Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,976   Posts: 1,523,643   Online: 1086
      
Page 10 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314151620 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 208
  1. #91
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Sarile View Post
    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....
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  2. #92
    manet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    .fr_Old Europe
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    31
    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...

  3. #93

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by Someonenameddavid View Post
    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!

  4. #94

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by manet View Post
    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

  5. #95
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,873
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    121
    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.
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  6. #96

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by fstop View Post
    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.

  7. #97

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    東京
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by white.elephant View Post
    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.

  8. #98
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally Posted by fstop View Post
    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.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  9. #99

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA., U.S.A.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    228
    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.

  10. #100
    fstop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    681
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    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.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin