Your welcome.....one thing about using the B screen is that it prepares one for focusing/shooting with the much more difficult dSLR focusing screens....
FWIW I had the opportunity to handle a Nikon F recently. It had the photomic finder. In that form it seemed bulky and somewhat archaic.
However one thing I noticed is the finder seemed to have much more contrast and a clearer picture.
Does the F uses a condenser lens instead of a fresnel?
I don't quite agree - I used to use various Canon DSLRs (starting with an amateur 350D, eventually ending up with a 1Ds MkII) before switching to film fully, and I find the focusing experience between different screens (I had about 4 for my Canon, I have 8 for my Olympus OM, and 3 for the Nikon F) much more significant than any generalisations about DSLRs (other than most DSLRs have poorer viewfinders for manual focusing, of course).
FWIW I had the opportunity to handle a Nikon F recently. It had the photomic finder. In that form it seemed bulky and somewhat archaic.
However one thing I noticed is the finder seemed to have much more contrast and a clearer picture.
...
I have a good Ftn finder for mine, which I use only for macro work. The body, plain finder, and 50/2 lens is a very well proportioned and nicely balanced outfit. The Ftn finder and 20/3.5 Nikkor UD, on the other hand, could be used to anchor small ships.The Photomic metered finders always did seem clunky to me. The body with straight prism is a lovely handling package. The simplicity reminds me of an M4. No distractions.
Goofiest MLU implementation no doubt but it has to be kept in historical perspective particularly if it is infact the first. The only source I can find stating this is Stephen Gandy's CameraQuest - Nikon F History
Actually Nikon was playing catch up to Minolta when they came out with the F.
By that token, both (Minolta SR-2 '58, Nikon F '59) were playing catch up to the Asahi Pentax ('57). But when the Nikon came out they had to play catch up to its fully automatic diaphragm. And the Nikon of course had the interchangeable pentaprism (and MLU) neither had.
Given the time it took to develop those machines and the closeness of their release, I see it as more a case of almost concurrent development than playing catch up.
have got to be the ugliest except perhaps the one on the Minolta XK . . .
Actually Nikon was playing catch up to Minolta when they came out with the F.
As for the F's MLU, its worthless, wastes frames unecessarily and is clumsy to operate. The F2 and f3 are much better at it.A Minolta SRT with MLU does a better job.
Of course that development was a clear form of function run amok over form as those photomics have got to be the ugliest except perhaps the one on the Minolta XK . . .
The canon servo EE finder for the original F-1 was a monster and "way over the top"
In 1969, I did not have enough money to buy the Nikon F. So I bought a Nikkormat who accepted the same objectives with the wonderful 50/1.4. I have always it...
Actually Nikon was playing catch up to Minolta when they came out with the F.
As for the F's MLU, its worthless, wastes frames unecessarily and is clumsy to operate. The F2 and f3 are much better at it.A Minolta SRT with MLU does a better job.
I'm quite certain none of them will be working as well as my 36-year-old FTb.
Its well documented that Nikon had trouble competing with Minolta for a long time.
Nikon was the 35mm SLR used most by pros, and they had a mystique which they promoted with their advertising. Their prices were higher, on the F for obvious reasons, but even on the Nikkormat. Their lenses cost considerably more than the compable Canon, Rokkor, Takumar, etc. So yes, for a long time they did not compete in unit sales with Minolta. Nor with Pentax. Both of those were top sellers back in the day. I imagine Ricoh sold a lot too, as a very common less expensive alternative, what with supplying Sears and all. Yashica is another maker that sold a bunch.
Obviously you never used it or used the mlu on the F2, F3 or Minolta.With F you waste one frame for every shot you want to use mlu.If you want to do a multiple exposure using mlu its impossible.Sorry, but it isn't "worthless". There are many applications where it works just fine. Copy stand for example. It isn't clumsy, either, unless you have fingers the size of a kielbasa.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?