 50/2.0 seems to sometimes have incredibly harsh out of focus rendering. But so what! On the other hand, the 105/2.5 seems absolutely delightful in all circumstances in this respect.

I care about the rendering of the out of focus areas because it's part of the image. And someone intentionally making photos should not ignore the rendering of a large part of the image.

If you're an f64 type, bokeh means little. If you're doing portraits or otherwise shooting wide open it's important. I've got 5 different "normal" lenses (Nikon, Nikon, Sigma macro, Nikon macro, and Voigtlander). I'm thinking of selling one to get a cheap soviet lens for yet another bokeh option. Each produces different results. I think of bokeh in nature photos (which typically have complex backgrounds) as the sort of painting brush style or instrument (trowel, big brush, little brush, sponge, airbrush) for painting the background. Each aperture is different, and I shoot a bunch of apertures to get what I'm after, as results vary depending on how much the final image is magnified and with the light's contrast. Sometimes the hard lines are just right, other times I want a mushy airbrushed background.

With a different name, Russ Young attributes discussion of the topic to the 19th century photographer Peter Henry Emerson, then Coburn and George Bernard Shaw in 1911. (p165 of Young's thesis) Part of the goodness of pictorialism is how things slowly go out of focus, rather than the thin defined plane we have in our 50mm's wide open. The downside of a wide band of focus is that it's hard to find focus initially because it's not a crisp in/out of focus. Printing is even harder unless you have a grain focuser.

Ken N · Dec 6, 2011

My Olympus gear was my poor man's Nikon. Never could afford the real thing. But it was funny how I adapted myself so deeply into the OM way that eventually the Nikons started to fade away in my mind. The Nikons were, and remain, the best 35mm SLR system, but for me, not best enough to carry two such systems. Like you, I have the OM-3Ti and a few really awesome lenses.

The Nikon F is a camera unto itself. The Nikon F can never mimic a Leica in usage. But an OM can mimic either the F or a Leica.

My favorite Nikon model is the F3HP. The old F seems primative in comparison.

2F/2F · Dec 6, 2011

philosomatographer said:
Ouch!! Unfortunately this real camera does not have compact 21mm f/2.0 or 250mm f/2.0 lenses that fit it like Olympus does, and somewhat noisier, but it is nice indeed... And it makes up for it with other very interesting lens choices.

I was entirely joking. I was just amused by how you described your shunning of the F system.

philosomatographer · Dec 6, 2011

Ken, don't you see the irony in the situation? A Nikon F can be had for just over $100, and we're both using the OM-3Ti - the most desirable and interesting, not to mention amongst the most valuable - mechanical 35mm SLR ever made.

I have Olympus in my blood - the Nikon F is just an interesting additional choice. Ken, do you agree with my earlier observations - when printing OM negatives, with most lenses, the last couple of millimeters are a bit smeary? It's as if the OM lenses only just have enough image circle to cover the format, to retain their unbeatable compactness and high F numbers. I find it with the 50mm and wider lenses. Event the amazing 21mm f/2.0 has the same behaviour. This is the region that most people crop off, but it's still captured on film. I am sure Olympus had to make some pretty hard decisions to make the OM lenses what they are, and smaller image circle may have been one of them.

It doesn't matter for most images, of course, but I have a habit of composing right out to the edges.

benjiboy · Dec 6, 2011

It makes me wonder how much the Nikon F would cost new today, and how many of todays wonder cameras will still be working the majority of them without being repaired in fifty years time.

ooze · Dec 6, 2011

philosomatographer said:
when printing OM negatives, with most lenses, the last couple of millimeters are a bit smeary? It's as if the OM lenses only just have enough image circle to cover the format, to retain their unbeatable compactness and high F numbers.

I made exactly the opposite observation

My Nikon wide angles tend to get blurry in the corners whereas both my Zuiko 28/2.8 and 50/1.4 look sharp right into the far corners. Nikkors at or above 50mm are fine though.

I know a very skilled camera technician. He once told me that he made a test, comparing the image circles of Nikon and Leica M lenses. He said he was surprised to find out that Leica's cover almost the 6x6 format, whereas Nikkors barely covered 24x36mm.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 6, 2011

philosomatographer said:
Thanks for the replies so far, all. Just to be clear, I know about the pre-F SLR history, but the fact of the matter is, no camera before the F could match it in terms of features, and it really was the first successful SLR. Even the title of first "SLR system camera" has to go to Exakta Varex, who in 1950 already had a removable viewfinder prism, a full range of macro gear, etc. Still, they were slow and complex to operate by comparison, and did not fit the "mould" of modern, quick cameras.

