Tell me about Nikkormats...

<p>First of all, thanks to everyone who gave me great advice about the manual Nikons. I bought an F3HP and purchased the MD-4 motor drive for it as well. I can't wait to get it and put it to use. I was wondering though about the Nikkormats from a Nikon history standpoint. I've read a lot about them and I'd like to know where they fit into the Nikon hierarchy. Are they good cameras or were they a camera that everyone was glad to move on from? How do they compare to the later Nikons like the compact FE/FE2/FA or the more robust F-series bodies? Were they a bright spot in Nikon history or a blight upon the Nikon landscape? They're abundant on the big auction site, but that makes me wonder why. Tell me what you know and what your experiences with them were like and which Nikkormat was the more desirable model...</p>

<p>Andy, you may find this recent thread of interest.</p>

<p><a href="00WihZ">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WihZ</a></p>

<p>Ian</p>

<p>My two cents: I'm not an expert but I have some thoughts about this. The Nikkormats were the forerunners of the FE/FM/FA/FG, non pro cameras. They are significantly bigger than the later cameras. I believe the smaller FE/FM body was Nikon's response to the tiny Olympus OM1. The Nikkormats don't quite have the build quality of the F, F2, F3, but they are extremely robust. More significantly they don't have interchangeable finders and screens. Personally, I don't like the fact that the film advance can't be "inched" the way the Leica or Nikon F or Pentax Spotmatics can. That said I still have a Nikkormat FTN that has taken some great shots and one day will again I hope. The most important thing is that they accept all the Nikkor lenses.</p>

<p>I managed a camera shop in the seventies, and bought a new Nikkormat FT2 on the advice of our Nikon salesman. He described the Nikkormats as Nikon quality for amateurs who didn't need the interchangeability of body components such as screens, drives and backs. It was built like a tank, and made beautiful Kodachromes with the 50 mm f/2 and 35 mm f/2 Nikkors that I bought to complement it. A clean and functional Nikkormat today would probably be appreciated just as much by someone wanting a solid and simple Nikon. </p>

<p>The only blight (some may disagree) on the Nikon landscape was the Nikkorex Zoom of the 1960's which featured a fixed 43-86 zoom. While the zoom was okay (as far as 43-86 zooms were at that time) the leaf shutter of the camera had its share of troubles.<br>

To the original topic: our local newspaper had a pair of Nikkormats (don't remember which model) with the 50mm f2 non-AI lenses that they used from the early 1970's until well into the late 1980's. Never had a problem.</p>

<p>I have a Nikkormat that I bought in 1972 while serving in the U.S. Navy. I bought it either in Hong Kong or Japan can't remember which. Have quite a few lenses that I bought as well. It still works like a charm and I recently replaced the mirror bumper and other seals with a kit from Jon Goodman. Wonder how many digital cameras will last this long?</p>

<p>Couple of places to check out:</p>

<p>http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikkormat/index.htm</p>

<p>http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/?title=Nikkormat&src=abop&qpvt=nikkormat&fwd=1&q=nikkormat</p>

<p>Digital cameras last long enough - I doubt anyone has worn one out. However they become obsolete because new cameras have features that quickly become the norm. It's hard for an older camera to compete with the color, high ISO and overall image quality of the D3. If you're not "competing", why worry about replacing your older camera. In a larger sense, <strong>all </strong>film cameras are obsolete because of the medium, not the hardware. If you prefer film, why worry about that either.</p>

<p>The Nikkormat cameras were fairly well built compared to their immediate predecessor - the Nikkorex. I suspect that any Nikon dealer displaying a Nikkorex poster would lose his franchise on the spot. Successive versions of the Nikkormats had "innovative" features to meet competition on the low end of the market. The same could be said of the mechanical FE and FM cameras (the FG was the Nikkorex of the F@ breed). The FM-10 is still being made, along with the F6, and is a conveniently- sized, completely mechanical camera.</p>

<p>All this is important to collectors and nostalgia buffs - good shelf liners. However, I always look at them with the question, "Can I shoot with it?". You won't find a nicer camera of this era for shooting than the F3HP. I have one, and it is an absolute gem - mechanically speaking. The metering is quite good, but it is a dog to use with flash (as were its predecessors). If you want good flash compatibility, the F100 is a great camera and a great buy.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> The Nikkormat is a very nice old camera. Rare to see a photog carrying one around but there must be a few out there being used. Takes the non AI lenses. If you buy one and plan to shoot it then you should have it serviced so that it works up to par. It would be a lot of fun to take one out for the day and burn some T-max in it.</p>

<p>The Nikkormat FT2 takes a modern silver battery which you can buy any where. Wikepedia will have basic information on all the models that were out and how they fell into the line up over that era..</p>

<p>I used an FT2 earlier today at a reading of the Declaration Of Independence and at a car show. Most shots were taken with a 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor PC. The film was Ilford PF4+ motion picture stock of unknown vintage (it worked the last time I used it). I also brought along a 28/3.5 AI Nikkor, an 85/2 AI Nikkor and a 200/4 Nikkor QC with factory AI conversion. The reading was done in a shaded area so most of those shots were with the 85. No other film cameras were seen at either place. </p>

<p>Andy<br>

I bought and used both a Nikon F and a Nikormat back in about 1965. I was travelling a lot with the US Navy and US Air Force and sometimes I had to choose which camera to take with me. More often than not, I would chose to take the Nikormat. I think it was a just a tad lighter and fit a little better into its leather case. Often I would have both cameras with me in which case I would but B&W film in one and color slide film in the other. I had an assortment of lenses but they fit either camera interchangeably. I still have both cameras, although I haven't used them recently. The Nikormat is a fine camera just not as flexible as the Nikon which had removable focusing screens, a removable back and so forth. <br>

Mike S </p>

<p>I dragged my old Nikkormat through Central Asia for a year: dusty Afghanistan, sweltering India, frozen Nepal — at any time I thought I could use it to hammer tent pegs and still take photos in the morning.<br>

In fact, the battery failed in Kandahar — and I was able to shoot it using Sunny F 16 for weeks — didn't really need a battery for anything but the meter (like to try that with my D300).<br>

When the winder handle fell off, I cobbled together a replacement using bits and pieces.<br>

What a fun and sturdy camera. AND it took fine photos.</p>

<p>My two Nikkormat FT2's have been my workhorses for over 30 years, until I switched to a D90. The five (24mm/2.8, 35mm/2.8, 50mm/1.8, 85mm/1.8 and 200mm/4) lenses provide more-than-adequate image quality. I'll use this gear as long as film and processing are available at a decent price.</p><div></div>

<p>Cool shot, Tom!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the FG was the Nikkorex of the F@ breed</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand why people don't like the FG. It's a nice small body (similar in size to the Olympus OM) which had some advanced features for the time such as aperture priority and program modes and could support TTL flash metering.</p>

<p>I have had mine for at least 25 years and it has never failed or needed repair.</p>