Nikon F2 photos when they were use in the army

<p>Hi all. I like Nikon F2 camera too much. When I see Nikon F2 photos, I'm always be interested. I'm see below photo new. This photo taken in 1974. The photographer was Turkish soldier in the Turkish army. Photos was taken in Cyprus. When Turkish army operation for peace for Turkish & Cyprus citizen.<br>

Tolga ANIL</p><div></div>

<p>Are you sure that's an F2? With the big F on the prism and the style of the grip on the motor drive they both look like an original F to me.</p>

<p>It is an F with the F-36 motor and the FTN meter.</p>

<p>Brings back memories!</p>

<p>Yeah those are F's but I love an F2. Easily my favorite camera even now.<br>

<br />Rick H.</p>

I'm sorry, I made a mistake...I have to learn too much informations about old Nikon models.

<p>I had two F2 bodies from 1973 to 2006. Great bodies, but since moving to digital D300s with built in motors, aperture and shutter priority, auto focus and ISO, I really don't miss the F2.</p>

<p>That soldier has quite a few pounds hanging around his neck.</p>

<p>I have four F2 bodies and two motor drives. I use my D200 and D7000 99 percent of the time but still love these old classics.</p>

<p>Tolga, below is what an F2 looks like; much less angular (and easy on the right thumb) than an F. It's my favourite film Nikon, but sadly 35mm film just can't deliver quality to compete with digital.</p><div></div>

<p>Actually, the F2 is of a very beautiful design. My first "contact" with this model (and with Nikon, I think) was in the film "King Kong", from 1976. I was impressed with the motordrive unit.<br /> After that, I realized that my uncle was a proud owner of an AS version. I used it, loved it, and few years later I started buying Nikon with the F3.</p>

<p>F2 Photomic (DP-1 prism finder).The drive unit is a MD-2.</p><div></div>

<p>A closer view of Jeff Bridges with the "beast", capable of an "ashtonishing" rate of 5 fps. (Above is Jessica Lange).<br /> Never owned a F2, I always considered it from my previous generation. My camera is the F3.</p><div></div>

<p>I love the look of the old Nikon F. Hope to find one in immaculate condition some day. Pictured is my F2 Photomic that I acquired 6 months ago. It was delivered to me mint in the box. I also picked up a near mint 35-105 zoom for it. On the right is a never used (until I got it) Sigma 100-200 zoom. these old Nikons bring back memories of when I was a kid and my dad was always buying/selling and shooting Nikon equipment.</p><div></div>

<p>No wonder King Kong got annoyed. The poor brute was probably dazzled by all the chrome that Mr Bridges is shining in his face. There are even chrome hooks on the dog-leash that's being used as a neck strap on the camera.</p>

<p>Looks like all the black finish F2s were out of stock at the props supplier that week. Plus our Jeff is trying to focus by twisting the chrome attachment ring of the lens. Why are remakes of classics always so lame?</p>

<p>Used both F2 and F cameras until I digitized.<br>

Without motor, the F2(AS) is my favorite, but I like the feel of the F with F36 better than the F2 with MD2. F with F36 and prism finder is a great combo in steady light.</p>

<p>I still have and occasionally use my F2AS. I think I will never let it go. I remember how proud of it I was when it replaced my Nikormat EL in 1980. Classic.</p>

<p>Thanks for the memories.</p>

<p>I still prefer my Nikkormat EL for shooting, but I do appreciate my all black F2.<br>

Otherwise the meterless F is still the beauty king of the family, IMO</p><div></div>

<p><em>.<strong>....but sadly 35mm film just can't deliver quality to compete with digital.</strong></em><br>

<em><strong> </strong></em><br>

<em><strong><br /></strong></em>LOL!! <br>

<br />It's a lot more difficult to get quality shots with 35mm film and a lot easier to get tons of mediocre shots with a digital camera. Isn't it the content of the photo that signifies "quality"?<br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

Let's hope not too many Greek cypriots see that

soldier photographer, they may have decidedly

less fond memories.

<p>I started making photographs seriously as a kid in high school. After that, I used the medium of film for most of my career in magazine production and public relations. Back then it was transparencies and B&W prints destined for publication and agency representation when there was actually money in it -- and a fairly high bar of excellence you had to reach before acceptance. But the writing was on the wall. <br /> I dropped film entirely 8 years ago for digital, and actually learned it rather well, continuing to publish stock images and use others in my work. Problem is that sales don't amount to much anymore as so many "weekend warriors" burning 1000's of shots for a few "keepers" are willing to sell them for a buck or two -- or even give them away -- just to see their byline and gain the dubious title of "semi-pro." <br /> But last year, I had sort of an epiphany... realizing that with digital I was constantly chasing the next best camera and sensor, led by the nose by Nikon and the rest into a silly consumerism that did not exist so much with film. Pro DSLRs do amazing things, and usually as good or better than the best of the film cameras of only a decade ago. <br /> But with them the rhetoric of photography has transformed into continual bantering about silly "hipster" concerns like "bokeh" that is definitely not the key to excellent photography. Combine that with the barrage of chats about sensor and lens quality, craw vs. jpeg that are quite meaningless in terms of the art of photography, of the image as a whole and its emotional effect on the viewer. <br /> Given all that, it still surprises me how many people today think that film images are crappy; manual focus lenses without the hyped up latest and greatest nano coatings are not sharp; and film is so hard to process and scan. Indeed, with a number of mail-order processors out there you don't need a wet darkroom to enjoy film, though I recommend processing B&W materials yourself to save money, time and get much better results. <br /> So I bought a nice old Nikon F3 and had it reconditioned to mint by Nikon. And acquired a gaggle of Nikkor lenses from 24mm through 200mm. Some developing tanks and a scanner topped off the gear, with a stock of B&W film of different speeds and brands to get reacquainted. Off I went, to the bold old world of film. <br /> And guess what? I had more fun with photography than I had for at least the 8 years I fiddled with digital cameras. Lightweight, well-crafter cameras! Beautifully machined, reliable, "built like a tank," smooth as silk manual focus that is right on the mark. And premium glass every bit as sharp and sharper than modern, complex, unreliable and expensive pro zoom lenses for a quarter of the cost! I have since bought a couple of clean F2s and spent the money (about $200 each) to have them brought up to new standard with refoaming, shutter cleaning, etc., etc. Most parts for the F2 and F3 are amazingly still available. I have outfitted one of the F2s with the standard, non-metered prism. Talk about a beauty!<br /> Best of all, no chimping.... no more continually checking your result. Instead, it was back to relying on my knowledge, skill and experience to conjure the best exposure and processing for particular light and contrast ranges. I truly enjoy photography again, and hardly think of picking up my digital equipment except for an occasional job where color and digital delivery is expected and therefore "necessary." I am not disparaging digital. Far from it. <br /> Digital is the "Now" and even more so the "Future" as capture and delivery technologies expand beyond our imaginations in a very short time. But shooting film provides another experience in photography that cannot be matched by digital cameras. <br /> B&W only costs around15 cents per shot for film, processing and scanned to your computer screen. After you get the cost per shot nuisance out of your head, you realize that film shooting requires a different approach to the subject, that is not necessarily slower, but certainly includes more critical considerations of light and contrast that few digital photographers care about. <br /> Why? Because they know they will "enhance" their images later in Photoshop (read: overprocess, HDR to death, oversaturate). The only way to share the experience is to shoot film, learn film, love film. Love digital, too, but please don't disparage film and call for its death.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ted, I agree with you, fun is essential in non-professionnal photography, who needs photos anyway? (yes of course beyond family/holidays archives). It's like in fly fishing, the fish is just the cherry on the cake.</p>