Talk:Nikkormat

On 7 August 2006, contributer 4.240.242.96 erased positive mentions of competing Canons in this Nikkormat article, justified by accusing me, without evidence, of "agenda pushing by Canon fanatic." Although the deletions are themselves are small, I am shocked and hurt by this unfounded charge and wish to defend myself against it, and explain why the passages did not merit deletion.

First, I do not have a pro-Canon bias. This is most obviously seen by the fact that I have never been a Canon user. I seriously thought about getting an Olympus XA in the 1980s and I liked my Olympus Stylus in the 1990s. I also used a Minolta Vectis S-1 when I thought APS might be going somewhere. (Yeah, yeah; laugh it up.) I admit that my short time handling a Canon A-1 was not unpleasant and that sometimes I feel/felt envious of Canon's Eye Control Focus, Image Stabilization and UltraSonic Motor technologies. However, I normally use Nikon SLRs. My favorite camera remains my trusty Nikon FE2 - purchased new in 1983. As I like to joke: "It's old enough to drink legally." It is not an agenda to show respect for your worthy competition. Besides, does anyone seriously think that I would have spent the time and effort to research and write three thousand words on Nikkormats (plus another seven or eight thousand on the Nikon F2, EM, FG, FG-20, FM, FE, FM2, FE2, FA, FM2N, FM10, FE10 and FM3A) if I were a Canon fanatic.

Second, my statements are relevant. Nikkormats did not exist in isolation. Nikon and Canon have been competing fiercely, blow and counterblow, for Japanese camera supremacy since at least the Nikon I and Canon II-B 35 mm rangefinders of 1948. It is folly to discuss Nikkormats without a tip of the cap to the equivalent Canon. It would be like discussing Leica, Ford, Boeing or Joe DiMaggio without mentioning Contax, Chevrolet, Airbus or Ted Williams (or vice versa) - woefully incomplete. Fifty words out of the three thousand is hardly too much. Contributer 4.240.242.96 also deleted negative comparisons (but kept the positive ones) with competing Minolta, Pentax or Olympus SLRs.

And lastly, my statements are verifiably true. The Canon AE-1 was a landmark camera that did make the Nikkormats seem really old at the end of their production lives. (The Minolta XD11 and Olympus OM-2 also came out in 1976 and also contributed to the Nikkormat brand's demise, but they are of lesser historical importance.) Jason Schneider called the AE-1, as "the world's first IC-controlled SLR", one of "21 landmark cameras" that allowed "Japanese manufacturers to presently dominate the world's camera production" in 1984. In a 1979 post mortem, Modern Photography said: "The Nikkormat, with its comparatively large bulk and weight and lack of modern features..., had simply outlived its salability in the marketplace. There was also at the end resistance to the name 'Nikkormat' which purchasers felt was strictly second line nomenclature (hence the elevation of the Nikkormat ELW to Nikon EL2 in its last incarnation before it too went west, another victim of the need for more modern design)." In fact, Nikon engineer Kenji Toyoda, on Nikon's own website official history pages, acknowledges the extreme competitive pressure brought against the ELW by the AE-1.

Autoexposure SLR sales did not take off until the the Canon AE-1 came out. That's another reason why the AE-1 is such a landmark camera. I never said that the Nikkormat ELs were failures, but the sales figures for the AE-1 are an order of magnitude higher than the ELs and other first generation autoexposure SLRs (such as the Minolta XE-7, the Pentax ElectroSpotmatic and Canon's own EF). Schneider could say in 1984 that "more AE-1's have been sold than any other 35mm SLR in history." T. Hirasawa was not wrong in proclaiming, in 1987, that "the camera that started the whole boom in SLR photography was [his company's] Canon AE-1" with five million sold and another four million AE-1 Programs. "We at Canon are extremely proud of the role the AE-1 played in making fine photography available to millions—where previously the SLR had been the instrument of a restricted number of serious amateurs and professionals" is a bit of marketeering, but it also has the ring of truth.

If my statements that the Nikkormat FTN was "a particular bestseller" with "an enviable reputation for toughness and reliability", "one of the finest SLRs of its generation" and a "classic design", or that the Nikkormat EL had a "very advanced" autoexposure system and was "tough and reliable" are not superlative enough for contributer 4.240.242.96 (who also deleted true information and valid criticisms of the Nikkormats and who also seems to be in denial that film photography is dying), then he/she needs to consider whether it is he/she that has an agenda: a blindly pro-Nikon bias.

