NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Chip Chipowski on April 11, 2021, 01:06:41
-
Just picked up a Nikonos II - very clever design! I've never owned a Nikonos before. First thought: I want another! I am thinking Nikonos V is a better candidate for use in the field.
-
I have had - and used - all models of the Nikonos. You are right in assuming the Nikonos V to be the pinnacle in this line. Give it the minimum of maintenance it requires, such as lubricate or change the O-rings when required, and the camera is almost indestructible. I prefer the orange-red version as it is less easy to misplace in the field :)
If you go underwater with an analogue camera, no better companion than a 15mm f/2.8 on a Nikonos can be found.
-
the early nikonos are reputed to be liable to body cracks if not opened correctly. My experience with the version V is very positive: the ideal camera to operate in driving rain or heavy snow with gloves on and no worries about the device conking out.
Do observe that the lenses made for underwater use are unusable in air (except for the 35mm) - which if you perform some surgery to remove the watertight fittings so as to use it on a "V-nex" is amazingly small-
p.
-
I used a Nikonos V for a long time, mostly as an all-weather camera while riding my motorbike. I had a 28mm terrestrial lens on it. Had to sell it, but still regret it :-X
It's a great learning tool to estimates distances, as the viewfinder is pure Galilléan !
-
I have an early Nikonos, purchased in West Germany in the late 1970s and labeled "Calypso", probably A Nikonos 1 or 11 in North America. It came with a 28mm lens intended for underwater use only, but it faithfully recorded pre-dive, dive and pos-dive activities in Europe and North America in the form of colour transparencies.
-
Fun fact: A Nikonos V is featured in "Stargate" (the movie), with the Marines group when on the new planet. It's the Khaki version and not the Orange one. Tough it's manipulated as if it had AF... :-)
I don't know much about the US Army and the Marine Corps, but did hear that, at one time, they pushed for the Leica M4 to be continued, as they seem to use it to record things ( small, efficient, no batteries). Maybe they do use the Nikonos V in though environments ?
-
Nikonos III was the last purely mechanical model and would operate without batteries. The IV and V use a battery for their shutter, plus offer a "fall-back" speed of 1/90 sec (if memory serves) when the battery is dead.
A factoid for the V is that the shutter will happily operate at longer durations than the assumed end point of 1/30 sec, if the camera is in "A" mode. I availed myself of that hidden feature a lot when I did tripod-based underwater captures with my V.
Using the Nikonos V was faciltated by the special L-bracket I made for it. This allowed me to use a cable release.
(note to self: as usual, my picture framing is off true by approx. 1.5 degree ... seems that 'mishap' has haunted me for a long time)
-
One of my tripod-based Nikonos V shots. The Canadian Pondweed Elodea canadensis under winter ice in a Norwegian lake. The photo was taken in January and getting the shot was an exercise in "cold" endurance. Well, I was younger then.
The lens used is the gen.2 of the UW-Nikkor 15mm f/2.8.
-
Fascinating shot, Birna. And thanks for the interesting story.
-
Fascinating indeed.
Thanks for sharing it!
-
Thank you Chip for starting this thread, and to the rest of your for adding in your experiences.
I never owned one, but was once a qualified diver and did some underwater photography.
Hearing you talk about this makes me want to be down there again (but with some proper kit)
I availed myself of that ...when I did tripod-based underwater captures with my V.
Just when I think I've heard most of the ingenious solutions, Birna casually tells about another gem.
Outstanding!
-
I spent a late autumn many years ago working with aquatic vegetation of heavily acidified lakes of Southern Norway. Some of these had extremely clear water due to the low pH, sometimes dropping even below pH 4 to reach the acidity level of raw citric acid (or Coke). Submerged bog mosses in particular Sphagnum cuspidatum and indunatum, were seen frequently. Some times a few specimens of Bladderwort Utricularia or Least Water-Lily Nuphar pumila made a change to the moss beds.
In order to take the capture below, showing fallen autumn foliage of Downy Birch Betula pubescens floating on th surface of one of these acid sites, the camera exposed the film for about 2 minutes on its 'A' setting. The water surface was dead calm and I had to behave like a drowned statue during the exposure lest the shot would be ruined. Not easy at subzero temperatures end of September in a subalpine area :(
I think the UW-Nikkor 15mm f/2.8N showed off its qualities in this photo.
-
The only "not safe for submersion" item in the Nikonos lens arsenal is the 28mm f/2.8 LW-Nikkor. Still, it tolerates fairly wet conditions, as witnessed below.
-
Birna these are inspiring images! As I have been immersing myself in Nikonos I found these to be nice overviews of the history:
https://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-nikonos/
https://casualphotophile.com/2018/04/17/nikon-nikonos-retrospective-review-film-camera-blog/
-
Amazing underwater (below ice?!) images. The quality of the scanned data from the 135 frames is also admirable...
-
The first one is indeed taken under quite thick winter ice. I haven't my field notes available now as this was long ago, but likely ice was around 0.5m thick. So getting into water was a a challenge unto itself. I used three underwater strobes to capture the scene as understandably, on a dark January day, light levels under ice were even lower.
-
Using a Nikonos for heroic scientific and aesthetic efforts like dr. Rørsletts is absolutely necesary.
My move to waterproofness was initiated for far more mundane reasons: During archeological fieldwork the archeologist's (my wife's) Olympus expired after a torrential rain (while my M3 survived, but made me wish for less potentially expensive hiking equipment)..
Solid like a brick (shaped similarly and not weighing much less), it now rests on a shelf only to be exercised when the weather is really bad.
p.
-
There were some quite exotic third-party offerings in the heydays of the Nikonos. I even purchased a fisheye port for the Nikonos models. Actually, the port itself was just a bonus and so was the Nikonos V (illustrated below), as my interest was in the nice 7.5mm f/5.6 Fisheye-Nikkor that was a part of the entire kit :) Price wasn't bad either as the market for such exotica was on the wane at the time.
Unfortunately, all images taken with the Fisheye-Nikonos have apparently gone astray during later upheavals of my life, so for now just a picture of the kit has to suffice. The glass dome was made by the US company Seacor (San Diego, CA) and it has an ordinary F-mount bayonet inside. So in principle other Nikkors can be put inside if they fit. Must test -- if the warmer weather arrives and I can find film. Now it's snowing cats and dogs outside.
-
There were some quite exotic third-party offerings in the heydays of the Nikonos. I even purchased a fisheye port for the Nikonos models. Actually, the port itself was just a bonus and so was the Nikonos V (illustrated below), as my interest was in the nice 7.5mm f/5.6 Fisheye-Nikkor that was a part of the entire kit :) Price wasn't bad either as the market for such exotica was on the wane at the time.
Unfortunately, all images taken with the Fisheye-Nikonos have apparently gone astray during later upheavals of my life, so for now just a picture of the kit has to suffice. The glass dome was made by the US company Seacor (San Diego, CA) and it has an ordinary F-mount bayonet inside. So in principle other Nikkors can be put inside if they fit. Must test -- if the warmer weather arrives and I can find film. Now it's snowing cats and dogs outside.
Very interesting! If I remember and understand correctly, UW 15mm Nikkor wad designed with the surrounding water as part of the optics, while all F-mount Nikkors weren't. I wonder how the additional optical effect of the water affect the image of the Nikkor mounted inside?
-
Very interesting! If I remember and understand correctly, UW 15mm Nikkor wad designed with the surrounding water as part of the optics, while all F-mount Nikkors weren't. I wonder how the additional optical effect of the water affect the image of the Nikkor mounted inside?
Yes, lenses designed to work optically under water are called water contact lenses. Apparently Nikon marked theirs with the UW designation. The ones that were amphibious were marked W. These were the 35 and 80mm lenses. As well there was the LW 28mm lens (see above). The Nikonos RS lenses were marked R-UW. The RS came out shortly after I got my Ph. D. so went for it lock stock and barrel - all the lenses (4 models) and three bodies by the time the RS was ended. Recently the RS lenses have been adapted to digital bodies.
The attached image was taken with the D4S and RS 28mm last summer about 2 km from where I am sitting right now (image location presently under a lot of ice). This is Elodea (see above) which is considered an invasive plant in Alaska. The fish at the left edge of the frame is a Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), which is widely distributed in the northern hemisphere. Note that there are a lot of particles in the water. Salmon spawn nearby so the lake is productive.
You are also correct in that lenses behind domes or flat ports have optical issues - a very long subject........
-
My guess is that the size and curvature of the dome port corrected for the refractive power of the ambient water.
The 28mm f/3.5 UW-Nikkor was designed for underwater use, however many also used it out of water. It was still tolerably sharp, but chromatic errors were quite obvious with the lens in air.
-
What is your impression of the RS lenses? I only have the 28 and 50 Macro and found them quite excellent, but unforeseen circumstances prevented any further forays into the RS ecosystem on my part. The Fisheye and huge zoom 20-35 looked very impressive. I do have kept the RS camera, but not used it for a long time.
-
Yes, lenses designed to work optically under water are called water contact lenses. Apparently Nikon marked theirs with the UW designation. The ones that were amphibious were marked W. These were the 35 and 80mm lenses. As well there was the LW 28mm lens (see above). The Nikonos RS lenses were marked R-UW. The RS came out shortly after I got my Ph. D. so went for it lock stock and barrel - all the lenses (4 models) and three bodies by the time the RS was ended. Recently the RS lenses have been adapted to digital bodies.
The attached image was taken with the D4S and RS 28mm last summer about 2 km from where I am sitting right now (image location presently under a lot of ice). This is Elodea (see above) which is considered an invasive plant in Alaska. The fish at the left edge of the frame is a Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), which is widely distributed in the northern hemisphere. Note that there are a lot of particles in the water. Salmon spawn nearby so the lake is productive.
You are also correct in that lenses behind domes or flat ports have optical issues - a very long subject........
Thank you for the explanation. The image looks interesting as well.
Again, if I understand correctly, all UW Nikkors 80mm and 35mm have flat flat front glasses, whereas UV 15 mm has a dome-shape one. The effect of water contact lens should be different. I remember that the optical design for UW 35mm was borrowed from the S-mount sibling.
-
What is your impression of the RS lenses? I only have the 28 and 50 Macro and found them quite excellent, but unforeseen circumstances prevented any further forays into the RS ecosystem on my part. The Fisheye and huge zoom 20-35 looked very impressive. I do have kept the RS camera, but not used it for a long time.
They are all excellent but the zoom is quite heavy. I have a converted copy of the 20-35 that has been used in Hawaii. Convenient for some marine mammals, larger fish and fish schools. It does not focus as close as the UW 15mm so not so great for the close focus wide angle (CFWA) underwater technique. Nikon would have been smarter to have come out with a close focusing RS 15mm as well as a 100 or 105mm macro as these two focal lengths were the "go-to" lenses for many if not most serious underwater shooters. Nikon did not so the RS was a failure (and for other reasons too). Once the 13mm lens came out I no longer traveled with the zoom. The AF on the RS lenses is now a lot better!!! The stop down mechanism is not quite the same as the F lenses so one has to stop down more to get the equivalent aperture setting - the difference is not linear. This is explained better here: https://wetpixel.com/articles/insight-the-nikonos-rs-13mm-conversion/P1
The RS lenses do work above water but only focus very close (other than the 50). Attached is a test shot from last summer that has not been deleted. I wanted to make sure the AF was working as well as my remote control (cable release) - I have goofed on both accounts in the past. Shot with the RS20-35 at 20MM. OK for something as large as an adult salmon but nevertheless switched back and forth with the 28mm during my shoots last summer.
The front port of the 50 is flat so was curious if it could work as a waterproof topside lens as soon as it came out (first lens I got with body #1 - was on a waiting list to buy so it was a few months in after the introduction). I did some quick black and white shots outside my cabin in Fairbanks (lived there at the time) that I could develop myself. It was already autumn and snowy. Details of trees in the image corners were soft so I concluded the lens was not really suitable for topside shooting.
-
The first shot here was taken with the RS28. I am not sure if the zoom would have focused close enough as this was very near to the minimal focus distance of the 20-35. The main advantage of the RS lenses is the relatively flat field compared to using a dome port and topside lens. So the male at the right edge is more less in focus along with the front end of the female at the left. This was shot in a lake where these Sockeye Salmon do what is known as beach spawning (as opposed to spawning at sites under moving water - streams and rivers). So there are a lot of small lake resident fish (salmon and otherwise) swimming about hoping to catch a food item that the female kicked up as she excavated her redd (salmon nest).
The Second shot was taken with the 20-35 at 20. The female is at the left. The others (on the right side) are males competing to spawn with her. Probably mostly Elodea (mixed with Potamageton) in the distance where it is several meters deep. I was at a marginal distance so far as shooting here - more fish detail in the 28mm shot.
-
I'm toying with letting my Nikonos V go. I don't think I'll ever use it again. I've injured my back and I don't see myself ever diving again.
Dave
-
The observation of a planeparallell glass in front of an S type 35/2,5 is corrcect (as decribed at the Nikon hiustory website).. I dismembered a defunct(dead cogwheel mechan4ics) 35UW and put the tiny opticai core on an MFT- modified V-nex. It gives far better pictures than in its waterproof non.functional incarnation.
p.
-
I am very sure, I once saw a Nikonos camera re-engineered for digital capture by US Navy Special Warfare or USMC Force RECON. It was very rudimentary, as many mission-specific "hack jobs" often are, however it got the job done. I had fantasizing for years, about cobbling together something of an "all terrain", digital amphibious camera, from a Nikonos V. Barring all that, my recent re-immersion (more like, waterboarding) into the biological sciences finds me musing about such things again.
-
WOW!
-
I am very sure, I once saw a Nikonos camera re-engineered for digital capture by US Navy Special Warfare or USMC Force RECON. It was very rudimentary, as many mission-specific "hack jobs" often are, however it got the job done. I had fantasizing for years, about cobbling together something of an "all terrain", digital amphibious camera, from a Nikonos V. Barring all that, my recent re-immersion (more like, waterboarding) into the biological sciences finds me musing about such things again.
Was reengineered by Kodak:
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.divephotoguide.com%2Fimages%2Fnews%2Fuploaded%2Farticle_6107%2F116633122.jpg&hash=dbaf1769ecfb575a26a68bd1e31e385d11a39d97)
Apparently, Nikon wasn’t involved.
-
It was the Nikonos RS.
Here is a page describing the modification:
http://www.nikonweb.com/dcs425/ (http://www.nikonweb.com/dcs425/)
Attached a screen capture from the page:
-
ABout the only underwater photography I've done recently was on travels where film is not practical, and I don't anticipate using a Nikonos film camera in the foreseeable future. But earlier today I was at the photo repair and old stuff store, and they had a Nikonos II in worn but working condition, no lens, for $5.00, and an invisible hand plucked a bill out of my wallet and... well, you know. It's been there a while, and I just couldn't stand to see it languish.
If by chance someone for whom shipping from Eastern US is a practical matter would like to pay the small amount for a small flat-rate box, I'd be happy to send them the thing (I'll eat the 5 bucks if you can use the camera).
The camera in question has a foggy viewfinder, and it's definitely been around, but the shutter works fine, and it seems to be in good working order with no signs of leakage.
-
I am now the proud owner of a V. I wonder if anyone knows of a Nikonos service center in the US? I want to change out all the seals and get a CLA but I have not heard back from the one or two shops I found with search engine.
-
ABout the only underwater photography I've done recently was on travels where film is not practical, and I don't anticipate using a Nikonos film camera in the foreseeable future. But earlier today I was at the photo repair and old stuff store, and they had a Nikonos II in worn but working condition, no lens, for $5.00, and an invisible hand plucked a bill out of my wallet and... well, you know. It's been there a while, and I just couldn't stand to see it languish.
If by chance someone for whom shipping from Eastern US is a practical matter would like to pay the small amount for a small flat-rate box, I'd be happy to send them the thing (I'll eat the 5 bucks if you can use the camera).
The camera in question has a foggy viewfinder, and it's definitely been around, but the shutter works fine, and it seems to be in good working order with no signs of leakage.
I only just today took possession of a Nikonos II albeit in much better cosmetic condition then yours and with a 28mm 3.5 UW Nikkor, and for six times what you paid. At the moment I'm contending with an intermittent shutter and - no surprise - the prospect of having to disassemble the viewfinder housing to clear-up some fogging. While it is doubtful the camera will pass any pressure-rating for dive depth after I'm done effectively turning it into a pretty paperweight, I'm confident it will serve me well enough snorkeling or rolling around in the mud during a hurricane - that is, after I replace that 28mm with a suitable land/air lens. (I would also gladly disabuse you of your Nikonos II as I'm a stickler for punishment especially when abused and orphaned Nikons are the concern. However...I realize this is a very old thread etc :D)
-
the early nikonos are reputed to be liable to body cracks if not opened correctly. My experience with the version V is very positive: the ideal camera to operate in driving rain or heavy snow with gloves on and no worries about the device conking out.
For anyone with an early Nikonos (III or earlier), be aware that the lens MUST be removed before attempting to use the side-lugs to remove the body-casing and access the film compartment. These side-lugs torque against little posts, and must be strong enough to potentially deal with a pressure differential between the inside and outside of the camera, so are quite hefty. However, the lens-mount itself is part of the body-seal, and when a lens is present the camera body CANNOT be opened, and any attempt to do so using the side-lugs will at least crack the camera top-plate, and worst case destroy the camera. This is how most I/II/III bodies died: Users were not aware they had to remove the lens first!
-
Good to know about the lens removal. Since my previous post, I seem to have acquired (these transactions seem to happen in my sleep, or that's my story anyway) a Nikonos III with an actual lens on it. I suspect it's been apart without lens removal more than once, as I don't recall having removed the lens when I put film in it, and don't recall any issues of vacuum and breakage. I suspect that owing to seal age it's not underwater-proof any more, but OK for bad weather and maybe a short little dip. I keep forgetting to use it before the film expires. However, from now on I will be sure to take off the lens before opening it, just in case.
-
(note to self: as usual, my picture framing is off true by approx. 1.5 degree ... seems that 'mishap' has haunted me for a long time)
Ditto, 1.5 degrees! Anal retentive as I am, this drives me berserk when setting new images for screen-savers and desktop backgrounds. And I've occasioned the opportunity to discussed this with a neurologists and ophthamologist who assured me the only thing wrong with my head, or for that matter eyes, might be the purview [pun intended] of another kind of clinician adept at treating conditions above the larynx and below the scalp. But, seriously now... LOL Paradoxically if not absurdly enough, over a lifetime of playing with cameras (sometimes I actually take photos, too!) my framing through an optical viewfinder, even an evf, has been a testament in perfection. Go figure!
-
My guess is that the size and curvature of the dome port corrected for the refractive power of the ambient water.
The 28mm f/3.5 UW-Nikkor was designed for underwater use, however many also used it out of water. It was still tolerably sharp, but chromatic errors were quite obvious with the lens in air.
I was planning on experimenting with this lens using b&w film - should I ever get the Nikonos II shutter working - or adapted to a Nikon bellows mounted on a digital body. I just love making photography unnecessarily difficult! But, I'm having fun! And isn't that the point? Well, not if you're doing it for a living...I mean.
-
I was planning on experimenting with this lens using b&w film - should I ever get the Nikonos II shutter working - or adapted to a Nikon bellows mounted on a digital body. I just love making photography unnecessarily difficult! But, I'm having fun! And isn't that the point? Well, not if you're doing it for a living...I mean.
Hmmm.. I've never heard of a Nikons to F-mount adapter: How are you planning to get the 28/3.5 onto the bellow?
-
Was reengineered by Kodak:
Apparently, Nikon wasn’t involved.
That's it! The good people at Kodak - Rochester, New York I assume - doing their digital Doctor Frankenkamera masterwork. Those were the days! (They very generously made a lot of software available for developers, too, at no cost. If only I actually knew what I was doing... Oh, but a boy could dream!)
-
Hmmm.. I've never heard of a Nikons to F-mount adapter: How are you planning to get the 28/3.5 onto the bellow?
That's a good question! I have several F-mounts salvaged from a number of broken lenses and camera bodies which I hope to attach to a 28mm 3.5 UW without necessitating any "surgery" or re-engineering of the lens. Thankfully the UW is relatively light weight and a combination of rubber bands and homemade gaskets should hold things in place, provided I don't go about swinging the whole contrivance back-and-forth like an angry elephant's trunk. Conversely, I could suffice to reverse the lens utilizing a a "BR-something" ring to mount it on a Nikon bellows. I might need an appropriate step-up/down ring for the filter thread. Off-hand, I don't know what size filter those UW Nikkors take. While at it, I'll check now. (Well, it's not 52mm. Time to go to the MIR website.)
-
The filter size for the 28/3.5, 35/2.5 and 80/4 are all 52mm, according to this Nikonos III manual: https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/01039/01039.pdf (https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/01039/01039.pdf)
-
Hello ggoodes and everybody !
I'm also a proud owner of a mint Nikonos 3, bought for 150€ last year, the most beautiful of all Nikonos for me...(had also an orange Nikonos V for three years (1990-92) reselled)
If you read carefully, for 52mm filters you need an adapter. My 2,5/35mm has a 58mm filter diameter but Nikon made a 58-52mm adapter... ;)
*Accessory Lens Hood (Product No. 10625) required to fit 52mm filter to lens.
Nikonos Accessories:
Screw-In Lens Hood/Filter Holder
For 28mm , 35mm , and 80mm lenses.
Shields lens from extraneous light; required for attaching Nikon 52mm filters to lenses. Product No. 10625
-
Ah, didn't know about the hood/filter-adapter for Nikonos! Here's an eBay auction for the correct part:https://www.ebay.ca/itm/147217029948 (https://www.ebay.ca/itm/147217029948)
You can see from the photos that it is a hood with threading inside (at the lens end) to allow a filter to be mounted.
-
The filter thread on the old Nikonos lenses is 58mm. One should NOT use 58mm filters when taking the camera under water!!!! It will likely get pressure locked on and will have to be broken to remove.
The optical units of both the old Nikonos as well as the RS lenses are suspended within the lenses. Only the front element is fixed. This is to deal with the effects of pressure which will distort the shape of the lens barrel. This makes the mount somewhat challenging to adapt.