So which is the heaviest Nikon?

[zoid]

<p>I was perusing around ebay the other day when I ran across an auction for a Nikon F2S with MF-1 250 Exposure Back, MD-2 and an MB-1. And I couldn't help but think how some have dubbed the F5 as the biggest brick in the Nikon Stable.<br>

So does anyone have any experience with that chunk-a-metal F2 setup? That looks to be a good bit heavier than an F5, but it has been a few years since I had a '5' in my hands. And I've never had the joy of toting an F2 with an MD-2, MB-1 and that '250 shot magazine'. LOL!</p>

[christoph_sensen]

<p>Yup, even the "normal" Nikon F4 models can be "loaded". Try a F4e with the MF-23 databack all day long around your neck! And I am not even talking the 250 exposure MF-24 as I can't see how to use that day-to-day.<br>

Christoph</p>

[dpbours]

<p>Yup, a heavy beast with the MF-24 - though balanced a bit differently ;-)</p><div></div>

[kohanmike]

<p>I used an F2 Photomic with a rented motor drive and battery base and my Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/3.5 zoom to shoot a lounge act in Bakersfield in 1974. Yes, it was heavy and awkward, but it must have been very impressive while I darted around the little lounge because half way through the show a girl grabbed me around the neck and planted one me (the drummer later said he almost swallowed his gum when he saw that). I tried to find her after the show, but she took off.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>Some time ago I had a F3 with that Monitor viewer (DA-2 maybe the name), attached motor drive and additional attached high format release grip, it brought with the 135/2 Nikkor 2,7kg, exactly the same as my RB 67 with the 127 lens.<br>

Regards<br>

Martin</p>

[zoid]

<p>I forgot all about the 250 exposure back for the F4... It kinda brings a new meaning to the words 'Heavy Metal' LOL.</p>

<p>That NASA F4 camera is pretty neat.</p>

<p>I've been considering adding an LN-, or EX++ F5, or F4 with MB-21, or 23 to my stable this year, so I've been casually looking regularly on feebay. And that was how I ran across that F2 setup (of which they are asking $2000.00 and up for!). While there's no doubt the F2 is an incredible Nikon Body, I've been more in the FA and up range. Though I must admit, I am fond of my Nikon EMs since they are pretty much an unloved Nikon from the family. Even though I use full capability cameras, I have to admit that 80% of the time, I'm shooting aperture priority. I should upload some of my EM shots, if I can find them...</p>

<p>The Mamiya RB is my favorite medium format camera. I have an Autoflex TLR that I had restored 15 years ago. It only has a 3 element lens, but it does take very nice pictures. You should see the mouths drop when I pull it out at the local park to shoot flowers! LOL!</p>

<p>So it looks like maybe the F4, DA-20 and MF-24 might even outdo the F2 'Full Automatic' 250 shot setup. Hmm. Well, one thing is for sure, Nikon has shown that they aren't afraid to use metal. LOL!</p>

[jim_momary]

<p><strong>< insert Arnold Schwarzenegger accent here ></strong><br>

"Your Nikon cameras, even the F4s, are for girly men.<br>

Real men shoot 120 film with 250 exp. motorized backs.<br>

To a real man, an RB67 is a P&S."</p>

<p><strong>< replace Arnold with Monty Python French soldier accent here ></strong><br>

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. You don't frighten us, English pig dogs with your puny Nikon toy cameras. I blow my nose at your 35mm miniature cameras."</p>

<p>Found this at an auction, for virtually nothing (its true value to me, LOL.) & I could not resist.<br>

With the RB67 attached and without film, the combo weighs in at 17 pounds 6 ounces.<br>

Good grief! Oh, you also need 110V or a marine battery with inverter to run it!<br>

This unit was apparently formerly used to take school photos where film or back changes were perceived to be too taxing!</p>

<p>:o)<br>

Jim</p>

<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Don't forget to load it up with "silver rich" b&w film. Because web lore says it's the best. So it must also be the heaviest.</p>

[mark liddell]

<p>The RB67 is a beast but the Fuji GX680 had it beaten in the weight stakes and I can't imagine any nikon weighing in at close to this no matter what the lens. I do miss my RB at times, probably the nicest camera to use I've ever owned.</p>

 

<p>Still, a hassy mounted with this 1700mm lens has to win:</p>

<img src="http://www.crestock.com/uploads/blog/2008/cameragear/zeiss.jpg">

[jared_angle]

<p>Zoid, I've heard a bit about the NASA Nikons that shuttle astronauts have used (and the lunar Hasselblads for the moon missions). Is a normal, out of the factory SLR able to function properly out there in space, or does it need some sort of modification?</p>

[User_2000406]

<blockquote>Don't forget to load it up with "silver rich" b&w film. Because web lore says it's the best. So it must also be the heaviest.</blockquote>

<p>Is that like the "mountain grown" coffee that's "the richest kind"?</p>

[onevision1]

<p>Jared<br>

Check out this forum: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WFRi"><u><u>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WFRi</u></u><u></u></a></p>

<p>Its a great discussion on the NASA Nikon<br>

<img src="http://host.spudstravels.com/F3-Endeavour-Front.jpg" alt="" /></p>