jeroen dommisse Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I have a Nikon F Photomic T with a serial number in the 67xxxxx-series. Research tells me that the Photomic prisms from this era go from ASA 10 to 1600, whilst the dial on mine goes from 25 to 6400. I'm a bit puzzled. Anybody who has a clue about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis triguez Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Jeroen, I'm puzzled too. The only Photomic meter to have 6400 ASA is the FTn (6 ASA to 6400 ASA) If you don't get an answer here, maybe some old guy in the Classical Photonet forum could help you. Greetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_kleimen Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Hello, My books show the following; Nikon F Photomic, 10 to 1600 ASA - Nikon F Photomic T, 25 to 3200 ASA later changed to 20 to 6400 - Nikon F Photomic TN, 20 to 6400 ASA - Nikon F Photomic FTN 6 to 6400 ASA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_laepple Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I can confirm Bill's informations. My source says the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeroen dommisse Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 I'll post some photos in the morning! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Currie Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 My 1965 (Tn-era) Cooper and Abbot handbook says both the T and Tn came in 20-6400, but their illustration shows a T with a dial clearly marked 10-1600. They also mention that the mode for indexing the lens changed during the production of the T (earlier ones require turning the inner dial, later require lifting and turning the outer ring). I'm guessing that the two changes occurred together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeroen dommisse Posted September 16, 2005 Author Share Posted September 16, 2005 So here it is: <p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Currie Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 It looks as if my surmise above was incorrect, since it looks like the earlier version of the setting ring, but the later ASA range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now