Turns out they got it right in 1959 (Nikon F)

[E. von Hoegh]

The Photomic metered finders always did seem clunky to me. The body with straight prism is a lovely handling package. The simplicity reminds me of an M4. No distractions.

I have a good Ftn finder for mine, which I use only for macro work. The body, plain finder, and 50/2 lens is a very well proportioned and nicely balanced outfit. The Ftn finder and 20/3.5 Nikkor UD, on the other hand, could be used to anchor small ships.
Speaking of macro, my one real beef with the F is the MLU. Not nearly as good as the one on the Nikkormat.

[Les Sarile]

Goofiest MLU implementation no doubt but it has to be kept in historical perspective particularly if it is infact the first. The only source I can find stating this is Stephen Gandy's CameraQuest - Nikon F History

[philosomatographer]

Goofiest MLU implementation no doubt but it has to be kept in historical perspective particularly if it is infact the first. The only source I can find stating this is Stephen Gandy's CameraQuest - Nikon F History

Also, keep in mind the great aspect of the F's Mirror-Lockup implementation: it's also the world's first "silent mode" implementation in a SLR! Whenever you want a quieter camera, you can - by feel - engage the switch. Then, when you make your next shot, the mirror is raised, but not lowered again (which is the noisiest part of the sequence by far!). It's a very quiet camera in this mode.

Then, whenever you feel like it - possibly by feel again - turn MLU off before winding the film on. The mirror immediately drops (no wasted frame), and you're ready for your next shot ("silent" or otherwise).

I love using the F like this - not that much louder than a rangefinder camera, and quieter than my OM for sure. Of course, only good for single "decisive moment" shots in this mode, since the finder is blacked out after your shot until you turn the switch again. But it does afford the camera a unique capability other mechanical SLRs I've used does not have.

[fstop]

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.

[Pumalite]

It's great to have so many opinions at hand on such a subject. Myself; I just love my F.

[lxdude]

Actually Nikon was playing catch up to Minolta when they came out with the F.

By that token, both (Minolta SR-2 '58, Nikon F '59) were playing catch up to the Asahi Pentax ('57). But when the Nikon came out they had to play catch up to its fully automatic diaphragm. And the Nikon of course had the interchangeable pentaprism (and MLU) neither had.

Given the time it took to develop those machines and the closeness of their release, I see it as more a case of almost concurrent development than playing catch up.

[Les Sarile]

As I understand the development of the F, the interchangeable prism was the easiest and fastest way to adopt the existing Nikon rangefinder as an SLR as opposed to developing one from scratch. At that time the only option was WL and eye level and we all now the later was the choice by a wide margin. However, Nikon was able to capitalize on that arrangement when they developed the metered heads. 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 . . .

[Someonenameddavid]

The canon servo EE finder for the original F-1 was a monster and "way over the top" :-)

[fstop]

By that token, both (Minolta SR-2 '58, Nikon F '59) were playing catch up to the Asahi Pentax ('57). But when the Nikon came out they had to play catch up to its fully automatic diaphragm. And the Nikon of course had the interchangeable pentaprism (and MLU) neither had.

Given the time it took to develop those machines and the closeness of their release, I see it as more a case of almost concurrent development than playing catch up.

Its well documented that Nikon had trouble competing with Minolta for a long time.

have got to be the ugliest except perhaps the one on the Minolta XK . . .

The AE maybe but not the the AE-S finder

[Rol_Lei Nut]

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.

There I'd disagree: while the lost frame is annoying, the F's MLU is very easy & soft to activate, while remaining nearly impossible to do so accidentally (unlike my Pentax 6x7).
I find the F2's MLU far too stiff: There is a risk of slightly changing the composition unless the tripod/head is rock solid (which is when you actually need MLU the least).