Any Nikkormat ELW Users Here?

I'd like to hear reports of battery life and opinions on how well yours has held up in service. Any other opinions welcomed. Thank you.BTW, I'm not interested in the EL2, although I'd certainly read with interest anyway.

Super camera - was my primary F backup for many years, still gets the occasional field trip. I even still have the winder. Except for letting it sit unused for too long, I can never recall a battery failure in the course of use. The batteries are relatively small and very time stable in package as a spare, so no issue - can be changed with film in the camera at worst, and there is the test button.

The only thing I have against it is that you either have to flip the shutter lock or pull out the wind lever to shoot it. Pentax ES meter was off till you pressed lightly on the shutter button. I wonder how the EL battery hold up to walk around shooting with meter on all the time.

Experience with ELW-- zero

Use of Nikkormat EL -- 1966 to present

 

No repairs, still working.

I wonder how the EL battery hold up to walk around shooting with meter on all the time.

Don't know - never did - nor do I with my digital Nikons. Quick to flip the switch on either.

I'm more of an EL2 user(was just shooting one with some Velvia this past weekend), but none the less have an EL.

 

The EL is my second favorite body for use with non-AI lenses, behind the F2SB. It MIGHT be my favorite were it not for the fact that I don't like having to set the lens to f/5.6 before mounting on Nikkormat bodies(the F2 lets you mount with the lens set anywhere).

 

In any case, I use lithium batteries because changing the battery in both the EL and EL2 brings my fingers uncomfortably close to the shutter. Unless you're doing frequent long automatic exposures, it's like a lot of cameras of this age in that the battery is PROBABLY going to die of age before it's drained from use. BTW, I've not done actual tests, but the EL and EL2 both are the FE series and F3 in that in "A" mode, they are capable of timing exposures quite long. I've never specifically tested, but I think I've seen 30 seconds+ from the EL2, and it wouldn't surprise me if it could go a couple of minutes.

 

I've not heard of any specific reliability problems, but I've also been told that the electronics are a mess of discrete wires running all over the place. The now ubiquitous flexible printed circuit boards didn't come along until a few years later(Canon's A series cameras used them, and I'd guess the the FE was probably the first Nikon). So, if you buy one, make sure it works and it's PROBABLY not fixing if it doesn't.

On the battery thing-yes the EL/ELW/EL2 do turn the meter on when you click the advance lever out to the stand-off position. The F2, FE, FE2, FM, FM2, FM3a, and probably a few others I'm forgetting all work the same way, as does the Canon EF, Konica AutoReflex TC, and probably a few others I don't know of(I've used everything in the preceeding list except for the FM3a). With a bit of practice, it becomes second nature and is by far and away the most convenient on-off switch I've used(the EF and Autoreflex TC make it a bit more difficult by adding buttons or switches you have to press to turn it off, but that's not the subject here).

 

The EL and EL2 are also a bit weird in that they have a lock collar around the shutter button that functions independently of the film lever offset. Basically, they duplicate the function of each other-clicking out the advance lever unlocks the shutter button, and turning the collar around the button turns on the meter. Since the film lever is shared with so many other Nikons that I use frequently, I use it exclusively on my EL/EL2s and never bother with the collar. I've been told that you will run the battery down in a few days if you leave the meter on, whether with the collar or with the advance lever.

 

Unless you're using the power winder, which I have but don't use as it makes a lot of noise and adds a decent amount of weight to wind the film pitifully slow, you're probably going to have the advance lever out anyway. On pretty much all cameras with an advance lever, I find "hooking" my thumb behind it to be a convenient way to stabilize the camera, which is why I like Nikon integrating the on-off switch into it on so many cameras(and why I appreciate having a "snap" out there even when it doesn't do anything, as on the Canon New F-1). My personal opinion is to get in the habit of turning the camera on and off this way.

With a bit of practice, it becomes second nature and is by far and away the most convenient on-off switch I've used

 

My opinion too.

