msbarnes
Well-known
I'm looking for an SLR system with a suite of fast primes. Getting into lenses can get messy so I'm not interested in discussing this too much.
1. Which OM screen (I have OM2's but I plan on getting OM1's) would you recommend for manual focusing portraits? Most likely my glass was too slow but I had difficulty focusing my 28mm f3.5 (I'll get a 28mm f2.0, next).
2. This is probably a bit messy but would a Nikon F2/F3 be easier to focus? What about Canon F1's? I read that Nikons have less brightness but more contrast.
I ask about both because I have an OM and I'm thinking of sticking with them or dancing with Nikon/Canon for a few reasons.
1. Which OM screen (I have OM2's but I plan on getting OM1's) would you recommend for manual focusing portraits? Most likely my glass was too slow but I had difficulty focusing my 28mm f3.5 (I'll get a 28mm f2.0, next).
2. This is probably a bit messy but would a Nikon F2/F3 be easier to focus? What about Canon F1's? I read that Nikons have less brightness but more contrast.
I ask about both because I have an OM and I'm thinking of sticking with them or dancing with Nikon/Canon for a few reasons.
Jake06
Established
My Canon FD experience is only with an AE-1 Program, which is exceptionally easy to focus in all conditions. Mine has a plain matte screen with no split image focus assist (I'm not sure if they were all like this...)
I also have a Nikon FM2 with a B2 plain matte screen. It can get a little tricky in the dark but it's definitely better in the light, and Nikkor lenses are (arguably) miles better than FD ones - although the FD system would be considerably cheaper.
I don't have a clue about Olympus, sorry. For portraits, I'd get the Nikon with their autofocus 105mm F2 DC lens. Works a charm on manual cameras and optically superior.
I also have a Nikon FM2 with a B2 plain matte screen. It can get a little tricky in the dark but it's definitely better in the light, and Nikkor lenses are (arguably) miles better than FD ones - although the FD system would be considerably cheaper.
I don't have a clue about Olympus, sorry. For portraits, I'd get the Nikon with their autofocus 105mm F2 DC lens. Works a charm on manual cameras and optically superior.
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
the problem of FD is that the good lenses are rarely to find (85/1.2, 50/1.4, etc), which makes F mount more attractive and consistent due to plenty of supplies on the bay. functionally either f1n or f(fm) is about the same.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Also, there are good aftermarket screens available for Nikons.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
matt_mcg2
Established
In the UK at least, I see good Canon FD primes regularly at very attractive prices. I've occasionally thought about switching or trying the system for that reason. A full suite of lenses could be had for less than a single decent M lens.
That said, and since this is RFF, I find SLRs [of any brand] not as easy to focus accurately in low light as a rangefinder. I was on my way to an event recently being held somewhere fairly dark, and was messing about deciding which camera to take, and I could _just_ about focus my SLR [Contax Aria] in light where it was positively easy to focus my M3.
That said, and since this is RFF, I find SLRs [of any brand] not as easy to focus accurately in low light as a rangefinder. I was on my way to an event recently being held somewhere fairly dark, and was messing about deciding which camera to take, and I could _just_ about focus my SLR [Contax Aria] in light where it was positively easy to focus my M3.
Robert Lai
Well-known
A problem with many Canon SLRs is that they don't show you the shooting aperture in the viewfinder. With most Nikons, the aperture is shown in a little window, reflected off a secondary scale on the lens (AI lenses). In my early days, I used a Canon AE-1. Nice camera, but I always had to take my eye away from the finder window in order to see what the setting of the aperture and shutter were.
Also, I'm not sure that it's so wise to lock yourself in to a system that has been abandoned by the manufacturer. Spare parts and repairs will just continue to be harder to come by as time goes on.
Also, I'm not sure that it's so wise to lock yourself in to a system that has been abandoned by the manufacturer. Spare parts and repairs will just continue to be harder to come by as time goes on.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I'd recommend a Canon T90 for automated (with excellent handling and metering) body. Or an old FTb for manual. I'd skip the plasticky AE-1, but would recommend a serviced A1. FD glasses are abundant and their prices are lower compared to their Nikon counterparts (except for the L glasses). My favorite FD lenses are 135/2 and 35/2.
