Collector's item: Nikon's 87th F SLR camera up for auction on eBay

The F, F2 and the SP rangefinder all had titanium shutter curtains, except for those F's and SP's that had cloth (silk) curtains.

Does the 200th Nikon F qualify as well? or the serial number should be below 100?

Nikon made a $2,500 Df to echo the Nikon F.

David:

That 99 dollar digital camera does nothing without electricity. Whereas the F will work just fine absent electricity.

@Davidgilmour, so you've used such a camera from this era have you? Please show us some comparison shots so we can continue to have a good 'lol' at you.

Xentinus:

Well, you don't really need electricity to develop film, I guess heat the water maybe.

Indirectly of course electricity pumps the water and is used to make the chemicals.

Printing on the other hand would be difficult without consistent electric light.

Well-stated. But cheer up, at least the equivalence guys could not foam at the mouth about the Nikon F not being "full frame." But if you dared to use Tri-X film, "Why would anyone want a camera that took black and white photos? I can do a better job converting color frames with my super XYZ software, and I can add any grain that you want."

Well Said!

Ironically those skilled photographers of yore that you allude to would probably embrace today's advances with open arms just like the embraced the F for being the most advanced camera of its day rather than make snidey comments on dpreview.

You got all your likes though didn't you, go produce some good photos with those.

fatdeeman, you were too quick to reply and not fast enough on the uptake. You misunderstood what I was saying about photographers.

I was not in any way making a joke about the "photographers of yore" - of which I never "alluded to". Read my post again please.

Rather, it was against today's photographers; the majority of which probably do not know how to use a fully-manual film camera without electronic aids we are used to.

That is what I meant. It was a joke. Lighten up. I hope this clears it up for you.

"Skyscape - I'm betting that greater than 98% of the "photographers" existing now wouldn't have the slightest idea how to produce a good photo with this camera."
Somewhat funny (to me at least) that so many "like" the idea that readers here might admit to their inability to use what is, in reality, a very simple camera. To think, for decades users of this type of camera were able to produce some of the most memorable images of the twentieth century.

I agree. It was a joke, however there is definitely an irony in it for sure.
But that seemingly simple camera would be considered high tech fifty years prior as well. We all become accustomed to modern tools we have, and in some ways that could make people lazy.

None of that actually bothers me. Photography is about producing an image but also having fun. What annoys me is that it seems to be the case that more often people judge a photo by its sharpness rather than the actual subject or composition. Read most comments when somebody posts a photo, and they're usually congratulate (or complain) about its sharpness first, before anything else.

I don't know why sharpness has become the most important thing nowadays.

"I don't know why sharpness has become the most important thing nowadays."
Because, I believe, it is one of the few things about a photograph that can be quantified and a numerical value applied. I cannot recall anyone ever saying to me "that image produces 79% more emotional content than this one." It may actually insulate the observer from ever having to express a feeling.

Absolutely correct. The camera is not worth $4000, there is only one out there who want $4000 for it. But as I look on the link, there are quite a few out there... ;) Wow.

Well who buy a Nikon F for 4000$ in those conditions is not a winner for me, but someone that like spend money not well, I am sure that if you looking around in the world, you can find a Nikon F for more less then if you like a Nikon that show the age go ahead!

Chances are yours was not one of the roughly 100 units that shipped with a cloth shutter, unless it was... The planets and stars aligned for this eBay seller. If it's any sort of consolation, you could probably snag any old Nikon F for under $150 USD.

Most early metered finders are dead anyway, the unmetered finders are more desirable, like this one. You can use the Sunny 16 rule and with your knowledge of the latitude of film you can take reasonably good pictures, experience and trial and error help a great deal. And I also have a modern Sekonic light meter. A person owning this camera would have certainly carried an incident light meter. It makes you think, it's fun.

@0MitchAG You meter one of three ways:
1) carry a light meter and use it (the best method);
2) follow the suggested settings printed on the box of film; or
3) use your eyes and estimate based on experience.

The heads on mine all work, which I've thought pretty impressive for Nikon engineering . I was told when I bought them- at different times and in different shops/markets etc they were all dead, but new batteries- the deaf aid ones- and they all work as they should. So, if you see one and it says the meter doesn't work and it's cheap enough for you, then buy it; even with a dead meter, you still have the pentaprism and with the new batteries it might even work as well!

0MitchAG - you're absolutely right that a built in light meter is better. But I like using a hand held meter because it forces you to make all the calculations and compensations in your head. Also, a lot of early cameras used a now discontinued 1.35Vdc Mercury cell, PX625. The ones you buy now are alkaline and the chemistry yields 1.5V. These simply early meters relied on the stability of the voltage for their accuracy. I also wouldn't trust the calibration of such an old meter, I just assume they're all shot even if they do work. Taking an incident reading and judging the scene, making various calculations in your head for your film, contrast of the scene, n+/-1 and filter factors, to me, leads to greater understanding and mindfulness of what I'm doing. Edward Weston barely used a meter at all and judged his exposures based on his experience alone. Maybe not the right subject for "digital" camera review but still valuable knowledge, even if the equivalent procedures are accomplished differently with a digital camera - using software and a computer. At any rate, the unmetered prism finder fetches a lot more from a collector.

Hi,
I would naturally have assumed the meters would be inaccurate after all these years, but I use hand held meters as well, all different types- selenium, CdS and ?silicon ( a Sekonic L-308S ) and love to compare the old and new with the FTn Photomic prisms on my cameras. They are all within a stop of each other and that's pretty good for 65 year old technology.
I realise the unmetered prisms cost more to buy, and that's why I have the metered ones ! They have a real quality to them and show how Nikon was struggling to keep it's flagship model up to date by adapting the prisms over the years. Fascinating history.

iChing Dynasty ???

What is wrong with you? This was a pioneering photographic instrument, a model in use for 4 decades. The excellence of the F helped Japan cement it's place as a competitor to the German industry. I would think all real photographers would be interested in the heritage of the equipment they use and the industries that created it.

There are so many wonderful & beautiful old cameras [much like appreciating classic autos] and having graduated from my Hawkeye to Dad's Flash Bantam, began collecting old Kodak's from the first half of 20th Century, 'focusing' on those Kodak's having a Art-Deco design and the Bantam family having a 828** film format. Several are works of art. . . My Bantam Clam Shell, has an excellent lens and did provide excellent results, when I had a reasonable film source

** 35mm width film with small 'sprocket holes' on one side [Bottom Side] providing a negative 30% larger than the 35mm SLR.

Because it's a story about a Nikon camera.
Anything else would not have been interesting.
Dpr = Nikon

Nick Brundle - the F is a camera icon. This camera destroyed Leica and Zeiss and made Leica into the silly couture item it is today - their best selling item is still a rangefinder styled throwback to the 1960's. And this is No.87 out of close to 1,000,000. Some people like digital cameras, some like photography.

I have a F3HP - not quite as old as the legendary Nikon F but it is a manual camera nevertheless