Nikon F: Point & Shoot?

[tom_halfhill]

<p>In an article on photographer Jeff Wall written by Elisa Lipsky-Karasz in this month's Wall Street Journal Magazine, I found this howler: "His father gave him his first camera, a Nikon F, the era's equivalent of a point-and-shoot, and Wall used it to take 'pseudo-conceptual' photos."<br>

Nikon F, a point & shoot? That's not how I remember it... :-)</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

Absolutely. He's thinking of an M3. (HCB spent his time

prefocussed with "f/8 and be there", after all.) Actually,

I'm being a bit unfair to Kodak.

 

Now, if it was a little later, I wouldn't argue about the

35Ti...

[ShunCheung]

I may read the Wall Street Journal for business news. They are not the authority on photography topics.

[bebu_lamar]

<p>No way! To me you can call the D4 or F6 as point and shoot but not the F. Now I wouldn't call the browny as point and shoot either. I know people have different idea of what a point and shoot is and generally it's a compact camera but for me a point and shoot is aa camera which is focusable, with varying aperture and shutter speed and yet all those functions can be done automatically by the camera. Some thing like a disposable camera isn't a point and shoot because they have fixed focus and fixed exposure control that is not p&s to me. So either the F or the M3 can be preset so you don't have to set anything but fixed setting is not p&s. </p>

[Two23]

<p>I own 20 to 30 "Brownie" type cameras. I would call them a "point & shoot." My Nikon F3/T is not.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[andrew_hall1]

<p>Maybe he used this outfit and Sunny-f16, practically focus-free: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/21mm.htm</p>

[donbright]

<p>Much of this is about the lens right? A Nikkor 45mm P lens set at F8 at 8 ft will get it done.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Nice collection, Kent.</p>

<p>BeBu: For me, a "point and shoot" is a camera intended to be used by pointing it at something and pressing the shutter. I don't much mind whether it achieves this by being completely automated or, like the Brownie, by just not having any appreciable controls. My snide dig at Leica was more a dig at street shooters, who have historically done all the configuration without the camera to their eye, then concentrated on "the perfect moment". Not that an F is incapable as a street-shooting camera, but I think we can agree it's more than that. From the street shooter's perspective, you could argue a Df can be point and shoot - but so can any Nikon, especially in P mode.</p>

<p>Odd use of terminology, nonetheless. But since we can't all agree on what "prime", "telephoto" and (in extreme circumstances) "zoom" mean, I guess as a community we can't be too picky. At least we all agree on the 1/4" tripod mount. (Except when it's 3/8".)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>In a way, it is a point and shoot; just in between you need to turn a dial and a ring ;-)<br>

Arguably, they think before the Nikon F, it was all large format, glass plates and somehow they missed there were already quite a few developments in between. As Shun said, not exactly a media source to use for information on photography.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>There is also the possibility that "pseudo-conceptual photos" is the code word for bad photographs made as a result of using your F as a point and shoot.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>Years ago, I stopped reading the Wall Street Journal and now I am glad I did.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>It absolutely was a point & shoot compared with what most of the news media was using in the 1950s....Speed Graphics. (4" x 5" negatives)</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Any 35mm film camera can be set up as a point-and-shoot, you just stop the lens down to f/11, set the Hyperfocal distance on the lens and the shutter to 1/(ISO speed) - Or ASA speed as it was in those days. Preferably using Tri-X uprated and overstewed so that the grain is big enough to cover any focussing error.</p>

<p>The phrase "pseudo-conceptual photos" is the biggest howler. Maybe just leave off the last two words? The British satirical magazine "Private Eye" used to run a regular article called "Pseud's Corner" where they poked fun at pretentious nonsense like this. There's too much of it to choose from these days however.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I believe the Nikon F was introduced in 1959 and by 1962 dominated the news photography market. The main competitor was the Leica M2/M3. Speed Graphics were long gone at that point, but a few Rolleiflexes were in use. I used a Rollei in the mid 60s because I could develop it and print the negatives still wet. There usually weren't enough assignments to fill a roll of 35mm, and the Rollei was not only effective, but fun to use.</p>

<p>My main camera was a Leica M2. It was quiet, solid, and never let me down. Nikon F's were a PITA to load, because the entire back came off, not just the bottom plate like the Leica.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Edward: I've never used an F, but I've seen someone struggle for some time to load an M3. Removing one plate is fine (and good for the robustness of the camera), but the bit where you have to trim a chunk off the film is not what I'd call appealing. I just had a rummage for an M2 loading video. <a href="

Rummaging on YouTube for loading the F, it doesn't look as annoying, although it does look like the sliding back catches on the film a lot. (Hence the flip-back on the F2 and everything else.)<br />

<br />

I occasionally failed to load film into my F5... if it was infrared film and I was trying to do it under a duvet. Oh, and the first time, when I couldn't work out how to open it. :-) And I've messed up the film loading on a Rolleiflex (under, over...) and, yes, my Pentax 645 can be a bit of a faff. But I'd not claim the F was particularly bad. I guess it's what you're used to. I'm still scared by the idea of loading a 5x4.<br />

<br />

Come back APS. All is forgiven. (Well, a bit.)</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>The removable back on the F made it a bit of a pain to load, because it was very hard to do without some place to put it. Not an easy camera to load while standing on the sidewalk and such. The back design makes it a little harder to do if the film does not lie flat, and the takeup design tends to let go of the film if you don't wind it on well, so you have to remember after it's together to look at the rewind knob to make sure it's really pulling film.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>Well I guess if you went out on a bright sunny day and set the exposure accordingly (1/ASA @ f/16) with a 28mm lens set for the hyperfocal distance for f/16 I guess you could call it a "point and shoot".</p>

<p>That notwithstanding, I doubt the author is much of an authority on photography or camera gear</p>