Nikonos II

[Øivind Tøien]

It was the Nikonos RS.
Here is a page describing the modification:
http://www.nikonweb.com/dcs425/

Attached a screen capture from the page:

[Matthew Currie]

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.

[Chip Chipowski]

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.

[Wannabebetter]

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  )

[ggoodes]

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!

[Matthew Currie]

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.

[Wannabebetter]

(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!

[Wannabebetter]

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.

[ggoodes]

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?

[Wannabebetter]

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!)

[Wannabebetter]

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.)

[ggoodes]

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