Any Nikkormat ELW Users Here?

[ben_hutcherson]

It will be next weekend before I can do so, but I will be happy to take through-the-viewfinder photos with the same lens mounted with an FTN, EL, EL2, FM, and a single digit MF body to see what the actual coverage is. It shouldn't be TOO difficult to do, and fortunately phone cameras make it easy to take an actual through-the-viewfinder image.

[orsetto]

But in the second link is a test I conducted myself. See post 6 in the second link. I'm having a hard time believing I could have gotten it so wrong, as you imply.

 

Wasn't looking to argue with anyone, I was merely curious if anyone had noticed improved VF coverage in their EL series over their FT series. If your personal measurements satisfy you, and your own FTs satisfy you, great! I love mine too: they're beautifully built, and operate with the same precision as an F, at a tiny fraction of the price (thats how I acquired a half dozen of 'em from Goodwill). I'm just a bit disappointed in the FTN/FT2/FT3 VF crop, and I'm hardly the first to mention it (Herbert Keppler probably was, 50 years ago). Its really only an issue for me if using an FT3 together with an FM/FE or F/F2, when the discrepancy becomes more obvious.

 

Having just pulled a couple late-1970s compendiums of magazine tests out of the garage, my question has been answered. According to magazine tests of the era, Nikkormat EL (averaging 92%) does have somewhat better, more consistent VF coverage than the FT series (typically 85% give or take). Amusingly, Modern & Pop Photo pointedly omit the FT2 figures but proudly proclaim the EL's 92%, while cranky Consumer Reports was disgusted with the FT2 (on every level) but lavishes praise on the EL as a "thoroughly refined automatic". Nostalgia ain't what it used to be: I forgot how we needed to average the (often-biased) opinions and tests of three or four magazines to get a bead on new cameras before heading over to the stores. The Nikkormat EL really made quite a splash: perhaps the most successful film camera launch Nikon ever had, after the F (the F2 got mixed reviews, but not the EL).

Edited March 29, 2019 by orsetto

[orsetto]

I'd like to hear reports of battery life and opinions on how well yours has held up in service. Any other opinions welcomed. Thank you.BTW, I'm not interested in the EL2, although I'd certainly read with interest anyway.

 

Getting back to your original question: I've never heard anyone complain that the ELW was any more or less reliable, or had different battery drainage than the EL. Conventional wisdom says a motor-capable body would be more likely to have excessive wear, but the AW1 winder was so pathetically slow, so few of them were sold, and so many broke down quickly that I doubt its a factor in this case.

 

The final EL2 is a bit different story, with pluses and minuses of its own. The silicon blue meter is a nice modern improvement over the CdS in the EL/ELW, and more likely to still be accurate in any random sample. But, it drains the battery quicker: you might get away with forgetting to turn off the EL/ELW overnight, but that would take a big bite out of the EL2 battery reserve. The EL2 has printed circuits similar to the later FE, instead of the wiring rats nest in the EL/ELW. This should make it more reliable, but harder to repair if it breaks (a dedicated DIYer might be able to replace a single electronic part in the EL/ELW, but be forced to replace the entire circuit harness in the EL2).

 

Forty years later, the only criterion to choose one over the others is to match your lens collection. Pre-AI needs the EL or ELW for full convenience, while the EL2 is a better host for AI, AIS and AFD.

Edited March 29, 2019 by orsetto

[henry_finley1]

Ben Hutcherson, there's no need to do your tests. I just did my own. Apparently in 2013 when I did my testing as described in the above "link 2", my math was faulty. It HAD to be.Thanks to this thread I just did an armchair test, literally in my armchair, pointing at reference points around the room. With my FT2, ELW, and F2. What I clearly saw, the FT2/FTN was totally unacceptable in both directions, up and down. The ELW was some better, although the shutter speed scale at the left of the viewfinder covers up its entire amount that I could see in the F2 finder, and was reasonably close up and down. This means the ELW finder is not truly centered. That is unacceptable to me.

I was shocked and disappointed in these findings.

For 35 years I have been a Nikkormat fan. All that is shot down in flames. Now, all my Nikkormats are out the door, and not fast enough. So that means my F and F2 are now front and center, instead of being kept away for special occasions. Thanks to everybody who participated on this thread. The one thing that irks me is that the F2 can't be left wound, whereas it didn't matter on the Nikkormats. The F2 must be tripped off at night, as per the instructions. As far as I know, the F isn't so strict on leaving the shutter wound.

[orsetto]

To be fair, very few SLRs in the early '70s had anywhere near Nikon F/F2 100% accuracy: it was never completely matched by a competitor (probably because that last 2% is a production nightmare, and isn't necessary for 99 out of 100 users). Only the Canon F-1 at 97% came close: pretty much every other SLR averaged 85%-92%, more often than not off-center due to meter and info displays. Obviously this doesn't matter in practice for most photography, since 35mm SLRs devoured the camera market in the late '60s (wiping out rangefinders and TLRs). The SLR finder was a close enough approximation, esp when most prints were cropped to 8x10 format and slides haphazardly projected on square screens.

 

Yes, the Nikkormat FT finders at around 85% were probably the most heavily cropped, but back when they cost the equivalent of $900 in today's money they would be your only camera, and you'd adapt intuitively. The pricier, more glamorous Contax RTS and Pentax ESII barely measured any better. Less-than-perfect accuracy didn't hurt the bizarre Alpa SLRs, which inexplicably sold for staggering nosebleed prices to medical, museum and scientific photographers (despite a dark dismal off-center 89%-at-best viewfinder). Throw in your typical Konica AutoReflex or Minolta SRT, and you see the same compromises. Heck, even the original Zeiss Contaflex and Exakta Varex showed less than a Nikkormat FTN. All were still more accurate to frame with than a Leica M rangefinder (and nobody tosses those in the bin).

 

Today, Nikkormats are an unbeatable value: people literally give them away, The build quality is amazing- other than the CdS meter (which is problematic now with many similar cameras), nothing seems to break. I've rarely encoutered a Nikkormat with shutter or advance problems, but tossed many an F2 with those defects. They're less noisy than the FM/FE. The viewfinder coverage difference vs other Nikons gave me pause when I discovered it, but in practice isn't a big deal except in very specific circumstances (where I should probably use an F2 anyway). I certainly never meant to undermine your faith in your own Nikkormats, henry_finley: if you enjoyed using them all this time, why not keep on using them? Had this discussion never happened, wouldn't that be the case? The F-F2-F3 are amazing, but I don't always want to tote a collectible icon: the Nikkormats fill the daily driver slot perfectly. I hope you reconsider selling yours off: you may regret it later (and they have such low resale value anyway).

Edited March 29, 2019 by orsetto

[henry_finley1]

Thanks orsetto. but when I was pointing my F2 around the room picking up reference points to compare with my FT2, I saw in a stark way I had never seen efore just how much the Nikkormat was cutting off. It was dramatic. Further, I've got Nikkormatts lying all over the house because I overhauled them compulsively. I'm a Nikkormat repair expert. I don't need all these dadgum cameras. I have a very nice F and extra-nice F2. 35mm cameras didn't come any better that these. Top-level equipment. Why now would I fool with other cameras? The Nikkormat is a Tiger Tank of a camera. But remember, when you're dealing with a negative hardly bigger than a postage stamp, you need all the area you can get. A graflex viewfinder is nowhere near what the film gets. but you've got a square mile of film area there to enlarge out of. With a Nikkormat you have to enlarge 15% more to get what you saw in the finder, compared to the Nikon. 15% bigger grain, 15% bigger dust...

[orsetto]

Just for laughs, here's a summary page from Consumer Report's 1974 Camera Buying Guide. For whatever reason, they were the most draconian testers re finder accuracy: they compared everything to the F2, then listed the deviations (in painstaking detail). While this was useful as a data point (few other magazines devoted as much attention to finders), they could be incredibly obtuse to other factors in a contextual buying decision (specific handling advantages, lens systems, metering options). Their classic negative "price vs performance" review of the Leicaflex SL2 missed the point so hilariously you wonder why they bothered (as if anyone considering a Leica product would use their workaday criteria).

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by orsetto

[henry_finley1]

Well it's done. Everything Nikkormat in my house is on the auction sites. I still admire the Nikkormat line on several levels. But when I compose in the finder, that's what I mean to shoot.