That's the difference between an RF and a DSLR.
The question is, what's the difference -- in terms of being 'dated' -- between a 60s meterless RF and a 60s meterless SLR.
The question is, what's the difference -- in terms of being 'dated' -- between a 60s meterless RF and a 60s meterless SLR.
redisburning
Well-known
depends on your personal feelings.
perhaps one of the contributing factors is that SLRs no longer look like an F but Leica's still look mostly the same. And so many cameras these days don't have prisms, and the ones that do have rounded ones.
perception is everything.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
The best Nikon as far as I'm concerned for usage, is F3 with MD4.
Just as long as I don't drop that combo on my foot.
Just as long as I don't drop that combo on my foot.
Fraser
Well-known
The best Nikon as far as I'm concerned for usage, is F3 with MD4.
Just as long as I don't drop that combo on my foot.
You should have a look in the classifieds then
kshapero
South Florida Man
The F works for me.
rbsinto
Well-known
I love my F, but loading & unloading it is a bit of a pain, especially because mine nearly always has an F36 drive attached.
But having said that, it has all the basic features I need in a camera and is rugged and reliable.
And being the Luddite I am, it fits right in with my equipment philosophy, so for me its perfect.
But having said that, it has all the basic features I need in a camera and is rugged and reliable.
And being the Luddite I am, it fits right in with my equipment philosophy, so for me its perfect.
presspass
filmshooter
I have two in my rotation. Just finished a roll with one of them. The next roll was in an FM2n. The F is a better camera with fewer gadgets - no motor, no meter. The two major problems are the removable back to reload and the funky shutter button placement. It's different, and that's one of its endearing features.
kshapero
South Florida Man
my beauty
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jim,
Exactly. NO camera is perfect.
On the other hand... BURN THE HERETICS.
It's so much personal choice/mind-set that disputes are hardly even worth following.
Cheers,
R.
clayne
shoot film or die
Then use an F2.
Also, how is the film changing of the F anything different than an M?
Additionally, how often do you really need to remove the prism or change the focusing screen?
I disagree. Results are everything. A photographer who can use both an F and an M with equal skill is the one who'll benefit most from the given tools.
The F has more than proven itself. If one cannot make decent photographs with an F without whining about it then they should stop using cameras. They didn't whine about it in Vietnam, and the results speak for themselves.
Note: an F + M was also a very common photojournalist combo for quite some many years. Rangefinder wank is a relatively new thing.
redisburning
Well-known
I think you missed the point. I also think your post isn't particularly helpful.
We're discussing whether or not an F feels dated. Not whether or not you can take a good picture with it.
And I really dislike this perspective. Do you shoot with a brownie? Lots of people got on with just that. How about a pinhole? Why not just paint it? It's literally just the opposite of the the people who say you have to have X camera to do anything with and just as bad.
my 2c.
clayne
shoot film or die
You were questioning the guy who pointed out that there's really not much difference between an unmetered 60s era F and an unmetered 60s era M - pointing out something to him along the lines of "perception is everything."
Actually, here's what you said:
Right, I can see the logic in that. However, any photographer who actually buys into that, psychologically, should just put the camera down.
The only *significant* difference between the F and F2 is film loading (back removes vs open-left). The only *significant* difference between the F and F3/FM/FM2/FE/FE2 is film loading and aperture priority. All of these bodies have access to on-camera meters.
You don't need to fix something that isn't broken. The basic tenants of the F are sound and perfectly usable.
Okay, so argue extremes of each direction?
Like I said: rangefinder wank is a new thing.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Oh, I have a Nikon F coming tomorrow and now I read this
I currently have an M3. I hope I get along with the Nikon although as it will be my first non digital SLR
Richard
You won`t regret buying an F and congrats that you find one !!
leicapixie
Well-known
i own my original Nikon-F's both with Photomic finders and luckily a plan pentaprism. A set of Nikkor lenses. Here is a veritable true macho brute of a 35mm camera that had the strength, the perfect viewing of image on the 100% screen, interchangeable, to totally destroy the German Photographic industry. Utterly reliable, almost bullet proof. It is not what is used in a era of so called pro-cameras, built for finicky SUV for dangerous explorations of high end shopping malls. If you were off on a few months trip to the Amazon maybe it would appear more attractive and trustworthy. The places I would NEVER take a Leica M3. I own one. A true friend to Service people all around the globe. And their families. It works. The Nikon-F works period. Why don't i use it all the time? It is too heavy for me. So are most DSLR. I am older. I have a damaged heart. I must be more careful. My Nikon-F was the choice when the bricks,stones and bullets were flying. No battery dependent wimp.
No sensitive Rangefinder. A camera box of superb strength. If it's not for you, question yourself! I love my F. It has always rewarded back.
No sensitive Rangefinder. A camera box of superb strength. If it's not for you, question yourself! I love my F. It has always rewarded back.
BobYIL
Well-known
While using the M-Leicas in the 60s, a Nikon F was a heaven-sent camera not only for tele lenses but for precise framing, checking the perspective, take the prism out and use it like a Rolleiflex on the street or lay down to create unusual shots with a 20-24mm..
Reliability? One of my plain prism Nikon F's had survived almost fifty years, over 100K kilometers in a motorcycle tank-bag (!), still performing with no fault and did not see any service yet other than replacing some old foam strips.. I wonder if there's any other camera to match these; my Leicas did not.
Reliability? One of my plain prism Nikon F's had survived almost fifty years, over 100K kilometers in a motorcycle tank-bag (!), still performing with no fault and did not see any service yet other than replacing some old foam strips.. I wonder if there's any other camera to match these; my Leicas did not.
Highway 61
Revisited
Austerby : install a B, E or R type Nikon F4 focusing scren in your F (which is fully possible and requires a few minutes playing with a screwdriver only) and then the extremely bright 100% finder will change your mind about that fantastic camera.
Austerby
Well-known
Interesting mix of replies, thanks.
I wasn't questioning the integrity or historical status of the F, by the way, so no need to defend or justify it.
I also wasn't competing the design merits against those of the M3, but comparing how the experience of two different cameras from a similar age has been for me.
I will persist with it, but whilst the new Leica's I've used have been largely felt like the same camera as the M3, the FE feels such an improvement on the F (to me).
It may be as I've spent the past 30 years using my FE that I'm just too wedded to that wonderful camera, (which has never needed servicing in that time nor gone wrong) to make the adjustment back in time to the F. As it happens, I had an FM2n for a while and never took to that either.
I wasn't questioning the integrity or historical status of the F, by the way, so no need to defend or justify it.
I also wasn't competing the design merits against those of the M3, but comparing how the experience of two different cameras from a similar age has been for me.
I will persist with it, but whilst the new Leica's I've used have been largely felt like the same camera as the M3, the FE feels such an improvement on the F (to me).
It may be as I've spent the past 30 years using my FE that I'm just too wedded to that wonderful camera, (which has never needed servicing in that time nor gone wrong) to make the adjustment back in time to the F. As it happens, I had an FM2n for a while and never took to that either.
Vickko
Veteran
Back to this thread, to make the Nikon F better, add the Apollo style wind lever. It is much more comfortable. And the Apollo style self timer. Better for my right hand's fingers.
Highway 61
Revisited
The FE has very decent ergonomics and yes it's a camera the very same size and weight as a Leica M, but it has some weirds :
- non ratcheted wind lever
- no manual speed except 1/90
- vertical metal shutter which vibrates at slow speeds and is noisy
- you cannot lock the mirror in upper position
- 94% viewfinder with very low eyepoint (you cannot see the following needles of the meter and the composing frame at the same time when wearing glasses)
- dark focusing screens (of course you can install the later brighter ones from the FE2/FM2n/FM3a)
- you cannot fire the shutter if the wind lever isn't in its resting 45° position, making the camera impossible to use for left eye-sighted people
- aging electronics with a ceramic regulator, many of them now suffer from erratic exposure in both AUTO or semi-auto mode (the FE2 has a quartz regulator and is way more reliable), or don't want to fire, or fire by themselves even if you don't depress the shutter button !
The F is slightly larger and heavier, but doesn't have any of the weirds mentioned above...
I have been owning and using one FE for very long (1977-1998) but quickly get rid of it when I got my nice F with eyelevel prism eventually.
And I still have that camera, and will never sell it.
To each his own.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Many good points (to my mind, mostly minor compared to the lower weight and superior ergonomics) -- but this one is not one correct. I'm left-eyed and have used FE's and FM's for two decades with nary a problem. It's hardly "impossible."