I have a winder for mine and it IS slow. I had to go in and install a brass gear because the nylon one was bad. On alkaline batteries, which are 1.5V it's slow. I wonder if its any faster on rechargeables, knowing full well rechargeables are 1.2V apiece. But oddly enough, electronic flashes recycle faster on rechargables than alkalines. I bought the camera dented and with trash on the topside of the screen. I remember how hard I worked on this camera to solve these problems. and yes I can tell you first hand: when you take the top off this camera it's a nightmare to work on anything. But I DID get this camera freshened up, sheet metal straight, and winder right. I was about to sell it last weekend when I suddenly asked myself what the heck I was thinking. But I'm still deterred by hard-to-find expensive 544 silver batteries. And when they go out you have a big fat nothing.

Correction, I got a Nikkormat FTn in 1966, the EL was 1972. I guess I'm wearing out faster than the EL

It is still working, as I said.

Rechargeables often give better performance under high current drain conditions because of their lower internal resistance. This is especially true with flashes, where your'e basically trying to pull as much power into the cap as possible, and lower resistance makes that possible. Motor drives are hit and miss-many 80s ones(and their 90s cousins with built-in drives) had dedicated Ni-Cd or NiMH packs available, and on pro cameras the rechargeable pack would often buy you .5fps or so. For something like a winder, the lower voltage would probably be a detriment.

 

The battery used in these cameras is not common in Nikon land-AFAIK it was only used in the EL and EL2. With that said, it's a fairly common battery in the world of photography as a whole, and I've never really had any issues finding one. Among other things, all the Canon A-series cameras(which had the distinction of the worlds most popular SLR before the DSLR era) used them, as did the New F-1. Outside of Canons, my Minolta IIIf meter uses this battery. I had a BUNCH of Bronicas that used it-the EC, EC-TL, ETR/ETRS/ETR-C, and SQ/SQ-A all used them. It's also called the PX-28 and 4LR44. In a pinch, you can even stack 4 LR44s together and it will work(you might need a bit of aluminum foil to take up the slack-but yes I've done it). Silver isn't super common these days, but alkaline and lithium both work fine and I don't think the EL is overly picky about voltages.

Rechargeables often give better performance under high current drain conditions because of their lower internal resistance. This is especially true with flashes, where your'e basically trying to pull as much power into the cap as possible, and lower resistance makes that possible. Motor drives are hit and miss-many 80s ones(and their 90s cousins with built-in drives) had dedicated Ni-Cd or NiMH packs available, and on pro cameras the rechargeable pack would often buy you .5fps or so. For something like a winder, the lower voltage would probably be a detriment.

 

The battery used in these cameras is not common in Nikon land-AFAIK it was only used in the EL and EL2. With that said, it's a fairly common battery in the world of photography as a whole, and I've never really had any issues finding one. Among other things, all the Canon A-series cameras(which had the distinction of the worlds most popular SLR before the DSLR era) used them, as did the New F-1. Outside of Canons, my Minolta IIIf meter uses this battery. I had a BUNCH of Bronicas that used it-the EC, EC-TL, ETR/ETRS/ETR-C, and SQ/SQ-A all used them. It's also called the PX-28 and 4LR44. In a pinch, you can even stack 4 LR44s together and it will work(you might need a bit of aluminum foil to take up the slack-but yes I've done it). Silver isn't super common these days, but alkaline and lithium both work fine and I don't think the EL is overly picky about voltages.

Thanks for the reply. And you hit on the crux of my problem. A question nobody can answer first hand because being a 43 year old camera, most of the guys from those days are either dead or not on here to see my question. I CAN tell you that the Nikkormats FT series are totally dependent on battery voltage and life for meter accuracy. The Nikons F and F2 were also. A couple tenths of a volt off, and meter accuracy was decidedly altered. they had no regulation of any kind. I wonder if it is like that in the EL series too. Becaue if the EL series does have some kind of regulation you can use whatever battery you want. Alkalines, silver, lithium, whatever. Try putting an alkaline PX625 in a Nikkormat FTN instead of a mercury and letting the battery run down a bit. No way. It will overexpose like hell.

I enjoyed using an EL for a while back in the 80's, still have it (somewhere) and recently picked up a nicely brassed black one. Looking at the black one, should there be any felt light seals on the back in the grooves?

The EL and EL2 are NOT like an FT series, nor are they like the metered finders for the F.

 

As far as I know, like the F2, F3, FM and FE series, they don't care about the battery voltage as long as it's sufficient to power the meter.

 

As I mentioned, I use lithiums, which are dead on 6.0V when new, and mine are all correct. If it DOES matter, though, lithiums have a flat discharge curve so the meter can be adjusted with the ISO dial. I also have started using the lithium CR1/3N in all of my Nikons that normally are loaded with 2x LR44s.

 

Also, I use type 675 zinc-air cells in my Nikkormat FTN and all of my Nikon Fs. The have the same voltage and same discharge characteristic of a mercury cell.

The EL can use any battery chemistry, no problem, as others have testified. It was one of the earliest fully-electronic "prestige" cameras, but doesn't have voltage regulation issues with alkaline, silver or lithium batteries. That nonsense is almost entirely limited to cameras that depended on the specific "no voltage change til the very second it dies" mercury batteries: since mfrs knew they could rely on the battery to self-regulate, few built in what they thought would be a redundant circuit. Nikon is one of those who didn't bother, at least in all their manual-exposure CdS-meter bodies and prisms. But the electronic-shuttered EL/FE variants and LED manual meters (FM/SB/AS) work OK off any cell that fits the compartment. Heck, I've even run a DS-12 EE aperture control for my F2AS off a PX28!

 

Never bonded with the EL, myself. Love the build quality, which is a cross between F2 and Nikkormat FTN. But (as opposed to most camera magazine reviews in 1972), I despise the shutter speed meter display with microscopic numbers overlaid on the focus screen. More often than not, the display panel falls in a composition area of shadow or darkness, and disappears altogether into the murk. This design was carried over to the FE, which I disliked for the same reason. I vastly prefer LED or backlit LCD displays, but I'm in the minority: to this day, the EL / FE meter display remains an iconic favorite of most photographers who were around at the time.

 

I do understand why: the optional EL manual exposure "match needle" mode is fully functional/intuitive, unlike its competitors Konica T, Pentax ES and Canon EF (all of which were primarily AE bodies that went into a stupor when set to manual). And of course, tiny numbers on a translucent panel was the display standard of the era (aside from the pricey Nikon F2S, dubious Yashica TL Electro X, and clever Fuji ST801). Even the upstart Contax RTS essentially copied the EL meter display three years later: it merely added LEDs next to the scale numbers (to no avail, as again the scale itself disappears into murk unless you're shooting on the beach at high noon). I don't mind this at all with simple meter needle/fork displays in mechanical bodies like Nikkormat or Olympus OM1, but it bugs me no end with AE bodies.

Edited March 27, 2019 by orsetto

This design was carried over to the FE, which I disliked for the same reason. I vastly prefer LED or backlit LCD displays, but I'm in the minority: to this day, the EL / FE meter display remains an iconic favorite of most photographers who were around at the time.

 

I cut my manual exposure teeth on a Canon FTb and then moved to the New F-1-a camera that I still consider the finest manual focus body ever made despite the fact that I'm now a die-hard Nikon guy(the F2 comes very close).

 

The FTb does have the exposure display in the image area, but at least it doesn't have squinty numbers to read. The F-1, all versions, moves it to a window off to the side while the New F-1 adds a clearly legible aperture scale along with a backlight for it that can optionally stay illuminated for ~8 seconds with a half press of the shutter button-and more importantly actually makes the scale legible in any light(unlike the half baked attempt at an illuminator on the F3). Also, it's on the right side of the screen on Canons, a position I find a lot more natural than the left side. My complaint also extends to the FM10, which puts the +/0/- LEDs on the left side(I actually prefer the under the screen arrangement of the F2 in all forms to displays on either side).

 

Not to stray further off the subject than already, but I actually rather like the match-LED display on the FG.

The type of display like the EL/FE is about the best for an aperture priority camera before the advance of LED and backlit LCD. Newer cameras can afford to have those because they have bigger battery due to the fact they are AF and most have built in motor drive.

When making the FM3a Nikon had problem buying the meter movement to use because by that time it became rare.

Not to stray further off the subject than already, but I actually rather like the match-LED display on the FG.

 

Yes, that kind of brought everything full circle, didn't it? Contax came up with this display for the RTS by "stealing" and enhancing the EL meter readout with LEDs, then some years later Nikon "stole" the RTS revision back to put in their own FG. Ironically the cheapie plastic FG is a heckuva lot more reliable than the scads more expensive RTS was: the rise of cheap flexible printed circuit boards saw to that. Popular Photography used to always publish illustrated "repairability" addendums to every camera review: the inside of the original RTS was a horrific rats nest of hair thin wires (worse even than the Nikkormat EL).

 

To this day, I think the FG had the most astounding viewfinder I've ever experienced in a 35mm SLR. Picture-window huge, even larger than Olympus OM1, but much contrastier and easier to focus across the field. You could get lost in the FG finder, its a shame they didn't have the same finder in other more-desirable Nikons. Once you've looked thru an FG, returning to the F and F2 (never mind FM/FE) is a bit of a letdown.

 

Getting back on topic: has anyone compared the framing accuracy of the Nikkormat EL series vs the mechanical Nikkomat FTN, FT2, FT3 etc? Much as I love the bulletproof mechanical Nikkormats, they have terrible framing: the finder crops a good 20% off the actual film image. Awhile back, I had need of shooting both a Nikkormat FT3 and an FM with the same lens (Nikkor-O 35/2), and this was really noticeable: the view thru the Nikkormat was closer to 45mm while the FM was a more realistic 38mm (of course my F2AS would have been dead accurate). Given ELs now sell for even less than FTNs, I might pick one up just for the AE option.

Edited March 28, 2019 by orsetto

A used black EL with 50/1.8Ai was my first Nikon. A chronically jumpy meter retired it a year or so later in favor of subsequent FM/FE bodies, F3s and AF models.Aperture priority with NAI lenses made it a one-trick pony relative to other(better) bodies. Bomb-proof, heavy metal Nikon build quality but I never really bonded with the EL. So many other newer Nikon film body options to consider now.

Yes, that kind of brought everything full circle, didn't it? Contax came up with this display for the RTS by "stealing" and enhancing the EL meter readout with LEDs, then some years later Nikon "stole" the RTS revision back to put in their own FG. Ironically the cheapie plastic FG is a heckuva lot more reliable than the scads more expensive RTS was: the rise of cheap flexible printed circuit boards saw to that. Popular Photography used to always publish illustrated "repairability" addendums to every camera review: the inside of the original RTS was a horrific rats nest of hair thin wires (worse even than the Nikkormat EL).

 

To this day, I think the FG had the most astounding viewfinder I've ever experienced in a 35mm SLR. Picture-window huge, even larger than Olympus OM1, but much contrastier and easier to focus across the field. You could get lost in the FG finder, its a shame they didn't have the same finder in other more-desirable Nikons. Once you've looked thru an FG, returning to the F and F2 (never mind FM/FE) is a bit of a letdown.

 

Getting back on topic: has anyone compared the framing accuracy of the Nikkormat EL series vs the mechanical Nikkomat FTN, FT2, FT3 etc? Much as I love the bulletproof mechanical Nikkormats, they have terrible framing: the finder crops a good 20% off the actual film image. Awhile back, I had need of shooting both a Nikkormat FT3 and an FM with the same lens (Nikkor-O 35/2), and this was really noticeable: the view thru the Nikkormat was closer to 45mm while the FM was a more realistic 38mm (of course my F2AS would have been dead accurate). Given ELs now sell for even less than FTNs, I might pick one up just for the AE option.

Nikkormats show 92% of the film field, which is about the same as a slide mount or a negative carrier plus easel. Are you sure 20% might be an exaggeration?

Nikkormats show 92% of the film field, which is about the same as a slide mount or a negative carrier plus easel. Are you sure 20% might be an exaggeration?

 

Those are the specs Nikon claimed, in reality its less. I dug thru some old magazines til I found a review that measured: the mechanical Nikkormats have the most heavily cropped viewfinders of any name-brand SLR. Perhaps this was intentional at the time, to highlight the then-unique 100% finder of the more expensive Nikon F.

 

Honestly I never really noticed until I chanced to be using a Nikkormat FT3 in tandem with an FM and the same lenses: the dramatic cropping of the Nikkormat suddenly became quite apparent, to the point of ridiculous (it gives a framing with the 35/2 that is much closer to 45/2.8). At first I thought that particular FT3 might be an anomaly. but when I pulled out my whole Nikkormat collection (FTn, FTn Apollo, FT2) they all matched the FT3. By comparison, both my FMs (and dead FE) had finder coverage MUCH closer to my Fs and F2s: the compact Nikon bodies do indeed approximate an average slide mount. But he Nikkormat FT series are hopelessly off: fine for non-critical shooting, but likely useless for serious macro, copying, or accurate portrait positioning. Admittedly this is academic at this juncture: no one is doing any of that on 35mm film anymore (and if they were, a now-affordable F, F2 or F3 beater gives 100% framing). An old thread on these forums once discussed whether a Nikkormat EL prism could replace a Nikkormat FT2 prism, and the answer was no: the EL prism is slightly bigger. I'm hoping that means Nikon enlarged VF coverage in the seven years between the first FT and EL.

Edited March 28, 2019 by orsetto

With a lens that does much better work than its reputation would suggest!

Those are the specs Nikon claimed, in reality its less. I dug thru some old magazines til I found a review that measured: the mechanical Nikkormats have the most heavily cropped viewfinders of any name-brand SLR. Perhaps this was intentional at the time, to highlight the then-unique 100% finder of the more expensive Nikon F.

 

Honestly I never really noticed until I chanced to be using a Nikkormat FT3 in tandem with an FM and the same lenses: the dramatic cropping of the Nikkormat suddenly became quite apparent, to the point of ridiculous (it gives a framing with the 35/2 that is much closer to 45/2.8). At first I thought that particular FT3 might be an anomaly. but when I pulled out my whole Nikkormat collection (FTn, FTn Apollo, FT2) they all matched the FT3. By comparison, both my FMs (and dead FE) had finder coverage MUCH closer to my Fs and F2s: the compact Nikon bodies do indeed approximate an average slide mount. But he Nikkormat FT series are hopelessly off: fine for non-critical shooting, but likely useless for serious macro, copying, or accurate portrait positioning. Admittedly this is academic at this juncture: no one is doing any of that on 35mm film anymore (and if they were, a now-affordable F, F2 or F3 beater gives 100% framing). An old thread on these forums once discussed whether a Nikkormat EL prism could replace a Nikkormat FT2 prism, and the answer was no: the EL prism is slightly bigger. I'm hoping that means Nikon enlarged VF coverage in the seven years between the first FT and EL.

I'm having a hard time accepting these revelations in your post. Referring to the following first link, I am sure the write-up is just parroting the published material But in the second link is a test I conducted myself. See post 6 in the second link. I'm having a hard time believing I could have gotten it so wrong, as you imply.

Nikkormat FTn Camera, 1967-1975

 

Viewfinder Coverage

With a lens that does much better work than its reputation would suggest!

 

So true, and the later ones are an improvement too. (LINK)

So true, and the later ones are an improvement too. (LINK)

Yeah - they are so cheap, I'll be buying a late one - black ring.