Nikon F3HP - best SLR of all time?

In the early 1970s I had a conversation with the owner of a school photography operation. At the time he had more than a dozen operators working for him and he was processing something like 250 cassettes of 35mm a day. I was doing press stuff at the time and we got onto the question of reliability. This was a big deal for him since he supplied all his operators with cameras and a broken camera cost a lot in lost sales. He told me that, since the 1960s, he'd gone through the usual suspects and he'd finally settled on the Canon FT-QL.

"The Leica M3 is tough but the shutter often needs adjusting after 500 films or so", was his opinion, "The Nkon F is impossible to break but after 1,000 cassettes the wind mechanism becomes a bit fragile. So far we've put an average of 2,000 rolls through each FT and not one of them is showing any signs of stress." I suspect the Canon costing nearly half the price of the Leica or Nikon didn't harm his bottom line either. :naughty:

Canon cameras Tamron lenses _1050343.JPG
 
I'm with you on the FM2. I always carried 2 bodies. An F2 or F3 and an FM2. Got one in college and kept a copy my whole career. The F4 came out before I left the business, but I never shot with one.

And what are you, a paparazzi or something? What the hell you need a hot shoe for? PC socket is right there in front. Yeah, your flash ends up at arm's length a lot of times. Just like it needs to. (They made an adapter. I just left mine on the flash. :) )

View attachment 268426

Here's mine. Beat to s***, but we went everywhere together.

It doesn't work. I didn't know that until just a minute ago when I took its picture. Worked the last time I used it, but many moons have passed since then.

Doesn't matter. It's really just a tchotchke now. I try to keep it dusted out of respect, but even that task gets neglected too often.

I inherited a pristine F2 from my father. Can't imagine he put more than a few dozen rolls of film through it. It works nicely. I don't use that one either.
Try and use them, they deserve at least an occasional roll through them. Your F3 probably on needs a CLA, not too expensive and it will keep another iconic camera working.
 
What the hell you need a hot shoe for? PC socket is right there in front. Yeah, your flash ends up at arm's length a lot of times. Just like it needs to.

PC sockets and cables were notoriously unreliable! Plus the F3 did TTL flash. Which is much easier to implement through a proper ISO hotshoe. The way everybody else did it, pretty much. Yes you could get an adapter, but why add even more weight and bulk? No, for me, the lack of hotshoe is one of the reasons the F3 is not my favourite camera. The flash implementation is very poor with the F3 imo. And sod holding a flash at arm's length; made very little difference to the quality of light, and you end up with a sore arm. Use a diffuser.

It's really just a tchotchke now.

Tchotchke! Lol! My wife doesn't think that old SLRs qualify as tchotchkes. I had hoped to make a cabinet for my planned collection. 'No that will not be going up in the house. I'm not having all that junk all over the place'. Oy vey.
 
Last edited:
My film camera history was all Canon apart from a nice Nikon F5 I own due to it being compatible with all my current Nikon glass.
I started with the lovely classic A1 and then moved over to the T90's which I thought were the best "amateur" cameras ever. I owned the pro F1N but that was the only unreliable Canon I owned would you believe. My last film Canon camera was the 1vHS which I still own and is stored away as I bought it for a nlot of money and they fetch bugger all now doh.
 
In the early 1970s I had a conversation with the owner of a school photography operation. At the time he had more than a dozen operators working for him and he was processing something like 250 cassettes of 35mm a day. I was doing press stuff at the time and we got onto the question of reliability. This was a big deal for him since he supplied all his operators with cameras and a broken camera cost a lot in lost sales. He told me that, since the 1960s, he'd gone through the usual suspects and he'd finally settled on the Canon FT-QL.

"The Leica M3 is tough but the shutter often needs adjusting after 500 films or so", was his opinion, "The Nkon F is impossible to break but after 1,000 cassettes the wind mechanism becomes a bit fragile. So far we've put an average of 2,000 rolls through each FT and not one of them is showing any signs of stress." I suspect the Canon costing nearly half the price of the Leica or Nikon didn't harm his bottom line either. :naughty:

View attachment 268441
I've got two of these bodies, they are very substantially built, beasts in fact, and, if I remember correctly, I paid very little for them. I used them with Canon FL lenses for quite a while and then I managed to get hold of an F1 body, which I had serviced and use now. I keep them as 'backup' camera bodies for the F1, whatever that means, well sort of just in case the F1 fails me, like that's going to happen.
 
then I managed to get hold of an F1 body, which I had serviced and use now.
I’ve owned both the F1 and the F1n. I thought the original model was a much nicer camera to use.
 
9JmV8f.jpg


My old one, which has seen plenty of action, used regularly again. The photo on the wall was taken with it about 25 years ago....


fawbd7.jpg


...and my new one, bought at auction a couple of years ago as part of a lot with an F4S, still boxed, I don't think a film had ever been through it. OK, not an HP, but I could make it into one in about 15 seconds.
 
I think it’s quite hard to find a bad SLR, preference is going to come down to nostalgia and how the camera feels in the hand.

At the moment it’s the Contax 139 for me. I love that the meter preview button is separate from the shutter, how the electromagnetic shutter button feels, and how compact it is with the 45mm 2.8 Tessar
 
I think it’s quite hard to find a bad SLR, preference is going to come down to nostalgia and how the camera feels in the hand.

At the moment it’s the Contax 139 for me. I love that the meter preview button is separate from the shutter, how the electromagnetic shutter button feels, and how compact it is with the 45mm 2.8 Tessar

I agree; I think a lot of people go for the 'pro' cameras, because that's what the 'pros' used. Thing is, the 'pros' did use them, because such bodies were very tough and reliable, and had extensive systems for a whole range of uses, but 'pros' also used many other cameras; my photography teacher (a highly accomplished press photographer before he became a teacher) used an Olympus XA because there were times he could get a shot with an unobtrusive little 'amateur' camera, when 'professional' type cameras weren't appropriate/allowed. He also swore by the Nikon FA over the F3, because he felt it had greater flexibility and a better light meter. Then there was the Olympus OM4Ti, not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet on this thread, but that was another pro legend. I think narrowing it down to one camera is daft really. The F3, as I've already stated, had a number of drawbacks, which, were we still living in the 80s, would make me choose a different camera. The F4 was, imo, a much, much better camera in so many ways. Granted it came out 8 years after the F3, and technology had improved loads, but still. The F5 is 'better' in many ways, than the F4, but I prefer the F4; for me, it's the ultimate 35mm 'professional' film camera.

As for Contax; I've always coveted an RTS3. Beautifully made, really lovely, not so massive and heavy like the F4 for example. Fantastic Carl Zeiss lenses, proper German made quality. Limited lens selection, very expensive and not as readily available as other brands.
 
Well...................done the research and bought an F3 + 1.8 50mm Nikkor to see what all the fuss was about and, yep I can see what all the fuss is about!

Stunning is the only way to describe it!
 
Well...................done the research and bought an F3 + 1.8 50mm Nikkor to see what all the fuss was about and, yep I can see what all the fuss is about!

Stunning is the only way to describe it!

What is it about that particular camera that you really like, over others?
 
Being a canon fan I think it was the choice to use a larger lens mount that won it for Canon - they were wise enough to realise autofocus was the next big thing so didn't worry about their Manual focus lenses where as Nikon stuck with their mount. This allowed the Canon cameras to excel where the Nikon lagged behind for a very long time.

At the time Canon were criticised but it was the best thing they did?

This change of lens mount was what made me fall out with Canon, I was at the time running 3 F1ns for wedding/portrait/general stuff (along with Bronica SQ-Ai). I had use via work of Hassleblads and Nikons but preferred Bronica and Canons. I still have one of my original F1ns and a few lenses although these days I prefer rangefinders but for SLRs I vote the Canon F1n as best SLR purely for sentimental reasons because I don't think really there was anything to choose in use between the F3 and F1n it was/is all down to subjective opinion.
 
It feels sublime!

Everything falls to hand - the viewfinder is superb, the film advance is so silky smooth.

It is just like the article I linked to - it's a simple camera designed for professional use with no frills; the spec sheet doesn't look great but every little bit of the camera 'adds up' to make more than the sum of it's parts.

Using it feels 'special' - I know that sounds daft!

I'm strictly amateur but to appreciate the F3 I think you have to put yourself in the shoes of an 80's PJ and then it makes complete sense.

I do feel like selling other cameras I have and just keeping this.
 
I don't think really there was anything to choose in use between the F3 and F1n
...or, for that matter, any of the other well made cameras of the time. Even within those two brands, Nikon's FM and Canon's FT series were strong competition for their more expensive stablemates. I've used all four types and as you wrote...
it was/is all down to subjective opinion.
This is true.
 
Last edited:
As has been said above, if you were around in the day I think your vote will go to the camera that never let you down when used hard in the real world.

In my case, this was a Canon A1 and gig photography in the early 1990s. Some other gig photographers had already switched to autofocus cameras, but my eyesight was perfectly fine with manual focus in low light conditions in those days, so why switch? Tweak the exposure compensation (yes, it had that), put it in shutter priority at 1/125 second and leave the rest to the camera, using the fastest fine-grained colour print film of the day (Kodak Ektar 1000) and, with a Mitakon 80-200 f/4.5 zoom lens (yes, really!), it would give me results like this (scanned from a print as my film scanner seems to hate that old Ektar 1000 film!). Click on the image to view full size, see the date, venue and artist details, etc.



I never want to be parted from that camera. It's now due a service as the winding mechanism is getting a bit stiffer than it should be and there's just the occasional hint of 'Canon cough'. That will be it's second service in 40 years, several of those spent standing unused, so I don't think I can complain!
 
As has been said above, if you were around in the day I think your vote will go to the camera that never let you down when used hard in the real world. /QUOTE]

That's odd/weird, I had an A1 before my F1ns and I moved it on because of the electronics I was constantly getting EEEEE error messages in the viewfinder that required switching off and back on again to resolve so my experience was that it wasn't reliable. I do accept though I was putting it through hell and it was just one copy so not suggesting they were all like that.
 
The only time I've had the EEEE error message in the viewfinder was when I've used the aperture preview mechanism incorrectly. Using the double exposure switch and winding on would clear it (this scenario is covered in the manual). However, you could have had a defective one, but fortunately the one I bought has been a 'good un'; 10 years on and it was still grabbing photos like that.
 
Last edited:
The only time I've had the EEEE error message in the viewfinder was when I've used the aperture preview mechanism incorrectly. Using the double exposure switch and winding on would clear it (this scenario is covered in the manual). However, you could have had a defective one, but fortunately the one I bought has been a 'good un'.
Accepted but as we've said it's all down to our personal experiences and mine with the A1 wasn't the best. I'm sure it was something of a glitch with my particular unit but back in the 80's it wasn't as easy to get information/advice without internet forums. Happy we have this forum now to "investigate" before deciding. BTW I never had any issues with the work provided FMs or F3s just didn't gel with them even back then.
 
Accepted but as we've said it's all down to our personal experiences and mine with the A1 wasn't the best. I'm sure it was something of a glitch with my particular unit but back in the 80's it wasn't as easy to get information/advice without internet forums. Happy we have this forum now to "investigate" before deciding. BTW I never had any issues with the work provided FMs or F3s just didn't gel with them even back then.

Agreed, the Internet is invaluable for stuff like that these days. "Have you tried doing so and so? You have? Well, it shouldn't be doing that then, so send it back!" etc. :)

Mind you, there was the local camera shop back in those days; that was something to be treasured and a wealth of info, once again, providing you got a good one!
 
As has been said above, if you were around in the day I think your vote will go to the camera that never let you down when used hard in the real world.

Well if we are now on the topic of cameras that never let you down...then I have to give a vote for my Pentax S3..bought in 1960 and can still use it today. The only problem I had was I stupidly forced the wind on to get a last frame and stripped the winding mechanism and had it repaired about 25 years ago, Up until about 20 years ago it was the only 35mm camera I had when I was left a Nikon EM by my father.
 
It feels sublime!

Everything falls to hand - the viewfinder is superb, the film advance is so silky smooth.

It is just like the article I linked to - it's a simple camera designed for professional use with no frills; the spec sheet doesn't look great but every little bit of the camera 'adds up' to make more than the sum of it's parts.

Using it feels 'special' - I know that sounds daft!

I'm strictly amateur but to appreciate the F3 I think you have to put yourself in the shoes of an 80's PJ and then it makes complete sense.

I do feel like selling other cameras I have and just keeping this.

Interesting. I tried a mate's F3 way back in our student days, and never got on with it. But he raved about it just like you have! Always subjective. I found it a bit big and heavy, so preferred the FM2, but then I love the F4, so... One thing I do like about the F3, is the viewfinder, as I wear specs. But I found the meter display severely lacking. Much prefer the FM2's system. In fact; put a HP viewfinder on an FM2, and you've got the perfect, perfect manual film SLR. I have both the F4 and F5, and the latter is superior in just about every way, and by a long way in some areas, but I just prefer the F4. I suppose it's the same as you loving your F3. Enjoy!
 
