Nikon F3HP - best SLR of all time?

Not quite sure why you are arguing against the 75% used the Nikon F3? (Sales figures back this up in the pro sector) - yes that leaves 25% using other cameras.

Isn't that just the F3 vs the Canon F1? As in the bit you quoted yourself?

"Canon has sold around 175,000 F-1s since 1981, which sounds like a good number until you compare it with F3 sales; 570,000 in the same time period. A better than 3 to 1 advantage, or more than 75% of the market."

?

and not quite sure why you think the F4 was as good as the Canon offering since a large number changed to the Canon system at great expense.

Well, having handled both, I prefer the F4. Having seen the results from using TTL flash from both, I prefer the F4. Being a wearer of spectacles, I prefer the F4. I prefer the F4's use of AA batteries over the EOS 1's use of 2CR5s, certainly in the basic configuration. I have yet to directly compare light meters and AF performance, although I suspect the Canon may well have the advantage with the latter, certainly. I DO understand how marketing works though; for many professional photographers, the Canon was preferable because of it's superior AF system. For others, the Nikon is preferred because of it's superior flash system. Etc etc etc. Canon produced a great product, no doubt. But this doesn't mean that Nikon didn't. The F4 is still a great camera. It certainly isn't inferior just because you say it is.

You can guarantee the best film camera wasn't the one that was outsold by the competition at the time.

I'd hazard a guess that Canon sold more lower priced EOS cameras than the EOS 1. Does that mean the EOS 1 isn't great?

Anyway this is very boring now. You enjoy your F3. I'll enjoy my F4, F5 and soon EOS 1....
 
Topsy; what is it about the F1 that you prefer over the F3?[/QUOTE said:
It was a long time ago but I remember that I didn't like how it sat in my hand, the viewfinder info was "different" I preferred the info in the F1n (matched needle metering) and overall the F1n felt more "workmanlike". All that said, my mentor of the day loved the F3 and to be honest I loved the F2 and FM but overall my heart went to the F1n. I am not saying that the F1n was better than the F3, just different and my preference. BTW form memory I got way more mechanical shutter speeds than my mentor did with his F3. Both were/are solid SLRs that will deliver in any circumstance.

BTW I also preferred the Bronica SQ-Ai to the Hassleblad 500 at the same time for different reasons and had use of the Hassleblad whenever I wanted.
 
Last edited:
Isn't that just the F3 vs the Canon F1? As in the bit you quoted yourself?



You enjoy your F3. I'll enjoy my F4, F5 and soon EOS 1....

I will do - cheers; lovely to use a camera that the majority felt like it was the best of the time rather than one most considered wasn't !
:exit:

I think the Rolleiflex TLR & Leica M are the other cameras that are similar status to the F3 BTW.
 
Last edited:
So you're using ONE image from ONE event to try to hammer your point home? No context, no other information, just ONE image (are those F3Ps, the bottom two cameras?).
This is a silly argument and I'm embarrassed to jump in.

I've been in that dugout. Been on the sidelines and in camera wells. In 1992, they all looked like that. I'm surprised there wasn't that one Canon guy in the shot, but really, everybody used Nikons for editorial work.

Commercial side, I didn't really know a lot of those folks, but it seems like there was more variety in their gear. Different kinds of SLRs, sure, but a lot of medium format too. Hasselblad and Mamiya seemed to be the brands of choice. Wedding photographers were still using TLRs. (Often with a Mecablitz.)

IMG0037.jpg
New Year's Eve, 1992

Tri-X, F3, 180 2.8, Vivitar 283
 
Last edited:
I will do - cheers; lovely to use a camera that the majority felt like it was the best of the time rather than one most considered wasn't !

:ROFLMAO: It's like a poo that won't flush... :banghead: :help:

It was a long time ago but I remember that I didn't like how it sat in my hand, the viewfinder info was "different" I preferred the info in the F1n (matched needle metering) and overall the F1n felt more "workmanlike". All that said, my mentor of the day loved the F3 and to be honest I loved the F2 and FM but overall my heart went to the F1n. I am not saying that the F1n was better than the F3, just different and my preference. BTW form memory I got way more mechanical shutter speeds than my mentor did with his F3. Both were/are solid SLRs that will deliver in any circumstance.

Fair enough. My bold added for emphasis of a very important point...

This is a silly argument

:agree:
 
In 1992, they all looked like that. I'm surprised there wasn't that one Canon guy in the shot, but really, everybody used Nikons for editorial work.
My experience at this particular coal face runs from about 1968 to somewhere around 1986. As I wrote above: the hard news guys had a strong tendency to use Nikon because the permies got issued with Nikon kit and that meant there was a good hire market and a widespread repair network. The freelancers also tended towards Nikon because, well, that's what the permies used. I did notice in the middle of the 1970s that a lot of permies in the press were changing (or being changed) to Olympus. The OM system was a lot cheaper than the Nikon system and one hell of a lot lighter to carry. The arguments on whether the Olympus was more fragile than the Nikon went on for years but I got the impression that it was simply a matter of "yer paid yer money and yer made yer choice".

This is what I was using around 1974 for local and regional press work...

CameraOutfit.jpg
 
I actually had pictures published that were shot on a Vivitar V2000, the first SLR I ever bought. That makes it a 'professional camera'. :banana:

Vivitar_V2000-(1).jpg

Actually surprisingly good, aside from being quite light and plasticky. Mine got used a lot in quite demanding conditions, yet carried on working. Pentax K-mount, so some really good quality lenses that fitted. Über simple metering indication; red + and - for over and under, green dot for correct exposure. Light meter as good as on many far 'worthier' cameras. A very nice little camera to use. Will always be one of my favourites. But as 'best' is totally subjective here, what aobut something like the Pentax K1000? The AK-47 of the camera world. How many people have discovered the joys of photography, through using one? Surely that deserves a mention in any 'hall of fame'?

article8069_0.jpg

Simple, tough, reliable. Capable of producing brilliant pictures. What more do you need?
 
I actually had pictures published that were shot on a Vivitar V2000, the first SLR I ever bought. That makes it a 'professional camera'.
Certainly fits my defintion! That kit I showed above probably cost a bit less than your Vivtar. I usually bought "ugly" second hand kit and often managed to get back what I paid for it. The 3.5F in the picture was a bit of a triumph: I made roughly 50% profit on it! :LOL:
 
I actually had pictures published that were shot on a Vivitar V2000, the first SLR I ever bought. That makes it a 'professional camera'. :banana:

View attachment 271134

Actually surprisingly good, aside from being quite light and plasticky. Mine got used a lot in quite demanding conditions, yet carried on working. Pentax K-mount, so some really good quality lenses that fitted. Über simple metering indication; red + and - for over and under, green dot for correct exposure. Light meter as good as on many far 'worthier' cameras. A very nice little camera to use. Will always be one of my favourites. But as 'best' is totally subjective here, what aobut something like the Pentax K1000? The AK-47 of the camera world. How many people have discovered the joys of photography, through using one? Surely that deserves a mention in any 'hall of fame'?

View attachment 271139

Simple, tough, reliable. Capable of producing brilliant pictures. What more do you need?


Very odd?

Earlier you posted this:

I never understood the love for the F3, personally. As an impoverished student, my 'dream' camera was a Nikon F4. I owned an FM2 and an F801s (a very underrated camera imo, if a bit 'lightweight' for professional use, but always gave me great results, and was exceptionally well featured). A couple of friends owned F3s. I wasn't enamoured with the handling, and why no hotshoe? Daft. And then the FM@ had a faster top shutter speed, and a much more useable top flash sync speed. And a hotshoe. And was smaller and lighter, yet just as tough. And was fully mechanical, and needed no battery. I don't remember F3s as being exceptionally reliable, in fact I knew at least a couple of professionals who preferred the F2, until newer cameras appeared. Surely the FA was what the F3 should have been? By comparison, the F4 has everything a photographer could want or need, and was exquisitely built, as well as having a hotshoe (no seriously; what was that all about?)!

