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

[darinwc]

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?

 

[philosomatographer]

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....

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).

 

[philosomatographer]

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?

Better, it uses both The focusing screen is a thick little sandwich of condenser lens plus fresnel. I disassembled and cleaned all three that I have last week before shooting this roll: it was as much a focusing/viewfinder test as it was a general camera test.

As I said earlier, Nikon did something really right with the viewfinder of this camera. Made me realise that brightness isn't all there is to a viewfinder - contrast and clarity is more important for manual focusing; unless you're shooting in the dark, by which time it's best to pull your Leica (or even brighter, Olympus OM-3/4 with 2-series screen) out.

 

[kitanikon]

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).

THAT'S what I was thinking of....that focusing without any center-spot focusing aid develops a bit of visual acuity needed to compensate for the more "finely" etched dSLR screens where the image doesn't pop in and out as it does on the B screen....at least on the crop cameras I've used thus far...I haven't yet had the chance to use a 35mm format dSLR....

 

[Mark Crabtree]

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.
...

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.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

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.
Speaking of macro, my one real beef with the F is the MLU. Not nearly as good as the one on the Nikkormat.

 

[Les Sarile]

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

 

[philosomatographer]

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

Also, keep in mind the great aspect of the F's Mirror-Lockup implementation: it's also the world's first "silent mode" implementation in a SLR! Whenever you want a quieter camera, you can - by feel - engage the switch. Then, when you make your next shot, the mirror is raised, but not lowered again (which is the noisiest part of the sequence by far!). It's a very quiet camera in this mode.

Then, whenever you feel like it - possibly by feel again - turn MLU off before winding the film on. The mirror immediately drops (no wasted frame), and you're ready for your next shot ("silent" or otherwise).

I love using the F like this - not that much louder than a rangefinder camera, and quieter than my OM for sure. Of course, only good for single "decisive moment" shots in this mode, since the finder is blacked out after your shot until you turn the switch again. But it does afford the camera a unique capability other mechanical SLRs I've used does not have.

 

[fstop]

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.

 

[Pumalite]

It's great to have so many opinions at hand on such a subject. Myself; I just love my F.

 

[lxdude]

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.

 

[Les Sarile]

As I understand the development of the F, the interchangeable prism was the easiest and fastest way to adopt the existing Nikon rangefinder as an SLR as opposed to developing one from scratch. At that time the only option was WL and eye level and we all now the later was the choice by a wide margin. However, Nikon was able to capitalize on that arrangement when they developed the metered heads. 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 . . .

 

[Someonenameddavid]

The canon servo EE finder for the original F-1 was a monster and "way over the top"

 

[fstop]

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.

Its well documented that Nikon had trouble competing with Minolta for a long time.

have got to be the ugliest except perhaps the one on the Minolta XK . . .

The AE maybe but not the the AE-S finder

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

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.

There I'd disagree: while the lost frame is annoying, the F's MLU is very easy & soft to activate, while remaining nearly impossible to do so accidentally (unlike my Pentax 6x7).
I find the F2's MLU far too stiff: There is a risk of slightly changing the composition unless the tripod/head is rock solid (which is when you actually need MLU the least).

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

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 . . .

I actually like the look of the F with an FTn Photomic... Reminds me almost of a Henry Moore sculpture.
And certainly a great 1960's icon.

My other great SLR love (actually my favorite by a long way), the Leicaflex SL, unfortunately has the aesthetics of a 1960's washing machine....

 

[manet]

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...

 

[Les Sarile]

The canon servo EE finder for the original F-1 was a monster and "way over the top"

Just saw one on flickr and I have to agree!

 

[kitanikon]

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...

Me too....I got the Nikkormat FS...meterless like the F and it cost, IIRC, $120

 

[EASmithV]

The point of having a non-auto returning mirror was so that the ultra-wide angles that poked into the body at the time didn't interfere with the mirror swing. Something few Nikons have since the F... And the one nikon lens the F6 could never use.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

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.

 

[sangetsu]

​

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

My 51 year old F has never been serviced in any way, and it still works perfectly. Of my three FTb cameras, one has a dead meter, one has a cloudy prism, and the clean one has a moldy shutter. All are useable, but they are not built to the same level as the Nikon F. My old Canon F1 is built to the same level, but, with a few exceptions, I prefer Nikon lenses.

As for the OM gear, I love it's compact size, quiet operation, and simple ease of use. My OM4Ti and 50/1.8 can actually be carried in my coat pocket, but not my F and it's old 55/1.2 Nikkor lens. I recently began shooting an FM3A, but I think my old F is more fun.

 

[lxdude]

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.

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

If you think that you love the 50 mm f 2.0,

try the 55 mm f 3.5 Micro, or the 45 mm f 2.8 Pancake lenses.

 

[fstop]

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.

I'm talking about going back to before the F was introduced, the "pro" mystique wasn't enough and took a while to catch on.
Nikon got lucky that some journalists manipulated the market for them, otherwise the outcome would have been quite different.

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.

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.
Trying to push in the DOF button and twist the lever one handed is clumsy.