Nikon EM (compact plastic early auto mode from the 80's)

Here's a cool little camera I got off craigslist for $40:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4016300342/in/set-72157622595498100/
The camera does aperture priority, meaning you turn the aperture ring &
it picks a shutter speed. There is a limited exposure compensation
button that adds two stops for backlit conditions. It also has M90 mode
which just uses 1/90 second shutter speed if the battery is dead. It
makes a little beeping sound when the shutter speed is dangerously slow.
The viewfinder is huge, much bigger than the D700 it's shown beside. You
do have to take your glasses off or move around to see the whole thing
though. I'd like to see one beside a D5000 or whatever is smallest these
days.

The lens is a compact 'pancake' form of supposedly the same optics in
the current 50/1.8 AF with a lesser coating and no AF. It's a Series-E
considered a cheapo at the time but in fact a nearly flawless lens and
darn fast. It doesn't focus very close though, about 2 feet.

I gave it to a kid to use with a few rolls of whatever Kodak 400 color
film from walgreens. The rewind arm is broken off so I fashioned a
little metal chuck on a string for that <g>.

This is partly a response to the comments on this image that I've
received over the years: http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/cameras/pg1pc4
That's the kid who is now in possession of the EM, holding my old broken
Canon AE-1. He is very creative & clever with a camera, I'm hoping it's
not too complicated and he actually learns the craft of photography with
it. Just turn the aperture ring & watch the shutter speed. Split screen
focus aid.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

 

The EM is a delight to use. It was supposedly aimed at women, being
very small, light and simple to use. Whatever, it is a seriously good
camera.

It's a pity that the winder broke off, because the EM has the
silkiest, smoothest film transport of any Nikon 35mm SLR. It shares
the ball-bearing system from the Nikon F3.

The EM only has one exposure mode, aperture priority, and there is no
exposure compensation other than by adjusting the film speed dial. But
it has an extremely useful backlight button on the back which
increases exposure by 1.5 stops by lengthening the exposure time.

The outside may be plastic but the chassis is sturdy, made from the
same die cast magnesium alloy as Nikon's professional SLRs.

The lens pictured is one of the last Series E 50mm f/1.8 optics. The
earlier versions had an inferior coating, but the later versions had
the same full multi-coating that was given to Nikkors. In fact the
50mm f/1.8 "pancake" Nikkor was optically identical - the Series E was
such a good design that it was also adopted as a Nikkor. As you say,
it carried over into the AF line and has been given even better
multi-coating. It is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, of any
brand, but it has very harsh bokeh.

The Series E lenses include some real gems, and no bad performers.
They were made under contract by Cosina and Kiron, and included such
gems as the 75-150mm f/3.5, which (like all Series E zooms) has a
constant maximum aperture and one of the very best combinations of
sharpness and smooth bokeh of any zoom lens ever made. Many
professional Nikon users kept one in their bag, and many of them
pleaded with Nikon to make a full AIS Nikkor version. Alas, Nikon
never did.

The 28mm and 35mm Series E lenses were competent but unexceptional,
with the 28mm going forward to become the optical design for the 28mm
f/2.8 AF Nikkor. The 100mm f/2.8 is one of Nikon's best portrait
lenses, almost the equal of the legendary 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor, with a
strong combination of sharpness and smooth bokeh.

The 70-200mm f/4 was a very good, sharp lens. Its optics were used
for the 70-200mm f/4 AF Nikkor, which was later replaced by a far
inferior f/4-5.6 version. The later variable aperture lens sold like
hot cakes on the basis of one good review (Pop Photo?) but anyone who
tested it themselves, rather than taking a magazine review on trust,
found it to be a mediocre performer.

Keep looking for Series E lenses. They sell for next to nothing and,
with the EM body, will make a very good outfit for that kid. ;-)

 

Mom never used a camera in her life until she went on a trip of a
lifetime to China circa 1980. Pop and I set her up with an EM and the
little flash that goes with it and we made her burn through a few
rolls of film before she left.

She came back with a hundred great shots.

It got sold on eBay 25 years later.

 

You sure hit a lot of "nails on the heads" with your lens info (being
an inveterate lens checker, I came up with the same conclusions
in my Nikkor lens evaluations list, at --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html. BTW, there were
a few good samples of the 35mm f2.5 around, and I found one good
one of the 28mm f2.8 E and the one good early AF version of the
same, but generally these were so-so at best, as you say. The E 50,
100, 135, and 75-150 were exceptionally good, and the 70-210 was
very good, as you also say - and I agree with your assessment of the
variable-aperture version of the last (WHY did Nikon do that???).
As far as bodies, I still have a Nikon FG (based on the EM, but it
looks and feels nicer, and has M-AP-SP-P exposure modes and TTL
flash control. BTW, I have it and some E/AF-version lenses for sale...
--DR

 

I forgot to mention the very good 36-72mm f3.5 (constant). BTW, I
have (mint) FG, 28mm AF (a rare sharp one), 36-72mm, 100mm,
and 70-210mm for sale (not cheap, but given their condition and
their having been thoroughly tested/selected, reasonable....;-).
--DR

 

Thanks for the kind words, David. We rarely disagree on things Nikon,
and I am always happy to refer to your lens evaluations for lenses I
am not familiar with. For the avoidance of doubt, that's praise
indeed. ;-)

The reason Nikon replaced the AF Nikkor 70-210mm f/4 (E Series optics)
with the very inferior f/4-f/5.6 version was that Kiron withdrew from
making the lenses. It was already due for a refresh from AF to AF-N,
mainly to change the hard, thin focusing ring to something wider and
rubberised. The contract for the new lens went to Tokina, whose staff
complemented included several ex-Nikon designers and production
engineers. Whether Kiron bid for the contract I do not know.

The 36-72mm f/3.5 Nikon Series E was indeed a very good lens. The
focal length was actually 35-70mm but the lens would have been
confused with the larger, heavier and far more expensive AIS Nikkor
35-70mm f/3.5. The AIS was a superlative lens, as is its AF(-D)
Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 successor, which is still one of my favourites,
and this tended to overshadow the Series E lens, which was more than
good enough for photojournalist work and would have put less stress on
PJs' shoulders. ;-)

The Series E lens had the virtue of being compact, light and decently
sharp, but suffered from light fall-off when used wide open or stopped
down to f/5.6. At f/8 the illumination was more or less even. Flare
resistance was poor without a hood because the front element was not
recessed, but the delightful clamp-on dedicated lens hood (the only
accessory metal hood in the whole Series E range) gave excellent
shading.

I used one on my Nikon FA body and was pleased with the results, but I
also had an AIS Nikkor 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 whose handling I preferred on
account of its two touch zoom/focusing. That was a good lens, but not
quite as sharp as the Series E.

Cosina also made a so-called "AIS Nikkor" for the FE-10/FM-10 that
looked much the same but it gave atrocious results. It could be
identified by the f/3.5-4.8 maximum aperture. It was probably the
worst optic ever to carry the Nikon brand. :-(

 

Thanks! ;-)
It's at - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html (a "plug"...;-).

Thanks for the plethora of info! The AIS 35-70 f3.3-4.5 was for me
one of the easiest wide angle zooms to focus, but I found it (and others
of the same range) not wide-range enough to be satisfactory. The later
28-70mm f3.5-4.5 AF was very good, small, and light (and now FS...;-),
but I have since replaced it with the excellent 24-85mm f3.5-4.5
(although at that point, I stopped shooting much of anything - and I also
have a mint FA body FS...).

It could not have been worse than the early version of the 43-86mm
f3.5 (the later version was MUCH, MUCH better!) - the early one was a
true "pop-bottle bottom"! ;-)

 

You're welcome.

Well, I was comparing it with the 36-72mm Series E, which despite the
engraving, ad the same focal length range.

Indeed, a surprisingly good lens for its low price. It was designed
for use with the F601 (N6006) SLR, which had a built-in flash. The
compact dimensions of the lens were chosen to avoid obscuring the
flash at closer focusing distances. This compromise meant that there
was a little more light fall-off when the lens was used wide open, but
it was otherwise quite a sparkling performer.

That's a lens I haven't tried. The previous 24-85mm f/2.8-4 was
optically something of a disappointment, but the verdict seems to be
that the later f/3.5-4.5 version is very much better.

Once again, the early 43-86mm isn't a lens I have used, although I
have bench test results for one that are very poor indeed. It is
often said to be the zoom lens that gave all zoom lenses a bad name.

;-)

But the Cosina 35-70mm f/3.5-4.8 was pitiful. Its optical problems
were too many to list here, and mechanically it was atrocious too.
Sometimes with Cosina lenses of that era, they are so inconsistent
that it is possible to get a good one, but not with this design.

 

I once compared the Nikkor 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 at f5.6 with the
Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS, the Nikkor 28mm f1.4 AF, and the Nikkor
28mm f4 PC shooting trees and city-scape with the same back-lit
framing, taken aimed toward a hazy-bright sky. For various reasons,
I would have expected the f2.8 to have "won" for sharpness and
brilliance, but the "winners" were the 28-70mm zoom and the 28mm
PC(!). I was surprised...

It is quite remarkable, being sharp to the corners full-frame at all
FLs and focus distances (DIFFICULT to get in a zoom!). In addition,
it is as good as the excellent 24mm f2.8 Nikkor at the same stops, and
its performance continues evenly through the rest of its range (which
means that as the FLs get longer, performance falls ever more behind
the ever better non-zooms in its range). Compared with the 35mm f2
AF, the 35mm is somewhat better, the 50mm f1.4 is noticeably better,
and the superb 85mm f1.8 AF is quite noticeably better. BUT, none
of those are zooms, and the zoom really is a very good one. Its only
major flaw is rather severe linear distortion...

Yes. It was a very early compact zoom that was popular with
photojournalists (who[m ;-] I often accused of caring little about
image quality...;-), but its performance was truly disgusting. I don't
remember what the first Nikkor (or other) WA zoom was that had
good performance (maybe the 35-70mm f3.5? Or 28-45mm f4.5?).
I just looked up the URL on my own web site that lists URLs for other
sites (at http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Nikon-URLs.htm), which
includes one that lists introduction dates for the various Nikkors (at
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html). It looks like the
earliest good Nikkor zoom was the 28-45mm f4.5, introduced in
Sept. of 1975. It wasn't a great zoom (or very wide range or fast),
but it was good, and FAR better than the earlier-version 43-86mm.
--DR

 

I'd rank the 60-180mm f/4.5~5.6 IX-Nikkor in between the Cosina 35-70
and the 1st generation 43-86mm in the race to the bottom.

Deciphering keiretsu agreements is well beyond my ability. Nikon
has consistently denied that any AF lenses were manufactured
"out of house," but the 70-210mm f/4 -E and -AF lenses are both
very close cousins of the 80-200mm f/4 AI-S, and Nikon could have
easily continued production in house. The decision to downsize
the 70-210mm was also made with the knowledge that a new 80-200mm
f/2.8 AF was "in the pipeline."

So I believe the decision to downsize the 70-210mm was marketing-
based rather than contractual and based on the same "AF is for
amateurs" mentality that nearly doomed Nikon.

 

Hmmm...8^) (I have never tried any of the Nikkor "Icks" lenses...;-)

Yes. And look how popular the excellent Canon f4 lens in the same
range now is...! Sometimes one wonders about Nikon marketing... :-(

Likely true, I guess, even if at the long end the lens had a ridiculously
slow maximum aperture for a relatively short tele of f5.6...
--DR

 

I almost put a 28mm f/2 on the EM.

Or the 24/2.8 but little chance to experiment with DOF.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

 

The 28mm PC lenses have long been known as the best 28mm Nikkors and
among the best performing 28mm lenses of any brand. The pre-set
aperture is a pain in the a**, though.

You can't have it all, unless you buy Leica glass. And I don't think
even Leica could make a perfect zoom lens.

 

In other checks with these, at f5.6 (with my usual infinity target),
the Nikkor 28mm f2 was a tad sharper than the f2.8 - but at
f2.8, the results reversed (with multiple samples).

Oh, so you did not take the risky EM/FG20/FG DOF-checking
move of partially unbayonetting the lens until the aperture stopped
down, huh? 8^)
--DR

 

In other comparisons with multiple samples, the Nikkor 28mm f2 at
f5.6 was a tad sharper overall than the MF 28mm f2.8, but at wider
stops the results moved toward reversal...

I found it rather easy/intuitive on the F3 body, which was the only
one that didn't require the lens to be centered (with an "E" screen)
for metering unless an extreme shift was made with vertical framing.
Just select the most reasonable shutter speed for conditions, place in
the large VF circle a good representative distribution of subject tones,
and then center the meter with the diaphragm (without setting the
preset mechanism). Easy! ;-)

The 80-200mm f2.8 comes close to being a perfect zoom, and by
reputation, so do the 35/28/24-70mm f2.8s (but I have not tried
these). The 17-35mm f2.8 is one heck of a lens, and by reputation
and photos I've seen, the Nikkor 14-24mm is an "impossibly" good
zoom...;-) If it weren't for the prices/sizes/weights of these, one really
could replace many non-zooms in their ranges.
--DR