Jeremy Z
Well-known
I like aperture priority more and more; just set the aperture and make sure the shutter speed is what you expect, instead of having to coordinate them.
Well, just because an old Leica has HORRIBLE film loading doesn't mean the Nikon F's isn't bad. It just means it's not the worst.
Macro lenses are always super sharp, but f/3.5 is pretty slow for a "fast prime". It's almost two stops slower than a cheap 50/2, and almost three stops slower than a 1.4. Not a big deal, these days with our modern films, but in THOSE days, when ASA 400 was "fast", it was crippling.
I grab the self timer sometimes on my FG when I've got a heavy lens mounted, but it's a lot smaller than an FM, FE, F2, etc.
if you can forgo the clean prism look, an F with a non-functional metered prism is a LOT cheaper...
Mine (K1000 SE) cost more because it was 1995 and not 1979. Inflation and such.
You might be right, and I'm on the verge of buying an FE or FE2. The tiny FG with a pancake 50/1.8 mounted and set to P mode is almost a point & shoot camera. The only real problem is that the small and light body becomes a DISadvantage when a heavier or longer lens is mounted. For example, my Tokina AT-X 28-85/3.5-4.5 is long-ish and heavy-ish and camera handling suffers as a result. Try to use a polarizer with it and it becomes downright slow and fiddly.
If I do sell an FG, I'll keep one on hand for my daughter, when she's old enough to take an interest.
Jeremy Z
Well-known
Just bought a used FE2 from usedphotopro. I found myself wanting an F3 after reading this thread, but after some soul-searching, the FE2 is a better fit for my needs.
I'll miss the bigger finder, but I do occasionally use flash and hate the ridiculous flash mounting of the F, F2 and F3.
I prefer the film advance feel of the FE2 to that of the F3. That's dumb, I know, but we're talking about manual focus film cameras here. We're not exactly in it for the efficiency.
I'll miss the bigger finder, but I do occasionally use flash and hate the ridiculous flash mounting of the F, F2 and F3.
I prefer the film advance feel of the FE2 to that of the F3. That's dumb, I know, but we're talking about manual focus film cameras here. We're not exactly in it for the efficiency.
By far the F6 is my fave of all the Nikon film cameras followed by the F3 or FM3 and lastly the F2.
https://www.nikonimages.com/camera/F6
https://www.nikonimages.com/camera/F6
ktmrider
Well-known
I don't remember the 55f3.5 Micro Nikkor being "crippling" back in the early 1970's when I was a working newspaper photographer. F3.5 is only half a stop slower than f2.8 and both the 24f2.8 and 180f2.8 were part of my arsenal. The 180f2.8 was considered super fast and was my standard for night high school and college football. The 180f2.8 was double or triple the price of the 200f4 or 300f4.5. And I believe f2.8 marks "professional" zooms these days.
It was and still is an amazing lens along with the 24f2.8 and 85f1.8. I did not even own a 50.
It was and still is an amazing lens along with the 24f2.8 and 85f1.8. I did not even own a 50.
Huss
Veteran
Just bought a used FE2 from usedphotopro. I found myself wanting an F3 after reading this thread, but after some soul-searching, the FE2 is a better fit for my needs.
I'll miss the bigger finder, but I do occasionally use flash and hate the ridiculous flash mounting of the F, F2 and F3.
I prefer the film advance feel of the FE2 to that of the F3. That's dumb, I know, but we're talking about manual focus film cameras here. We're not exactly in it for the efficiency.
I wouldn't have sold my FE2 if it hadn't started to develop electrical issues, it is such a nice camera. I prefer it to my FM2n. And yes the film advance has a much nicer feel to my F3s which feel loose and floppy. I never understood why people think the F3's feels good. (I have two - F3P and F3 Ltd).
But there is just that something about using an F3. Weird because the FE2 actually has better specs.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
...
I just noticed the UD designation. That's an 11 element lens! UD = uni + deca = 1 + 10. Nikon engineers likely produced this lens with the idea of correcting or minimizing optical issues. It's a nice looking lens.
Just bought a used FE2 from usedphotopro. I found myself wanting an F3 after reading this thread, but after some soul-searching, the FE2 is a better fit for my needs.
I'll miss the bigger finder, but I do occasionally use flash and hate the ridiculous flash mounting of the F, F2 and F3.
I prefer the film advance feel of the FE2 to that of the F3. That's dumb, I know, but we're talking about manual focus film cameras here. We're not exactly in it for the efficiency.
You won't miss the F3. I have two F3/T's and, while solid, I hate the shutter speed LCD display of the F3. I have an FE2 as well and it's more fun to use.
My camera repair friend told me the wind lever on all F3's wobble. I assured him mine were as solid as a rock. When I got home, sure enough, there is a slight up-down wobble to the lever on both of the F3/T's. In 20 years of using the cameras, I'd never noticed it.
The camera feels solid and the winding itself is smooth, however.
Attachments
css9450
Veteran
Thanks! I was fortunate to find it at a swap meet; the barrel shows a lot of use but the glass is perfect and it has the official Nikon AI-conversion ring on it so it works on all my cameras. It was my only 20mm until 2008 when I bought an AF 20 since it would be able to meter on my DSLR.
Its funny about the F3 wind levers. They sure are different than almost everything else... I think like the others have mentioned, its kind of loose and floppy. My preference by far would be the FMs and FEs which have the very best tactile feel of them all, even better than the pro models like the F and F2.
Of course, back in the heyday of the F3, I bet the majority of them were used with the MD4 motordrives anyway...
Jeremy Z
Well-known
Thanks for the historical perspective.
f/2.8 is the pro standard for zooms and long telephotos. For "normal" focal length, it is considered quite slow. I believe 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 were common even in the early 70s, no?
What I'm getting at is this: Why did you opt to give up 2.5 stops of speed (which is a lot) for a bit of extra sharpness that will likely not be seen in a newspaper photo? Especially in that era of slower, grainier films?
2.8 was considered a fast lens back in the day...bear in mind, Kodachrome was originally ASA 10...
Just keeping things in perspective.
Just keeping things in perspective.
Jeremy Z
Well-known
2.8 was considered a fast lens back in the day...bear in mind, Kodachrome was originally ASA 10...
Just keeping things in perspective.
2.8 was considered fast for a 50? For a wide angle or short telephoto, yes, but for a normal prime?
Granted, I wasn't alive, (doesn't mean I'm wrong) which is why I'm being so inquisitive, but 50/1.4 Nikkors from that era are common. Yashica RFs all had f/1.4 to f/1.8 40-45 mm lenses. Same with Konicas and Canons. Standard Nifty-Fifties were f/1.8.
F/1.4 was ultra fast.
F/2.8 was fast.
F/2.8 was fast.
css9450
Veteran
Technically, almost everything was fast if there was still a 50/f3.5 left in the bargain bin.
Huss
Veteran
F/1.4 was ultra fast.
F/2.8 was fast.
2.8 was never fast for a 50. A zoom or tele lens perhaps.
Normal lenses were 2.0/1.8, with the 1.4 being fast.
But the 55 2.8 and 3.5 are macro lenses so while normal-ish they are different. And superb.
Huss
Veteran
As others have mentioned, the F3 has ball bearings in its wind mechanism to make the action super light and rapid. I guess for pros who did not have the MD4. The downside is it makes it floppy.
The action on the FM/E series is much nicer and more solid, while cameras like the Minolta XE-5 and Leica R8/9 just feel incredible in comparison.
But the F3 w/ MD4 feels absolutely incredible in hand. MD4s are cheap and totally worth it.
Jeremy Z
Well-known
Yes, it's mostly a question of weight and noise.
I usually prefer the tactile experience of advancing and rewinding the film by hand. Somehow, it's very satisfying.
Huss
Veteran
Yes, it's mostly a question of weight and noise.
I usually prefer the tactile experience of advancing and rewinding the film by hand. Somehow, it's very satisfying.
Definitely! As long as it is a sweet short lever throw (unlike my Minolta SR1s which has a really long throw) and definitely not a thumb wheel or knob.
css9450
Veteran
On a related note: A few years ago (well, maybe 8 or 9 years ago), I bought an MD15 motordrive for my FA, just to have one. I saw B&H still had them in stock, brand new! So I had to have one...
The FA was interesting because it could use either the MD11 or MD12 or its own unique MD15. With the MD15, it had the ability to draw power from the motordrive, so even if the camera's battery died, it could still function in all modes with the AAs in the motordrive.
Next roll of film I shoot, I really ought to do it with the FA.
ktmrider
Well-known
I did not use the 55f3.5 Micro Nikkor as part of my "pro kit". I carried two Nikon's with motors (one an F and one an FTN) plus 24f2.8, 85f1.8, 180f2.8 and a 500f8 mirror lens. I had access to a Micro Nikkor and a 300f4.5. I did not even own a normal lens at the time and did not miss it.
I had used a 55f3.5 Micro during that era and knew how good it was. When I reacquired a very nice plain prism F for nostalgia, I opted to keep the lenses limited in number. I have a 50f1.4 and the Micro Nikkor. When I take the F out (not that often), it usually wears the Micro Nikkor.
I had used a 55f3.5 Micro during that era and knew how good it was. When I reacquired a very nice plain prism F for nostalgia, I opted to keep the lenses limited in number. I have a 50f1.4 and the Micro Nikkor. When I take the F out (not that often), it usually wears the Micro Nikkor.