For all their virtues, Nikkormats are not above criticism; just as the Canon A-series, despite their real faults, are not beneath contempt. It would be like discussing Robert Capa's "Death of a Loyalist Soldier" without mentioning the allegations that it was staged and not admitting that Joe Rosenthal's "Flag Raising on Iwo Jima" is more famous. Or proclaiming that Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 is probably the best symphony ever written, but refusing to believe that his Fidelio opera is not so great an opera and not accepting that Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 8 is also a great symphony (and I don't mean just in size). I can only imagine what contributer 4.240.242.96 would have called me if I had mentioned that most camera collectors and historians regard the Canon EF as superior to the Nikkormat EL. (In 1987, Modern Photography's "47 experts" (unfortunately unnamed) chose the EF as a "Runner Up Great Camera 1937-1987", while the EL is nowhere mentioned in their list. Stephen Gandy lists the EF among his favorite manual focus Canons, while the EL is dead last among manual focus Nikons. And, in 1995, Schneider called the EF "an electro-mechanical, manual-focus SLR marvel", while the EL merits only a "solid workhorse camera … with a kind of declassé panache.")

References Paul1513 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anonymous. "Nikon EM: Budget Priced 35mm Reflex" pp 62-66. Modern Photography's Photo Buying Guide '85. reprint from Modern Photography, July 1979.
 * Gandy, Stephen. "My Not So Objective User Nikon Film SLR Buying Guide" http://www.cameraquest.com/nikonslr.htm retrieved 4 January 2006
 * Gandy, Stephen. "Which 35 SLRs to USE?" http://www.cameraquest.com/slr35use.htm retrieved 4 January 2006
 * Hirasawa, T. (unspecified Canon, USA official) “Letters To The Editor: Thanks, but…” pp 23, 29. Modern Photography, Volume 51, Number 11; November 1987.
 * Matanle, Ivor. Collecting and Using Classic SLRs. First Paperback Edition. New York, NY: Thames and Hudson, 1997. ISBN 0-500-27901-2
 * Schneider, Jason. "How The Japanese Camera Took Over" pp 56-57, 78, 86. Modern Photography, Volume 48, Number 7; July 1984.
 * Schneider, Jason. “A Half Century of The World’s Greatest Cameras!” pp 56-59, 76, 124. Modern Photography, Volume 51, Number 9; September 1987.
 * Schneider, Jason. “Collectibles: What’s a cult camera? Beats me, but if you own one, you probably know.” pp 52-54, 112, 214. Popular Photography, Volume 59 Number 12; December 1995.
 * Toyoda, Kenji. "Nikon Family Cousins; Part 8: Nikomat ELW" http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/history/cousins/cousins08-e.htm retrieved 5 June 2006

The statement is made in the article that all of the Nikon bayonet lens mount lenses for the Nikon F would fit the Nikkormat FT. This is not true. I once tried to fit the 21mm Nikon short focus lens for the Nikon F on my Nikkormat FT with the mirror locked up and it wouldn't mount. I'm also not so sure about the Fisheye lenses, at least the earlier ones. Anoneditor 01:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Flash sync shutter speed
I think the FT2's X flash sync shutter speed of 1/125 sec is notable. It was particularly useful for fill-in flash in bright sunlight. It's around a stop faster than the F2 series, OM1,2,4, and many others. Don't know about Canons. I would put it in myself, but for consistency the flash sync speed of the other Nikkormats would also be needed. Please help. GilesW 10:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletions?
As I'm new to the whole business of editing Wikipedia posts, this is probably a silly question but: If completely unwarranted deletions were made, is it not possible to reverse them? In fact, would it not be right to do so, even at the risk of irritating "Contributor 4.240.242.96"?

I ask because I'm particularly intrigued by the comments about how Nikkormats still work today with only an occasional CLA, while the same "cannot be said of the less strongly built, competing Pentax Spotmatic or Minolta SR-T 101". Now to me this seems rather bizarre, as a collector and user of both cameras. My Spotmatics and Minoltas, and those of others, "continue normal operations today"... and what does it take to keep them working? Why, "only the occasional cleaning, lubrication and adjustment". Exactly the same maintenance as was required to keep my Nikkormats working.

