Nikon F

Mozziephotography

Mozziephotography

Messages
1,620
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Just found a great example of this at my local camera store. 14 day money back guarantee as well, you can't beat it.
 
Do you mean the Nikon F? Cos it was Canon who had the F1...;)

Nice. Which model? I will own one one day, but I think I'd quite like a nice plain meterless prism one, pure, simple and unfettered. And of course an F2AS to compliment it.

The F is the only 'pro' Nikon I've never handled, I think. Classic Nikon layout though. Enjoy!
 
I used Nikon Fs for years and in their day they were the bee's knees. When I looked through the viewfinder of one in a shop a few years back I was amazed at how dim the the finder seemed. This is the outfit I was using in the middle of the 1970s...

CameraOutfit.jpg
 
I saw one of those little Rollei's in a junk shop a few years ago, and thought it was overpriced at the £80 the shop owner wanted.... :(

EDIT: That actually seems to be the going rate for them. I must have it confused with another Rollei cam that sells for a LOT more now.
 
Last edited:
AZ6 said:
I saw one of those little Rollei's in a junk shop a few years ago, and thought it was overpriced at the £80 the shop owner wanted.... :(
Click to expand...
I think a lot of film cameras are overpriced these days but they do seem to sell. There were 2 different ranges of the Rollei 35. The original 35 model was much more expensive with a 4-element Tessar and a wider range of shutter speeds.

The one I used is the less expensive B35 model with a Triotar 3-element lens. For the stuff I was doing at the time, it was more than adequate. Incidentally, you may come across 35B cameras. They're identical to the earlier model but someone thought switching the name around was a good idea.

:tumbleweed:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
There were 2 different ranges of the Rollei 35. The original 35 model was much more expensive with a 4-element Tessar and a wider range of shutter speeds.
Click to expand...
Yes that's probs the one I'm thinking of. Even then, there appears to be a difference in the value of the 'T' model, and the 'S'. With the latter, having a Sonnar lens, fetching a good bit more. Then the 'SE', which is even more money. Confusing.
 
It is a Nikon F - must have Lewis Hamilton on my mind at the moment. They've just informed me that the light meter isn't working but can't say I'm bothered that much. Putting a roll of film through the Pentax this week along with the Nikon. Can't wait for the "crap" images to come back.
 
Not sure how up to date your kit list is but if your Nikon mount 50mm (the list doesn't tell me more than that), it MIGHT work on the F. I'm sure that someone will know more than me about it.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I used Nikon Fs for years and in their day they were the bee's knees. When I looked through the viewfinder of one in a shop a few years back I was amazed at how dim the the finder seemed.
Click to expand...

Might just have age/use/general grime. When it became necessary to change from my Exakta outfit, the two final cameras on the short list were the Nikon F2 and the OM1, which was reckoned to have an exceptionally bright viewfinder. On looking through both, the F2 was the brighter, and the dealer explained that the F2 was just out of the box, whereas the OM1 had been a demo model for a while.
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
Not sure how up to date your kit list is but if your Nikon mount 50mm (the list doesn't tell me more than that), it MIGHT work on the F. I'm sure that someone will know more than me about it.
Click to expand...
I think it should work if it has an aperture ring (the latest lenses don't). But note that unmodified 'pre-AI' lenses from the F/F2 era can't be mounted on most Nikon dSLRs without damage, which is something to consider if you add to your lens collection. The M42 lenses mentioned in earlier threads are better on the Pentax, of course, because of the extra glass in the Nikon adapter.

There must be a lot of dead metering prisms out there at this point. They can be swapped out and replaced with smaller, lighter plain prisms, but these are relatively expensive and hard to find in good condition.
 
