Nikon's 100th Anniversary Logo and Website

<p>The camera thickness and the height of the lens mount affect the way I hold the camera very much. The F5 actually thinner than the Df. The F5 requires the grip because the battery makes the lens mount very high in the body thus left hand supporting is poor. </p>

<p>Interesting, BeBu. Without doubting you, could you please explain how? I'm just trying to understand your grip.</p>

<p>Actually, "early digital" M Leicas are not exactly the same size as film (M) versions. They were noticeably thicker and heavier (clearly affecting ergonomics to my taste).<br /> My take: Although film M cameras (and the current digital M10) are not that small (compared side by side to e.g., a FM2), they feel noticeably smaller (although maybe not lighter), thanks in part to the lack of pentaprism and shorter flange but specially to the size of lenses, which look ridiculously small when compared to the equivalent Nikons. In my smallish TT belt bag I can carry either a M with a lens attached and a 90/2 aside, or a Nikkor with just one lens attached, that badly fits.<br /> <img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-iBUq5eOABKs/TXFrDb03-6I/AAAAAAAAADM/e4tbQk3OuTQ/s1600/35s.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="374" /><br />Nikon vs. Leica "Summicrons" (35/2)<br>

<br /> BTW; when Nikon released the F6 (which to my taste came with the best grip ever), they made the grip big but thinner and with a sharper hanger or "hook" (had to discard AA batteries to achieve this). They returned to thicker grips to hold bigger batteries (digital), not bad, but personally I prefer the "old" thin (big) ones. Matter of personal preferences, of course.</p>

<p>Theoretically, interchangeable wide-angle lenses for mirrorless cameras (including rangefinder film cameras such as the traditional Leica M) can be smaller since they don't need the clearance for the mirror. However, for digital, wide-angle lenses still need to be telecentric such that light will hit the sensor more in a perpendicular manner or there could be serious fringing issues. Therefore, mirrorless wide-angle lenses still cannot be that small. Film doesn't have that restriction such that rangefinder lenses designed for film can be small, but they don't work as well on digital.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They were noticeably thicker</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am glad to not have to read all those complaints about the "fat" digital M cameras anymore now that the M10 dimensions match those of the M7. Just wondering what the Leicaphiles will have to complain about now as it is quite unlikely that they won't have something to bellyache about when comparing the present with the "good old times". After all, we are talking about a mere 3.5mm here that the M10's width is now reduced compared to the M240. I don't know the relation to the M9 as the dimension given for the M9 is 1.5mm less than that for the M10 (37mm vs 38.5mm). Quite obviously, the dimension for the M9 don't include any "protrusions" while the one for the M10 appears to be all inclusive.<br /> <br /> While I liked the way my M6 looked, I never liked the way it had to be held. Had I kept it (the whole rangefinder concept doesn't work for me), I surely would have added some sort of grip to it to improve handling. In any case, the (mostly unloved because if its size (doesn't that sound eerily familiar)) Leica M5 was to me the best Leica M anyway. Not that its handling was markedly better than that of the smaller ones before and after it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Therefore, mirrorless wide-angle lenses still cannot be that small.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Case in point: Voigtlander 21/1.8 M-mount is 69mm diameter (58mm filter) x 92mm long (including the built-in hood). Nikon 20/1.8G AF-S is 81mm diameter (77mm filter) by 79mm long (without hood). Made from metal, the Voigtlander is actually 50g heavier than the Nikon. <br>

<br /> In addition, the smallness of some of the M-mount lenses comes at the expense of usually quite heavy vignetting when used wide open (something Leica "hides" by correcting for it in camera (only possible for digital, of course).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a Nikon FM2n and it seems fairly small and compact. It may be larger then some camera's but it's small enough to fit in my bag pretty good. I paid $60.00 for it and already have a few lenses available. I just shoot it with the 50mm however and the other lenses just sit around. </p>

<p>The bottom line for Nikon however is they have nothing I want to purchase. I tried the digital thing and it did not click for me so I went back to film. I am interested in mechanical camera's only. I wish them the best however. </p>

<p>Well now the 100th Anniversary book is out, but WHERE'S THE 100th ANNIVERSARY CAMERA?</p>

<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-100-Anniversary-Uli-Koch/dp/3200047402/ref=as_li_ss_tl">https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-100-Anniversary-Uli-Koch/dp/3200047402/ref=as_li_ss_tl</a></p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

<p>Sorry Tim, according to your Amazon link:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Currently unavailable. <br />We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The book is not available, nor is the camera. :-)<br>

But July 25 is still (exactly) 6 months away. I am sure Nikon will find ways to lighten your wallet.</p>

One available right now, $128. I'll pass. Apparently, the book can be ordered from the author directly: nikon100.net.

Doesn't look like it's something Nikon was directly involved in.

<p>They had them early this morning. Maybe they only had a few copies (maybe they only printed a few copies). It's being talked up on other Nikon sites.</p>

<p>Come on Nikon, show us what you got!! Let's see a 100th Anniversary Df, D5, F6, maybe even a re-issue S2 rangefinder. That would be cool. Or better yet, how about a black paint 100th Anniversary Nikon F with plain prism finder (the one that takes diopters), that would be awesome.</p>

<p>I couldn't afford any of them, but they're really cool to look at and read about.</p>

<p>Nikon could make an SP 100 and we can compare it to the Leica 60.</p>

<p>Andrew!<br /> If you take an F, F2 or F3 which are not small camera but have no grip. You cradle it with only your left hand and then take a small DSLR like my D70s and do the same. Since you don't use the right hand the grip isn't used. Although the weight and size of the D70 isn't much different from an F but holding it with the left hand only is much less secured. The reason on the D70s the lens is higher from the bottom and the body is thicker. So with a camera which I can hold securely with my left hand I can adjust the shutter speed with 2 finger and my right hand isn't holding the camera at all. And when I use the shutter release on the top of the camera it's comfortable. You do not need to take your eyes off the viewfinder when adjusting the shutter speed or the aperture ring. Another thing, when you squeeze the shutter release button on top your palm is against the bottom of the camera and thus you push your index finger against your palm so it's much steadier.</p>

<p>Speaking of re-issues, when Nikon did the reissue of the SP and S3(I think it was), did they use the same tooling from the late 1950's, or were these "reissue" cameras in the same vein as the Mini-Cooper is a "reissue" of the original? In other words, it looks kind of like the original, but is a whole new redesigned item.</p>