Despite that comment appearing misleading and/or biased to me, I am not going to edit it, because I do not want to interfere with a well written and researched article. Indeed any bias it appears to show may be due to Contributor 4.240.242.96's changes rather than the original text.

I am no brand fanatic but sadly such people appear to be everywhere, not only on discussion forums but on Wikipedia too, judging by the changes apparently made by Mr. 4.240.242.96. I for one would be interested in seeing the original text, if "Paul1513" is still around? Thanks.

Reads like advertisement
"Just as the Nikkor and Nikon brand names had established Nippon Kogaku as a world class maker of lenses and high-end cameras, respectively, with professional photographers before it, Nikkormat made amateurs sit up and take notice."

This reads like something from an advertisement, not an encyclopedia. Skjæve (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I did a bit of work on this, but much of it reads like a retro-ad or fan magazine jingoisms. I'm a big fan of the Nikkormats, and collect these among many camera lines, but the article is a bit of an embarrassment to WP. I suggest seeking out an experienced WP editor to assist in transforming this to a proper encyclopedic article with sources other than fan magazine cruft ;-)Kevin Murray (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Intro is false and misleading. but MOS more important than accuracy
It states that Nippon Nogaku KK made a brand of camera called Nikkormat from 1965-1977, and since 1988 Nippon Nogaku KK has been called Nikon Corporation. HOGWASH- A glimpse upon the official Nikon website shows Nippon Nogaku KK set up a Nikon Corporation in 1917. Initially it made lenses that could go on other camera's. In 1948, Nikon Corporation offered the public the first complete camera/lens, the Nikon 1. They continued development of camera's and in 1960 began offering a new Nikon model line called Nikkorex. In 1965 the Nikkorex model from Nikon was replaced with the Nikkormat (Nikomat in Japan) with minor changes and updates through 1977. In 1963 Nikon also made the Nikonos model, which was Nikon's first underwater (all weather camera) and they continued development of that model up until 1980.

The point in mentioning the Nikonos and Nikkorex in reference to Nikkormat is that Nikon was the "brand" of all these camera "models" made by Nikon Corporation, a subsidiary of Nippon Nogaku KK. All of these models also had "submodels." FT3 was the final incarnation and submodel of the Nikkormat, for instance. Perhaps there is an American/European difference in the definition of "brand." There is an incorrect inference in the introduction to this article that Nikkormat was a brand used by Nippon Nogaku, and that brand was discontinued before Nikon Corporation was started in 1988. Complete, utter nonsense. Nikkormat, Nikonos, Nikkorex, and Nikon models ware all made by Nikon Corporation.

I understand there has been a lot of vandalism on this and other Nikon articles by Canon and other camera extremists. Should not the accuracyofanarticle's intro be more important thanMOS? Anyone want in on this?Raisinpie (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Nikkormat was a brand, with various models. Just like General Electric and Hotpoint. Nikon and Nikkormat weren't just models because there was more than one of each offered at a given time.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Off-topic: I used to have a Nikkormat, but I ended up swapping it for another plain Nikon model.
 * FWIW, according to, the brand is Nikon, and Nikkormat is a model. Of course it had some submodels, which would make it a brand of its own, right? Do we have anything concrete—i.e. explicit—from Nikon's website itself? If we can't find anything desisive, I propose we avoid using the word "brand" in this context. Nobody would like to fight over something as unimportant as that, right? - DVdm (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah... I hadn't seen Raisinpie's most recent edit. I propose we just drop the word and make it: Nikkormat (Nikomat in Japan) was the model of Nikon cameras produced by the Japanese optics company... Let's also replace "camera's" with "cameras". We should of course also drop the added phrase "according to the official Nikon.com website." With a direct URL we can turn it into a properly templated . Raisinpie, can you provide the exact webpage where you found this? Okay for everyone? - DVdm (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Assuming that this anon edit (here above) was accidentally made in logged-out mode by user, meaning that the proposed changes are okay, I went ahead. If we all agree on the content, we don't need that URL, although it would be handy to have one in order to avoid future similar discussions. - DVdm (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

FTN not FTn
There is confusion because there is a Nikon F model called the FTn, but the Nikkormat is clearly labeld on the camera with a capital "N" and Nikon literature refers to the model as "FTN". But they do sometimes uses a smaller font for th capital "N". --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)