What is the story behind this design?

[Laurent]

The Canon EF also has this design. Pretty neat IMO (Yes, I LOVE that beast! If only it had a true semi-auto mode, and interchangeable finders...)

 

[MFstooges]

The Canon EF also has this design. Pretty neat IMO (Yes, I LOVE that beast! If only it had a true semi-auto mode, and interchangeable finders...)

View attachment 386097

that prism sits so low on the body, I wonder what's the VF magnification

 

[Laurent]

Canon museum says 0.82, where the F1 has 0,77. I dis not check before you assked, but I had the feeling the EF has more magnification.

Coverage is 92% ( F1 97 %)

 

[lobitar]

They got it from Zeiss. Look at a Contax III.

View attachment 386005

Just like the left-'threaded' bayonet mount?

 

[lobitar]

The Canon EF also has this design. Pretty neat IMO (Yes, I LOVE that beast! If only it had a true semi-auto mode, and interchangeable finders...)

View attachment 386097

And a four-wheel drive?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

F100?

Interesting. For the FM,FE Nikon chose a different design.

 

[warden]

One more example. The modern Makinas had film advance, shutter release, and focus all on the same axis.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/attachments/img_0296-jpg.379346/

 

[ic-racer]

My first SLR had that; Zenit E. Christmas 1973!

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

that prism sits so low on the body, I wonder what's the VF magnification

I’ve always thought the EF felt a lot like the FTb in hand.

There’s a lot about the EF that really is unique to that camera, but a lot of it is kind of an F1/FTb mash-up.

I just wish Canon had kept with Copal Squares for the A-series, but that may well have put the price higher than the target.

It’s a shame too to me that the EF was kind of a dead end. The FTb to me pretty obviously competed head on with the SRT-101, and was a step above the K1000. The EF really is more in Nikkormat class of camera body, or more specifically the EL/EL2…

 

[Laurent]

And a four-wheel drive?

Maybe not needed
but canon sucks at semiauto in their auto cameras. The EF has the most sophisticated displayof Canon cameras for the period, but packs à follow Nestlé.

I’ve always thought the EF felt a lot like the FTb in hand.

There’s a lot about the EF that really is unique to that camera, but a lot of it is kind of an F1/FTb mash-up.

I just wish Canon had kept with Copal Squares for the A-series, but that may well have put the price higher than the target.

It’s a shame too to me that the EF was kind of a dead end. The FTb to me pretty obviously competed head on with the SRT-101, and was a step above the K1000. The EF really is more in Nikkormat class of camera body, or more specifically the EL/EL2…

I agree, this camera is truly unique, and the Copal square is a pleasure as it's so silent.

 

[moggi1964]

Textbook example of why I choose to leave camera repairs to the experts.

Yup! Mine is heading off for servicing/repair in the Spring so I don't lose a spring or worse.

 

[MattKing]

It occurs to me that combining those functions that way would permit building them as a separate, re-usable sub-assembly, which in turn could add efficiency to manufacture.

 

[reddesert]

I’ve never owned a Nikon RF, but as I understand it the F is basically an SLR version of the SP. In fact if I’m not mistaken, some very early Fs(like the first couple hundred made, or maybe not that many) had cloth SP curtains. In turn, some late SPs had metal F curtains.

The F and I think also the SP follow the shutter button placement of Barnack Leicas with the button toward the rear of the top plate. The rotating shutter collar to set rewind is also Barnack.

Of course Leica by that time has moved to the shutter in the rewind pivot with the M3 and M2.

I think in this side discussion, it’s worth mentioning that there’s no one single innovative feature in the F. With that said, it was an innovative camera by combining a bunch of features from elsewhere(instant return mirror, automatic aperture, interchangeable finders, provisions for coupled metering, and a few others I’m forgetting) into a single camera and, probably more importantly, offering a full system from the beginning. By 1960, they’d covered 21mm to 300mm in rectilinear(plus an 8mm fisheye somewhere along the way), macro, and some other special purpose uses. That’s what made it such a game changing camera.

I’ll also mention that I will take a Canon Barnack clone over a real Leica Barnack any day. If the Leica IIIc was my only interaction with the brand, I’d not own another, and I’m hard pressed to think of a way a Canon IVs isn’t better. The M3 and subsequent M cameras are a different story, although the Canon 7 is a worthy match in a lot of ways. The 7 is the only RF I’ve been personally owned that combines a huge number of frame lines with the ability to only display one at a time…

Well, this is kind of topic drift, but we have drifted some already ... I've never used or even touched an SP (too rich for my blood), only an S which is a more basic camera. People used to sometimes say "Nikon took the body casting of the SP and put a reflex mirror in it to make the F," which is clearly wrong. They have common style elements, but for one thing, the F body is 10mm wider. As you say, aspects such as the shutter controls, button placement, and collar are similar. I think many users find the rearward button a little awkward, and they moved it to the front on the F2.

I think it's easy in retrospect to underestimate what must have been a substantial design and engineering effort to come up with the F. It wasn't necessarily the first SLR with many of its features, but it was the first to put them all together in a truly convincing package of usability and reliability. I bought an F used in 1985 as my second SLR (aftet my starter-SLR broke), and still have it. At this point, I should be buying it anniversary presents.

 

[1957ExaktaVarexIIa]

One more example.

... and another one