In that era when I was a student doing photography at college in Sheffield, and Ray Moore was lecturing 40 miles away at a similar course in Derby, Nikkormat's weren't just popular because the college stores had them for students to use, but because they were tough as nails and a genuine backup camera to the F or F2.
Nikkormats always seemed to have wild swings in popularity or status that would miss the mark of their intrinsic worth one way or the other. To some extent this hinged on the typical camera buyer of the era in question: during the earlier years of the late 1960s thru late 1970s 35mm SLR boom, huge numbers of mass market "consumer photographers" (distinct from amateur-enthusiasts) flocked to Japanese SLRs in the misplaced belief they were "required to take good pictures". These family snapshot and travel shooters were previously satisfied with box brownies, folding cameras and Polaroids: clever marketing by the camera industry combined with photography in general trending as a cool hobby stoked this belief. Such people really had no idea WTH they were buying or even why: purchase decisions were based almost solely on brand awareness or status. To be fair, there weren't really any other legit issues to consider anyway: all 35mm SLRs had essentially the same basic design, operation and handling. All had manual TTL match needle metering, aside from the pioneering higher priced Konica AutoReflex and a couple of odd-duck leaf shutter SLR systems from Kowa, Canon and Contax.
During this period Nikkormats were somewhat over-rated, viewed strictly as more affordable offshoots of the Nikon F. Association with the F made them seem "more desirable" in ways that had no direct correlation to their utility or monetary value to the average amateur or consumer photographer. Few consumers who bought an SLR ever bought additional lenses beyond the stock 50mm (and if they did it was usually an off-brand tele or tele-zoom, not the camera mfr glass). Yet somehow, Nikon marketing (with cheerleaders in the camera magazine press) very successfully planted the idea that owning a Nikkormat was "the key to the vast treasure trove of Nikkor lenses and accessories" (direct Keppler quote). This idea swayed disproportionate numbers of potential buyers to the Nikkormat, despite the fact there was virtually no chance they would ever buy another Nikon lens or accessory.
Also despite the fact there were several other cameras at similar or lower pricing that might be more suitable for average Joe or Jane than a Nikkormat. The first iterations of Nikkormat had dimmer highly-cropped focus screens, nail breaking inconvenient ISO setting, and a lens mounting/meter indexing process that gave Einstein a headache (more complicated than the later common "Nikkormat twist"). Competing brands at the same or lower pricing like Minolta SRT or Pentax Spotmatic were smoother and slicker to operate while retaining the same apparent build quality and large lens lineup. Nikkormat wasn't on quite the same footing as Minolta and Pentax until the later FTn (and esp FT2) revisions, at which point Canon's FTb offering became compelling to more sophisticated users who could appreciate its selective-area metering. And of course the budget-constrained might have been better off looking at second-tier options like Mamiya MSX/DSX, GAF/Chinon, Fuji. or even Miranda. But, Nikkormat had brand recognition nailed, attracting more buyers than it probably earned.
The second half of "the Nikkormat decade" was more contentious and competitive. Pentax added open aperture metering to the M42 stop down spec, introduced electronic shutters with AE, then K mount. Nikon countered with the Nikkormat EL, Minolta launched the XE-7, Canon the EF, and a new step-up premium-priced class of "AE SLR" arose. Back in the manual exposure trenches, Olympus OM-1 seized the imagination of the camera press and buyers alike, triggering a rush among all mfrs to reduce size and weight. Nikkormat FT2 came to be seen as clunky, old fashioned and overpriced: Nikon was slow to replace it with the FM (which was also
way overpriced vs OM-1 and Pentax MX/ME), and stupid slow bringing out the FE. But Nikon still had the brand awareness edge, until Canon dropped the AE-1 and crapped in every other mfrs tea trays.
Over the ensuing decades since its discontinuation, Nikkormat has been mostly under-appreciated (and esp in the early post-digital film camera selloff,
vastly undervalued) compared to its same-era competitors. Its flaws (size, weight, shutter control placement, severely cropped viewfinder coverage, two-step lens mounting procedure) became exaggerated while advantages that took the passage of time to reveal were ignored. Compared to its '70s competition, the scales have flipped in terms of dollar value/usability today. Other than their CdS meters going half or fully dead (a common plague among all '70s SLRs), nothing ever goes wrong with Nikkormats: the film advance, Copal Square shutter, and body build are bulletprooof. Tons of Nikkormat FTn and FT2 were sold, so tons are still floating around the used marketplace in fully working (mechanical) condition. From 2010 thru 2020 they were an absolute glut on the market, literally sold as rear lens caps attached to a 50mm f/2.0 or f/1.4 Nikkor.
The once-vaunted, more elegant Minolta SRTs, Canon FTb (and to a lesser extent Pentax SP and K series) haven't fared quite as well: many now need film advance or shutter repair. The Pentax, Minolta and Canon manual-focus glass has jumped dramatically in resale value as demand for "character lenses" for mirrorless digital soared. Prices on fast aperture common focal lengths are significantly lower on some of the Nikkor classic optics vs other brands (partly because theres twice to thrice as many Nikkor lenses available, partly because '70s/'80s Nikkors have lost a bit of their cache and are considered "flat and boring" nowadays vs the exotic, harder to find Takumars, Rokkors, Hexars and Canon FDs).
Factor all this together, and the common-as-dirt Nikkormat becomes a compelling value proposition today for film newcomers on a tight budget. Cheap plentiful bodies, cheap-ish plentiful lenses, and (other than potential meter defects) no worries that an expensive repair from an 85 year old specialist technician might be required. One could do better than a Nikkormat in terms of some features, but one could also do a lot worse (or spend a lot more money for essentially the same setup, i.e. Pentax K1000). If you do feel something else would be a better fit, you can always resell a Nikkormat (esp with 50mm Nikkor attached) at breakeven or very little loss.
Circling back to under-appreciated nearly-forgotten Canon SLRs, the model at the opposite end of the F-1 in Canon's mid- '70s model lineup comes to mind: the Canon TX. Almost nobody remembers it, because it was very vanilla compared to its more expensive FTb, EF and F-1 brethren and it wasn't marketed well, failing to sell in appreciable numbers. But the TX was very well regarded by the camera press that tested it and the buyers smart enough to choose it. It was the most bang-for-the-buck manual exposure SLR Canon ever offered: a simplified FTb with less complex mechanism, easier to understand centerweighted metering, and brighter punchier viewfinder housed in a rugged body shell. It was aimed directly at the Nikkormat FT2, pitching the same feature set and comparably large lens selection at 30% lower price. Unfortunately it went nowhere saleswise, despite a big PR boost from Consumer Reports and other mass-market influencers. If you're looking for a vintage starter SLR like the Pentax K1000, consider the Canon TX instead: usually a much better deal (although nothings as cheap as a Nikkormat FTn in this category).