I aim one day to have a full collection of pro F model cameras. So far I have just the F4 and F5 (the pinnacle of film SLR design?), but I hope to get the others soon. Plus a Canon F1. And a Pentax LX. And a Canon A1. And a Contax RTS3. And a Canon T90. And a Nikon FM3A. And a Hasselblad. And a Leica. And and and....


When I was an 'impoverished student' the F4 hadn't even been released and was a good 6 years away.

You must have either been using these cameras above in demanding situations as a child or you were a mature student?
 
Last edited:
Very odd?

Not sure what you don't understand. I started photography properly around 1992. My first ever SLR was the Vivitar. It was I think £100 from Vic Oddens in London Bridge. Where I later bought my F801s in 1994. I switched to Nikon around 1994. Until then, I'd been using the Vivitar and a Canon AE-1, with a motley selection of mis-matched lenses. Two different systems, what a great idea. But it worked ok. I was a student between 1992 and 1997; 2 years at FE college, then 3 at Uni. Could never afford an F4 (they were just too expensive for me, even S/H). That's why it was always me 'dream' camera. Now I own one, I can see why I coveted it for so long. But I've always been one to make the most of what resources I have, rather than pine for things I don't.


Certainly fits my defintion! That kit I showed above probably cost a bit less than your Vivtar. I usually bought "ugly" second hand kit and often managed to get back what I paid for it. The 3.5F in the picture was a bit of a triumph: I made roughly 50% profit on it! :LOL:

I think my Vivitar, at adjusted prices, might have been a little cheaper than your Rolleis and Nikon F etc! £100 was what I had; the Vivitar offered fantastic VFM, and the scope for expansion into a Pentax K mount system (which I never explored sadly). It was such a great camera to use; really simple and fast. Small and light, helped in situations where I had to be on my toes.

Shot this on it, of which I am still proud. I'll always treasure that camera.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what you don't understand. I started photography properly around 1992. My first ever SLR was the Vivitar. It was I think £100 from Vic Oddens in London Bridge. Where I later bought my F801s in 1994. I switched to Nikon around 1994. Until then, I'd been using the Vivitar and a Canon AE-1, with a motley selection of mis-matched lenses. Two different systems, what a great idea. But it worked ok. I was a student between 1992 and 1997; 2 years at FE college, then 3 at Uni. Could never afford an F4 (they were just too expensive for me, even S/H). That's why it was always me 'dream' camera. Now I own one, I can see why I coveted it for so long. But I've always been one to make the most of what resources I have, rather than pine for things I don't.




I think my Vivitar, at adjusted prices, might have been a little cheaper than your Rolleis and Nikon F etc! £100 was what I had; the Vivitar offered fantastic VFM, and the scope for expansion into a Pentax K mount system (which I never explored sadly). It was such a great camera to use; really simple and fast. Small and light, helped in situations where I had to be on my toes.

Shot this on it, of which I am still proud. I'll always treasure that camera.


View attachment 271154


You are completely missing the point!

Like I said; compared to modern cars a Ford GT40 is a pile of s*** - even a basic modern car is better in every way, and so it should be as technology advances.

However most would consider the Ford GT40 as probably the greatest Le Mans racer of all time.

Ask yourself why that should be the case?
 
I think my Vivitar, at adjusted prices, might have been a little cheaper than your Rolleis and Nikon F etc! £100 was what I had;
Close thing. When that particular kit was traded in for newer stuff I more or less broke even. Even rubbish Rolleiflex F series cameras were on the rise in the mid 1970s so the (considerable) loss on the Nikon stuff was balanced by the profit on the Rollei. The little 35B lived in my pocket for several years afterwards so didn't count in the deal.
 
You are completely missing the point!

Obviously. But as I got bored with this 'discussion' some time ago, it really no longer matters.


However most would consider the Ford GT40 as probably the greatest Le Mans racer of all time.

Now I KNOW you're just trolling. Everybody knows its the Porsche 956/962. ;)
 
Like I said; compared to modern cars a Ford GT40 is a pile of s*** - even a basic modern car is better in every way, and so it should be as technology advances.
A GT40 will wipe the floor with nearly every modern car around a circuit, which is what it was designed to do. My point is that it's an irrelevant comparison to cameras..
 
A GT40 will wipe the floor with nearly every modern car around a circuit, which is what it was designed to do. My point is that it's an irrelevant comparison to cameras..

Firstly - it won't!

Secondly I don't think the comparison is irrelevant - both are purely just products.
 
I suppose it depends what you mean by 'a basic modern car', but if you're referring to road cars, you are very wrong! Look at the lap times GT40's are doing at the Spa 6 Hours.
 
I suppose it depends what you mean by 'a basic modern car', but if you're referring to road cars, you are very wrong! Look at the lap times GT40's are doing at the Spa 6 Hours.

.......and why is a GT40 seen as a great car?
 
Please moderators, would it be possible to provide an 'ignore thread' option like some forums have?
 
It's amazing how one person can f*** up nearly everyone's enjoyment of an entire forum.

Ignore forum becomes an option at some point.
 
It's amazing how one person can f*** up nearly everyone's enjoyment of an entire forum.

Ignore forum becomes an option at some point.

You do not have to read it you ignorant ...................
 
It's not the sort of 'discussion' we normally have here in f and c, certainly not with the level of acrimony that seems to have arrived, however it's an interesting one. Can I just request a little less mud slinging and a little more politeness or I may have to ask Roberts to intervene with his pacifier :).
 
It's not the sort of 'discussion' we normally have here in f and c, certainly not with the level of acrimony that seems to have arrived, however it's an interesting one. Can I just request a little less mud slinging and a little more politeness or I may have to ask Roberts to intervene with his pacifier :).

Well said!

To stop it 'dragging on' I'll explain what I am trying to say and leave it at that!

Technology advances and usually the latest edition of a camera is better than a previous incarnation (or should be).

All through life we discuss what is the best or greatest of all time; quite often we will pick a product from the past - why?

We do this because in that era that product dominated a certain market for one reason or another.

Nikon's F series cameras dominated the Pro SLR market up to the early 90's and the F3 was probably the pinnacle of that domination.

It was also very focused in design; designed for a small market sector but sales would show it was extremely successful at dominating that market.

If I wanted an extremely competent SLR camera then undoubtedly the most recent Canon digital far out performs an F3.

However, in my view in using a camera Nostalgia & history play a huge part and taking images with a camera that dominated gives me a huge sense of satisfaction and it is this nostalgia/history that plays a huge part in making something 'the best'.

Likewise my reference to cars; I love classic cars but in comparison to a modern car they are 'not good cars'.

With the GT40 it was designed for a very singular purpose (Like a pro spec camera) and dominated the era it raced in; IMO this is also why it is considered a true great or 'the best' ever.

A modern car is 'a better car' and a modern performance car would out perform it but would they be considered in the same iconic status?

I'm sorry if you don't enjoy the discussion but you really don't have to read it if you don't.

HTH
 
Last edited:
Nikon's F series cameras dominated the Pro SLR market up to the early 90's and the F3 was probably the pinnacle of that domination.
Part of the problem with threads like this is that they tend to be taken over by people with a limited grasp of the facts.

The make-up of the British commercial market was extremely diverse and no brand has ever dominated more than tiny sectors. If you could get hold of the annual sales figures for cameras in Britain from 1965 to 2000 I think you'd find that Pentax led the pack until the 1980s and then Canon took over. Cameras specifically used by press photographers were probably led by Rolleiflex and Leica up to the end of the 1960s. Nikon, Olympus and Pentax were the most favoured makes in press work until the middle of the 1990s when Canon began to take over with the Eos system.

The idea that any one camera dominated the market is pure fantasy.
 
It's not the sort of 'discussion' we normally have here in f and c, certainly not with the level of acrimony that seems to have arrived, however it's an interesting one. Can I just request a little less mud slinging and a little more politeness or I may have to ask Roberts to intervene with his pacifier :).
Well said Mr Snap, this has been the most un-F&Clike thread and I for one am not impressed.
 
.......and why is a GT40 seen as a great car?

Is it because people don't remember the Lola Mk 6? :whistle: Anyway, back to cameras. :)

Edit: Even more so the 'back to cameras' bit, as I'd not read the subsequent posts before tweaking Doug's tail about GT 40s. Sorry, I really must try to be a more patient badger and wait till I've read the full thread before chipping in if I've been too busy to visit the forum for a couple of days! :muted: :muted:
 
Last edited:
Shh Badger or you'll have to go and sit on the naughty step!
 
Well said Mr Snap, this has been the most un-F&Clike thread and I for one am not impressed.
Yes, we usually (jokingly) engage in playing camera 'top trumps' (or highest up the wall) in very genteel fashion, allowing for the fact we're likely to meet up with the person we've been teasing at an F&C bash and have to live our statements/claims down... which is often a good cue for a camera (or operator) malfunction! :facepalm:

So, on that bombshell... the best SLR of all time... the one that worked for you and you like the best. End of. :) (y)
 
Last edited:
So, on that bombshell... the best SLR of all time... the one that worked for you and you like the best. End of

erm well in that case my two T70's have worked for me (ignoring like the best as cameras are just tools to me)....but OK I'll admit I don't know how long it would last with a pro hammering it. ;)
 
erm well in that case my two T70's have worked for me (ignoring like the best as cameras are just tools to me)....but OK I'll admit I don't know how long it would last with a pro hammering it. ;)
Oh hang on, Brian's taken it back to "What's the ugliest camera you own" again.
 
Oh hang on, Brian's taken it back to "What's the ugliest camera you own" again.

Oof! It's not that bad, surely?

I quite like the T70. It had a very 80s look to it; evocative of sports and action. I remember the merchandising in camera shops; it was quite a big thing then.
828bbc1a8bc2a44a35615396d6ff0c8f.jpg

The T90 was the 'pro' model, wasn't it? But I think the T70 was a bit more iconic, probably because it was more available. But it was the T90 which really defined the look of Canon's entire range, ever since.

film118_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Oof! It's not that bad, surely?

I quite like the T70. It had a very 80s look to it; evocative of sports and action. I remember the merchandising in camera shops; it was quite a big thing then.
View attachment 271564

The T90 was the 'pro' model, wasn't it? But I think the T70 was a bit more iconic, probably because it was more available. But it was the T90 which really defined the look of Canon's entire range, ever since.

View attachment 271565

When you think of it..guys here (erm well including me) are using old manual cameras that have shutter speeds all over the place, but the shutter speed test on the T70 was very accurate at all speeds accept for 1/1000 sec when it was 1/700 sec (y) just saying as probably other cameras with electronic shutters are accurate as well.
 
When you think of it..guys here (erm well including me) are using old manual cameras that have shutter speeds all over the place, but the shutter speed test on the T70 was very accurate at all speeds accept for 1/1000 sec when it was 1/700 sec (y) just saying as probably other cameras with electronic shutters are accurate as well.

I suppose mechanical shutters are susceptible to wear, which reduces their accuracy, whereas electronic ones are kind of 'self-calibrating'; a quartz timers isn't going to be wildly out even after decades. But then; perhaps electronics are more prone to catastrophic failure. A mechanical shutter can be serviced, an electronic one that has failed is probably kaput. That said, I've never had an issue with any mechanical camera regarding shutter speeds and exposure accuracy.
 
That said, I've never had an issue with any mechanical camera regarding shutter speeds and exposure accuracy.

Latitude of neg film is excellent, but positive film is less tolerant to inaccurate shutter speed\exposure. ;)
 
Back
Top