I believe the older F and P were more solidly built than the newer F2 nad P2. So if you can find a mint condition F or F+, get it instead of a worn F2.
I do not see anyone mentioning model X. It is about the same age as the newer P2....
I believe the older F and P were more solidly built than the newer F2 nad P2. So if you can find a mint condition F or F+, get it instead of a worn F2.
I do not see anyone mentioning model X. It is about the same age as the newer P2....
I disagree... I am not a fan of the metering back design they added with the later cameras but otherwise I see the F2 and P2 as improvements, especially the F2. Many of the older F and Ps are quite worn, as always buy on condition since the differences are pretty slight in practical use.
There was the X and also the C (P rear, F front), as well as 8x10 variations of the F with longer/larger parts. And a portrait P without all the movements for a more solid rear end. And probably many more variations.... Many of the used cameras you see were simply assembled from varied parts to make configurations that were never sold by the factory. It was not unusual for large studios to have multiple Sinars and to build whatever they needed from the interchangeable parts, which broke and wore out at different rates.... So just because someone describes their camera as this or that doesn't mean much on eBay, they are often wrong!
The Sinar X does not have zero detents which is a deal breaker for some.
I read something somewhere (probably on here) where a fellow owned both the P and P2. His opinion was that over all one camera was as good as the other. I forget but something was changed on the P2 to make it more robust than the P but on the other hand the P2 has more plastic parts.
I own or have owned F/F+, F1, F2, X, P1 and P2. All are in excellent condition. I can tell that the F/F+ was solidly built. The F1/F2, even the P2 have more plastic parts inside. The worst thing is the rubber knob cover. It wears out easily with both X and P2.
Of course both F and P are older cameras. But there is a lot of value in both if you can find one that is in excellent condition.
The P2 is by far the best constructed Sinar. The rubber-covered round P2 knobs are definitely more comfortable to use than the scalloped P knobs. The P has nylon gears and two of the movements are controlled by the same knob, requiring the use of a shift lever.
This is not true. P2 may be the best design, but not the best constructed. Over time, both X and P2 become hard to turn, particularly the two fine focus movements and the two rise (up and down) movements. The rubber covered control knobs may be comfortable, but they become very slippery and useless. If you follow the eBay sales, you can clearly see that with several sales on X and P2.
You are finding yourself in a minority.Originally Posted by RedSun
The knobs for the F were molded Bakelite, versus the molded nylon with rubber grips (which is the same design all small-format cameras use for control rings). There is nothing to slip on those older Bakelite handles, of course. I like those knobs better, too.
But the F uses an aluminum groove in the bottom of the frame, and the detent ball rides in that groove. As the groove wears, the detent becomes rough and the lateral shift movements likewise. The F2 use a steel wear plate for the detent ball and solved that problem.
The F2 front standard is a complete enclosure of the rail, and it has micro-focus, like the rear standard. It's a stronger and stiffer design, but it lacks the convenience of the "multi-purpose" standard for other applications (such as holding a compendium shade or knitting two bellows together) because it cannot be clamped to the middle of the rail without sliding over the end.
The F and F2 both have plastic guides for the micro-focus and rail followers. I've had both apart and see no difference there. The F2 uses plastic shims that make it possible to make fine alignment adjustments between standards. There is nothing wrong with plastic wear parts, and the notion that they wear faster than (poorly lubricated) metal is false.
The later F2 (after 1992 or so) has an independent lock for the shift movement, instead of using the same lock for shift and tilt as was the case with the F and first-year F2. This is an advantage in use.
The F used a small knob on the side of the carrier to lock the rise/fall columns. The F2 uses a wide control ring that sits under the focus knob that uses a cam action. It works much better and is not subject to damage from being overtightened as is the case with that earlier small knob.
The detents for the rise/fall columns are less likely to have frozen up and worn grooves in the columns with a newer camera. It's not fatal in practice, but it makes the operation rough. Both the F and the F2 use exactly the same screw-in detent ball assemblies--I've traded them one for the other.
The locks for the tilt control are out at the edge of the frame for the F2, but closer into the carrier for the F. The F2 is easier for me to operate one-handed while my other loupe-holding hand is with my head under the focus cloth.
All in all, the F2 shows improved design in a range of small details that were weak points in the F design. My worn F was still a better camera than my Cambo, but when I replaced the standards with F2 standards, it became even better. But I use the F film back on my F2 rear standard because I dislike the metering back.
An old Norma is all metal and exhibits finer manufacturing. But it's also older, and more subject to wear and abuse. Buy on condition, and that may sometimes come with the warning that the buyer will know a lot more about the condition than the seller claims to, but only after the money has been spent.
Rick "who has studied the machinery and the service manuals in some detail" Denney
I do not care minority or majority. I just gave my opinion.
As I said before, I do not dispute the fact that later designs improved upon the older designs. Of course P2 is better designed than P and F2 improved over the old F. But this does not change the fact that both P and F/F+ were better constructed. The materials used were very solid and the craftmanship was just superb.
Have you ever taken them apart? Apart from the knobs, and I agree about those, the working parts of the F2 and the F seem to me the same. I've had both apart, and fairly recently.
If you could be specific about something other than knobs, then at least we could be talking about facts.
Another example: For most of the F period, the thumbscrews at the bottom of the rise rods were merely threaded and held in place with lacquer. In later designs (starting before the end of the F period, as I recall), they machined a more complex design that used an O-ring as a friction device. Apparently, those glued thumbscrews were bringing aluminum threads with them when they were unscrewed for servicing.
Rick "who knows how to look at maching work, and not seeing where later F2's were machined any less finely than earlier F's" Denney
Never used an F, but the standards are nice for using as bellows extensions or as a lens hood on an X, P, or P2.
I had a P, but sold it because I just didn't like the round rail system and it's stability at long extensions.
I like Arca and Horseman, where the rails are flat and chunky, and sit on top of the tripod clamp.
The Sinar X, P, and P2 standards are beautiful. I just wish they had a different rail/tripod mounting system. Square instead of round, that sits ontop of the clamp, instead of inside of it, but oh well.
Sinar stuff used to be the top of the top of the line, like buying a $30,000 digital back, but now they're so cheap on eBay and reliable used camera stores, you can just go out and get whatever you want for so cheap. Life is good.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks