christian_fox

Roland, It was your link that led me to become aware of F3 Production Codes. Based on your experience over time, do you have a best guess about my example? Christian

This forum entry is for those who take interest in the Nikon F3 serial number vs production code saga. I have always wanted to know the last standard F3 serial number produced on the assembly line before top plates with serial numbers were produced for repair replacement needs. Has anyone come across a forum discussion about this topic? Curious to know the most advanced serial number known for a standard F3 model (i.e. not a special titanium or press model). I own a Nikon F3 body with an HP viewfinder. The serial number is 20077xx and the production code inside the camera behind the back film cover hinge is 37VN. I had expected this serial number to have been produced after the year 2000, but the production code suggests an earlier camera body produced in March 1997. Supposedly, the last serial number block for the standard model F3 production is 200xxxx and the replacement top plates begin at 201xxxx. I doubt very much that Nikon produced a F3 camera as late as March 2007. My theory is that this serial number is post production and possibly a replacement top plate. If not, a seller may have removed this top plate from a damaged late serial number body and installed it on a clean older body for a premium sale. Your thoughts?

Mike, your post was interesting. I opened the RX and examined the mirror relative to its plate. I can't say that the mirror has slipped, but there is a very small overhang - natural or not I don't know. I attempted to push the mirror up the plate with my fingers, just to see what happens, and the mirror was solid - no movement that I could see. I lightly wiggled the entire mirror housing a bit. I fired the shutter without lens and the mirror moves as it should. I then affixed the CZ 100/3.5 lens, fiddled with the aperture settings, and the combination now works fine. I have no clue what has transpired, but thank you for your advice.

I apologize. I am referring to the RX. Could I have activated MLU function? This camera worked fine with a Yashica ML 50 but I no longer have that lens. I bought the CZ T* 100/3.5 on eBay.

I have a fresh battery in a Contax DX. The shutter and mirror works fine without a lens. One I affix a CZ Sonnar 100/3.5 T* lens, it appears that the aperture closes and the VF is black when I press the shutter. It sounds like the mirror bounces back to its normal position. Can a lens be defective?

I missed this reference - thank you. The gold lettering is strong in the Camera Wiki black F sample. No production data on the black version. I have never seen a chrome F with gold lettering - the paint must have worn out over time.

I am curious to know if Olympus ever produced an original black Pen F with the gothic F front plate. I am only aware of original chrome F, chrome or black FT, and chrome FV. I assume anyone selling a black of blue Pen F is a re-painted sample. I am surprised the recent digital Pen F did not include the beautiful gothic F - it would have added so much charm.

<p>I like to discover intimate information, like that fact that the Leica R8 early production had a tendency to scratch the film, and the R9 resolved that problem. It drives me crazy when I read a claim like this and no serial number breaks or dates are mentioned. Questions come to my mind, like, was the entire R8 production run subject to this issue?</p> <p>The MIR site mentions that the late production run of the Nikon FM was better built internally. It appears that we do not see that unless there is a repair issue for earlier versions. </p> <p> </p>

<p>My inquiry was not intended to focus on Nikon only, but the Nikon observations are interesting.</p> <p>John, thank you for your contribution to the FM series. I was not aware of these variants. I also believe the FM2 had a transition with the honeycomb shutter within the model's late life. I may be confused, as it may be the FM2n's early life. I would be curious if anyone had a model and approximate serial number range on that transition. </p> <p>I am surprised Nikon never transitioned to a smoother "razor" focus wheel on its RF series. I shook my head in disbelief when I sampled the recently produced replica Nikon S3 - same old razor wheel. Even a replica should take out the kinks.</p>

