Battle of the Classic Giants: Pentax Spotmatic vs. Nikon F

Hi,

Two giants of the film SLR world of 1970. Both had their unapolagetic
proponents. Both were used by the most famous film stars, artists,
fashion, sports and news photographers of the day. Grand claims were
made for the ruggedness, image quality and reliability of each by both
manufacturers.

But now, 44 years on and with the benefit of hindsight, which was the
true King?

 

In article <>, Cursitor Doom
<> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Two giants of the film SLR world of 1970. Both had their unapolagetic
> proponents. Both were used by the most famous film stars, artists,
> fashion, sports and news photographers of the day. Grand claims were
> made for the ruggedness, image quality and reliability of each by both
> manufacturers.
>
> But now, 44 years on and with the benefit of hindsight, which was the
> true King?

those were two different cameras for two different markets. nikkormats
were more of a spotmatic competitor than the nikon f.

however, pentax pioneered a lot of what became standard in slrs.

they're both important cameras of their day.

 

On Thursday, April 10, 2014 7:12:41 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
>
>
> But now, 44 years on and with the benefit of hindsight, which was the
>
> true King?

Hmmm.... They were not really direct competitors...
But I saw a LOT more Spotmatics in the hands of amateurs than Fs.

Only got my F in 1982. It was in a plastic bag, in pieces:
had been flooded in an underwater housing and I got it for 50 bucks to try and repair it.
Which I did and 1 year after, it was working as good as new!
Amazingly, it's still with me and I still use it occasionally.

 

On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 20:55:10 -0700 (PDT), Noons <>
wrote:

>On Thursday, April 10, 2014 7:12:41 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> But now, 44 years on and with the benefit of hindsight, which was the
>>
>> true King?
>
>Hmmm.... They were not really direct competitors...
>But I saw a LOT more Spotmatics in the hands of amateurs than Fs.
>
>Only got my F in 1982. It was in a plastic bag, in pieces:
>had been flooded in an underwater housing and I got it for 50 bucks to try and repair it.
>Which I did and 1 year after, it was working as good as new!
>Amazingly, it's still with me and I still use it occasionally.

I remember they (Nikon) ran an ad campaign about a photojournalist
covering the Vietnam war who got his two F's wet crossing a river on a
mission and decided the best thing to do was keep 'em wet until he got
back to civilisation, so he placed them both (unopened of course) in a
bucket of water and had them transported back in that. They and the
pictures survived just fine. Doubt you could say the same for today's
digital cameras in the same circumstances!

I think as our mutual friend has suggested, the Pentax was something
of a 'poor relation' to the F to some extent, but the build quality of
both was ***so*** much better than anything around today.

 

In article <>, Cursitor Doom
<> wrote:

> I remember they (Nikon) ran an ad campaign about a photojournalist
> covering the Vietnam war who got his two F's wet crossing a river on a
> mission and decided the best thing to do was keep 'em wet until he got
> back to civilisation, so he placed them both (unopened of course) in a
> bucket of water and had them transported back in that. They and the
> pictures survived just fine. Doubt you could say the same for today's
> digital cameras in the same circumstances!
>
> I think as our mutual friend has suggested, the Pentax was something
> of a 'poor relation' to the F to some extent, but the build quality of
> both was ***so*** much better than anything around today.

I sold, serviced and used both at the time. Agreed, not directly
comparable. The F was far more durable and far more flexible. Almost
exclusively a working pro's camera. The Spotmatic was more pleasurable
to use, for the tasks it could accomplish, and the lenses were equally
good - and perhaps more consistent across the line.

Personally, I preferred the F, though I was very happy when the F2
premiered, and smoothed off the sharp edges of the body.

 

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:23:50 -0400, Scott Schuckert <>
wrote:

>Personally, I preferred the F, though I was very happy when the F2
>premiered, and smoothed off the sharp edges of the body.

Which of the F2 models would you say is today the most sought-after by
collectors? I've seen huge variations in sale prices on fleabay.

 

In article <>, Cursitor Doom
<> wrote:

> Which of the F2 models would you say is today the most sought-after by
> collectors? I've seen huge variations in sale prices on fleabay.

If there's any justice, it should be the F2AS with the DP-12 finder.
Though I do see some fascination with the earlier F2SB.

 

On 13/04/2014 12:02 AM, Scott Schuckert wrote:
> In article <>, Cursitor Doom
> <> wrote:
>
>> Which of the F2 models would you say is today the most sought-after by
>> collectors? I've seen huge variations in sale prices on fleabay.
>
> If there's any justice, it should be the F2AS with the DP-12 finder.
> Though I do see some fascination with the earlier F2SB.
>

Yeah, I'd say you're spot-on. I still use my F2AS regularly, it has a
fantastic meter. But I've got a soft spot for the F2SB.
(and a 2nd F2 body waiting for the SB head when they drop in price in epay!)

 

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 20:09:20 +1000, Noons <>
wrote:

>On 13/04/2014 12:02 AM, Scott Schuckert wrote:
>> In article <>, Cursitor Doom
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> Which of the F2 models would you say is today the most sought-after by
>>> collectors? I've seen huge variations in sale prices on fleabay.
>>
>> If there's any justice, it should be the F2AS with the DP-12 finder.
>> Though I do see some fascination with the earlier F2SB.
>>
>
>Yeah, I'd say you're spot-on. I still use my F2AS regularly, it has a
>fantastic meter. But I've got a soft spot for the F2SB.
>(and a 2nd F2 body waiting for the SB head when they drop in price in epay!)

I've got a Nikkor f1.4 50mm fast prime lens in superb condition
waiting for the right classic body to come along for it.
Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any discernable difference in
quality between this lens and its Pentax SMC takumar equivalent which
I have parked alongside it to admire daily. Looks like it was
something to do with the bodies that swung it for Nikon to be the
choice of the serious Pro?

 

In article <>, Cursitor Doom
<> wrote:

> I've got a Nikkor f1.4 50mm fast prime lens in superb condition
> waiting for the right classic body to come along for it.
> Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any discernable difference in
> quality between this lens and its Pentax SMC takumar equivalent which
> I have parked alongside it to admire daily. Looks like it was
> something to do with the bodies that swung it for Nikon to be the
> choice of the serious Pro?

Pretty much. Nikon had an early start on building their reputation for
quality lenses; they also had a wider range, including some pretty
exotic pieces. Wider range of accessories, too, including various
interchangeable viewfinders.

Realistically, how many people bought the 200mm Medical Nikkor, or the
DA-1 Action Finder? Very few, but you always imagined kicking yourself,
somewhere down the road, because you needed one and had chosen the
"wrong" system. Matter of fact, back in the day everyone wanted to be
selling a "System" camera - even companies whose most exotic add-on was
an eyepiece diopter.

The other thing was that the Nikon F, and to a somewhat lesser degree
the F2, were almost literally bullet-proof. I kept a tired old F body
around the shop; I'd drive nails with it if asked about durability.

Of course, you had to hit the nails on just the right spot...

 

On 14/04/2014 4:28 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>
> I've got a Nikkor f1.4 50mm fast prime lens in superb condition
> waiting for the right classic body to come along for it.
> Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any discernable difference in
> quality between this lens and its Pentax SMC takumar equivalent which
> I have parked alongside it to admire daily. Looks like it was
> something to do with the bodies that swung it for Nikon to be the
> choice of the serious Pro?

Heh! Got one of those lenses too! Mine is AI-S and it still gets used!

The F body had an interesting feature few folks know about:
the shutter trigger was connected to the film winding sprocket and had a
little red dot in it.
One rotation of the dot was one exact frame in length and perfectly
registered. Absolute mechanical precision!
We could set the rewind ring without disturbing the shutter button and
then wind back as many frames as desired to double expose any previous
image, in perfect registration! Just counting the red dot revolutions
did the trick. One could then wind back up to the current position by
simply counting how many turns the red dot made! Once the rewind ring
was reset to advance, it remained registered to the frame boundary,
avoiding the "half-frame-shot" of so many other cameras of the era.

I used that for double exposures in my F quite successfully. Back when
I actually took notes of each frame taken and how! It worked like a
charm.

I think only the F, F4 and F6 allowed for exact repositioning of any
frame for double exposure. The F2, F3 and F5 had a double exposure
switch but they didn't have an exact registered repositioning facility.
Or rather: I don't know of any! Of course, one could take multiple
exposures with them but just on the last frame shot.

Pentax had a pro camera that I absolutely loved: the LX. It had a
fantastic metering and prism system. I was often tempted to change to
Pentax back then. The only reason I stayed with Nikon was the
underwater housing I bought had an inbuilt prism and flash system that
only fit F and F2 gear and Nikonos flashes. It was sooooo expensive I
couldn't possibly afford to change it for a Pentax specific one.

And then digital happened and the whole thing ended up being a moot
exercise. Now I use a little Oly TG2 - soon to be a TG3 - that is just
fantastic and always gets me superb results. And since I'm too old for
deep dives, 15metres is more than enough for what I do now!

 

On 4/13/2014 5:51 PM, Scott Schuckert wrote:
> In article <>, Cursitor Doom
> <> wrote:
>
>> I've got a Nikkor f1.4 50mm fast prime lens in superb condition
>> waiting for the right classic body to come along for it.
>> Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any discernable difference in
>> quality between this lens and its Pentax SMC takumar equivalent which
>> I have parked alongside it to admire daily. Looks like it was
>> something to do with the bodies that swung it for Nikon to be the
>> choice of the serious Pro?
>
> Pretty much. Nikon had an early start on building their reputation for
> quality lenses; they also had a wider range, including some pretty
> exotic pieces. Wider range of accessories, too, including various
> interchangeable viewfinders.
>
> Realistically, how many people bought the 200mm Medical Nikkor, or the
> DA-1 Action Finder? Very few, but you always imagined kicking yourself,
> somewhere down the road, because you needed one and had chosen the
> "wrong" system. Matter of fact, back in the day everyone wanted to be
> selling a "System" camera - even companies whose most exotic add-on was
> an eyepiece diopter.
>
> The other thing was that the Nikon F, and to a somewhat lesser degree
> the F2, were almost literally bullet-proof. I kept a tired old F body
> around the shop; I'd drive nails with it if asked about durability.
>
> Of course, you had to hit the nails on just the right spot...
>

My old Nikkormat is built like a hockey puck. And yes it still works. My
F3 is still operational, but it doesn't feel as solid as my Nikkormat.
My daughter "borrowed" the Nikkormat many years ago, but now both are
nothing but well used paperweights. For some reason I can't bring myself
to sell them. But I had no problem selling my old Rollei, and would
happily sell my Bronica.

--
PeterN

 

On 4/13/2014 2:28 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

> I've got a Nikkor f1.4 50mm fast prime lens in superb condition
> waiting for the right classic body to come along for it.
> Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be any discernable difference in
> quality between this lens and its Pentax SMC takumar equivalent which
> I have parked alongside it to admire daily. Looks like it was
> something to do with the bodies that swung it for Nikon to be the
> choice of the serious Pro?
>

I stopped using mine when I got the D800. but it still is a nice piece
of glass.
I still use my old 20mm for street. It makes my camera look inconspicuous.

--
PeterN