Last edited:
"There must be a lot of dead metering prisms out there at this point. They can be swapped out and replaced with smaller, lighter plain prisms, but these are relatively expensive and hard to find in good condition"
I could make way more money selling the camera off in bits! Looked at the simple prisms but they really do want DAFT money.
Kit list is WAY out of date. The camera comes with 50mm f2 lens fitted. I have a 35mm and a 50mm D series lenses.
Must get my gear list up to date.
 
I used to have 2 or 3 older AF lenses that fitted (and worked!) on older film bodies as well as the AF film bodies I was using. The only problem with using the AF lenses is the angle of throw between closest focus distance and infinity - shorter throw on AF lenses to speed up the AF, making precise manual focussing... fun!

Enjoy the F.
 
Nice. Very nice. Envious.

What head is that? Looks like a Photomic FTn, but I'm not an expert. You say the light meter isn't working, but I'm wondering if that's cos the batteries are dead/missing? I think they use the really old mercury cells, which are illegal now, but you can apparently use newer cells to get it working.
 
Looks good! I guess that's the later (1974) version of the pre-AI lens, since the meter coupling claw doesn't seem to have AI-style holes in it. Is there only a single aperture scale? (AI lenses have dual scales, either side of the claw, the one closest to the bayonet for cameras that reflect the aperture number into the viewfinder). If it's pre-AI, don't attempt to mount it on your dSLR, but the other way round (e.g. mounting your 35/2 on the F) should be fine. The 35/2 won't meter unless a claw is fitted, but that's not a problem if the meter really doesn't work :).

History of Nikon 50/2 lenses:

NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights No.2 | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights | Nikon Consumer

imaging.nikon.com

Ken Rockwell is controversial (and not always right!), but he has a good page about AI vs pre-AI:

Nikkor Lens Technology

www.kenrockwell.com

Nikon F instructions:

Nikon F instruction manual, user manual, PDF manual

Nikon F instruction manual
www.butkus.org

That's a Photomic FTn finder, as suggested above:

http://www.mir.SPAM/rb/photography/...aeliu/cameras/nikonf/ffinders/fmeterprism.htm
https://www.mir.SPAM/rb/photography/hardwares/manuals/nikonf/FTn.pdf
 
Last edited:
I'm not up on things Nikon, but does the plastic lever wind tip imply a late F?
 
StephenM said:
I'm not up on things Nikon, but does the plastic lever wind tip imply a late F?
Click to expand...
Yes, and the plastic tip on the self timer. This is the so-called 'Apollo' variant (collectors like to imagine a link to the cameras Nikon was making for NASA at the same time). The serial number places this one in 1972, the year before production stopped.
 
Retune said:
There must be a lot of dead metering prisms out there at this point. They can be swapped out and replaced with smaller, lighter plain prisms, but these are relatively expensive and hard to find in good condition.
Click to expand...
AZ6 said:
Nice. Very nice. Envious.

What head is that? Looks like a Photomic FTn, but I'm not an expert. You say the light meter isn't working, but I'm wondering if that's cos the batteries are dead/missing? I think they use the really old mercury cells, which are illegal now, but you can apparently use newer cells to get it working.
Click to expand...
No idea re "head". I'm not really bothered about it working as I'd like to use other Nikon lenses on it. The plain prisms are a ridiculous price.

If it is a 1972 model, I had just met my better half and we married a year later. I'll have a party on its 50th birthday. I'd love to know who owned it and why it was sold. Someone died and ...

Yes, there is only one aperture scale. @Retune

Tomorrow, I must get my list of gear up to date.
 
Nikon F cameras were really strong but the ergonomics were appaling.

To fit a flash one had to carry an adapter. When the flash was attached the film could not be rewound/changed.

The release cable was a non standard fitment.

The F2SB was the worst model. The led in the viewfinder could not be seen properly. Hens it's short life. It was a complete failure.

The F2A meter could not be read in dull light so needed an attachment on top of the pentaprism to illuminate the needle.

With the older models there was the carry on with having to swing the aperture ring from one end to the other to engage the meter coupling every time a lens was changed.