Time will tell if I ultimately prefer the F system to the OM system (as a user, not a gear fondler) but I wanted to share my initial results and impressions with you guys and girls. The F is indeed a special camera - it has that something a little extra.

I've used both OM and F systems, in fact I have some OM stuff still.
The 50/2 Nikkor is comparable to a Summicron; I have two of the Nikkors, and I've had several Summicrons, both M and R flavors.

The first version 105/2.5 is a Sonnar clone, and as sharp as any lens I've had.

Good to see the old Nikon stuff getting the recognition it deserves.

white.elephant · Dec 6, 2011

benjiboy said:
It makes me wonder how much the Nikon F would cost new today, and how many of todays wonder cameras will still be working the majority of them without being repaired in fifty years time.

I'm quite certain none of them will be working as well as my 36-year-old FTb.

Pumalite · Dec 6, 2011

philosomatographer said:
Dear APUG'ers -

For years I smugly looked down upon the grand daddy of modern SLRs - the Nikon F - as a large and noisy beast which could not possibly compare with the finesse that I was used to with my Olympus OM cameras. From a humble beginnings with an OM-1n, I eventually worked my way up to an OM-3Ti, and a vast armada of Zuiko f/2.0 lenses ranging from 21mm to 250mm. Life was good.

Curiosity got the better of me, and a couple of months ago I acquired a late-model, mint Nikon F "Apollo" body with plain prism, and period Nikkor-H.C 50mm f/2.0 and a (very early) Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5. It sat there waiting for months, but this week relieved work pressures finally allowed me to shoot my first roll of film in this beauty. I say "beauty", because it really is. Smooth, solid, confidence-inspiring, and a viewfinder that - though dimmer than an OM - seems much more accurate at selecting the point of focus with critical accuracy. Shooting a roll of Kodak T-MAX 400, using no lightmeter (who needs one with B&W film, really!) I set out, fully expecting to be underwhelmed by 1950s optics. I shot the lenses wide open more than half the time, probably trying to "over-do" what I was expecting to be a softer, low-contrast look. The rangefinder fanboys (I use my Leica M3 frequently, by the way) will have us believe that only Leica could design lenses worth anything in the 1950s. Boy, was I mistaken.

Now, I really know my Zuikos. I know their capabilities and rendering very well, having printed images from them in the darkroom for quite some time. I also know my OM bodies, having used at least three of them. Quite simply put, as a precision photographic instrument, the Nikon F yielded higher-quality output on all accounts. I can't explain it, but there it is. There is a biting acutance, and an absolute level of resolution into the corners, that I have only before seen on a Leica M3 (for 35mm cameras, I also produce a lot of MF and LF work). How can it be that such old optics, and such an old camera, with a replaceable viewfinder prism etc, can be so good?

I'm going to litter this thread with a couple of the images from this first and only roll so far, to share with you what I am seeing. Sorry for the heavy bandwidth, but if our excuse for "broadband" here in South Africa can take it, I am sure yours can too Of course, it's difficult to judge image quality at these small sizes, but the spirit of what I am seeing is surely conveyed...

(F, Nikkor-H.C 50mm at f/2.0)

(F, Nikkor-H.C 50mm at f/4.0)

(F, Nikkor-H.C 50mm at f/2.0)

(F, Nikkor-P 105mm at f/2.5)

(F, Nikkor-H.C 50mm at f/2.0)

(F, Nikkor-H.C 50mm at f/2.0)

And here come the verticals:

(F, Nikkor-H.C 50mm at f/2.0)

(F, Nikkor-P 105mm at f/2.5)

(F, Nikkor-H.C 50mm at f/2.0)

This 50mm lens is extraordinary to my eyes. A larger image below, to give an impression of the resolving power. Yes, most 50mms are good, but somehow, the F lays this detail down right into the corners, whereas my OMs always seem to struggle in the last couple of millimeters (same on OM-1, OM-2 and OM-3). It probably doesn't really matter, but it's there:

Dead Link Removed
(F, Nikkor-H.C 50mm at f/5.6)

I also find the ancient, single-coated 105mm wonderful. On the negatives, there is nothing to choose from between my $800+ Zuiko 90mm f/2.0 Macro, and the $80 Nikkor-P 105mm. Accurate focus means so much more than technical resolving power in real-world photography, and the F finder was definitely better at focusing a lens with such insanely shallow DOF at close quarters.