<p>I have been sampling classic cameras for a little while, and I am curious about variations of favorite cameras. I am not referring to different configurations, like alternative viewfinders, but simply updates or changes made to the the same model. I would imagine this applies more to a long running model that was revolutionary to the market at the time. </p> <p>My favorite example is the original Nikon F. Uli Koch's book and the online Nikon F Collection and Typology reveal several variations of this camera as it evolved towards the F2. For the Nikon F, I would imagine it would would drive a collector crazy to find every example of this camera's external or functional changes, all the way down to the flash contact post insulation (white, black, square, semi-circular). I like to recognize variations of the late model Nikon F, but of course, possible user manipulation has to be considered as well. </p> <p>Learning about serial number milestones is very interesting as well. Certain cameras have a flaw up to a certain serial number before it was improved, and its good to know that. If I do not find a table anywhere, I will tally serial numbers I find on ebay or online for a specific camera of interest, and note the configuration of that serial number. </p> <p>I would like to ask the CMC community if specific camera models of any brand are well known for its variants, or if one captured a reader's attention for a while. Of course, we all have different interests, so one person may be fascinated with a wide range of variations, while another reader may only be interested in the significant change of a one feature, like the M3 single stroke vs double stroke film advance lever. Do you have favorite references for a specific camera, like Koch's trilogy? </p> <p>I would imagine that the evolution of a brand's prime lens may have an interesting evolution as well. </p>

<p>Tony,</p> <p>Your post is why I come to Photo.net. Your efforts to share this camera is warmly appreciated, and you know what, it will be appreciated years to come when someone wants to search the Nikon S2.</p> <p>I recently sampled a Nikon S. Amazingly heavy chrome for such a little camera. Pinhole viewfinder, but I give its RF patch considerable respect, as it offers a well defined square patch. A lucky sample? </p> <p>I also sampled a modern replica Nikon S3 and the RF patch is, to my shock, hardly defined at all, and I sense a lot of flare. Perhaps a poor sample.</p> <p>I tend to favor a RF by its VF visibility and RF focus ability, and I note tremendous variation. Of course, samples are affected by age. The Canon P is decent with some degree of flare, while the Leica M3 is my favorite, and that is all I have seen.</p> <p>Christian </p> <p> </p>

<p>Yes, these guys actually took pictures.<br> I bumped into Galen in a Yosemite shop but did not get into a deep conversation with him. Too bad the opportunity is gone since I no longer visit the park from my home in the vicinity. He was associated with Patagonia clothing, and I have followed that outfit since their first rugby shirt. I like his monastery image. Never heard of McCurry until the Afghan photo. <br> To be honest, I Googled the Internet three times for each and the number was the same - naturally, two sources may have erroneously derived from the first source. Every so often, you will see folks mix coverage vs magnification. </p>

<p>The FM2 is 86x and the FM3a is 83x. The MX and OM-1 hit the roof over 90x, but I don't see magnifications over 85x often. I used my own hunch when I labeled the Nikon FM2 as legendary. Take it away from a whole lot of users in the day, and you'll have a riot on your hands. Maybe the FM2 comes to mind as legendary from my memories of Galen Rowell or the Afghan Girl. </p>

<p>Sampling, not collecting - that is the term I use. I am just sampling the field to discover which cameras are interesting. Some stay for a while, some pass on to another owner, and some even come back as I have gained a different perspective or taste for things. Recently, two cameras have returned in a slightly different form - the Nikon FM3a in black w/ a diopter that works for my eyes, and a nice black Pentax MX with a hand grip motor drive. Viewfinder magnification is my theme of interest at the moment. Besides durability and cost, I wonder if a relatively high VF magnification was a significant reason why the Nikon FM2 became a legend. Like collecting vintage fountain pens years ago, I struggle with the balance between favorites bodies and desired lenses - the two preferences may not be the same brand. At least with fountain pens, I could swap the nib to the desired pen if the size was right. My dreamworld is to affix slippery smooth focusing C/Y lenses, without altercation, on Nikon and non-Minolta Leica R cameras. </p>

<p>I meant to say that Darin is adverse to Primes. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Les, Darin apparently does not collect Primes after the first model - that would explain everything. </p> <p>I keep thinking about Marco's comment that collecting gets in the way of taking pictures. He is right, yet I don't want to listen. I am at a time in my life when I need to be less possessive and intellectual about things, and just experience living the magic of life. Think of the the sum of all experiences absorbed when you see those amazing photos pass by on this site. Yes, Marco said it so right. But still, holding a LTM chrome Leitz lens in my hands reminds of the marvel of beautiful man-made things. </p>