I prefered my Olympus OM1 for taking photos rather than the Nikon F2. There was no difference in the quality of the photos at all.

At the time 70's 80's the battle for the fleet street pro camera was won by the F2 as apposed to the Canon F1. I put the Canon above the F2 in all respects bar strength.

For film if I was going to a war zone I would probably take an Nikon FM2.
 
shapeshifter said:
Nikon F cameras were really strong but the ergonomics were appaling.

To fit a flash one had to carry an adapter. When the flash was attached the film could not be rewound/changed.

The release cable was a non standard fitment.

The F2SB was the worst model. The led in the viewfinder could not be seen properly. Hens it's short life. It was a complete failure.

The F2A meter could not be read in dull light so needed an attachment on top of the pentaprism to illuminate the needle.

With the older models there was the carry on with having to swing the aperture ring from one end to the other to engage the meter coupling every time a lens was changed.

I prefered my Olympus OM1 for taking photos rather than the Nikon F2. There was no difference in the quality of the photos at all.

At the time 70's 80's the battle for the fleet street pro camera was won by the F2 as apposed to the Canon F1. I put the Canon above the F2 in all respects bar strength.

For film if I was going to a war zone I would probably take an Nikon FM2.
Click to expand...
With the FM2, you have to pull the wind-on lever out to switch the camera on, which pokes you in the right eye if you're left-eyed.

Nikon didn't make an ergonomic camera until the F100. ;)
 
Last edited:
The FM2 lever was why I did not buy nikon until the FG followed by the FG20.
 
Retune said:
With the FM2, you have to pull the wind-on lever out to switch the camera on, which pokes you in the right eye if you're left-eyed.

Nikon didn't make an ergonomic camera until the F100. ;)
Click to expand...

Sometimes the FM lever gets up my nose in the vertical position :rolleyes:
 
mossienet said:
Well done @AZ6
Click to expand...
I thank you.

shapeshifter said:
Nikon F cameras were really strong but the ergonomics were appaling.
Click to expand...
Tbh; all camera 'ergonomics' were pretty poor back then. Ergonomics weren't invented until the 70s, earliest.

shapeshifter said:
To fit a flash one had to carry an adapter. When the flash was attached the film could not be rewound/changed.

The release cable was a non standard fitment.
Click to expand...
Why Nikon; why? You can buy a cable release adapter thingy I think but why not just use the existing, ubiquitous thread?? As for the flash fitting; most pros using the F3 either went for an off-cam flash on a bracket, such as a Metz hammerhead, or used the MD4 with motorised rewind. But I remember my mate being annoyed at the flash fitting/rewind nonsense. Again; why not simply use existing, proven, effective technology? Like everyone else!

shapeshifter said:
At the time 70's 80's the battle for the fleet street pro camera was won by the F2 as apposed to the Canon F1. I put the Canon above the F2 in all respects bar strength.
Click to expand...
As well as toughness and reliability, the Nikon range was more extensive and versatile. And the F1 only really became a great cam with the release of the NEW F1 (note the bold).


Retune said:
Nikon didn't make an ergonomic camera until the F100
Click to expand...
No; they'd already brought out the F5. Ergonomically near perfect. The F100 relies on having the MB-15 attached to give it the vertical release option, which is a bit plasticky and lightweight. I spose the MB-15 does have at least one lower control dial. But it's not easy to use like on the DSLRs. I have both, and much prefer the F5 for actual shooting, although it is a heavy beast. I think Nikon really did a great job with the F4 though; kept the traditional control feel, but really worked on the ergonomics. A lovely cam to use, I like mine in the F4s configuration. Canon really changed the game with the T90, which then spawned all Canon SLR/DSLR design since. The EOS1HS is praps even better ergonomically than the F4, although I prefer the latter by some margin.
 
