Hello. I'm looking to get a fully mechanical camera, but I am unsure of what I should buy. Considering my price range, a few people have suggested purchasing a Nikon F2 photomic (I already use a Nikon FTN, and so have a number of lenses, but I want something with a 100% field of view in the viewfinder.) The F2 is apparently a very fine camera despite its age. Does anybody else concur with this assessment, or can anyone suggest any other possibilities (excluding incredibly expensive cameras like the Leicas; the F2 falls well into the range of what I would like to spend.) Thaqnks a lot.

-- Kenneth M (kennethm@morgan.ucs.mun.ca), October 30, 2000

Answers

Kenneth, I have been using a Nikon F2 since April of 1974. It still works as well as the day I bought it (Including the DP1 light meter!). It has NEVER needed service despite bangs, gouges and falls. (I fell on it 7 years ago and it works just fine, thank you very much!) I recommend it without any reservation. It dosen't need batteries, it dosen't try to think for you and the lenses are excellent. If it has any drawback it is it's weight. I have developed a strong left shoulder over the years carrying my F2 with my all Nikkor lens collection of 24, 35, 55, 43-86,135 & 500mm. An added feature is that Nikon lenses made today use the same mount (try to get one with the AI meter).Please contact me if you have any specific questions. Robert

-- Robert Orofino (rorofino@iopener.net), October 30, 2000.

The F2 is a mighty fine camera. Of course, if you are willing to give up a bit around the edges, the FM2 is also great. I have had an F2, and now use an FM2 and an F3. They all do a great job. I do quite a bit of "full frame" printing, but have no problenm adjusting to the slightly different coverage. If anything, I often frame too tightly when I get the chance, so that little bit at the edge can do me a favor :)

-- Paul Harris (pharris@neosoft.com), October 31, 2000.

Another hearty vote for the F2.
I bought a battered used one in 1984 or thereabouts, simply because it was too cheap to refuse. It impressed me so much that a year later I bought another body in mint condition at the going rate (Unheard of! I never pay the going rate if I can help it ;^o).
Both bodies are still as reliable as the day that I took over their ownership, and I'd like to think that after I'm gone, someone else will still be getting great pictures from them. (Even though they might have to manufacture their own film.)

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), November 01, 2000.

just one suggestion, thought it might be late :)

Buy IT!

-- middle (middlegray@hotmail.com), November 24, 2000.

buy the camera! i finally got rid of mine (with a MD12) after 10 years of use for an autoload/focus Canon EOS and the difference is startling. though the camera is lighter and focuses faster, in checking my old verus newer images, the nikon images were sharper in focus than the autofocused images.

i regret losing the nikon.

-- Tony (fototaker@usa.net), December 02, 2000.

I have a Minolta SRT 101 that is fully mechanical. And I have heard it said that it was the last model with an "all metal" film advance mechanism.

One can be had from one of the New York shops for around $100. Lenses run from $60 +.

-- Fred Hoefler (fhoefler@silverlink.net), December 25, 2000.