<p>Some of us in this Classic Camera Forum like to use and collect wonderful old cameras. A few display their collection in full glory and have become well known on this forum. Reading the Classic Camera Forum has been a pastime in itself. Establishing a theme is personal taste, but it is interesting to see what theme collectors have chosen. We know who has a serious Pentax LX collection - I had not realized the LX had so many viewfinder accessories. </p> <p>I have been collecting classic cameras and electronic film cameras for the past couple of years now, and revolving them back on the market as I retain a small set of favorites. The evolution of my revolving collection has been interesting, and I refer to a highly regarded Leica repair specialist as an online mentor for inquiries about internal quality and reliability. I favor the short telephoto range (85-135mm). </p> <p>Here are the characteristics that have settled, and every classic camera I own is mentioned below: <br> 1. Fully operational 35mm cameras ready to take a picture.<br> 2. Exceptional viewfinder performance.<br> 3. Handling ergonomics: Highly subjective with each camera.<br> 4. Buttery smooth lens focus action: C/Y lenses. <br> 5. Fully mechanical chrome metal cameras without meter or battery: Nikon F, Canon P, Leica M3.<br> 6. Intellectual study of history and variations of a basic model: Nikon F.<br> 7. LTM and tiny lenses: Canon P.<br> 8. Modern electronic film cameras: Nikon F4, Leica SL2 (meter only), Leica R8, Contax RTSII.</p> <p>I enjoy sampling, so Leica is not as much fun as other cameras. They are most elegant, but just too much a handful to fully explore. A key frustration with old cameras is a difficulty finding diopters, as I prefer close contact with the viewfinder in darkness than using glasses at a distance. I don't even think the Canon P was meant to use a diopter. Most of the electronic cameras in my collection have a built-in diopter. The Contax AX was not mentioned, as its thickness is odd to handle, but its amazing to fiddle with a classic era camera that converts a simple manual focus C/Y lens to an autofocus lens without external movement AND converts the same lens to a macro lens. Contax has engineering elegance - the RTSII has a battery cap cover just like the Nikon F back cover locking screw - no ugly coin slot. I cannot explain my love of the Nikon F4 in its full vertical configuration and fully loaded - it just feels right despite its weight. I wish the Nikon Df was modeled after the F4 instead of the F3. </p> <p>I also maintain an electronic journal of interesting information relating to the cameras and lenses of interest. </p> <p>Have you thought about your own classic camera collecting evolution? I posted my thoughts here in the hope that some of you can relate to some of my preferences and can suggest further development. I feel overwhelmed and drawn-out over a wide spectrum, so I really wish to focus on a selected few cameras, lenses, or themes. Any ideas on that would be welcomed as well. </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

<p>This interesting forum string has had a lot to say - I have since dug deeper in the Df. With a Non-CPU lens (Non-AI and AI), I am still looking for a way to test preset shutter speeds for night sky exposures on a tripod. WIth B and T settings, you can't walk away without further manipulation unless T runs into its maximum time 0f 30 minutes. Without rotational guidance, I have read that a good rule of thumb to stabilize stars is 500/FL seconds. </p>

<p>Well, Rodeo Joe, I can easily embrace automation. I have already embraced the Df main command dial - so prevalent in today's digital cameras (not the high torque vertical sub command dial), so in time that will happen. What I take with me is Pete's meter-less concepts when I feel like going back to my Nikon F for a change. </p> <p>Do take into consideration that some of us may admire lenses and cameras more than taking pictures for a while, then get back into a mood with images for a while. There is something unique about classic cameras and quality build (I grew up in 60's, so there was plenty of old stuff around). When I a find an interesting theme again and take pictures, I could easily use an AF lens in manual mode to embrace more of the Df automation.</p> <p>Sometimes Nikon does the funniest things when they make a retro camera. The Nikon S3 2000 still has a razor-sharp focus wheel! I may have had a bad sample at the time, but the VF flare was surprisingly strong and the RF patch was barely recognizable. In comparison, my heavy chrome Nikon S has a very stable focus mechanism despite its pinhole VF. If I can only find a magnifying diopter for it.<br> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

<p>Pete,</p> <p>I make a few silly comments on Photo.net, and I get back a pot of gold! Thank you for your wisdom about meter-less photography - I have added your comments to my electronic journal for further study and experience. </p>

<p>Yes BeBu, I was discussing how Nikon designed the Df, and contemplating how they could have solved old problems. I'm sure an advanced ADR with OCR reading would not be worth the cost, given so few who have the nerve to use Non-AI lenses in the first place. Its a retro camera, so I felt free to comment - its difficult to tame a classic camera guy that loves old chrome. My oldest camera is a Nikon S and it looks and feels like a old car. </p> <p>BTW, I play with the Df calculated meter based on my lens' settings first, then when I like the suggested exposure, I change my lens aperture as a last step. I am wasting my time if I change the lens aperture incrementally in sync with the camera's calculated meter.</p> <p>I am having fun with the Df, but it is also overwhelming - I am trying to tuck its complexity under the hood as much as possible. I have had a discussion with one user who is so experienced with exposure, he ignores the meter altogether and enjoys the camera in manual mode with AI modified or AF lenses and the dials on top. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Nikon could have engineered an electronic ADR that reads numbers. <br> Kari, my Non-AI lens is completely disconnected from the camera, so I don't think I can the aperture can be a controlling element. I do save the lens in the camera's settings so it can calculate a meter recommendation. </p>

<p>With a new Df in hand, I am curious to know if digital image post processors are brand sensitive. Nikon offers a basic version with the camera, and I know they offer Capture, but what about well known brands like Lightroom? </p> <p>Is there a consensus of excellent post processing software for Nikon RAW images?</p>

<p>I am new to the digital SLR. I favor a purist mechanical camera like the Nikon F, so there is a desire to tame modern tools and render them as simple platforms as possible, then be able to change an internal capability if needed. This is probably why it has taken me so long to get into the digital world beyond P&S. </p> <p>As far as customizing the Df, I have been able to turn-off the red focus bracket and focus point illuminator, as I would only need it when focusing on a black jacket in a closet. While most would consider this a minor thing, I don't like distractions. </p> <p>I like to take the time think about the metering variables and review viewfinder information, so I set the meter to remain on for 30 seconds. In time, I will learn how to meter naturally beyond Sunny 16. With ISO as a new variable, is there a revised Sunny 16 rule for the digital world?</p> <p>My preference is to setup the Df in manual mode with a Non-AI lens, in this case, a 1972 or so Nikkor-H 85/1.8. This day of age, I would expect a retro digital camera to read the Non-AI lens aperture as I change it manually, but I will deal with notifying the Df the change I made on the lens. Actually, I don't bother to change the lens aperture until I have metered the calculated aperture in the Df and reach a happy value, then I change the lens aperture before shooting. </p> <p>I set the Df to limit the shutter speed close to the focal length of the lens to minimize camera shake. By setting ISO to auto, I get an immediate recommended meter reading after selecting the aperture in the sub command dial. BTW, this dial is awfully stiff for my taste, as the position and configuration of this dial does not need protection.</p> <p>I want the focus point (a single box) to remain on the VF screen to compare my eye to the focus confirmation light, but I would like to turn-off the wide focus bracket on the screen, as I do not use it. I still don't need the focus bracket if I ever need to move the focus point around. </p> <p>Has anyone been able to turn-off the wide Df focus bracket (without removing the battery, of course)?</p> <p> </p>

<p>As suggested to install a charged battery, it works fine now. I now note that Nikon mentions this on page 10 in the provided manual. They could have elaborated a little more, though. I learn that the battery is in demand even when the power button is off. For all practical purposes, I am coming from the world of fully mechanical cameras (Nikon F fan) up to the electronic Nikon F4, so digital is a new avenue for me (except for P&S).<br> Bela, are you enjoying your manually focusing with the supplied Df focus screen. <br> </p>