Jake06
Established
The AE-1P is a very fine camera indeed, I don't find it particularly 'plasticky'.
There is a reason for the low price of the FD glass, however. I'm in the process of switching to Nikon because of the optimum lenses. I also agree that there is a major issue with taking your eye away from the camera to see your settings...
There is a reason for the low price of the FD glass, however. I'm in the process of switching to Nikon because of the optimum lenses. I also agree that there is a major issue with taking your eye away from the camera to see your settings...
msbarnes
Well-known
So any answers to my questions?
Well, I have some RF's but I want an SLR for precise framing (well 100% isn't necessary) for handheld portraits. I want a 28/35/50 primarily and atleast f2.
I don't care about any exposure information because I handheld meter. I'd prefer to have no batteries, even. The "problem" with Olympus is that their bodies are too small for me. Canon/Nikon bodies are larger and heavier. As for lens quality, I don't really care and I don't think I'm after anything exotic. Canon FD non-L lenses are fairly cheap and so are the non-AI Nikkors. The reason that Canon lenses are so cheap, I think, is because they are useless on DSLR's whereas Olympus/Nikon's are readily adaptable. With non-AI Nikkors, I think people are afraid of older designs and/or want the AI/AIS benefits.
Well, I have some RF's but I want an SLR for precise framing (well 100% isn't necessary) for handheld portraits. I want a 28/35/50 primarily and atleast f2.
I don't care about any exposure information because I handheld meter. I'd prefer to have no batteries, even. The "problem" with Olympus is that their bodies are too small for me. Canon/Nikon bodies are larger and heavier. As for lens quality, I don't really care and I don't think I'm after anything exotic. Canon FD non-L lenses are fairly cheap and so are the non-AI Nikkors. The reason that Canon lenses are so cheap, I think, is because they are useless on DSLR's whereas Olympus/Nikon's are readily adaptable. With non-AI Nikkors, I think people are afraid of older designs and/or want the AI/AIS benefits.
raid
Dad Photographer
The Canon FD lenses can be used on Leica ltm/M cameras with Canon Adapter B.
It will allow you to use the FD wide angle lenses On your Leica, if needed.
It will allow you to use the FD wide angle lenses On your Leica, if needed.
Buy something and try it. If it doesn't fit your fancy, try something else. None of these are much money. Not really much difference between any of them, given your listed goals...
raid
Dad Photographer
This is true. I tried many SLR systems just for th fun of it.
j j
Well-known
And that reason is the lack of adaptability to DSLRs (including Canons) not lack of quality. Nikons tend to be more expensive because you can use them on current Nikon and other bodies.
If the OP already has Olympus cameras it would make sense to try wider aperture lenses for that system.
msbarnes
Well-known
true, I have an OM system but I'm unsure if it is for me so I plan on playing around with Nikon before investing further. I was just wondering what the best OM screen is or what the best Nikon model is for this application instead of choosing randomly. With Nikon I'm thinking F2/F3.
Mackinaw
Think Different
I have all three of the systems mentioned. I bought my F-1 years ago, the Nikon F sometime after that, and the OM-1 was given to me. Considering how cheap some lenses are for any of these cameras, I've bought several as time and finances have allowed.
I have no favorites. I enjoy the distinct personalities of all three cameras and systems. Right now I'm using the F-1 but I just might as well have grabbed the OM-1 next time I feel like shooting 35mm. All three have good points and bad points. Whatever you end up you'll enjoy.
Jim B.
I have no favorites. I enjoy the distinct personalities of all three cameras and systems. Right now I'm using the F-1 but I just might as well have grabbed the OM-1 next time I feel like shooting 35mm. All three have good points and bad points. Whatever you end up you'll enjoy.
Jim B.
Robert Lai
Well-known
I have the Nikon F plain prism, F2A and F3 non-HP.
All have nice 100% views, though the F3 with a red dot screen seems to be the brightest. Any of them will suffice for your demands. I often do use a hand-held light meter for incident readings. They are more consistently accurate for slide exposures. However, if you need to get the picture quickly, then the automated aperture priority exposure of the F3 makes it the fastest to use. It also offers TTL flash capability, which is great with multiflash setups (Metz remote system), or when doing macro photography. In Leica M terms, the equivalent of Nikon's F3 is the M7. I got the M7 just for this reason, as the F3 has been my main camera for 30 years.
The F2 and F offer rugged simplicity. The F2 is a little more refined in that there are more features to be aware of, but the F with plain prism offers the most straightforward shooting of all. Unfortunately, the plain prisms for both the F and F2 are now costly, especially in good condition. However, an F with a dead Photomic meter is fairly common, and inexpensive. The dead meter prism will let you focus just as well as the plain prism. Leica equivalents to my mind are the M6 for the Nikon F2A, and probably the M3 (similar vintage) for the F.
All have nice 100% views, though the F3 with a red dot screen seems to be the brightest. Any of them will suffice for your demands. I often do use a hand-held light meter for incident readings. They are more consistently accurate for slide exposures. However, if you need to get the picture quickly, then the automated aperture priority exposure of the F3 makes it the fastest to use. It also offers TTL flash capability, which is great with multiflash setups (Metz remote system), or when doing macro photography. In Leica M terms, the equivalent of Nikon's F3 is the M7. I got the M7 just for this reason, as the F3 has been my main camera for 30 years.
The F2 and F offer rugged simplicity. The F2 is a little more refined in that there are more features to be aware of, but the F with plain prism offers the most straightforward shooting of all. Unfortunately, the plain prisms for both the F and F2 are now costly, especially in good condition. However, an F with a dead Photomic meter is fairly common, and inexpensive. The dead meter prism will let you focus just as well as the plain prism. Leica equivalents to my mind are the M6 for the Nikon F2A, and probably the M3 (similar vintage) for the F.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, yes, Nikon. An big choice of good, easy-to-focus screens (the point of my earlier post), an enormous choice of lenses, 100% viewfinders... Not a hard choice in my book.
Cheers,
R.
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
For portraits you want lenses from 75mm thru 105mm. (In the past the 135mm was used but it has become outdated or in disrepute.) The lens you use for a man is appreciably different than the one you will use for a woman. Men prefer their portraits to be sharp while women prefer theirs to be soft. Essentially, you will need two lenses with different signatures. With Nikon (F3) you have the choice of using a 105mm f2.5 a very sharp lens and an 85mm f2.0 This lens is called into question by people who claim that it is not sharp which is the reason it is preferable IMHO for female portraiture. Also, I like the F3 with its removable prism for low angles. I have used the OM & Canons and have found them wanting.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The 58/1.4 Nikkor can be astonishingly good too. And I rather like my Dreamagon, a true soft-focus lens.
Cheers,
R.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Personally i never liked the Canon FD bodies all that much, although my buddy loved his. That said, his old FD lenses were darn good performers.
I had both Olympus OM and Nikon SLR equipment, Nikon through most of he years from 1969 to 2001, Olympus for a time. Both were good, but I preferred Nikon bodies, particularly the F, F2, and F3 specifically because of the excellent viewfinders. The quality of the Nikon VF optics was better than almost everyone other than Leica R, and I could not afford Leica R lenses back in the day. Also, there are more still serviceable fast, old Nikkors available than any other brand, which tells you something.
My film SLR bag today has in it a Nikon F, 50/1.2, 55/3.5 Micro, 85/1.8, and 105/2.8 Micro lenses. All top notch performers, the 55 and 85 dating back to 1969. I can add a D600 body and keep on going with the same lenses well into the future...
I had both Olympus OM and Nikon SLR equipment, Nikon through most of he years from 1969 to 2001, Olympus for a time. Both were good, but I preferred Nikon bodies, particularly the F, F2, and F3 specifically because of the excellent viewfinders. The quality of the Nikon VF optics was better than almost everyone other than Leica R, and I could not afford Leica R lenses back in the day. Also, there are more still serviceable fast, old Nikkors available than any other brand, which tells you something.
My film SLR bag today has in it a Nikon F, 50/1.2, 55/3.5 Micro, 85/1.8, and 105/2.8 Micro lenses. All top notch performers, the 55 and 85 dating back to 1969. I can add a D600 body and keep on going with the same lenses well into the future...