Ninoka nk-700

<p>The other day I stopped at the America's Thrift Store in Gardendale, which I do on occasion to scope out its meager-to-nonexistent camera stock. They've never had anything in which anyone would have any modicum of interest in ever owning again. But I go anyway. This time I acquired a Vivitar PN2011 (about which I posted in this forum the other day), and this Ninoka nk-700.</p>

<p><img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Xj3zK4mkzuk/Tj1NKzC6fNI/AAAAAAAAGEc/n87jWInUGak/s1600/2011_08_06_JR_4594pn.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="256" /></p>

<p>This rangefinder is modeled as if it were an SLR. It has a 50mm "glass" lens, as indicated on the lens' nose. Although it only has one shutter speed 1/125s, it offers four aperture selections: f/6-8-11-16. The nk-700 does not require batteries. Upon getting mine home, I realized that the rewind spool was partially broken, and will not take up the film like it should. This requires me to use a dark bag to retrieve the film after finishing a role, thus only one role can be used in the field per trip in this camera. That's a limiting factor that will likely cause this camera to sit on the shelf.</p>

<p><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yatO9NQM8kA/Tj1eMZz-QqI/AAAAAAAAGFE/X6lv_KZOzEs/s1600/35+0072_13_edited-1pn.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="257" /></p>

<p>Despite my lack of familiarity with the camera and my overall lack of excitement about using it, I was pleasantly surprised by the results. Though I brought it along, I hadn't really planned on using it on this outing. I brought my Canon EOS 3 with me, since it hadn't been off the shelf in several months, but having failed to check the battery before leaving the house, I didn't learn until attempting to take the first photo that it was DOA.</p>

<p><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LW7eDWuy5CY/Tj1eKX0xTPI/AAAAAAAAGE8/1tuyrLGxzu4/s1600/35+0072_02_edited-1pn.jpg" alt="" width="257" height="400" /></p>

<p>So that left me with the Ninoka as the only other available camera to use alongside the Vivitar PN2011. Despite its "glass" lens, the photos taken with the camera were generally less sharp than those taken with the Vivitar.</p>

 

<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QNDWRmF2DnI/Tj1eLDjmfiI/AAAAAAAAGFA/Qa5RD_11T54/s1600/35+0072_09_edited-1pn.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="256" />

<p>Yep it was another clone of the Time/Life camera. Some toy camera people don't like it because it takes pictures that are "too good." :-)</p>

<p>Here's the <a href="../classic-cameras-forum/00Svr4">TIME camera</a> referred to, and also a link to <a href="http://westfordcomp.com/classics/time/index.htm">Gene M's shooting of same</a>.</p>

<p>They are much better than you'd expect, aren't they?</p><div></div>

<p>It really was nicer than I expected. And the viewfinder was bright/crisp, which was a plus as well.</p>

<p>That camera brings back memories. Back when my family's camera shop was at its peak (early to mid 1980's). We had endless numbers of doting owners of this "treasure" coming in to "ask if it was a <strong>good</strong> camera". We even had people that wanted to buy electronic flashes for them. We did have a few inexpensive Sunpak 1400M's on hand so if someone really wanted to take flash photos badly enough with their new "acquisition" then that was the flash we recommended. If the lens was stopped down and the camera held steady you could get a good photo, but many of the people using them back then didn't know that.</p>