Michael Markey
Veteran
Same goes for me.
Stood outside for five hours yesterday in mostly heavy rain shooting an action event and my 5D2/70-200/2.8 never blinked .
I needed to make continual adjustments as the conditions dictated.
It really does get out of the way.... direct controls and a simple menu.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jim,
I can remember when they came out. A friend bought one. I couldn't believe how awful it was, especially the very bright focusing screen that was next to useless for focusing compared with almost any appropriate Nikon screen. The lenses were mediocre too.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, apart from the Action Finder and the "chimney" finder for copying and the interchangeable screens. And the Polaroid back from NPC (I still have one of those).
Cheers,
R.
johnf04
Well-known
So, is "cool" a camera suitable for male jewellery, or is it a camera for professionals?
Oddly, amongst all the cameras I've owned, I've never owned a Nikon.
Oddly, amongst all the cameras I've owned, I've never owned a Nikon.
Robert Lai
Well-known
I started photography with a Kodak Instamatic, then graduated to a Canon FX with 58mm f/1.2 lens. The early Canon lenses had problems with helical grease migration causing the diaphragm to freeze. I had this serviced, and the equipment seemed to work again. The one paying job in photography that I ever had, I used the Canon FX and that same lens. I also had a borrowed Nikon. The Canon failed, and the Nikon worked flawlessly. Goodbye Canon.
For over 25 years afterwards, I used a Nikon F3. It worked pretty much flawlessly also. When I learned that Canon switched lens mounts, I felt that I made the right choice.
However, I had a brief nostalgic thing about the FX, so I actually bought an FX and another 58mm f/1.2 lens. The FX has issues with the winding mechanism that makes it prone to jamming. Also, the foam in the pentaprism tends to deteriorate and desilver the prism. Thus, finding a nice FX without deteriorated prism silver is hard these days. Overall, the FX didn't give an impression of lasting durability. I did obtain the last direct descendant of the FX - the FTb. Now, that IS a solid camera. The fully functional, recently serviced FTb was purchased here on RFF for a princely $75.
The Nikon F is a better designed camera in so many ways.
However, Nikon also packed deadly foam around prism. If this hasn't been removed, it will pull off the silvering. When I went looking for a nice FTN prism, I went through at least 6 before I found one that didn't exhibit visible desilvering of the prism. Sover Wong overhauled my F and F2. There is a lot of deteriorated foam internally in all of these cameras if they have not been serviced recently. This may explain their low sales prices on ebay. However, when you get a proper service job and replace parts, their total cost gets quite high - in the $700 to almost $900 range. Sover will make sure that EVERY shutter speed is within 1/4 f/stop of the indicated speed. As with anything else, condition and service history are more important than reputation.
For over 25 years afterwards, I used a Nikon F3. It worked pretty much flawlessly also. When I learned that Canon switched lens mounts, I felt that I made the right choice.
However, I had a brief nostalgic thing about the FX, so I actually bought an FX and another 58mm f/1.2 lens. The FX has issues with the winding mechanism that makes it prone to jamming. Also, the foam in the pentaprism tends to deteriorate and desilver the prism. Thus, finding a nice FX without deteriorated prism silver is hard these days. Overall, the FX didn't give an impression of lasting durability. I did obtain the last direct descendant of the FX - the FTb. Now, that IS a solid camera. The fully functional, recently serviced FTb was purchased here on RFF for a princely $75.
The Nikon F is a better designed camera in so many ways.
However, Nikon also packed deadly foam around prism. If this hasn't been removed, it will pull off the silvering. When I went looking for a nice FTN prism, I went through at least 6 before I found one that didn't exhibit visible desilvering of the prism. Sover Wong overhauled my F and F2. There is a lot of deteriorated foam internally in all of these cameras if they have not been serviced recently. This may explain their low sales prices on ebay. However, when you get a proper service job and replace parts, their total cost gets quite high - in the $700 to almost $900 range. Sover will make sure that EVERY shutter speed is within 1/4 f/stop of the indicated speed. As with anything else, condition and service history are more important than reputation.
wakarimasen
Well-known
I wonder how much a part people like Sover Wong ( a very nice guy!) and companies like Grays of Westminster play in the enduring appeal of the Nikon brand - especially for the older 35mm equipment. I struggle to find an equivalent company (for example) in the UK, which really has the depth of Canon gear available. Not sure why....
Kent
Finally at home...
I don't think that you really can define what creats "coolness", really. It's a matter of meeting a certain demand, of hitting a certain "vibe".
But I believe that being too "streamlined" doesn't help at all and Canon cameras do not have those rough egdes that we can work off at.
The old ones (AE-1, FTb etc.) still had them.
But I believe that being too "streamlined" doesn't help at all and Canon cameras do not have those rough egdes that we can work off at.
The old ones (AE-1, FTb etc.) still had them.
Kent
Finally at home...
*** sorry, double post ***
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Please call it New F-1, the Canon official name, or F-1 (FN) by its part letter code. F-1N/F-1n is the official name of the revised original F-1 (with improved drive train).
The New F-1 is not "black chrome", but used a thick-coat industrial (crinkle) paint. Which may have been originally more resilient than the paint on the F-1, but it did not age as well (at least on my New F-1, where a finger nail can peel it off).
Apart from being lefthanded, it is the blueprint of the modern system SLR - with user interchangeable finders and screens from 1948 on. Even in the 1970s it still had enough relevance as a professional lab camera in industrial and scientific applications that Canon themselves offered a Exakta lens to FD mount adapter in the hope of marketing F-1 bodies to the niche still occupied by the then already out of production Exakta...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm not sure what it is about them but they have never appealed to me at all ... and I'm at a loss to explain why!
Paul Simon never mentioned them in any of his song lyrics ... maybe that's the problem?
Paul Simon never mentioned them in any of his song lyrics ... maybe that's the problem?
Fraser
Well-known
Even though I have several Nikons my work cameras have always been Canon and the only reason for that is my dad giving me a Canon A1 and from there it went new F1, eos 1, eos 1v, 1d, 1d11, 1d11n, 5dmk11, 1d111, 1dx. Professional photographers generally once they buy into a system its the lenses that keep them with that system. I still agree that Nikon seems to have some kind of extra coolness, but they did suffer with the D2 series when a lot of professional photographers moved to Canon. Its maybe a bit like Land Rover Defender and Toyota Land Cruisers, the Land Rover is much cooler but everyone deep down knows the Cruiser is much better
As for the F3 being superior than the new F1 no way Canon is way ahead. I've owned at least 3 F3s one of them being a P dont have any now but still got my two new F1s
As for the F3 being superior than the new F1 no way Canon is way ahead. I've owned at least 3 F3s one of them being a P dont have any now but still got my two new F1s
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
Nikon have always known the importance of product placement.
One of my earliest recollections of a Nikon SLR was during and episode of Starsky and Hutch.
From memory, Starsky was taking a hiatus from being a cop and after handing in his gun picked up a motor drive equipped Nikon.
He briefly fired the shutter and I was instantly hooked.
Years later one turned up in the second Jurassic park movie. Significant because it was so obvious as to be almost cringe worthy.
Montblanc also frequently "product place". Next time you see a lead actor writing take note of the pen they're holding.
One of my earliest recollections of a Nikon SLR was during and episode of Starsky and Hutch.
From memory, Starsky was taking a hiatus from being a cop and after handing in his gun picked up a motor drive equipped Nikon.
He briefly fired the shutter and I was instantly hooked.
Years later one turned up in the second Jurassic park movie. Significant because it was so obvious as to be almost cringe worthy.
Montblanc also frequently "product place". Next time you see a lead actor writing take note of the pen they're holding.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Its maybe a bit like Land Rover Defender and Toyota Land Cruisers, the Land Rover is much cooler but everyone deep down knows the Cruiser is much better
Yes ... well.
I drive a Defender and use an M2/M3 so its nice to be uncool when I use my 5D2
Brian Atherton
Well-known
I started using Nikons professionally in early 1970s – a short time with the F and later into the mid/late-80s with the F2, FTn and FM bodies.
The reason?
The lens mount; the quality of lenses optically and mechanically; the ready availability of lenses at Morgan Camera in Tottenham Court Road, London - what I couldn’t afford to purchase I could rent; Nikon’s repair service, my broken F2 Photomic was returned to me within three days.
An added bonus was that almost everyone around me used the Nikon system, and I had the chance to sample – and share - different glass.
The reason?
The lens mount; the quality of lenses optically and mechanically; the ready availability of lenses at Morgan Camera in Tottenham Court Road, London - what I couldn’t afford to purchase I could rent; Nikon’s repair service, my broken F2 Photomic was returned to me within three days.
An added bonus was that almost everyone around me used the Nikon system, and I had the chance to sample – and share - different glass.
Nathan King
Established
The Canon F1N is the best 35mm SLR I have ever used. I prefer it to the Nikon equivalents of the time.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
There seem to be some variations in understanding when it comes to "cool". Some apparently think it's good to be "cool". Others (including me) take it as something of a joke word, to be used either ironically or by the terminally stupid.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dig a little deeper still and you'll find that the Land Rover (preferably Series rather than Defender) is universally acknowledged as best. The Series II/IIa is to 4WD what the Nikon F is to SLRs, i.e. not a mediocre rip-off of what has gone before.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Brian,
Exactly. Professionals of that era just couldn't take Canons seriously. The influence of those professionals understandably lasted well into the era when Canons had really become quite good. They told their assistants that Nikons were good, and lent them their cameras and lenses. Amateurs bought Canons because they weren't affected by the issues you raise.
Cheers,
R.
wakarimasen
Well-known
OK - I see some people have a problem with the word 'cool'. Perhaps I picked the wrong term!
I'll try again: why do Canon cameras not enjoy the same 'mystique' as their Nikon equivalents. I'm thinking especially with regards to the earlier 35mm models, but not excluding the 35mm AF and current DSLRs.
Discuss...
I'll try again: why do Canon cameras not enjoy the same 'mystique' as their Nikon equivalents. I'm thinking especially with regards to the earlier 35mm models, but not excluding the 35mm AF and current DSLRs.
Discuss...
You didn't say "modern SLR" in your previous comment about them, to wit:
Sevo's response, Ie.Sssshhhh!
Don't tell the Nikonians that F-1Ns in good conditions fetch higher prices than ANY F3 (actually a cheap camera on ebay, Fm2s and Fm3s go for more) and most of the F2s (besides the F2AS).
The fact is than in the 80s Canon was definitely cooler than Nikon, at least judging the state of most F-1Ns on the market they look they had been used to death, probably the original F-1 wasn't as popular as the F2 but it feels much smoother than the Nikon counterpart.
In the 70s I think Canon sold milions (yes milions) of FTBs, today a camera very underrated so I assume they were very popular, and of course they changed the rules of the game with the A-1.
However I noticed that on this board there is in fact a sort of "Nikon cult", regarding certain lenses that aren't really special (like the Nikkor 50mm f2) and that keep in disregard any other brand...Canon is still lucky, Pentax is considered nothing (it appears most of the Nikonisti think it's a camera which breaks down just to stare at) and the others...let's forget about it.
In terms of "professional cameras" I have a F2A, a F2AS, a F-1n, two F-1N (one with standard with the motordrive the other with AE prism) and a LX...and I must say in terms of capabilities the F-1N is the most impressive, in particular the idea you can change metering changing screen is something that always stroke me.
While the LX is a little jewel Leica like the F-1N is a sort of tank that feels invincible and unbreakable.]
Contax invented the SLR, for example. Praktica the modular camera. Pentax introduced TTL metering and some of the best lenses ever (WAAYYY batter than the Nikkors of the time with all the barrel distortion they had), Canon gave all the FD cameras that are excellent, many improvements like aspherical lenses, flouride glass (the L series) and of course the F1N:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1n/
Minolta invented the autofocus that works...I think that's sufficient for that brand.
. . . was entirely correct. If you meant that Contax invented the modern SLR, perhaps you should have said that, as opposed to revising history. I know we all have our own opinions regarding the merits or lack of them, of various cameras, but nevertheless, can we try to discuss these from a position of historical accuracy, please?
Yes, Zeiss were first to bring an SLR with integrated pentaprism to the market, though I gather the Italians nearly beat them with the Rectaflex. I have an early Contax D (the immediate successor to, and close relative of the S) and it's a really beautiful thing. But just how important was the integral prism to the evolution of the 35mm SLR? OK, it can certainly aid against dust ingression, and can make for a more compact and probably lighter body. But functionally, they're not really any better than an interchangeable finder 35mm SLR, and in certain ways, inferior. From a styling point of view, absolutely, a step forwards, but styling, in itself, doesn't necessarily make something any more effective than its predecessors.
I don't follow your assertion that Praktica invented the modular camera, either. As has been mentioned, Exakta had an unrivalled system of lenses and accessories years before anyone else. One criticism you might fairly make, perhaps, is that it (from my own limited understanding of the marque) seemed to evolve as it developed to an extent. But given the length of time they dominated the SLR field, perhaps that's to be expected. If anything, I'd suggest that KW with their Praktina SLRs are more noteworthy as modular designs than any Praktica (with the possible exception of the later Pentacon Super), not least with the availability of several motor drive units, bulk film backs and various screen and viewfinder options.
Was Pentax really first to start selling SLRs with TTL metering? I am an admirer of various Pentax products myself but was unaware of their pre-eminence in this aspect of metering technology. Most references cite the Topcon RE Super.
Regards,
Brett