Huss
Veteran
Very nice Carlos. I'm looking forward to getting my first roll back from using this lens.
Are Later Film SLRs Now Overlooked?
- Thread starter NickTrop
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 212
- Views 13K
Very nice Carlos. I'm looking forward to getting my first roll back from using this lens.
Austintatious
Well-known
Thanks Huss. Here is one more made with the same setup.
Street Musician by Carlos Yashinon, on Flickr
Street Musician by Carlos Yashinon, on Flickrrgeorge911
Established
I just bought a N75 literally new in the box for $30. I used to have the N65, and welcome back the small, light form factor. My N75 has a 28mm f/2.8 AF-D mounted and is loaded with Fuji 200. Just need to go for a walk!
Huss
Veteran
Thanks Huss. Here is one more made with the same setup.
Love that pic!
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Less disposable choice?
Less disposable choice?
I know it is said that better is the enemy of good, but for around $100 you can now find a Nikon F100 body...
Chris
Less disposable choice?
I know it is said that better is the enemy of good, but for around $100 you can now find a Nikon F100 body...
Chris
Huss
Veteran
All those F100s floating out there with broken film doors suggest it is quite disposable. It’s why I unloaded mine while it was still working. $8 for a perfect N75 sounds like a much better deal to me! And the pictures look the same.
Contarama
Well-known
Use them up! 😀
B-9
Devin Bro
Agree with the comments on the F100 being disposable.
A big reason I chose to go Canon when doing a 1 yr challenge. The EOS 1 is sooooo robust compared... although through look and feel you might not get that impression.
Truth is.. I would love a F100 being a Nikon guy at heart. I just do not want the trouble.
The F5 is worth its weight.
I would hope my old EOS 1 becomes something of value even if that value is purely aesthetic. It is a tool and a great one. Cheap as well w/501.8 mki around 100usd. I paid extra to find the right lens hood. I literally need for nothing else in a camera. Point Click Shot.
YEET!
A big reason I chose to go Canon when doing a 1 yr challenge. The EOS 1 is sooooo robust compared... although through look and feel you might not get that impression.
Truth is.. I would love a F100 being a Nikon guy at heart. I just do not want the trouble.
The F5 is worth its weight.
I would hope my old EOS 1 becomes something of value even if that value is purely aesthetic. It is a tool and a great one. Cheap as well w/501.8 mki around 100usd. I paid extra to find the right lens hood. I literally need for nothing else in a camera. Point Click Shot.
YEET!
Ste_S
Well-known
At the least in the UK that's not accurate. Here you're looking at closer to £200 ($250) than $100.
An F80 is <£50 and F65/F75 <£30.
I got my F80 in the post yesterday and it's a really nice camera. It's not quite as small and light as the F65 was though.... so I'm still on the lookout for a black F65 or F75
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I skimmed the thread, so I don't know if anybody has pitched these two cents in: In the 1960s, and 1970s, SLRs were not sold or marketed as family snapshot cameras. That's what Instamatics were for, of if you had the money and were inclined, a nice fixed lens rangefinder.
In the 1980's, that changed, and the result is SLRs of lesser quality - because they knew most buyers were going to pull them out for birthdays, and the occasional vacation. These cameras were not intended to be used hard, they were made for casual use. The internals got more complicated, and more flimsy. If you ever compare a 1980's Canon to a 1960's Pentax or Exakta, (on the inside) you'll see what I mean. I'm not saying the fit and finish are worse, or that they take worse photos - just that the mechanisms weren't built for lots of use, and weren't built with servicing or repair in mind.
Does this matter if you found a "minty" one still in its box and you only shoot a handful of rolls of film a year? No. Is it your main camera, and you want to still be using it in ten years? Well, then possibly it's an issue to consider.
In the 1980's, that changed, and the result is SLRs of lesser quality - because they knew most buyers were going to pull them out for birthdays, and the occasional vacation. These cameras were not intended to be used hard, they were made for casual use. The internals got more complicated, and more flimsy. If you ever compare a 1980's Canon to a 1960's Pentax or Exakta, (on the inside) you'll see what I mean. I'm not saying the fit and finish are worse, or that they take worse photos - just that the mechanisms weren't built for lots of use, and weren't built with servicing or repair in mind.
Does this matter if you found a "minty" one still in its box and you only shoot a handful of rolls of film a year? No. Is it your main camera, and you want to still be using it in ten years? Well, then possibly it's an issue to consider.
Huss
Veteran
When you can buy these cameras now for less than the cost of one roll of film, no it does not matter.
NickTrop
Veteran
Ain't nothing wrong with that lens. Not a world beater but a good, versatile and (most of all) LIGHT kit lens. Dirt cheap. $30 used, I think I paid. 6 elements, 1 aspherical iirc. Nice little lens, but I wouldn't go so far as to frame it, personally. Would rather use it.
Huss
Veteran
He means he framed that photograph.
Ronald M
Veteran
I purchased 5 Nikon F2 cameras in last year, silver and black prisms, two AS meter heads, one DP2 head. They are all in very nice but not collector quality, therefore pro quality without paying a fortune. The can last the average amateur a lifetime.
Lenses are abundant. Any Nikon pre AI, converted Ai, Ai, Ais will working they are cheap.
New cameras are plastic.
Lenses are abundant. Any Nikon pre AI, converted Ai, Ai, Ais will working they are cheap.
New cameras are plastic.
Ste_S
Well-known
Not sure what point you're trying to make here ? They're very different cameras. One is a former professional camera from the 70s, now collectors camera. The other is a consumer camera from the last days of film camera production that can be picked up for next to nothing.
F2 doesn't have matrix metering, auto exposure, ttl flash, pop up flash, auto focus, built in motor drive and shutter speeds higher than 1/1000.
F2 also costs 10x the price of a F65/F75, and is much heavier.
Austintatious
Well-known
And it makes a lovely chapeau ! 😀
Huss
Veteran
My F2 kameras are very nice but none of them work w my Sigma 35 and 50mm Art lenses.
My $8 N75 does. The Art lenses are far sharper and have nicer bokeh than any of my AI/AIS/non AI lenses. Which means my $8 plastic kamera takes better pics than my F2. Or F. Or Fm2n. Or F3P. Or Nikkormat FT2.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
When you can buy a much better camera now for the cost of two rolls of film, there's not much price advantage.
Huss
Veteran
What can u buy much better for $16?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Exactly, and they don't have to be Nikons. I've had Minolta, Olympus and Pentax SLR's for a pound or two. There's also a lot of unappreciated lenses out there.
Going for the "pro" cameras is a little like overkill for most photographers who are (or should be) happy with 5 x 7½ prints from a usable camera.
Regards, David
Similar threads
- Article