It's been a while since I've produced so many pictures on a roll of 35mm film that I not only like, but are technically of an above-average (for me) quality for 35mm. Except for my Leica M, I always struggle to produce consistently high quality with a manual-focus 35mm SLR - it's always hit or miss. All my images were perfectly focused, composition is 100% accurate, and I could not fault the lenses - or any aspect of the system - even once. As a long-time denizen of the church of Maitani (the visionary behind the Olympus OM system), I have gained new-found respect for the visionaries at Nikon in the 1950s, who produced such marvelous quality tools. To be honest, I'd take a bit of extra weight and size any time, if the results are so worth it...

Absolutely yes!

MacReady · Dec 6, 2011

benjiboy said:
It makes me wonder how much the Nikon F would cost new today, and how many of todays wonder cameras will still be working the majority of them without being repaired in fifty years time.

They don't need to last fifty years, they will be redundant in < ten

Mark Crabtree · Dec 6, 2011

Lenses could be a weak link in either system (Olympus or Nikon); all will make good pictures if you point them at something interesting, but some of the lenses are more satisfying optically than others. I found the 50 (1.8 I think it was) and 100 f2.8 Olympus to be great. I understand there were a lot of good lenses in the system, but the wides I owned, or tried, were just adequate.

I've used many more lenses in the Nikon system and find a lot I like and a few I dislike. The wides do tend to have soft corners, but I think the 24 2.8 is a very nice lens. Also 35 f2,though it is hard for me to focus on an F.

Nikkor 50/2, 105/2.5, 135/3.5 are all very nice lenses. The 50/2 is no Summicron, but does have good edge to edge sharpness. The 50/1.4 is nice also depending on your needs, with amazingly high center sharpness. I'd probably pick the f1.4 over the f2 for people pictures, but it is a good all rounder too.

Jeff Kubach · Dec 6, 2011

benjiboy said:
It makes me wonder how much the Nikon F would cost new today, and how many of todays wonder cameras will still be working the majority of them without being repaired in fifty years time.

Like my Canon FTb!

Jeff

2F/2F · Dec 6, 2011

benjiboy said:
It makes me wonder how much the Nikon F would cost new today, and how many of todays wonder cameras will still be working the majority of them without being repaired in fifty years time.

Based on an Internet inflation calculator and $220 in 1959 dollars, I get about $1,600 for the body only, with plain prism. And that is for what most people would consider the best 35mm camera of the time. Today's equivalent would be the D3X at $8,000. In short, with general inflation accounted for, the amount of money that people are willing to pay for a top-end small-format camera has quintupled in the past 50 years. Pretty bad inflation for camera equipment specifically! And, ironically, a Nikon F body now easily sells for half (or less) of it's original price.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 6, 2011

benjiboy said:
It makes me wonder how much the Nikon F would cost new today, and how many of todays wonder cameras will still be working the majority of them without being repaired in fifty years time.

The F/FtN with lens was around $425 at a time when you could drive home a brandy-new Toyota for eighteen hundred dollars. So, one-quarter the price of an inexpensive new car, say $3750.

Today's wonder cameras in 50 years? Not likely that many (if any) will be working, and those won't be useable. They mostly won't be repairable in 5-10 years.

X. Phot. · Dec 6, 2011

I've only just recently installed a Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 on my Canon III. After seeing the examples provided above, I do hope the bokeh isn't equally as horrid. Hopefully these lenses are not similar in that respect. I'll know more once finishing up this current roll.

dnjl · Dec 6, 2011

I have no experience with Nikon or Olympus so I cannot comment on that, but I'm really happy to see a sensible, honest comparison. Many people dogmatically refuse to acknowledge that a less expensive/desirable camera can produce results which equal the expensive system they already have.

benjiboy · Dec 6, 2011

waltereegho said:
I have no experience with Nikon or Olympus so I cannot comment on that, but I'm really happy to see a sensible, honest comparison. Many people dogmatically refuse to acknowledge that a less expensive/desirable camera can produce results which equal the expensive system they already have.

