^ Get one. A very nice complement to the F2... Only thing I suggest is the investment of an AR-1 soft shutter release. Makes the somewhat awkward shutter release positioning more comfortable.
APUG: F4, F3HP, F2AS, Nikomat FT2, Nikkormat EL, FT
Nikkors: 18-55/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX (f/D2x), 20/3.5 UD, 24/2.8 AI, 50/2 AI, 50/2 H, 50/1.4 S, 55/2.8 Micro AIS, 85/1.8 K, 105/4 Micro AIS, 180/2.8 PC
- My flickr stream
OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
Rolleicord Va: Humble.
Holga 120GFN: Amazingly simple yet it produces outstanding negatives to print.
The Nikon F finder, though smaller/dimmer than the OM finders, has hands-down more accurate focusing and depth-of-field rendering, and it's just so much more pleasing to my eyes (perhaps the "default" diopter agrees with my eyes better than the OM-1/2 finder's diopter). The OM-3Ti/OM-4Ti are dream cameras, but they unfortunately do not have the construction quality and brutal simplicity of the F - shooting without a meter (as in all my other cameras, Leica M3, Mamiya RB67, Linhof Technika) just suits my vision much better. I had a good long run with the OM's, and then I decided to recuperate my substantial investment in the OM system, and continue using the simpler, more solid camera.
Originally Posted by Jerevan
Both my Nikkor lenses are more than 50 years old, and both are smoother-focusing and more dust/haze-free than most of the (more modern) OM lenses I was using. I am dying to supplement my F with an F2 (so that I can shoot two film speeds at once) but I am waiting for that elusive plain-prism F2 - they are rare and expensive, or (when affordable) *very* beat-up. I have a magnificently-mint plain-prism 74***** (last year) Nikon F Apollo, it'll last forever.
You should get a silver Nikkor-P again, and yes, try the F - should be slightly different to the F2, and sit slightly worse in-hand with the hard edges and moved shutter-release button.
Yeah... 35mm film is 35mm film, and after walking around with the OM-3Ti by my side for two years, I got over it. It's spectacular, yes, but I am not a collector... I am a photographer, and I prefer larger film formats, so for 35mm, there is no use in sticking with a (slightly unreliable in my experience, but may just have been my copy) body that's worth $2000+
Originally Posted by baachitraka
I've come to prefer the Nikon F finder, and for that 1/2000s shutter speed, I can pick up a nice F2 for a tenth of the price of the 3Ti. I've also learnt that lens performance does not matter - the Zuikos are better, but that does not make an appreciable difference to prints - subject and lighting does. I am totally happy with 1950s/1960s Nikkor optical quality for the type of photography I do with 35mm, and the build quality is (as mentioned before in this thread) unsurpassed, even by Leica/Zeiss.
Yes, the OM finders (I've had a few OM1/2) are a sight to behold. If I had found the OM system first, I might have stayed on. I don't see the need to have another 35 mm system alongside, it just gets confusing. (Although I have a sunday driver Pentax S1 too, at the moment!)
It's just that I gravitate towards the 100% viewfinder and the F2 again anytime something needs to get done seriously, maybe because I have had it for almost 6 years (long time for me) and it's been around, working perfectly all the time (due to being CLA'd). I will never come close to re-coup the money I have spent on it, unless it turned out it was owned by someone famous. I'll see if I can ask around a bit and borrow an F for a little while, at the moment, I don't see the point in plonking down €350 if it's turning out to be a diversion. Maybe better to love what I got and buy that silver Nikkor-P instead.
Leicashop in Vienna and Sover Wong are my tips for a prism F2.
Last edited by Jerevan; 07-24-2012 at 07:23 AM. Click to view previous post history.
“Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.” - Lao Tzu
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Thanks so much for the two great references!
Originally Posted by Jerevan
That was not my experience. My 50/1.4 Zuiko was nothing to write home about and wide open it was poor; the 50/1.4 Nikkor is a much better lens. The f2 Nikkor H is better still. The 105, you already know about; my 100/2.8 Zuiko was a fine lens but not it's equal. The 35/2 Nikkor O is sharper to the corners than the Zuiko 2.8 I had.
Originally Posted by philosomatographer
I now have a later 50 Zuiko; I've heard they got better, maybe I'll give it a try. But there's no way I'll ever keep the Oly stuff over the Nikons.
I like the one of the moggie.
To be honest, when I first took my OM2 out with it's Zuiko 50mm standard prime, the first thing that struck me when I got the prints back was the sharpness of the pictures. I don't know how the Zuiko 50mm compares to your Nikon F, but I reckon they don't make 'em like they used to.
The optical quality of the late (>1.1m serial number) Zuiko 50mm f/1.4, or the Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 Macro, are both unequalled by any 50mm that Nikon has made (in my experience). However, I find focusing with the F viewfinder much more accurate, and concerning build quality, the Nikkor-H.C 50mm f/2.0 is simply in another class to any Zuiko 50mm. So, horses for courses. The Nikkor-H.C also has pretty bad distortion for a 50mm.
Originally Posted by Ipno Tizer
Still - I love using it! And as I said I realised, the technical merits of the lens has very little to do with final output quality in a film-based system. Focusing accuracy / contrast of the viewfinder system is actually much more important, I find. This is why I like the F (and I suspect the F2 has a near-identical finder).
The best lenses I have ever used are the Zuiko Digital SHG Zoom lenses (7-14/4.0, 14-35/2.0, 35-100/2.0) - nothing even remotely compares, not Leica, not Zeiss. The haptical quality sucks though (big blobby things...) ;-) And it's digital.
Last edited by philosomatographer; 07-25-2012 at 04:40 AM. Click to view previous post history.