Retune said:
With the FM2, you have to pull the wind-on lever out to switch the camera on, which pokes you in the right eye if you're left-eyed.
Click to expand...
I've never thought about that, as I'm right-eyed. I can see how it would be a problem. I always liked the way the lever pulls out to switch the cam on and allow firing; it ensures no accidental release when folded flush. My first SLR, and cheapo (but excellent) Vivitar V2000, had a simplified version of this system. I much prefer it to the 'push a button down and hold whilst turning a knob/switch' type thing. Too fiddly.
 
Snip:
shapeshifter said:
Nikon F cameras were really strong but the ergonomics were appaling.
Click to expand...

I'd agree, I've always thought that some of the F2 series had a similar profile appearance to a first world war battleship with all those funnel like bits sticking up! The Canon F1 looked far more sleek in comparison.
 
Oh no, have I made a dreadful mistake and bought a load of CRAP. :eek::banana::clap: I don't care if the pictures aren't up to much, that the camera feels like a tank,bit like the D700 I own ... I just want to chill, do something I did many, many years ago. Sod the quality, just feel the width. (All typed with a tongue in cheek attitude)
 
AZ6 said:
No; they'd already brought out the F5. Ergonomically near perfect. The F100 relies on having the MB-15 attached to give it the vertical release option, which is a bit plasticky and lightweight. I spose the MB-15 does have at least one lower control dial. But it's not easy to use like on the DSLRs. I have both, and much prefer the F5 for actual shooting, although it is a heavy beast. I think Nikon really did a great job with the F4 though; kept the traditional control feel, but really worked on the ergonomics. A lovely cam to use, I like mine in the F4s configuration. Canon really changed the game with the T90, which then spawned all Canon SLR/DSLR design since. The EOS1HS is praps even better ergonomically than the F4, although I prefer the latter by some margin.
Click to expand...
I have mixed feelings about the F5. On the one hand it's a design classic, the camera that set the template for every later Nikon. It was the first with the two dial system and with excellent multi-point AF. You could burn a film as fast as you could load it, and apply the torque of a Ferrari to the screwdriver of a heavyweight zoom. The meter is great. But some things irritate. There are too many locks. Why does the power switch need one? What's with those flaps? For the uninitiated, the rewind procedure is like an escape room challenge. The black selected focus points are harder to see than the red points on an F100, and a little bit laggy. But above all, it's huge and heavy. It doesn't seem so bad until you load those 8 batteries, and then you realise you'll be carrying round a boat anchor all day. The chin at the front digs into your hand a little when using shorter lenses. Permanently nailing the power grip to the camera was fine for sports shooters in the late 90s, but for most people shooting film today (and many back then), it just means you have all that dead weight to contend with. With the F100 they made better ergonomic choices for, I think, the majority of users, and it does everything that matters very well. Its main weakness is the plastic catch on that plastic back. If that goes, the camera is finished unless you can find another back (there are many more cameras than spare backs), or have a technician clever enough to fabricate the metal catch it should have had in the first place, like the F5.
 
I had Nikons and Canons.

The Olympus OM1 with the shutter speed ring at the rear of the lens I found was a far better system than having to turn a shutter speed dial with the right thumb and finger. The OM1 was light a really bright viewfinder with simple match needle meter and an absolute dream to use.
 
Last edited:
mossienet said:
Oh no, have I made a dreadful mistake and bought a load of CRAP. :eek::banana::clap: I don't care if the pictures aren't up to much, that the camera feels like a tank,bit like the D700 I own ... I just want to chill, do something I did many, many years ago. Sod the quality, just feel the width. (All typed with a tongue in cheek attitude)
Click to expand...
It's far from a load of crap, so just enjoy what you've bought and never mind what anyone else thinks. It may not win many beauty contests by today's standards, but it's still an iconic camera, so load it up with FP4 or HP5 and have a good time. :)
 
shapeshifter said:
I had Nikons and Canons.

The Olympus OM1 with the shutter speed ring at the rear of the lens I found was a far better system than having to turn a shutter speed dial with the right thumb and finger. The OM1 was light a really bright viewfinder with simple match needle meter and an absolute dream to use.
Click to expand...
I like the OM1 but have never owned one. It's the SLR that Leica should have made. Not coincidentally, the great Olympus designer Yoshihisa Maitani had started out with a Leica and wanted to make a small camera of the same quality. I think he succeeded.
 
Put a light meter app on my phone. Watched a couple of vlogs re correct exposure. They seem to be suggesting that I should overexpose rather than underexpose. If I take a reading from the "darker" elements of a composition, would that give me the exposure that I need? Bit confused.
 
mossienet said:
Put a light meter app on my phone. Watched a couple of vlogs re correct exposure. They seem to be suggesting that I should overexpose rather than underexpose. If I take a reading from the "darker" elements of a composition, would that give me the exposure that I need? Bit confused.
Click to expand...

Ah you didn't watch the the good video about exposure.......if all in the scene are lit by the same light then point the metert at something grey e.g.road, pavement or if colour:- green grass, green shrubs, blue sky and so on, as the meter can only read shades of grey not colours, so all the colours mentioned are roughly the shade of grey for correct exposure set many years ago by Kodak and all meters are made to the same specification...otherwise if all meter manufacturers set their own standard it would be a pig's breakfast to which one is correct for the film ISO.
Anyway if using negative film add a stop for luck i.e.open up a stop or reduce shutter speed.
 
mossienet said:
Put a light meter app on my phone. Watched a couple of vlogs re correct exposure. They seem to be suggesting that I should overexpose rather than underexpose. If I take a reading from the "darker" elements of a composition, would that give me the exposure that I need? Bit confused.
Click to expand...
Colour negative film is much more tolerant of overexposure than it is of underexposure, so it can make sense to expose for the shadows:
petapixel.com

How Exposure Affects Film Photos

One of the things about film photography is that exposure on film, unlike in digital photography, is not equivalent at all to overall brightness of an
petapixel.com petapixel.com
This is also true for a chromogenic black and white film like XP2, which makes a feature of it - it's nominally 400 ISO, but you can set your meter to anything from 50 ISO (+3 stops overexposed relative to the box speed) to 800 ISO (-1 stop). The exposure latitude of conventional black and white film is narrower, but you can adjust in processing. Slide film has the narrowest latitude, and isn't tolerant of overexposure, so meter for the highlights.
 
Last edited:
I generally shoot XP2 at the box rated 400 ISO in dull weather and 200 ISO in sunny weather, as this stops the shadows blocking up in contrasty lighting conditions. That's the good thing with XP2, you can change from 400 to 200 ISO on the same roll of film and develop it as normal.

With colour print film I usually shoot it at box speed. There can be a lot of unnecessary stuff written about film exposure, so just keep it simple to start with, make some notes on what you've done (there's no XIF data on film, and you're bound to forget what settings you used!) and learn from the results. Unless recently serviced and calibrated, things like shutter speeds running a bit slower than they did when the camera was new will probably overexpose the film to some extent anyway, so I wouldn't try to get too technical with an old camera until you get to know it. (y)
 
........for newbies so absorbed with exposure and want to go to the extreme to get the exposure about right for shots inc shadows....Well IMO you should decide, in your shot, if whats in them is important or not e.g. lovely house\houses in bright sunshine but in the shadow a pile of rubbish h'mm
But going to extreme you should put a Kodak grey card in the shadow and take a reading from that o_O then you place the grey card in the sunshine of the main subject tilting it to what you are taking then take a reading from that, then average the two readings. erm all a bit awkward if you can't get to the shadows. Now who wants to do all that so would think what most of us do is just meter for the shadow (if important) be carefull there is not a pile of coal in them to further fool the meter and accept this will "ruin" the exposure for everything else..... but you can adjust in Photoshop or darkroom so (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top