Nikon F opinions--just ebayed one w 2 lenses
Well since I unloaded my Leica M3 I have occasionally missed the convenience of 35 mm (Exclusive use of B&W film Tri-X HP 5 etc..) and like a dummy jumped on a Nikon F and a couple of lenses--my question is will the Nikon be close to the results from the Leica--I never really liked the feel of the Leica--a tad small but I did really like the results using HP5 and Tri-X. Seee ebay item #s 7612087425, 7612094726 and 7612103723.
Hopefully I'll get some opinions that are optimistic and I didn't go overboard !! I use MF (Mamiya 7II) most of the time but low light is always an issue and DOF.
Do YOUR part, the answer is YES.
The camera looks fine, the 50 does too.
The zoom is a matter of taste. For 44 bucks, you're golden. It is an early zoom, and detail nuts hate it. Fashion shooters loved it. Keep it for a pretty but NOT high def images.
You might shoot TMY instead of TX in the Nikon, give it some help. Big difference. TMY and XTOL can threaten your Mamiya's sense of self importance.
way to go
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
I used Fs, F2, and F3s for many years along with a Leica G and Cannon 7, the F is very rugged and dependable, and I liked the way a F handles, but there is just something about a Lecia. My usual kit was a Nikon with a 105 and a RF with a 35 or 28. Later Nikon with short zoom 35 to 70 or 35 to 105.
I have a Nikon F that my father bought in Ethiopia in 1967. Its not a Leica. Its the first succesful system of SLR and it handles like that: its heavy and noisy. But it works great its built like a tank and the lenses are of excellent quallity.
Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
no digital additives and shit
First successful system SLR, huh? Exakta, anyone?
Originally Posted by arigram
Jos, good snags! Not quite to my taste, in my hands a Nikkormat (or FM) feels less front-heavy than an F with a metered prism, but you can't go wrong with an F. Although the word classic is much misused, the F really is one.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Neither of the lenses that you purchased are great performers, and will not put you into the Leica lens league, not even close. I own both lenses so I'm telling you from first hand experience. And they won't even come close to the Mamiya II as far as optical quality.
Originally Posted by JosBurke
The lenses are okay but not world beaters.
I love my F.
The snap of the shutter/mirror is as solid as slamming the door of a '66 Lincoln Continental.
It gives me a little thrill every time I hit the button.
That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
Exakta, it is!
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
I've used Leica M, Nikon F, and Nikkormats since 1967. The Leica feels better to me, but the Nikon system is far more versatile and gets most of the small format use. The metered finder is cumbersome. A pentaprism finder handles better if TTL metering isn't needed, but can be expensive. The zoom has a mediocre reputation as Nikkor lenses go. I use a 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S like yours, and find it to be almost as sharp as a Summicron. There were reasons for the removable back when the Nikon F was the premier 35mm SLR system. The mirror lock-up is funky. Despite this, it still is a versatile and reliable system.
I've found two books valuable even for this long-time Nikon user: the old Nikon F Nikkormat Handbook of Photography by Joseph D Cooper and Joseph C Abbot and the much later The New Nikon Compendium by Simon Stafford and Hillebrand & Hauschild.
I started serious photography with a Nikon F and a Nikon FTn in 1973. They were as solid as any camera I've ever used. I liked the F2 better, mainly for the hinged back and motor drives but there's nothing wrong with the Nikon F. I used them alongside F2's professionally for a number of years. Both my early F's were stolen shortly after I had NPS service them.
I didn't check eBay for what lenses you bought. The early lenses I used were the 50/1.4, 35/2.8, 85/1.8 and 24/2.8. The 85mm was sharper than a 90mm Leitz Summicron I owned at the time. Neither the 50mm nor the 35mm were as sharp or contrasty as the equivalent Summicrons but they both had a certain "look" that I still find attractive in negatives I shot back then and still print today.