Replacement for Nikon f3hp

gzisis69

Established
Local time
4:52 AM
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
143
Location
Atlanta, GA.
Hi there, i have and enjoy a nikon f3hp with a 50mm pancake for 2 years now. I love everything on it from the handling to the huge viewfinder. In the last months though i rarely use it anymore since the weight started feeling too much for me. I plan to sell it and i cant decide if i will stay to nikon or not. I want a camera with the following parameters:
1) lightweight to carry it often
2) very good viewfinder since that was the reason to buy the nikon f3hp. The one of the pentax mx for example looks like a dark hole to me in comparison.
3) aperture priority
4) if i change system i want to still use a very good and small 50mm lens
What would you suggest ?
i was thinking of the nikon fm3a but i dont know if the viewfinder is so good as on the f3hp.
 
The FM/FE series cameras have less eye-relief than the F3HP. The finders are much brighter in the FM2 and FE2 and newer cameras than the 1970s cameras, mostly due to the focus screen.
Best to try one for yourself. I had a Nikon Fe and put the FE2 screen in it, was much brighter than the original. Use with glasses- still had to look around too much. I prefer the F3HP.
 
I think the finder is actually bigger on the FM3A. The F3hp had a reduced-magnification finder to make it easier to see the whole image while wearing glasses. The FM3A would be a great choice if you needed autoexposure. If a Manual-Only camera will work, look at the FM-2. Same body design as the FM3A, but manual-only. It has shutter speeds up to 1/4000, which is better than the F3 and I think the same as the FM3A. The FM-2 is less expensive used than the FM3a because it is a lot more common.
 
The Nikon N8008s has the same eye-relief as the F3HP. Cheap these days, I just gave one away. Not small or light.

Look at a Nikon FG. Small, light, bright finder. I can see everything with my thick glasses. Inexpensive. Same form factor as the Nikon EM. Make sure to be able to inspect and return if the electronics are bad. Mine works- bought it new in the 1980s.
 
I have an F3p but like you got a bit fed up with the weight so use my FM2n more and more, If you really want aperture priority then go for FE or FE2 which in my opinion has a better viewfinder display rather than the tiny one on the F3.
 
My perspective, as an owner of two F3/T’s…

The FE, FE2 are good choices - the FE will let you mount a non-AI lens if you have them, the FE2 won’t but it has a higher top shutter speed.

The FM3a is the best of all worlds (I immediately bought a black one when they were introduced). But they are harder to find than FE and FE2’s and you’re paying more for it’s wonderful hybrid nature.

That said, the viewfinders on all three of these is a wonderful design with a shutter speed scale, a needle showing suggested exposure, and another colored needle showing your setting. This dates back to the Nikkormat EL and I love the design. I think the F3 style readout is awful, but I suppose it’s personal taste.

Another highly overlooked but inexpensive Nikon is the FG (not FG-20). With the optional grip and a series-E 50/1.8 this is an extremely lightweight and competent kit. Yes, it’s a “beginner’s” camera - but only in regard to its use of materials in manufacture. Unless you’re putting hundreds of rolls through it every year and making photos in harsh environments, it should last a long time. It offers manual, aperture priority, and fully programmed exposure. I liked it so much I bought two.
 
I'm still using the FM3A: smaller and lighter than the F3HP and a joy to use but as mentioned above, it may be hard to find a clean copy for a decent price. I've used the FG in the past and liked it. It has, more or less, the same viewfinder magnification and frame coverage as the FM3A but is in an entirely different class altogether. You'll find details and specs of both cameras on Wikipedia. Cheers, OtL [TABLE="class: infobox hproduct, width: 23"]
[TR]
[TD="class: infobox-data"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: infobox-data"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
Hmmm, that's the problem with cameras: you'll never find a perfect one.

I'll echo what some of the other contributors above have said, and something they've left unsaid but is implied by their advice:

I would stick with a Nikon. All cameras, especially older film cameras, have their quirks. I have never thought that I would gain anything in general usability, image quality, and satisfaction by moving over from a Nikon film camera to any other SLR system for 35mm.

While each model of Nikon has its own foibles and "personality," overall Nikon always seemed to have the best lineup of cameras that just worked, without having any flaws/annoyances that just totally disqualified them from consideration: quality, durable, and reliable construction; good viewfinders and metering systems (mostly--your F3 has one that tends to get the most negative attention, so almost any way you go might actually be a step up in ergonomics); simple, well-placed, useful and obvious controls; great backwards and forward compatibility mostly; a huge range of excellent, professional-quality lenses and accessories at mostly reasonable prices; "consumer" cameras (like the FM/FE/FA series) that any professional could put to good use, and many did carry as lightweight but very capable backups. (One caveat--the FA, while being very advanced for when it was made, does have one of the worst reputations amongst Nikons for reliability and longevity.)

I would divide your options into either the FM series or the FE/FM3a series. Why did I put the FM3a with the FEs? Well, the FM, FM2 and FM2n have LED meter indicators and cannot shoot in aperture priority. The FE, FE2 and FM3a all have match-needle meters and aperture priority, and to me those are an even bigger difference in practical usability than whether the camera is fully manual or electronic/hybrid. I personally prefer the match-needle metering system, as you can immediately see your shutter speed and how far under/over your current settings are, for those occasions when you want to intentionally under or over expose (according to the meter) an image. The difficulty involved with this (remember, no camera is perfect!) is that in very low light, the match-needle meter becomes rather difficult to see. In low-light shooting, if you do a lot of that, you'll likely find the FM's LED meters to be much more useful. I don't use my FEs for that, so 99% of the time, the match-needle meter works best for me.

And while I really prefer to shoot everything in manual mode, having aperture priority for when it's more convenient is really nice indeed. If aperture priority is a must for you, the FE, FE2, FA or FM3a are your best choices.

As to whether you want an earlier or later version of a camera, with the FM3a, you get only one anyway. From what I've heard--I don't own one--with the FM series, the later the better; so you'd want an FM2n likely. With the FE, while the FE2 does have some improvements, the fact that you can't use it with unmodified pre-AI lenses and that you can't shoot before 1 on the film counter at anything other than 1/250 of a second (I try to squeeze as many shots as possible on a roll), and one or two other things, I chose the FE over the FE2. (I have two FEs--one chrome, and one black, as you should!) Ken Rockwell, bless his heart, actually has some really good analysis of the relative strengths and weaknesses of all these cameras compared to each other which you may find useful.

If you do go with an older FM/FE, one thing that you can do which will make it noticeably if not revolutionarily better is to swap out the finder screen with one made for the FM3a. Those screens are brighter, a bit less grainy, and seem to pop into focus a little better than the original screens. You may have to adjust your metering by using exposure compensation or tweaking the ISO if you do that, because the FM/FE's meters read light coming through the screen, but as I shoot pretty much only B&W negative film with mine, and the exposure difference isn't much (and I tend to overexpose my neg film slightly anyway), I've found no need to do that.

Best of luck, whichever way you decide to go!
 
Sticking with Nikon looks the go. If you lose your temper and want to switch, and want light and compact and Aperture priority option and wear glasses I can recommend an Olympus OM2n with a 50 1.8.
 
Sticking with Nikon looks the go. If you lose your temper and want to switch, and want light and compact and Aperture priority option and wear glasses I can recommend an Olympus OM2n with a 50 1.8.

Om2 viewfinder ix amazing and I would say brighter than any of the Nikons.
 
A slightly different perspective here. First off, the F3 is by no standards a bloated, heavy monster of a camera; for that go with an F5, and get a good chiropractor. All the options mentioned are cameras I've owned over the years, and the difference in weight and size are truly minimal. Since you do state that you love the F3, perhaps try a more padded strap or a bag that distributes weight better.
Now, I will be the first to confess that I have, over time, justified switching cameras for precisely the reasons you cite: weight, size, some trivial feature that I never wound up using. Really, I was just succumbing to the notion that a change in equipment would make my work better, but I finally learned that what makes my work better is, well, doing more work. It's a long, hard, arduous process with no short cuts. I do succumb to GAS on a regular basis, but mostly because I think a particular camera is cool or pretty (recently, a Bronica S2A, when I already have a Hassy). And of course, a radical change in equipment (a 4x5, for example) will open up whole new worlds. But sticking to the 35mm SLR question you raised, my advice would be to save your money, buy more film, maybe go on a little vacation that offers new material to explore. I do think RFF sometimes encourages a lot of needless obsessing over inconsequential differences in equipment. I've fallen victim to it too often, myself!
 
A slightly different perspective here. First off, the F3 is by no standards a bloated, heavy monster of a camera; for that go with an F5, and get a good chiropractor. All the options mentioned are cameras I've owned over the years, and the difference in weight and size are truly minimal. Since you do state that you love the F3, perhaps try a more padded strap or a bag that distributes weight better.
Now, I will be the first to confess that I have, over time, justified switching cameras for precisely the reasons you cite: weight, size, some trivial feature that I never wound up using. Really, I was just succumbing to the notion that a change in equipment would make my work better, but I finally learned that what makes my work better is, well, doing more work. It's a long, hard, arduous process with no short cuts. I do succumb to GAS on a regular basis, but mostly because I think a particular camera is cool or pretty (recently, a Bronica S2A, when I already have a Hassy). And of course, a radical change in equipment (a 4x5, for example) will open up whole new worlds. But sticking to the 35mm SLR question you raised, my advice would be to save your money, buy more film, maybe go on a little vacation that offers new material to explore. I do think RFF sometimes encourages a lot of needless obsessing over inconsequential differences in equipment. I've fallen victim to it too often, myself!

Wise words indeed, although hard to live up to. I have too many cameras myself, it's so easy to get tempted. I have several Nikon SLRs, but I would sell them all including the FM3A before letting go of the F3. There are some cameras out there that feel like they are an extension of yourself, the F3 is one of them. The FM3A feels like an alien in comparison, although it's a very good camera. If I should offer any advice; don't sell the F3 until you've tried the other options.
 
I shoot a F2 not a F3. I love the smaller FE/FM cameras but their VF is no comparison to their bigger pro brethren imo. So the only thing that might replace my F2 is a M2 with 21, 35, and 50 kit. Life is short.
 
Just to give a reference point I have the F3 (not HP so higher VF magnification) with the 50 1.8 pancake and it weights 881 grams. For an inexpensive, lighter alternative a Minolta XG-A with the 50 1.7 weights about 664 grams. So just under half a pound lighter. The 45mm f2 is a little smaller and might be slightly ligher as well. The VF in the Minolta is slightly bigger but doesn't have the same eye relief as the F3. Brightness is about the same. Very different cameras of course as the XG-A is aperture priority only.

Think glasses are going to play a roll in this though. The Pentax MX viewfinder is huge in comparison to the F3 but doesn't have the eye relief. F3HP is .75x magnification, the MX is .97x magnification.

Shawn
 
All the sensible suggestions have been made. The only other camera to consider is the F-301; smaller and lighter than the F3, offers Manual, Aperture priority, two programmes (Normal and Hi-Speed), exposure lock, exposure compensation, two winder modes (single frame and continues (2.5 fps)) and a beeper that you can silence. Not terribly expensive last time I checked.

f301_2.jpg - Click image for larger version  Name:	f301_2.jpg Views:	0 Size:	73.5 KB ID:	4814556
 
I put a ton of film through a N2000 in the 80s with the 50 1.8 pancake. Solid little camera. Might also consider the N2020 to also gain the focus confirm light if hitting focus has been difficult.

Shawn
 
Back
Top Bottom