Nikon F3 or FM2?

[rogue_designer]

Jaffa,

Sorry to be a spoil sport but these pictures, especially the last three, shows very messy bokeh: messy in a different way as compared to Nikkors.

Ah - and that is where personal preference comes in. I rather like the bokeh in the image samples. *shrug*

 

[NIKON KIU]

The only thing that pisses me off about the F3 is the darn shutter speeds getting stuck @ 1/90 while one is advancing to the first frame

I always try to get an extra frame before the first frame
I haven't handled the F3P, I think that one does without that feature.

BTW. Did you try the mechanical release? Now, that's loud.

Kiu

 

[cmogi10]

Ah - and that is where personal preference comes in. I rather like the bokeh in the image samples. *shrug*

I have to say I like it as well!

 

[Seele]

Ah - and that is where personal preference comes in. I rather like the bokeh in the image samples. *shrug*

Valid point, I guess I should justify my views.

In pictures 2 and 4 you can see in the background and foreground, respectively (both towards the bottom end of the frame) showing some smudges, showing the first signs of swirling. In picture 3 the background specular highlights seem to jump in front of the focussed distance. For me I do not find these traits too appealing.

 

[kjoosten]

Recently I've really enjoyed using my (new to me) F3HP paired with a Voigtlander Ultron 40/2. I also have an FM2n, and I do like some things better there as others have discussed: the easy-to-see +/- LEDs, the power-switch (or rather, I don't like the F3 switch), the 1/4000 shutter.

I think an FM3a would actually be perfect for me. Actually, an FM3D-FX would be perfect ...

j

I think the CV Ultron really sits well on the FM-sized cameras. I always felt the Nikkor 45P was too much of a pancake - hard to use. The Ultron is "just right." The CV 90mm APO-Lanthar is a nice, compact, sharp tele that works well with a compact, also. Those two lenses, along with my FM3a almost give an RF-sized kit.

 

[gavinlg]

Valid point, I guess I should justify my views.

In pictures 2 and 4 you can see in the background and foreground, respectively (both towards the bottom end of the frame) showing some smudges, showing the first signs of swirling. In picture 3 the background specular highlights seem to jump in front of the focussed distance. For me I do not find these traits too appealing.

The bokeh certainly isn't as good as say a canon 50 1.2L/85 1.2L and not as good as the distagon 35 f2 either from what I've seen, but I think it's only in certain circumstances. The planar still has that nice in to out of focus character specific to zeiss lenses - it's also the sharpest lens they've ever made.... they measured it at something like 350lpm @ f4 and 250lpm @f2 which is much much higher than most leica/canon L or nikkor glass.

I'd love to get a distagon 35 f2 but at the moment I'm more interested in a fast 50.

 

[NIKON KIU]

Like it more than my old m6.

I need more people like you
50mm f1.4 in AIs mount are sold around US $150 on ebay. pretty cheap when you consider $500 for the Zeiss

Here is an ebay example:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Nikkor-50...ryZ48556QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Can probably steal one for under $100 if you have patience

Now you need an FM2n

Kiu

 

[kjoosten]

Ah - and that is where personal preference comes in. I rather like the bokeh in the image samples. *shrug*

Not to continue hijacking this thread, but...

I've noticed the character of the bokeh changes (improves to my eye) when the Planar is stopped down to f/2 or f/2.8. These were shot at f/2.8, I believe.

 

[jaffa_777]

Yes the bokeh of the new zeiss zf's is certainly different. Are the zm's different? I happen to like the swirling bokeh, a bit like the noctilux, but it certainly can create distracting backgrounds when there are highlights coming through the leaves of trees. But for all other purposes, this lens does exactley what I want it to do, nice and extremely sharp in focus areas with smooth trasition to the out of focus area.