As has been said above, if you were around in the day I think your vote will go to the camera that never let you down when used hard in the real world.

In my case, this was a Canon A1 and gig photography in the early 1990s. Some other gig photographers had already switched to autofocus cameras, but my eyesight was perfectly fine with manual focus in low light conditions in those days, so why switch? Tweak the exposure compensation (yes, it had that), put it in shutter priority at 1/125 second and leave the rest to the camera, using the fastest fine-grained colour print film of the day (Kodak Ektar 1000) and, with a Mitakon 80-200 f/4.5 zoom lens (yes, really!), it would give me results like this (scanned from a print as my film scanner seems to hate that old Ektar 1000 film!). Click on the image to view full size, see the date, venue and artist details, etc.



I never want to be parted from that camera. It's now due a service as the winding mechanism is getting a bit stiffer than it should be and there's just the occasional hint of 'Canon cough'. That will be it's second service in 40 years, several of those spent standing unused, so I don't think I can complain!

I considered an A1 back when I was starting out. I liked that it was small, felt well made, and was packed with features. I later ended up with an AE-1, which I really didn't get on with, although it was a very good camera. The A1 felt like such a nicely designed camera. But then I went Nikon and that was that. I'd like an A1 in my collection, though...
 
Interesting. I tried a mate's F3 way back in our student days, and never got on with it. But he raved about it just like you have! Always subjective. I found it a bit big and heavy, so preferred the FM2, but then I love the F4, so... One thing I do like about the F3, is the viewfinder, as I wear specs. But I found the meter display severely lacking. Much prefer the FM2's system. In fact; put a HP viewfinder on an FM2, and you've got the perfect, perfect manual film SLR. I have both the F4 and F5, and the latter is superior in just about every way, and by a long way in some areas, but I just prefer the F4. I suppose it's the same as you loving your F3. Enjoy!

...........I can instantly see why you don't gel with the F3!

It was designed as a Pro PJ camera to stay in aperture priority mode and not to be used in manual unless completely necessary. It pretty much relied on battery power and these things at the time were unheard of in the pro PJ market, hence the F2 sold in larger numbers than the F3 when it was released.

Eventually the PJ's decided that the heavily centre weighted metering and the battery power was reliable - this then allowed them to shoot much faster with good results than they had ever done before.

It is also why the meter reading is quite small (Unnecessary for aperture priority). No 'hot shoe' - all the pro's were using the Metz Mecablitz style guns and a dedicated adaptor for the F3 was available so the hotshoe with a flash on just unbalanced the camera whilst hand holding for long periods of time.

If you want to shoot in manual mode the F3 won't suit IMO - you can use it but isn't what the camera was designed to do.

My father was a Nikon fan - had an F2, FM & FE2; TBH although they are smaller & lighter (Not the F2!), well built, the F3 is at another level build quality wise IMHO; it really does feel so good to me.

It's a bit like the cars I own; the GT40 rep I have has a big lumpy V8, runs on carbs, coughs & farts till it's warm then just farts! I't's road manners are poor and everything about it is inferior to the Porsche ............but taking the GT40 out is an event and puts a smile on my face - the Porsche just gets me from A to B quickly and superbly; it's better in every way but not as much fun.

...........so everybody is correct; it is subjective and the most important part of the camera is the person stood behind it.
 
...........I can instantly see why you don't gel with the F3!

It was designed as a Pro PJ camera to stay in aperture priority mode and not to be used in manual unless completely necessary. It pretty much relied on battery power and these things at the time were unheard of in the pro PJ market, hence the F2 sold in larger numbers than the F3 when it was released.

Eventually the PJ's decided that the heavily centre weighted metering and the battery power was reliable - this then allowed them to shoot much faster with good results than they had ever done before.

It is also why the meter reading is quite small (Unnecessary for aperture priority). No 'hot shoe' - all the pro's were using the Metz Mecablitz style guns and a dedicated adaptor for the F3 was available so the hotshoe with a flash on just unbalanced the camera whilst hand holding for long periods of time.

If you want to shoot in manual mode the F3 won't suit IMO - you can use it but isn't what the camera was designed to do.

My father was a Nikon fan - had an F2, FM & FE2; TBH although they are smaller & lighter (Not the F2!), well built, the F3 is at another level build quality wise IMHO; it really does feel so good to me.

It's a bit like the cars I own; the GT40 rep I have has a big lumpy V8, runs on carbs, coughs & farts till it's warm then just farts! I't's road manners are poor and everything about it is inferior to the Porsche ............but taking the GT40 out is an event and puts a smile on my face - the Porsche just gets me from A to B quickly and superbly; it's better in every way but not as much fun.

...........so everybody is correct; it is subjective and the most important part of the camera is the person stood behind it.

I was a photojournalist in the 80s and 90s. And I hung out with newspaper photographers all the time so I knew what gear they were using. (Even that one, weird Canon guy in every crowd. :)) I used an F3 with an MD4 every day for 5 or 6 years. Used an F2 before that. I don't know what any of that stuff in the last post means. A Mecablitz? I used one in high school for a little bit. Mine was actually a Honeywell.
 
Snip:
I was a photojournalist in the 80s and 90s. And I hung out with newspaper photographers all the time so I knew what gear they were using. (Even that one, weird Canon guy in every crowd. :))
And by the late 90s, early 00s, with the advent of the EOS 1 series, it seems it had become that one, weird Nikon guy in every crowd! :)
 
...........I can instantly see why you don't gel with the F3!

Because it doesn't offer what I want/need from a camera. The relatively low flash sync speed is one major issue, as is the comparatively poor viewfinder display. As for the build quality; yes, it's heavier than say the FE/FM range, but not, imo, significantly 'better'.


It was designed as a Pro PJ camera to stay in aperture priority mode and not to be used in manual unless completely necessary


If you want to shoot in manual mode the F3 won't suit IMO - you can use it but isn't what the camera was designed to do.


Really? This sounds like an excuse to cover up a weakness, rather than an actual reason. And I don't know many pros who shoot mainly in AP.


No 'hot shoe' - all the pro's were using the Metz Mecablitz style guns and a dedicated adaptor for the F3 was available so the hotshoe with a flash on just unbalanced the camera whilst hand holding for long periods of time.

Have you ever used a Metz hammerhead for any period of time? Horrible things; how do you manually focus, press the shutter release AND hold the hammerhead grip at the same time? Ate batteries at an alarming rate, could easily kill you if there was an electrical fault (I'd never have trusted one in the rain), weighed a tonne. They were very powerful, that's about it. No pro I've ever known, who's had experience with them, liked them. Why the Vivitar 283 and 285 flashguns became so popular. Far easier to use. Yes, you could use an adapter to get TTL flash with the F3, but again, that low sync speed hampered things somewhat.

IMO, the F3 was a deeply flawed camera, the F4 addressed many of those flaws, and the interim FA was a much nicer camera to use, all round. I can see why people like the F3; I will one day have one in my collection, for sure. But I think the cult following they enjoy is just that; fans tend to overlook the flaws and only see the positive aspects. But, to each their own.
 
Because it doesn't offer what I want/need from a camera. The relatively low flash sync speed is one major issue, as is the comparatively poor viewfinder display. As for the build quality; yes, it's heavier than say the FE/FM range, but not, imo, significantly 'better'.








Really? This sounds like an excuse to cover up a weakness, rather than an actual reason. And I don't know many pros who shoot mainly in AP.




Have you ever used a Metz hammerhead for any period of time? Horrible things; how do you manually focus, press the shutter release AND hold the hammerhead grip at the same time? Ate batteries at an alarming rate, could easily kill you if there was an electrical fault (I'd never have trusted one in the rain), weighed a tonne. They were very powerful, that's about it. No pro I've ever known, who's had experience with them, liked them. Why the Vivitar 283 and 285 flashguns became so popular. Far easier to use. Yes, you could use an adapter to get TTL flash with the F3, but again, that low sync speed hampered things somewhat.

IMO, the F3 was a deeply flawed camera, the F4 addressed many of those flaws, and the interim FA was a much nicer camera to use, all round. I can see why people like the F3; I will one day have one in my collection, for sure. But I think the cult following they enjoy is just that; fans tend to overlook the flaws and only see the positive aspects. But, to each their own.

Fortunately we are not trying to predict the future but have the evidence from the past.
PJ"s used their cameras as tools and the overwhelming majority chose the F3; I'm sure they didn't buy a deeply flawed camera because they were fan boys?
Interestingly the F3 stayed in production for the life of the F4 - what most consider was Nikon's most flawed single digit camera and saw the exodus to the far superior Canon camera. The D series Nikkors for the F4 were crap build compared to the AlS lenses.

The F3 isn't for everyone but for aperture priority shooting it's brilliant and beautiful to use.

Even if it is a 'fan boy' affair - why has a camera gained this status? There has to be a reason?
 
PJ"s used their cameras as tools and the overwhelming majority chose the F3;
Have you got any proof of that? I met quite a few people in that field over the years and their gear was as mixed as you might expect. The older blokes tended to favour prewar Leica and Rolleiflex because they'd aquired them cheap in post-war Germany. For the same reason there were quite a few hanging on to old Contaxes and I knew one bloke who had a pair of immaculate Super Ikontas. Pentax was popular with many of the younger chaps because they were relatively cheap and relatively reliable. There were some star photo journalists making big bucks but most were simply making a living doing what they wanted to.

The press guys did go in for Nikon if they could afford it, because there was a thriving hire market serving that industry. Ordinary freelancers just used what they could afford and I knew more than one who made a living with Prakticas bought second hand and used until they jammed.
 
Snip:
And by the late 90s, early 00s, with the advent of the EOS 1 series, it seems it had become that one, weird Nikon guy in every crowd! :)
Touche'. Canon did, indeed, get the last laugh.

Last Nikon I bought was an Nxxxx. Don't remember exactly. What a piece of poop. And it replaced an FM2. And to make matters worse, I traded in what I believe to be the best 35mm lens ever made - a Nikkor 180 2.8 EDIF - for a first-gen 80-200 2.8 autofocus. The full-poop kit. Left the business not long after that.

(And whatever else I thought about those weird Canon guys, they could all shoot. Every one of them.)
 
PJ"s used their cameras as tools and the overwhelming majority chose the F3; I'm sure they didn't buy a deeply flawed camera because they were fan boys?

The 'overwhelming majority'? Really? As above; any proof of this? Pro photographers used a wide variety of makes and models, as Andrew Flannigan points out. There were a lot of 'staffers' who were supplied with equipment; many of these would have been given Nikons to use, many would have been F3s. But there were a lot of freelancers who used different kit. But to claim that 'the overwhelming majority chose the F3' is disingenuous at best, without actual figures.

the F4 - what most consider was Nikon's most flawed single digit camera and saw the exodus to the far superior Canon camera



Again; what evidence do you have for such a claim? Utter nonsense. As for the 'far superior Canon camera'; I assume you mean the EOS 1? Which undoubtedly offered significantly better AF; I know, I've tried one. The F4 had a better light metering and flash system. And, ime, was tougher, although the EOS was a solid camera. The F4 was a far more flexible and capable all round photographic tool. Better viewfinder if you wear specs, like I do. 'Far more superior'; lol!

The D series Nikkors for the F4 were crap build compared to the AlS lenses.

I understand you like the F3. That's fine. I'm not telling you not to. But making stuff up to support your argument is just daft. Some of the early AF lenses were a bit plasticky; most early AF lenses were, Canon and Minolta produced some very flimsy lenses. AF required the use of much lighter materials. But the 'D' series AF lenses were refinements of earlier models, and often significant improvements. I have several, as well as several AI/S, and newer G series lenses, and the build quality is right up there. The only one I have that feels a bit 'cheap' is the 50mm f1.8D, but that was a cheap lens anyway. It's no worse than the newer G series lens, and better optically than the f1.4G. So, y'know. This is a thread about the 'best' film SLR. Which can never truly be decided, cos it always comes down to subjective opinion.
 
Last edited:
The 'overwhelming majority'? Really? As above; any proof of this? Pro photographers used a wide variety of makes and models, as Andrew Flannigan points out. There were a lot of 'staffers' who were supplied with equipment; many of these would have been given Nikons to use, many would have been F3s. But there were a lot of freelancers who used different kit. But to claim that 'the overwhelming majority chose the F3' is disingenuous at best, without actual figures.





Again; what evidence do you have for such a claim? Utter nonsense. As for the 'far superior Canon camera'; I assume you mean the EOS 1? Which undoubtedly offered significantly better AF; I know, I've tried one. The F4 had a better light metering and flash system. And, ime, was tougher, although the EOS was a solid camera. The F4 was a far more flexible and capable all round photographic tool. Better viewfinder if you wear specs, like I do. 'Far more superior'; lol!



I understand you like the F3. That's fine. I'm not telling you not to. But making stuff up to support your argument is just daft. Some of the early AF lenses were a bit plasticky; most early AF lenses were, Canon and Minolta produced some very flimsy lenses. AF required the use of much lighter materials. But the 'D' series AF lenses were refinements of earlier models, and often significant improvements. I have several, as well as several AI/S, and newer G series lenses, and the build quality is right up there. The only one I have that feels a bit 'cheap' is the 50mm f1.8D, but that was a cheap lens anyway. It's no worse than the newer G series lens, and better optically than the f1.4G. So, y'know. This is a thread about the 'best' film SLR. Which can never truly be decided, cos it always comes down to subjective opinion.


A couple of interesting quotes I've not made up:



1988. Seoul. Anticipation is in the air. The most-hyped 100-meter race in Olympic history is about to start. From the starting line to the first corner of the track, most of the photographers check the settings on their tried and true F3s, prefocus their 300mm f/2.8 Nikkors on chosen spots to record history.
Few photographers are cradling Canon's latest (1981) F-1, the only real challenger to Nikon in the pro market. It's not been much of a fight, though. 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.

1992. Barcelona. Change is in the air. For three decades, challengers had risen and been vanquished. But now, for the first time, the adversary would gain the advantage. And Nikon F-series cameras would never be the same. From now on, instead of setting the pace, Nikon would be chasing, always keeping an eye on and trying to keep up with the new market leader. But how did it come to this?

By the time Barcelona rolls around, a major shift in pro SLRs is already under way. Canon had finally gotten its professional-targeted EOS-1 on the market in 1989. At first, it seemed that it would pose little threat to the F4, particularly from Nikon's standpoint.

And it would be the speed of the EOS-1, both in AF and operation that would swing the struggle for SLR sports supremacy in Canon's favor.

By the time the 1992 Summer Olympics arrive, the handwriting is on the wall. F4 sales have already been slowing. By the end of the Games the coronation of the Canon EOS-1 is complete. The faster and quieter AF permitted by its Ultrasonic Motor-equipped 300/2.8 (then the bread and butter lens of the sports photographer) and button + scrolling dial user interface are just more efficient than the F4, with its traditional physical-control-for-each-function layout. And Canon just piles it on with the updated EOS-1n in 1994. Boosting the AF sensor count from 1 to 5 that are user-selectable, adding an eye-piece shutter and MLU via Custom Function (the F4 already had both), and a beefed-up shutter mechanism, the EOS-1n adds to the strengths and addresses most of the deficiencies of the EOS-1 versus the F4. By the next Olympiad, Canons will outnumber Nikons in the galleries of photographers.
 
Last edited:
A couple of interesting quotes I've not made up:

Cutting and pasting some bumph still doesn't really back up your argument. Sure, we KNOW that the F3 was a popular camera, used by many professional photographers. We know they outsold the Canon F1. But photographers were, as has already been stated, using a plethora of other equipment. Back in the early 90s, I photographed a lot of political demonstrations, and you'd see people using Leicas, Pentaxes, Olympus, Minolta, even Prakticas and one guy had a massive Pentax 67. There were Rollieflexes, various other medium format cameras, including Mamiya 7s. All sorts. It wasn't just Nikons. And of the Nikons, it was a lot more than just F3/F4s. Loads of Canon EOS 1s and 5s as well of course. Point is, there was a lot more diversity than the near-ubiquitous CaNikon kit you see now.

Nobody is arguing that the EOS-1 stole the show in sports photography. There is more to photo journalism than sports though. The EOS 1 was good, no question. But better than the F4? That's entirely subjective. Different, certainly. And the F5 came along and was more than a match for the EOS 1n. At the end of the day, these are all just tools. With film, you can take as good a photo on a Nikon EM, as on an F3, F4 or F5; it's down to the lens, not the camera. Your posts kind of illustrate my point that the F3 has a cultish following; it was popular, you saw a lot of them being used by pros, so that's the camera to 'have'. Bit like how car brands enjoy increased popularity following wins in motorsport. Nikon did well off the F3. But that doesn't make it the 'best'.
 
Just bought an EOS1n on Ebay, for what seemed like a bargain price! :ROFLMAO: With the PDB-E1 and Command Data Back E1. Just to see what the EOS thing is all about.

Now all I need is a lens...
 
Last edited:
Cutting and pasting some bumph still doesn't really back up your argument. Sure, we KNOW that the F3 was a popular camera, used by many professional photographers. We know they outsold the Canon F1. But photographers were, as has already been stated, using a plethora of other equipment. Back in the early 90s, I photographed a lot of political demonstrations, and you'd see people using Leicas, Pentaxes, Olympus, Minolta, even Prakticas and one guy had a massive Pentax 67. There were Rollieflexes, various other medium format cameras, including Mamiya 7s. All sorts. It wasn't just Nikons. And of the Nikons, it was a lot more than just F3/F4s. Loads of Canon EOS 1s and 5s as well of course. Point is, there was a lot more diversity than the near-ubiquitous CaNikon kit you see now.


Like the quotes said - Nikon 'ruled the roost' with the F series camera until the F4; outselling others by 75%! Yes. pro's used anything they wanted but you are wrong; there wasn't the domination from Canon/Nikon - it was all mainly Nikon:

"For pros, it comes down to whether you get the shot or not, and evidently the F3 got enough shots to remain by far the best-selling professional camera of the 1980s. "



Nobody is arguing that the EOS-1 stole the show in sports photography. There is more to photo journalism than sports though. The EOS 1 was good, no question. But better than the F4? That's entirely subjective. Different, certainly. And the F5 came along and was more than a match for the EOS 1n. At the end of the day, these are all just tools. With film, you can take as good a photo on a Nikon EM, as on an F3, F4 or F5; it's down to the lens, not the camera. Your posts kind of illustrate my point that the F3 has a cultish following; it was popular, you saw a lot of them being used by pros, so that's the camera to 'have'. Bit like how car brands enjoy increased popularity following wins in motorsport. Nikon did well off the F3. But that doesn't make it the 'best'.




The F4 was the camera that Nikon 'dropped the ball with' and the competition was superior; hence why the Pro's chose the Canon system; this in itself stops the F4 from being the Icon the F3 is.

Using the F3 makes it special partly because of it's history - using an F4 is using something that most felt was inferior to another system - that would stop the experience being 'special'.

You may love your F4 but an Icon? Nope the Canon was the better camera proved by better sales.
 
The F4 was the camera that Nikon 'dropped the ball with' and the competition was superior

Oh please. We've gone over that. They are comparable, yet still different. The F4, as I've already stated, was a far more flexible photographic tool. Interchangeable viewfinders, adaptability to scientific equipment, used with 250 exposure backs, etc etc etc. Suitable for a far wider range of applications. 'Dropped the ball' my arse. What nonsense.


Using the F3 makes it special partly because of it's history - using an F4 is using something that most felt was inferior to another system - that would stop the experience being 'special'.

Utter twaddle. 'Special' lol! Really.

And here's an interesting quote I haven't made up:

"Interestingly, in the areas of build and durability (Nikon's traditional strengths), it was not until the third-generation EOS-1v of 2000 that Canon finally met the F4's standard. "

;-)

Anyway; I'm shortly going to own both (plus the F5 of course). So I'll be able to do my own proper objective comparisons, rather than relying on guff on the internet...
 
Last edited:
Oh please. We've gone over that. They are comparable, yet still different. The F4, as I've already stated, was a far more flexible photographic tool. Interchangeable viewfinders, adaptability to scientific equipment, used with 250 exposure backs, etc etc etc. Suitable for a far wider range of applications. 'Dropped the ball' my arse. What nonsense.




Utter twaddle. 'Special' lol! Really.

Anyway; I'm shortly going to own both (plus the F5 of course). So I'll be able to do my own proper objective comparisons, rather than relying on guff on the internet...


You are arguing in the face of history and sales figures - like we have both said the Pro's use the camera as a tool and the Pro's bought more Canon than Nikon F4 - unlike the F3:

Lets play spot all the other cameras the Pro's use apart from the Nikon F3 in the 80's:

full



As I said - a more modern car is far better than a car from the 60's - doesn't make it more enjoyable to use though.
 
You are arguing in the face of history and sales figures

I'm not! This is a thread about the 'best' film SLR. Not about highest sales figures! How many Nikon EMs sold? Pentax K1000s? Zenits? Prakticas???

Lets play spot all the other cameras the Pro's use apart from the Nikon F3 in the 80's:

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?).

Just sayin this was my preference and I had use of the Nikon F3 but chose to own this (or to be precise 3 of them).

Topsy; what is it about the F1 that you prefer over the F3?
 
I'm not! This is a thread about the 'best' film SLR. Not about highest sales figures! How many Nikon EMs sold? Pentax K1000s? Zenits? Prakticas???



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?).



Topsy; what is it about the F1 that you prefer over the F3?

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.

..........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.

You can guarantee the best film camera wasn't the one that was outsold by the competition at the time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top