Shush - don't say that it could cause a whole industry to collapse

Ken N · Dec 6, 2011

As to the sharpness at the edges, I don't necessarily agree. Most of my Zuikos have a very large image circle which well encompasses the 24x36 gate. However, what I have noticed is that side walls of the gate itself is either reflecting some light which is fuzzing up the very border and it also doesn't fit perfectly tight against the film. So the edge of the image area is either not sitting flat against the gate or it has some diffraction and mirror distortion going on.

I first noticed this with the negative carrier in my enlarger. I ended up taking a file to the carrier to widen it up beyond the image area and also painted it with flat black to prevent reflection.

I know we're supposed to be discussing the Nikon F, but our point of comparison is the OM system. I can speak to some of the traits of the OM system as I've been a heavy OM user for almost 26 years now. The OM system had one very specific design flaw which really hampered it. That is the diaphram actuation function. There is so much torque required to stop down the lens at the start of the exposure that this puts a substantial shock through the camera/lens which reduces image sharpness. The Nikon system is opposite as a spring is used to hold the diaphram open and this is released at the start of the exposure. The torque to open the diaphram happens after the exposure is finished.

Other than that, it is really hard to find fault with the system. Sure, we can grouse about the lack of aperture setting in the viewfinder, but otherwise almost every oddity/nuance of the OM system is based on philosophy of use-intent.

Lenses? I think you are short-changing the Zuikos a little bit here in your comparison. The contrast curves of the Zuikos are MUCH different than the Nikkors. Zuikos can seem flat in comparison, but then again, I think we get more highlight and shadow detail in our prints as a result. I've almost always needed a 1/2 grade harder paper when printing from Zuikos than Nikkors. My guess is that when you adjust the paper grade by 1/2 you'll see about the same image. The Nikkors are more punchy. I see the same thing when using my Zuikos on a digital-thingy. I have to boost the contrast, but really only in the midtones as the highlights and shadows are at the limits but contain gobs (techical term) of details. Details which just aren't there with the modern lenses.

philosomatographer · Dec 6, 2011

Ken, I am sure you are right on both counts - it must be that in the OM body, the last couple of millimeters is not being held perfectly flat against the film gate. Not a major nuisance at all, just an observation - I'm not making this stuff up, I've used a couple of OM bodies, and it struck me how much better the very corners of images made with the 50mm is in the Nikon F.

And yes, I think the Nikkor 50mm is definitely a higher-contrast lens than my Zuiko 50mm (late-model f/1.4). This is usually not a good thing for, say, colour slide film, but if you're shooting a grainy ISO400 B&W film, it's actually great in my opinion. Either way, you have to look at my images (first post in this thread) - the images are by no means overly-contrasty, and have good dynamic range (no appreciable lost shadow or highlight detail). They presented no difficulties in printing or scanning. So for B&W, the contrasty Nikkors are great - I think the optical engineers knew what they were doing. I find the same when shooting large format: My Nikkor 360mm f/8 is a super-punchy, contrasty lens, but by no means beyond what B&W film (HP5 in this case) can handle. Obviously a shared trait across all Nikkors. This was a contact print:

(Nikkor 360mm at f/8, Ilford HP5+ (4x5in), contact print on Ilford MG IV)

It's great to be able to play with al this professional gear when there are almost no professionals left who want it...

Ken N · Dec 6, 2011

Totally related to this line of thought is that I do tend to process my B&W film to be a touch harder contrasted. For all those zillions of years I shot Fujichrome Velvia, I never had the problems other people groused about. I think what was going on was the lower contrast Zuikos were a much better match to Velvia's extremely punchy curves.

Mark Crabtree · Dec 6, 2011

X. Phot. said:
I've only just recently installed a Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 on my Canon III. After seeing the examples provided above, I do hope the bokeh isn't equally as horrid. Hopefully these lenses are not similar in that respect. I'll know more once finishing up this current roll.

Hope is a wonderful thing, but that is not a lens known for good bokeh. Nonetheless it is a great performing lens and I don't find the bokeh horrible. To me the single coated H seems to be the best of this series in that regard.

Turns out they got it right in 1959 (Nikon F)

X. Phot.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency