Interested in Nikon F3

My wife, a professional, has used an F3 for almost 20 years and loves it. It's rugged, full-featured, and has never let her down. I'm not an expert on Nikons or SLRs, but I think the F3 could probably be considered one of the great ones.
 
F-3HP is the standard model number. Excellent camera. Light weight with removalable prism and a comfortable motor drive that can be added or subtracted. There is a F-3P (Professional) that does not have the self timer and simpler loading method. It is only slightly different than the HP. Much lighter than the autofocus F-4. Personally, I think it is preferable to the F & F-2.
 
The F3 was the TOP before the all singing, all dancing, plastic covered autofocus models.

Thats true. Its the same with lenses of that era. Heres a little off topic (well slightly related) story.

Recently I saw a reasonably priced 55mm f 2.8 Micro Nikkor in AF that I decided I wanted for my D70s. I was intrigued as to why these were so cheap - only a few bucks more than the 55mm MF version (made during the F3 era) and about half the current 60mm Micro.

It turns out on researching it that this is one of the earlier AF lenses made just after the F3 era and like many early AFs was regarded as looking plasticy and horrid. So although it is a perfectly serviceable lens it always had a tendancy to be disliked. It only had a short run before being replaced with a redesigned model (rebadged as 60mm instead of 55mm - perhaps for marketing reasons, not sure.)

And I can see why. When I compare it to pictures of the MF version of the 55mm micro that earlier lens looks and feels so much better. All glass and metal. Hardly any plastic to be seen. Imagine being in that era and used to cameras like the F3. They come out with the F4 which is solid enough to be accepted as a "real" Nikon but the lenses are all shiny black plastic that look as if they are toys and worst of all rattle like kids toys if you shake them. (Some do anyway.) Truth is the later ones are very good lenses too but made to a different paradigm.

Long story short. Both the F3 and the lenses of its era (and before) are wonderful examples of the camera makers art and science. The more modern stuff has its own charms but that earlier Nikon gear is a joy to use.
 
Last edited:
Yes, fully justified. A top camera for manual focus, and an undocumented very long autoexposure - some people report several hours, but I've never been anywhere darker than twenty minutes...

I don't use mine as often as I should, so I keep thinking of selling it. But when I pick it up I find I just don't want to let it go. Anyway, am waiting to trade all the Nikon stuff (50/1.2, 28/2, 105/2.5, MD-4, H2 screen...) in against a full-frame digital Zeiss Ikon...

If you're in London, the best place to look and ask questions is http://www.apertureuk.com/. Or PM me if you're in London and want to twist my arm or just sit down and play with an F3 over coffee.
 
The 60mm F2.8 Af-Nikkor will focus to 1:1 without tubes. The 55/2.8 was 1:2.

I picked up a good user F3HP from KEH for under $100 when they had a glut of them last year. They look like they are running closer to $200 this year. I'll bet the prices settle back lower, they had been ~$150 for a long time. An AI converted 35/2 should be a reasonable price.
 
The LCD was an electronic replacement for the optical shutter-speed readout (a little prism) and the meter of the F2a and LED's of the F2AS. The big difference was the meter was -in the body- and could -not be upgraded-. The LCD was new technology in 1980, and Nikon warned buyers that the LCD display would fade and require replacement every 7 years. The one in my 1983 F3AF still works. The AF electronics still work, but I use a standard finder and manual focus lenses with it most of the time.
 
Last edited:
another vote for the F3 being worth your interest here. I'm clearing out my 'collection' these days - to make room in the cabinet and budget for what that 'gotta try one' IIIf has done to me, but of the 2 F3s, one definitely stays.

the nicer/newer F3HP with MD-4 motor will be going, but like most everyone else who has one long enough, the overly-well-worn F3P has grown on me to the point where I'll probably never part with it.

think of it this way - there are enough well-integrated accessories (and plenty of great glass!) out there that an F3 can handle all those annoying details a typical rangefinder leaves you stuck on. mine does 'point and shoot' duty, macro duty, film-burner (fastish motor and a bulk back!) duty, and 'just in case i need to defend myself with the camera' duty all just fine.
 
Another vote for the F3. It was my first "serious" film camera and for ~ 20 years my only one. This camera has the handling of all cameras I ever owned and never let me down all the time. The only reason I don't use my F3-HP anymore is my eye-sight, which makes focusing very difficult with SLR.
 
I got my F3HP this past Chirstmas as a present from my mom and brother. All I can say is believe the hype. There is a reason why Nikon made this Camera from the early 1980s to the early 21st Century and probably still keep making them if digital imaging technology was much slower out of the gate.
 
Has 100% coverage in the finder. just a bit bigger than the FM/FE series without the motor and more solid feeling. Very bright finder/ focusing screen. I never liked the "wobbly" film advance lever, but then I use it with the motor most of the time. The tiny little red button for the finder illuminator is an absurdly bad design. They fixed this with the F4.
 
Just wondering, but isn't an F3 an F3? I mean, isn't the F3HP that everyone keeps referring to just an F3 with the HP finder? C'mon, all of you keep stating that the F3HP is better than the F3??? What a load of crap... they are the same camera with a different finder (that is, an F3 with the standard DE-2 or with the high eyepoint DE-3 finder). So don't pass up an F3 just because it doesn't have HP on it!

Plus, the standard (and earlier) DE-2 finder has a couple of nice aspects which get overlooked because everyone keeps shoutin' the HP finder's greatness. For one, the DE-2 is slightly more compact. Also, it provides a .8X magnification (the DE-3 gives you .75X). So, you get a larger view to look at in the finder. If you don't wear glasses or goggles while shooting, the DE-2 isn't something to avoid.

The F3 is a great camera. I've got one that was purchased in May of 1981 for a bit under $700, and it still works great today (I highly doubt it's ever been serviced). So, the 7 year life expectancy for the LCD meter screen has been surpassed by 20 years. Not too bad! The feeling of solidarity is great, and the film advance is smoother than any camera I've ever used (including several Leica M and LTM models).

In other words... go ahead, try out an F3!

EDIT: Just want to add to the post immediately above. You don't have to turn the camera "on" with a switch. In fact, the camera won't even be using electricity until the shutter button is partly depressed. The switch is more of a guard for the shutter release, so you don't inadvertantly fire the camera in a camera bag. So, just leave the switch to "on" all the time, and don't worry about it.
 
Last edited:
I loved the F3 (non HP), I just don't care for the HP's looks. I have a review of the F3 sometime last year in my blog. I recommend using it with AI lenses so you don't have to stop down to meter, though the non-AI work fine and take great photos.
 
It's a tank of a camera...! A great tool that will serve you well - so definitely justified & now hurry up and get one!
 
i enjoyed reading the article about the F3 until the end when the "curmudgeon" trashed the F4 (I didn't think that was necessary :) )

I don't think I'll ever sell my F3HP w/MD4, even though the Nikon F4s has taken over as my "go-to" Nikon slr film body.

--Warren
 
burninfilm said:
Just wondering, but isn't an F3 an F3? I mean, isn't the F3HP that everyone keeps referring to just an F3 with the HP finder?
Click to expand...

It is true, a F3HP is a F3 with a HP finder. I think the idea seems to be that the F3HP came later and some production bugs were fixed. If your camera has lasted so well, it likely didn't have any of these bugs. (I don't know how serious these issues were, or how bad they were)
I have a F3HP and 2 F2s with a modest assortment of lenses. They both have their unique problems, I suppose, but in the years I've had them I've learned to compromise.

To me, F3, is a hard act to follow for a SLR.

I find, however, that these days I tend to work with my F2 and Leica M4-P more and more. I like the reduced dependence on batteries and the fact that over the years I've learned these cameras and their idiosyncracies. The F3 becomes more of a point and shoot. But, what a point and shoot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom