campy wrote:
I took the GW670 out and shot a roll. It's easy to focus and didn't mind the weight all that much. I'm not sure but I may have a light leak or just poor development. I posted a couple in the post your recent shot thread.
Was the roll of film nice and tight when you removed it from the camera, or did it have some flex?
If it had some flex, then it fat rolled and that can very easily cause light leaks.
If it was nice and toight, then you most probably need new light seals. Light leaks are not caused by development - unless you seriously bogart things up.
@Cloud75@@ in my experience the Leica and Mamiya are both good down to 1/8th and 1/15th respectively. That is what I meant about their versatility. Low iso film indoors is no problem. Of course leaning on something helps. I shot a half roll with the Mamiya at 1/8th and the only out of focus shot was because of missed focus with the viewfinder
Desmolicious wrote:
For me 1/15th and of course using the correct technique.
My recent acquisition of a gorgeous OhMm2n was a wake up call w how slow I can hand hold an SLR. I guess I got sloppy/spoiled from using Leicas because I was getting shaky pics w the Olympus at 1/30. Getting sharp images at 1/30 would be a breeze with a Leica M.
I know what you mean about the spoilage, lol. I've lost 3-4 photos out of each of my SLR rolls for the last month because I keep thinking it'll be fine in low light like with my rangefinders. Also I saw that ohMm2n, what a beaut.
damonnomonon wrote:
@Cloud75@@@ in my experience the Leica and Mamiya are both good down to 1/8th and 1/15th respectively. That is what I meant about their versatility. Low iso film indoors is no problem. Of course leaning on something helps. I shot a half roll with the Mamiya at 1/8th and the only out of focus shot was because of missed focus with the viewfinder
1/8! Now I have to get one.
Also, I’m going to do a test roll at 1/15 with the mamiya. I wonder if I can be still enough.
Nice! P67 is one of my favorites. It was my only film camera for the first 5 years after I returned to film in 2014.
I had that 55mm, great lens, but I got rid of it because it would hard vignette with stacked filters and I preferred the wider view of the 45mm, even though it wasn't quite as sharp.
OregonSun wrote:
Nice! P67 is one of my favorites. It was my only film camera for the first 5 years after I returned to film in 2014.
I had that 55mm, great lens, but I got rid of it because it would hard vignette with stacked filters and I preferred the wider view of the 45mm, even though it wasn't quite as sharp.
Bigger is better!
The 55mm is so comically large - it alone is bigger in almost every dimension than my Pentax K2 + 50mm f1.7
But it being part of the offer (at a reasonable price) was a big reason why I jumped on it. I typically use a Rolleiflex for 120, but I really wanted to have a moderate wide-angle.
I also have the 105mm f2.4 and glad that it's a more normal sized lens (still big, but not comically big). Also really appreciate the brighter viewfinder with the f2.4.. So far the relatively dim viewfinder is my biggest criticism with the camera. And that it's quite easy to accidentally fire a shot - tripped the shutter button once on my first roll and then tripped the mirror lock-up on the second one..
Haven't gotten my negatives back yet, but really curious what the IQ will be like and if I got anything in focus
Lots of interesting variety here. I haven't seen my favorite in this thread yet.
Not counting the b&w 620 box camera with the Cub Scouts logo that my twin brother and I used many many years ago, I've used only four film cameras, all 35mm SLR's. A Russian Zenit B (~1970, good camera but with no light meter), a Nikkormat Ftn (~1972, stolen from a camera shop while in for a minor repair), my current Nikkormat FTn (~1973, a slightly improved version, the shop's replacement for the stolen one), and an F w/Photomic viewfinder (1972, a recent gift). I have an F2 body w/o meter (also a gift) but have not used it yet.
I've used the F a little. It is probably heresy to say this but I prefer the Nikkormat's more integrated feel. I have no use for the F's interchangeability of viewfinder and screen. The F's shutter button is poorly placed. Changing film requires removing the separate back and putting it down somewhere. The Photomic meter and shutter speed are harder to see in the viewfinder. Apparently Nikon thought so too because they changed them in the F2. I've read quibbles about the Nikkormat's shutter speed ring but it never bothered me. My Nikkormat got banged up in more than a few tough adventures but it has always worked, still does.
jimmuller wrote:
Lots of interesting variety here. I haven't seen my favorite in this thread yet.
Not counting the b&w 620 box camera with the Cub Scouts logo that my twin brother and I used many many years ago, I've used only four film cameras, all 35mm SLR's. A Russian Zenit B (~1970, good camera but with no light meter), a Nikkormat Ftn (~1972, stolen from a camera shop while in for a minor repair), my current Nikkormat FTn (~1973, a slightly improved version, the shop's replacement for the stolen one), and an F w/Photomic viewfinder (1972, a recent gift). I have an F2 body w/o meter (also a gift) but have not used it yet.
I've used the F a little. It is probably heresy to say this but I prefer the Nikkormat's more integrated feel. I have no use for the F's interchangeability of viewfinder and screen. The F's shutter button is poorly placed. Changing film requires removing the separate back and putting it down somewhere. The Photomic meter and shutter speed are harder to see in the viewfinder. Apparently Nikon thought so too because they changed them in the F2. I've read quibbles about the Nikkormat's shutter speed ring but it never bothered me. My Nikkormat got banged up in more than a few tough adventures but it has always worked, still does. ...Show more →
Very nice! Nikkormats are massively underrated in my opinion. They have the same pro grade build quality as the F and F2, unlike the later FM series which is a noticable step down in build quality. Nikkormats are a bit lighter and better balanced when compared to the F and F2 with the photomic finders mounted.
I like how you can do an intial metering with the camera still at waist level (also possible on some Photomic finders). The depth of field preview button near the shutter button is also a nice design. The shutter speed selection around the lens mount doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
My Nikkormat of choice is the FT2, which uses modern batteries.
jimmuller wrote:
Lots of interesting variety here. I haven't seen my favorite in this thread yet.
Not counting the b&w 620 box camera with the Cub Scouts logo that my twin brother and I used many many years ago, I've used only four film cameras, all 35mm SLR's. A Russian Zenit B (~1970, good camera but with no light meter), a Nikkormat Ftn (~1972, stolen from a camera shop while in for a minor repair), my current Nikkormat FTn (~1973, a slightly improved version, the shop's replacement for the stolen one), and an F w/Photomic viewfinder (1972, a recent gift). I have an F2 body w/o meter (also a gift) but have not used it yet.
I've used the F a little. It is probably heresy to say this but I prefer the Nikkormat's more integrated feel. I have no use for the F's interchangeability of viewfinder and screen. The F's shutter button is poorly placed. Changing film requires removing the separate back and putting it down somewhere. The Photomic meter and shutter speed are harder to see in the viewfinder. Apparently Nikon thought so too because they changed them in the F2. I've read quibbles about the Nikkormat's shutter speed ring but it never bothered me. My Nikkormat got banged up in more than a few tough adventures but it has always worked, still does. ...Show more →
I've owned about a dozen Nikkormat's. FT's, FTn's, FT2's and even a couple of meterless FS's.
FS with Buttergrip
FT-2, cobbled together from three broken Mat's and painted olive drab but the meter was off by two stops
Best FT-2 I owned
Last O' the Mat's 1967 FS with 55 1.2
Changes to my vision started making focusing difficult with the matte screens so they were sold or given away. For nearly forty years the 'Mat was my go to camera. Now I use the Leica equivalent , the M4-2.
andrewd01 wrote:
Very nice! Nikkormats are massively underrated in my opinion.
...
My Nikkormat of choice is the FT2, which uses modern batteries.
Thank you! I've seen a number of Nikkormat bodies of various types on the big 4-letter auction site usually going for around $35. You'd pay 4 to 5 times that for an F2 Photomic meter that the seller claims actually works! (My so-far-unused-by-me F2 has a plain viewfinder and needs light seals. If I ever go through the trouble and try it I'll do so meterless.)
As for batteries, I put a Wein mrb625 battery in my 'Mat when I revived it recently. I then compared the meter against a phone app and my Z5ii. It worked perfectly. I shot a test roll and the exposures all came out great. I've read that the Wein mrb625 may run down faster than an alkaline or the old mercury batteries. When it does, if I'm still shooting film ( likely!) I may just get another.
For the F Photomic, because it uses two batteries I found alkaline batteries with the same form factor. The higher voltage makes the meter read off by at least two stops. So I adjusted the film speed until it read the same as the Nikkormat. It took at least two stops. I checked it at several brightness levels. As I use it (and if I continue to use it at all) I'll check it occasionally to account for voltage drop. I'll get my first roll of film back from the lab in a week. We'll see how well the meter worked. Or how well the operator worked .
I mentioned how my Nikkormat had seen some tough adventures. Here are a few examples, taken by me or my sweetie or on self-timer.
Mt. Isolation, White Mountains, NH MtIsolation by James Muller, on Flickr
X-c skiing in the White Mountains. My sweetie carried the camera for a while. After this one I decided we should put it in a pack away from the falling snow. SkiingJim3 by James Muller, on Flickr
Changes to my vision started making focusing difficult with the matte screens so they were sold or given away. For nearly forty years the 'Mat was my go to camera. Now I use the Leica equivalent , the M4-2.
Nice collection! About your vision, did you not have a split-screen viewfinder? I don't know if that would help. I don't recall what screen my first FTn had; I think it was a split-screen. My replacement FTn had several minor improvements, including a small split-screen surrounded by a microprism circle. I never liked the microprism, never trusted it. On my Z5ii I use only manual-focus F-mount lenses inherited from the Nikkormat. With the FTZ it doesn't even have a split-screen or full-aperture metering.
The FTn’s and the FT2’s have split screen finders. The FT and FS screens are matte with a center fresnel. I could focus the FS pretty well, even with the 55 1.2 but I had an M4 that I was using mote often, sold the FS and never went back to SLR’s.
I bought a 50th Anniversary M4 from Tamarkin Camera in Chicago. I had been looking at black chrome M-A's then started looking at black chrome M4's. This arrived today. In the original box either matching serial number. Even the plastic bag the camera was in had the same serial number. At first I thought it was kinda stiff, then I realized it had never been used. The speeds are correct, the self timer works and there's not a speck of dust in the finder.
madNbad wrote:
I bought a 50th Anniversary M4 from Tamarkin Camera in Chicago. I had been looking at black chrome M-A's then started looking at black chrome M4's. This arrived today. In the original box either matching serial number. Even the plastic bag the camera was in had the same serial number. At first I thought it was kinda stiff, then I realized it had never been used. The speeds are correct, the self timer works and there's not a speck of dust in the finder.
madNbad wrote:
The FTn’s and the FT2’s have split screen finders. The FT and FS screens are matte with a center fresnel. I could focus the FS pretty well, even with the 55 1.2 but I had an M4 that I was using mote often, sold the FS and never went back to SLR’s.
Just a quick FYI. I can't speak about the F2 but the FTn received a few minor improvements around 1973. They are described on Nikon's Information website: https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/chronicle/cousins06-e/
When my original FTn and 50mm f/1.4 lens were stolen from a camera shop about that time the shop replaced them with new ones. They showed me the differences but I would noticed them anyway.
The new focusing screen contained a smaller split-screen image surrounded by a microprism. IIRC, my first FTn had a larger split-screen. I never use the microprism now so I thought this change was a regression. But that Nikon Information page says differently so maybe I completely misremember the original screen and my reaction to it.
The film advance and self-timer levers received plastic tips.
The eyelets on the body received steel bushings to prevent a strap from wearing through the eyelets.
The back of the body received a small roller on the film take-up side to make film movement smoother.
The new 50mm lens had multi-coating, easily seen in the color of the surface reflections.
.
