Nikkormat FT2, and FT3 vs Nikon F and F2

[jim_leicafan]

<p>Despite admonishments from Josh, I still turn to this forum when i have questions regarding classic Nikons and Leicas. I go to those individual forums with questions about more modern cameras and lenses.<br>

Ron Swiader posted some very fine photos using Nikkormats. I have more Nikon SLRs than any sane person should have.<br>

My question is regarding what do I lose when using my Nikkormat FT2 with non-AI lenses and my FT3 with AI lenses, compared with using my Nikon F and F2.<br>

The Nikkormats are rock solid, suitably heavy, and built like a brick out house. Yes, I know that the F and F2 have interchangeable view finders and screens, but so what. <br>

Is there any substantial gain to be had with the top of the line Nikons versus the Nikkormats. Needless to say, I will never part with my F, F2, F3HP, F4S, or F100.</p>

[hughes]

<p>Jim<br>

the big difference was that the F's and F2's were part of a huge system motordrives,backs,finders,microscope adapters etc etc. Camera for camera in the field there's very little difference in use except an F2 has a 2000th top shutter speed but much more importantly the Nikkormats had a 125th flash sync speed which came in very handy for outdoor flash use. I knew some pros that used Nikkormats just for that reason. If you don't need a motordrive a Nikkormat is a great useable camera, very practical and in my opinion every bit as robust as it's "Pro" brothers. <br>

Steve</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Maybe build quality, but you're right, the Nikkormats can still be used to drive nails. The two things that stood out for me (because I used to use both Nikkormats and F's), is the better finder of the F/F2s, etc., and the ability to add winders to the Fs. Personally, I think a good working manual camera is a joy to use. Of course that's why I use Leicas too<g>.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>With a Nikon F one has the take the camera off a tripod to change film. In 1965 the New Nikkormat FS and FT had the top 1/25 flash strobe speed; the F was lower. An F or F2 shows the entire view; with a Nikkormat it is a tad less. With a Nikon F a flakey meter can have one just swaping out the viewfinder; instead of the entire body like the Nikkormat, In heavy useage the shutter on a Nikon F or F2 lasts longer than a Nikkormat; this is not an issue for amateur stuff. In scientfic screens of the Nikon F and F2 are important; the sports finder; the waste level finder; or the motor drives and bulk long rolls. Here I got my first Nikon F in 1962 as a used camera; it still has never required a CLA yet. I have owned many Nikkormats; FS; FT; FTn; FTN-k etc. A FTn-K bought brand new was a dud; it had a mean time before failure of about 2 to 4 rolls. It when back to Garden City about 3 times;over 1 year; finally it was a solid camera. This one body was a total piece of crap; turd; total garbage. It was bought as a spare; a new camera for backup and was a lemon. When another Nikkoramt jammed; the spare was used during a football game; then it jammed too; thus teh old Nikon F of 1962 was fetched out of my car to finish the game. Nikkormats are usually robust; one of mine was not. The metering resistor is a weak point on a Nikkormat.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I don't even think that the build quality was lower on the Nikkormats, certainly not less quality than they were when they were renamed "Nikons'. My Nikkormat FTn has never seen any kind of service, ever. Only the meter is out, but so is the meter inoperable on my Nikon F Photomic FT. The Nikkormat EL I have has never had service either, and it and its meter work just like they did when they were new.<br>

What you lost when you went to a Nikkormat was the possibility of using that essential auxiliary item, the waist-level finder (commonly known elsewhere in this site as a <em>waste-level finder</em> ).</p>

<p>It was the system stuff like motors and all that were the real difference. Otherwise, they'd hold the film flat just as well as any Nikon. Lots of pros used them too.</p><div></div>

[steve_levine]

<p>That was the beauty of film cameras. If they held their film flat, and their lens mounts were solid, one got the same results with any body.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> The Nikkormat finder is dimmer than the F or F2 finder. It has the built-in hot shoe and that 1/125th synch, the main reason I used them. Although this may be of no concern to many, the Nikkormat shutter is louder also. I had 3 Nikkormats, still have a pristine one. The F's loading procedure is almost as big a pain as the Leica.</p>

<p> </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>The earlier Nikkormats are an inexpensive way to use some of the great pre-AI Nikkors. Our local newspaper used a couple of early ones with the 50 mm f2 non AI Nikkor for over two decades, giving them up only to make way for autofocus. Always regret that I didn't offer to "take them off their hands" when they quit using them.</p>

[gerry b.]

<p>My first good SLR was a Nikkormat FTN which was also my sole SLR for 22 years. Then I got an F2A. An aspect of the Nikkormat that I liked was the "round the lens" shutter speed control, which I found more convenient to use than a dial on the top deck. One thing I really liked about the F series was the ability to easily replace the viewfinder screen with an E grid screen, also the 100% coverage.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>At the Nikon School 40 years ago they dogma was a Nikkormat shutter was good for 50k + and a Nikon F 150k + exposures.<br /> <br /> Prior to the Nikkormat of 1965 there was the Nikkorex F; built by Mamyia; with a Nikon brand nameplate; ie Nikkorex. Theses were like the Chevy Vega; if yours had no issues; it was a great camera; iif yours died; it was a dog.<br>

<br /> Pros bought Nikkorex's for its 1/125 flash strobe speed; faster than the Nikon F. Many slrs with cloth shutters then had 1/30 strobe sync speeds; a 1/60 the was great; a 1/125 was the best in town for a full frame 35mm slr. It took a while for pros to imbrace the first Nikkormats; ie FS and FT; because of bad memories over having Nikkorex F's die during pro jobs; ie they were a cheap crap non pro body.<br>

With time the Nikkormats usage grew with pros. I loved the 1/125 strobe speed of the Nikkormat; abit a trick state of the art speed for the mid 1960's. Amateurs bought gobs of Nikkormats; often buying the other nameplate version after being in South East Asia during the conflict in South East Asia; ie Vietnam war. For slide copying a Nikkormat FT or FTn on a bellows settup had a built in meter; the body was cheaper than the Nikon F with TTL meter.<br /> <br /> There was also the early 43 to 86mm zoom welded on a Nikkorex body in the earlier 1960's; sort of an early P&S camera with a zoom built in.<br /> <br /> In the mid 1970's a big camera store or repair shop might have a box of dead Nikkorex F's; all not worth fooling with. Today as surviving Nikkorex F is worth some money; since many were scrapped out.<br /> <br /> In shoot sports In use to used two Nikkormats; the chrome body was for slide/chrome film; the black body for B&W. A typical settups was the same asa; tri-x at 400; High Speed Ektachrome 160 at 400 with the ESP-1 push 400 asa envelope. Cameras did not have the deal where one could black the film tell tale/box on the back then; some of us had black and chrome bodies to quickly know what film was in each body.<br /> <br /> Nikkormat bodies wtih the common 50mm F2 allowed many common folks to enter the giant world of great Nikkor lenses. At one time Kmart sold them; and even Walmarts. Today a used Nikkormat costs very little in actual spendable dollars.<br>

<br /> They were NOT a inexpensive camera at all when new; a Minolta; Miranda; Mamyia, Pentax, or Konica slr was lower in cost. A brand chrome Nikkormat FTn with multicoated 50mm F1.4 SC Nikkor and no case cost me 301 bucks in 1973 from Olden camera via mail order.<br>

<br /> One could buy a running used car back then for 300 bucks. One could buy 1000 gallons of gasoline instead of the Nikkormat with 50mm F1.4 in 1973. This settup is like 2 grand settup today in actual dollars. The 301 buck price was with exhaustive shopping; a local dealer in New Orleans wanted about 450 bucks; plus they did not have the multicoated 50mm SC variant yet; or had even heard of it. Thus if I bought it locally; it would be like a 3 grand purchase in 2009/today; not chump change at all.<br>

<br /> A new Nikkormat FTn-K cost me about 200 bucks in the mid 1970's; about when gas was about 55 cents.<br /> A used Nikkormat TF set me back about 120 bucks in the mid 1960's.<br>

<br /> Today used Nikkormats on ebay vary all over the place; I have bought two with 105mm F2.5 Nikkors for less than 50 bucks.<br>

Canons equalvalent starter body around the early/mid 1970's was the FTb QL; QL for quick loading; a great camera too.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>The F's loading procedure is almost as big a pain as the Leica.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is an overstatement of the fun of loading an F, and an understatement of the joy of loading an old Leica (or Soviet copies, which are pretty true to the original in this case). I used a Leica III as a field camera back in the early sixties. Today I make do with my Soviet copies when I get the urge....</p>

[jim_leicafan]

<p>I bought my first SLR in a PX in vietnam in 1967, a brand new Canon FT-QL with a 50mm f/1.8 lens for $65. The Nikkormats were quite a bit more expensive.<br>

I don't find the Nikkormat view finders to be restrictive. I have never owned a motor drive. I rarely shoot bursts of shots, but if I need to, I have Canon T90s, and Nikons F4S, F100, D200, and D90. A 100% view finder is not a big deal to me, since I always get my film digitized when being developed.</p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>I have always considered the Nikkormats to be better everyday users than the F's, although I do prefer the viewfinders on the latter. The EL's in particular, are beautiful to handle, if a little ravenous on batteries.</p>

[richard_cochran]

<p>The Nikkormats don't display aperture information in the finder, while the Nikons do (if you're using a metered finder).</p>

<p>Of course, there's the issue of the location of the shutter speed control. I personally prefer the Nikkormat placement, but it's a matter of taste, and the Nikkormat placement is definitely nonstandard.</p>

<p>On the pre-AI cameras, the Nikons are quicker and easier to swap lenses and index them with the meter. Just mount the lens and twist it back and forth. The Nikkormats require the lens be set to f/5.6 and you've got to line up the pin with the ears as you mount the lens.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>If I am not doing macro work or using very slow lenses in low light I like using a Nikkormat. The only one I don't have is an FS. The original FT had certain build problems. From the FTN on they were reliable. I only have experience with the mechanical models. According to my repairman, the FT3 is the most reliable model because it doesn't have the indexing mechanism. As I have mentioned before, the FT2 is my favorite. It takes MS76 batteries and works equally well with pre-AI and AI/AIS lenses as long as there is a metering prong. With the FT3 you need to meter with pre-AI lenses in stop down mode. The late black FTN might be the prettiest of the mechanical Nikkormats. Its film advance lever is silver but has the black plastic tip.<br>

Even though the Nikkormats don't have interchangeable screens, the K screen in the late FTN, FT2 and FT3 models has a nice fine focusing area which surrounds the combination split image/microprism. This area is useful in low light or when using slower lenses. The Nikkormat I use most often is a slightly brassy black FT2. It usually has either a pointy prong 50/1.4 Nikkor S or a 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor PC on it. Not long ago I saw a beautiful photo taken by the late Galen Rowell. It was made with a Nikkormat and Kodachrome film. You can do a lot with a Nikkormat.<br>

I don't have an F but I do have an F2. The finder of the F2 is indeed very nice. It has a good combination of brightness and contrast. I recently had a 50/1.4 AIS Nikkor serviced. When I picked up the lens I wanted to check infinity focus. I was given a Nikon 6006 to try it on. The finder was dreadful. I asked the owner for his personal F2 to try the lens on. That's how I knew the lens was working properly. When I compare the F2 with a meter prism to a Canon F-1 with the standard prism, the Nikon looks and feels somewhat unweildy. I got my first Nikkormat because I wanted to enjoy using some of the classic Nikkors like the 55/3.5, 105/2.5 and 200/4. Later I came to like the Nikkormats and I now have a nice collection of them. <br>

</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>I no longer have Nikkormats in my stable, for one reason: Using a strobe and changing lenses I ran into problems where the speed dial which on all Nikkormats prior to EL, ELW and Nikon EL, encircled the lens mount on the body. On several occasions the speed dial would move to 1/250th second and I'd lose one or more frames because shutter would not synchronize at speeds higher than 1/125th!!! I don't use a strobe that much but when this happened, my patience wore thin. In all honesty the Nikkormats are fine cameras in all other respects. Nikon wise I now rely on my F, F36, F2, FE, N2020 and FG. With digital I use an ancient Fuji S-1 Pro.....</p>

[kivis]

<p>I have a Nikon F and a Nikkormat FTN. Use the F for B/W and the FTN for color. They have been everywhere and have been with my wife and I since the 70's. BTW my wife "officially" owns the FTN as her mother bought it for her during that time. We use them all the time and they perform equally well.</p>