What's so good about nikon F2?

[loneranger]

Hi, I am looking for a reliable all mechanical film slr, so someone suggested I look at nikon f2. I head to eBay and see prices all over the map, from $200 to $4000! So what is up with that, what is a good price, and why are some so expensive? Btw, I really like the black ones with the very tiny prisms, which seem to be higher priced. Is this just collector madness, or are they really that good?

[E.M]

I had mine new in 1973 and still have it . I bought it with the small finder ( DE-1 ) , but after a year traded the finder for a metered one . I do regret that a lot . I particularly like the F2 with DE-1 or the F2AS ( electronic finder with leds , very sensitive ) .

Also consider a FM2n , also fully mechanical at a smaller size and very reliable , but no 100 % viewfinder coverage as the F-series .

[FrankS]

Or look for a Nikkormat FT2.

[CorreCaminos]

Originally Posted by loneranger

What's so good about nikon F2?

Perfection

[Moriturii]

Nothing, if you want a perfectly reliable mechanical Nikon SLR get a Nikon FM2n instead. It's built just as good (you can take it to war) and it has 1/4000 shutter.

[mfogiel]

An F2 is like a tank, you see 100% of the frame, and if you attach the motor drive you get great stability for shooting with slower speeds. It really feels in hand like a great tool, similar to shooting with an M3.

[redisburning]

the plain prism commands a higher price for a reason.

the metered head is purely functional; that is to say that it looks like a big growth on top of your camera but it allowed you to have in camera metering. at the time, this was fine. these days though, you can get any number of cameras with more elegant solutions; so what makes the Nikon F2 a good camera today (build quality, simplicity, etc) has caused a shift in what people are really looking for.

the F2 is a big camera.

the fm series are fine but they have small finders and poor coverage compared to some Olympus and Pentax offerings. I'd stick with the real pro offerings as they are so cheap these days that it doesnt make much of a big difference.

my picks for basic, reliable, inexpensive cameras:
big cameras: Nikon F, Canon new F1
small cameras: Olympus OM-1, Pentax LX, Konica Autoreflex T3

why do you need an SLR? if you want to do macro, I would recommend Olympus since the stuff other than lenses (bellows, ring flashes, true macro lenses, screens, etc.) are plentiful and not too expensive.

if you're interested in spending some real money I would point you towards Nikon and the ZF lenses.

p.s. isnt one of the big selling points of an SLR accurate framing? fm2 has 93% coverage...

[loneranger]

So why are these priced so high, when almost all other film slr can be had for a lot less. What is a fair price for a silver one with the small prism? The lowest price I can find is around $700. It looks like the larger metered prism ones are much cheaper, so is the small prism so rare?

[loneranger]

Thanks , that is very helpful,

Originally Posted by redisburning

the plain prism commands a higher price for a reason.

the metered head is purely functional; that is to say that it looks like a big growth on top of your camera but it allowed you to have in camera metering. at the time, this was fine. these days though, you can get any number of cameras with more elegant solutions; so what makes the Nikon F2 a good camera today (build quality, simplicity, etc) has caused a shift in what people are really looking for.

the F2 is a big camera.

the fm series are fine but they have small finders and poor coverage compared to some Olympus and Pentax offerings. I'd stick with the real pro offerings as they are so cheap these days that it doesnt make much of a big difference.

my picks for basic, reliable, inexpensive cameras:
big cameras: Nikon F, Canon new F1
small cameras: Olympus OM-1, Pentax LX, Konica Autoreflex T3

why do you need an SLR? if you want to do macro, I would recommend Olympus since the stuff other than lenses (bellows, ring flashes, true macro lenses, screens, etc.) are plentiful and not too expensive.

if you're interested in spending some real money I would point you towards Nikon and the ZF lenses.

p.s. isnt one of the big selling points of an SLR accurate framing? fm2 has 93% coverage...

[sevo]

Originally Posted by redisburning

p.s. isnt one of the big selling points of an SLR accurate framing? fm2 has 93% coverage...

So has just about every other SLR except for the Nikon F to F6 and Canon F1(n). And so have slides. Even worse, so had the enlargers at most newspaper or agency labs - when using a F series Nikon as a press photographer in fixed employment, you essentially had to learn to leave some margin, or learn not to mind getting cropped by the lab assistants and editors. I knew a photographer or two that could not stand that and used Leicas only because they have no 100% finder...

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by loneranger

So why are these priced so high, when almost all other film slr can be had for a lot less. What is a fair price for a silver one with the small prism? The lowest price I can find is around $700. It looks like the larger metered prism ones are much cheaper, so is the small prism so rare?

It's the BS created by the collectors.. I have three Nikon F's from the Jurassic era all with plain prisms because they were cheap! I did not want to pay some $60 difference then for the FTn prism while having a pocket lightmeter. Today that stupid plain prism makes more than the body.. Buy the one with Photomic prism if you want an F2, the rest is nonsense..

[sevo]

One more thing to be aware of is that the Photomic prisms have a weather sealing rubber gasket which the plain prisms lack...

[eurekaiv]

Originally Posted by BobYIL

It's the BS created by the collectors...

I don't think that's entirely true. IMO, it's a combination of rarity plus general desirability of the simple, no-frills machine that appeals to the photography enthusiast, which at this point, you pretty much have to be to even be bothered shooting film. I wish I had one myself.

[redisburning]

Originally Posted by sevo

So has just about every other SLR except for the Nikon F to F6 and Canon F1(n). And so have slides. Even worse, so had the enlargers at most newspaper or agency labs - when using a F series Nikon as a press photographer in fixed employment, you essentially had to learn to leave some margin, or learn not to mind getting cropped by the lab assistants and editors. I knew a photographer or two that could not stand that and used Leicas only because they have no 100% finder...

everything I listed is north of 95% the Canon, Olympus and Pentax are all about 97%, and the Nikon is 100%

honestly I dont understand the point of your post.

[Joe AC]

Originally Posted by redisburning

everything I listed is north of 95% the Canon, Olympus and Pentax are all about 97%, and the Nikon is 100%

honestly I dont understand the point of your post.

I believe the point was that a 100% finder is NOT nessesary and if anything a bit overrated.

Joe

[redisburning]

Originally Posted by Joe AC

I believe the point was that a 100% finder is NOT nessesary and if anything a bit overrated.

Joe

but he already has an RF.

if he doesnt want an accurate finder or macro/long tele lenses then he could save some cash and just stick with what he has.

[Teuthida]

anybody who buys an f2 when they can buy a mint f5 for the same price needs to have their head examined,

[ChrisPlatt]

Originally Posted by FrankS

Or look for a Nikkormat FT2.

Recently in a fit of nostalgia I bought a Nikon FTn Photomic.
It kept locking up. Disappointed I returned it for refund.

I consoled myself by purchasing a clean Nikkormat FT2 for $30.
I'm impressed. It's built like a classic Nikon F or F2 - very solid.
I like it far more than the FM and FM2n bodies I once owned.

The meter was jumpy but just exercising the shutter speed dial solved that.
It uses 1.5V silver batteries and works great with pre-AI Nikkor lenses.

Chris

[jmcd]

As mentioned earlier, the viewfinder is excellent on the F2, and the shutter is distinct and superbly crisp.

[daveleo]

Look at the FM2n and the FM3a.
Really excellent mechanical 35mm cameras.

[JMQ]

The $4000 is probably for the titanium version or F2 data or the F2 High Speed. These are beautiful and rare versions. Most of the more common F2 with the DP-1 finder should be in the 200-300 range or less. These are all mechanical cameras that will still function after sitting years on the shelf.

[Harry Lime]

F2:

Pluses:

- Indestructible
- Compact
- Perfect weight
- Indestructible
- Feels right
- Huge system of accessories
- Fully mechanical, no batteries needed unless you have a metered head.
- 100% viewfinder

Minuses:

- Has one of the louder SLR shutters.
- The area where the removable prism sits could be better sealed against dust.
- The optional motor is quite big
- 100% viewfinder leaves no 'breathing room' for composition on the negative.


I've had a black paint F2 for a few years now and it's one of my favorite cameras. In many ways the F2 is a evolution of the original Nikon F. Similar to the F, but a very different animal.

[Aristophanes]

..peace, love, and understanding.

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by loneranger

Hi, I am looking for a reliable all mechanical film slr, so someone suggested I look at nikon f2. I head to eBay and see prices all over the map, from $200 to $4000! So what is up with that, what is a good price, and why are some so expensive? Btw, I really like the black ones with the very tiny prisms, which seem to be higher priced. Is this just collector madness, or are they really that good?

The Nikon F2 was the last of the all mechanical, pro-series Nikon bodies. A magnificent lump it was too, beautifully made and finished, tough as nails. They were expensive in their day. People prize them still, regardless of which prism head they've got. The cheap ones were often ex-professional use and are rather beat up. The pricey ones are often pristine perfect pieces owned by amateurs who used them carefully and lightly.

I had a Nikon F Photomic FTn back in the day (1969-1975), and about seven years after that picked up a Nikon F2 with plain prism and waist level finder. Superb cameras, both of them.

A few months ago, I acquired a lovely black Nikon F Photomic FTn again (for the grand total of $35) in very good shape. I fitted it with a plain prism, A screen and stuck a Nikkor 50/1.2 on it. Wonderful camera, probably worth $700 at least. I like the F just a little more than the F2, mostly for sentimental reasons, but they are both of the same type: strong, reliable, large, heavy.

The 100% viewfinder coverage of the professional Fs made truly precise framing for scientific photography possible. It also raised the price tag enormously, like it always did on the top line SLRs. Not needed for day to day shooting, I used an FM/FM2n/FE2 as my work cameras for years.

[RichW]

I have a Nikon F, my first and only SLR (not including DSLRs) and it is a beast but I love it.

I carry it with my Leica (M3 or IIIa) and it is the perfect compliment, the Leica for quick snaps with its quiet shutter and the Nikon for when I have time to compose, focus and check the depth of field preview - snik goes the Leica and CLAK goes the Nikon!

I have the waist level finder and the photomic head but I would love a plain prism (as I dont use the built in meter) but they are just too much to justify at the moment considering the photomic does the same job just with extra baggage



Cheers, Richard