Are classic SLR ergonomics comparable to newer bodies?

[Cacatfish]

Hi all, I am looking at a few classic SLR bodies and trying to figure out how they might compare to modern cameras in ease of use. My only experience with owning film cameras has been a Nikon f100 and an n80. Both have a really modern feel with thick grip and dials rather than knobs. The f100 crapped out on me with electrical clutches so I'm looking to pick up a second body. I borrowed a Pentax p3 recently which I've enjoyed shooting but it doesn't feel so user friendly as the n80 or maybe I'm just not used to the older layout. I'm specifically looking at some of the former pro level models. Nikon f3, f4 or canon f-1. I don't mind going with two different systems as I haven't built up a huge lens selection and I prefer to carry two loaded bodies rather than one body with multiple lenses. I realize that ergonomics are personal but how would those stack up? Specifically with adjusting exposure manually without removing ones eye from the finder. Is the shutter speed knob pretty intuitive on those with a single finger? I like aperture on the lens so that's not an issue. Some of the top plate knobs look a little tough to access blindly but I've not used any of those models just based on photos. Thanks for any insights!

 

[Dan Fromm]

Opinions differ. I thought that the Nikkormat, which has the shutter speed ring concentric with the lens, was ideal. Olympus OM series SLRs have a similar arrangement.

The traditional shutter speed dial at the right end of the top cover is much slower working.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Welcome to APUG.

Although there's no substitute for actually handling these cameras, from what you've said I think it would take some getting used to. For example, on the F3 you'll have to move your face away a bit to wind the film (unless using a motor drive). In the F3's and F4's viewfinder you'll be able to see the selected aperture and shutter speed, but I don't think you can rotate the knob with a single finger - at least not as effortlessly as with a dial. I prefer the knobs and don't mind using two fingers on the knob to select a shutter speed.

On the F3, the exposure compensation selection is a two-finger (if not two hand) affair - I can't imagine doing it while looking through the viewfinder. On the F4 it's easier, but there's still a release to disengage.

So, I think you may find it slower and more deliberate. Some people such as myself prefer that (I can adjust everything on my D700 with one finger while looking through the viewfinder, but that has no great appeal to me).

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

The F4 is the camera on the cusp of the modern type and the older type, with actual dials with numbers on them for all the adjustments. I cannot recommend the F4 enough if the loss of current AF and VR and G/E lens compatibility is acceptable.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think most of the classic Japaneses SLRs have the same layout, as noted by Dan the Olympus and Nikkormate are a little different. I like the Pentax Spotmatics and the updated K bodies, the MX is really easy to use. The MX was the Pentax pro line camera until the LX, anther great pro level body. The Konica T and T3s have full information viewfinders, the Nikon F, depends on the viewfinder, Minolta 202 and Canon Ftbs are wll built great lens selection, the Miranda EE have spot and average metering. I have little experience with German SLRs. I owned F, F2 and F3P, of the lot I liked the F2 the best, very well built. I also owned a Canon T90 for a year or so, only sold it to make room for a Minolta 9, great build, easy to shoot with.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The F4 will autofocus with regular AF and AF-S lenses. Also, you can use a G lens on the F4 as long as you're in shutter-priority or one of the programmed modes (P, Ph). Obviously, aperture-priority or manual mode on the F4 won't work with a G lens.

I have a 60mm/2.8G AF-S Micro-Nikkor that I've used on my F4s; it focuses just as fast as on the D700.

 

[jimjm]

The F4 is the ultimate as far as a traditional control layout, before buttons and LCDs became the norm. The viewfinder display is excellent, so (for me) it was very intuitive to adjust the shutter/aperture/exposure compensation in auto or manual exposure. Coming from real MF bodies like the F and F2, it was easy to use and a lot more capable. It's a very solid and adaptable body, especially if you use a mix of auto and manual-focus lenses. However, I found the autofocus of the F100 to be better, and the body was a lot lighter than the F4, so I sold the F4 thinking "why carry such a heavy camera just for 35mm?".

In hindsight, the F4 is one of the only cameras I would consider buying again because I was dumb enough to sell the one I had.

 

[winger]

The only Nikon I've used was an N65, so I'm not really qualified to comment. But I have a Pentax PZ1p and an (old, pre-K1000) H1a. I can use both without moving my eye much away from the camera (other than winding the H1a), but I think that's a Pentax thing. The PZ1p is bulkier and fits my hand well, but the H1a is very easy to use despite not being as molded to my hand. If I were to hold either for 3 or 4 hours, the H1a would be less likely to make my hand cramp. To a great extent, I think everyone needs to try the camera they want to see if it's comfortable for them. Being a woman, my hands are smaller. What I'm used to is probably different, too. (I also used to make fun of "black plastic blob" cameras until I bought the PZ1p)

 

[Cacatfish]

Wow, thanks for all the great replies! I guess Im trying to find that compromise between convenience in control layout and that visceral feel of something more simple and mechanical. Maybe speed isn't such an issue and I could adjust to a more deliberate approach. Sounds like others do with success.
The F4 has caught my eye as one that could bridge both worlds but nit sure if the weight would get me. I love the aesthetics the design (well that goes for all three really).
A long time Nikon user who I talk with quite a bit has raved about the Canon F-1 in spite of his Nikon loyalty, so I figured it must be something special.
Anyone know of someplace in the greater Bay Area that has a selection of old gear like this one could check out?

 

[Les Sarile]

Anyone know of someplace in the greater Bay Area that has a selection of old gear like this one could check out?

Never been to this one yet but they have some interesting stuff -> Dead Link Removed

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

The Nikon F100 is the best 35mm film slr camera built by Nikon or anyone else. Buy another F100 and save yourself time and money.

 

[Leigh B]

The word 'ergonomics' was first defined in 1950.

It's unlikely to have been considered during design of early SLRs.

- Leigh

 

[Cacatfish]

Never been to this one yet but they have some interesting stuff -> Dead Link Removed

Whoa I need to get down there!

Sirius Glass: that might be the most practical choice. Im a little gun shy of the f100 because of my tempermentel one, but it seems to be an anomaly.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I bought a used F100 from KEH about 9 years ago and it is still running well.

 

[Alan Gales]

My favorite was the Contax 139. It felt like it was made for me. I've never held a Nikon F100 but I have owned the Nikon D200 and D300. I still preferred the old Contax for ergonomics. Everyone is different.

 

[blockend]

From the late 1970s cameras began to be controlled from multi-function body dials. Prior to that functions were exclusive to each dial. If you're used to DSLRs, the later the film camera, the more the controls will resemble what you're familiar with. Canon began the move away from dedicated analogue functions with the A-1, continued the trend with the T90, and the modern era was heralded with the EOS range of electronically controlled lenses.

If you're a habitual tweaker, someone who is likely to adjust every control for each shot, later models had full viewfinder readouts and allowed operation without leaving the eyepiece, but this was an evolution and didn't arrive overnight. Cameras moved from meter-less, to metering on the body, then metering through the viewfinder, then metering and analogue aperture and shutter speed indication, to LED viewfinder readouts and finally the LCD indicators we have today. Each of them work fine once you've familiarised yourself with exactly where the dials are. Years ago there was an article by a female photographer (in the BJP?) bemoaning the end of the Pentax Spotmatic camera. She claimed to be so familiar with the dials on her Pentax that she knew their position by feel alone, and couldn't imagine getting used to anything else.

 

[cooltouch]

I've used a lot of different 35mm cameras over the years. Obviously, cameras with traditional layouts look and feel substantially different from modern ones. Your N80 is actually a good middle-of-the-road camera. It still has a dial, albeit for the selection of the operating mode, but it has wheels, so it is easy to use in manual mode once one becomes familiar with their placement and function. I have an N80 and it has become one of my favorite Nikons. I found an MB-16 battery pack for it, which gives the camera some extension and allows for the use of "AA" batteries, so one can fore-go the not-so-common CR123s. It isn't as robust as the F-series pro cameras, but if one takes reasonably good care of it, it should last a long time.

Since you already own a Nikon, it makes most sense for your second body to be a Nikon. That way they can share lenses. Assuming you don't have any G-series lenses, of course. There's nothing wrong with having another camera system (I own five different 35mm systems at present), but you'll wind up with some inevitable duplication.

I've used -- and own -- Nikons from the F to the F4, and several Nikkormats. Personally, I've never cared for having the shutter speed dial concentric to the lens mount, so I've never been a big fan of the Nikkormat. As for ergonomics of the F-series, with each subsequent model, ergonomics got better. The F is, for me, somewhat awkward to use. The F2 is simply great -- a perfect example of a "traditional" camera. While the F's corners are sharp and angular, the F2's are softened and rounded. It feels really good in the hand. Nikon took things a step further with the F3. Its ergos are even nicer. Plus, the camera is substantially lighter than the F2, although it's just as robust. The F4 takes things to a much higher level. It has retained all the knobs and levers and switches one would expect to find on a pro-level camera, but with the MB-21 battery pack, it has become a big camera with its high-speed integral motor drive. However, its ergonomics are so good that the added bulk and weight is not a burden. If anything, it feels very solid in ones hand. So, if you want to go with an F-series as your second (or first?) camera, which to use? Well, I'd say whichever you like the feel and layout the best with. They're all great, durable cameras.

You mentioned the Canon F-1. My personal favorite is the original F-1 (second version though), but the New F-1 is also one great camera. It has a better motor drive option and offers some exposure automation that the original does not (shutter and aperture priority AE depending on options). Both are very traditional cameras in terms of control layout and overall feel. If you wanted to open yourself up to a second system using cameras that are good in manual mode, these are two of the best.

 

[fstop]

I've owned pretty much everything offered in the 70s into the 80s by Nikon, Minolta ,Olympus and Canon.
The Nikon F-3 is hard to beat and doesn't need fiddly adjustments with aperture priority mode.You have to mistreat them pretty bad for them to stop working.
The Minolta XD-11 can be operated one finger and has multi modes.The only draw back is the top speed on its shutter is limited to 1/1000 even though its capable of faster speeds.
Canon F1n is the best camera ever offed by Canon.Its my favorite Canon although it still doesn't get on the same shelf with my Hasselblad,Leica R-5 and Minolta XKs.
OM4 is Olympus' best, easy to operate.OM4 Ti my fav.

All have great glass available to them from that era.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have fairly small hands, so to me, the early Pentaxes and the Nikon F-series cameras feel just right. By contrast, I can't stand the handling of modern DLSR's. Even my "Texas Leica" Fuji 6x9 handles better than those. Otherwise, I have no use for any kind of redundant bell's n' whistles, either
film or digi. The simpler the better, and preferably with no dependence upon batteries at all. Anything else is just distracting.

 

[flavio81]

Hi all, I am looking at a few classic SLR bodies and trying to figure out how they might compare to modern cameras in ease of use. My only experience with owning film cameras has been a Nikon f100 and an n80. Both have a really modern feel with thick grip and dials rather than knobs. The f100 crapped out on me with electrical clutches so I'm looking to pick up a second body. I borrowed a Pentax p3 recently which I've enjoyed shooting but it doesn't feel so user friendly as the n80 or maybe I'm just not used to the older layout. I'm specifically looking at some of the former pro level models. Nikon f3, f4 or canon f-1.

I had a Nikon F3 and it was very very ergonomic, sadly i did not like some aspects of it like the tiny "+/-" display. The Canon F-1 is easily one of the best built (better fit and finish) SLRs ever, the ergonomics are good but not outstanding. The Canon New F-1 is my personal favorite but the ergonomics are not the best, just acceptable. The Nikon F2 has better ergonomics.

Now, I've owned and used many many cameras and one of the most ergonomic cameras i've used is the Pentax Spotmatic, you should own one!

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I address ergonomics in terms of how well a camera fits into the hand (especially if it is heavy) and presents itself to the user, not necessarily the layout of dials.
My small paws found the Nikon F3 and MD4 motordrive a handful way back when I was younger (1986). A few years before that imposing behemoth came a romance with the fashionable (in the 1980s) OM system, beginning with the OM10 in 1977, and ending with the wunderkind OM4 and motor drive in 1985. A Nikon FA, F90X (the best of them) and FE2 wandered along in the intervening time post-1985 . There was a very, very big, very noticeable agreement between my hands and the next beast: a Canon T90. This sensuously curved creation was a beautiful experience to use, compared to all of the the sharp, boxy "classic" cameras that came before it.

Nowadays I have a battle on my digits (!) wrangling a very unergonomic Pentax 67, a not much better Hassie 503CXI and then the ergonomic, midget-friendly tour de force that is the vintage EOS 1N (remember the sensuously curved creation mentioned earlier?).

 

[wiltw]

It was the EOS revolution with AF lenses and all controls on the body which was the precursor of the current body design in digital cameras. Before the EOS came along, film SLRs were pretty traditional with shutter speed knobs on top of the camera for focal plane shutter cameras (except for the OM series and the Nikkormat and Topcon D-1).

 

[Les Sarile]

Like some others here, I too own and use many manual focus cameras in various brands. Given that there are only a handful of controls to adjust per shot - less in automatic exposure modes, I haven't personally encountered any that would be a challenge to get used to.

For instance the Olympus OM1 and Pentax MX could probably present the most difference in operation that it might be a challenge to use at the same time in alternating fashion.

However, I don't see any reason one couldn't get used to either with a little practice.

I once read a Herb Keppler column (Modern or Pop Photo) where his wife apparently poked herself in the eye with the film advance lever when using one of the Nikons (FM or FE) that require it to be out in order to meter. I've not encountered this myself.

 

[fstop]

Like some others here, I too own and use many manual focus cameras in various brands. Given that there are only a handful of controls to adjust per shot - less in automatic exposure modes, I haven't personally encountered any that would be a challenge to get used to.

For instance the Olympus OM1 and Pentax MX could probably present the most difference in operation that it might be a challenge to use at the same time in alternating fashion.

However, I don't see any reason one couldn't get used to either with a little practice.

I once read a Herb Keppler column (Modern or Pop Photo) where his wife apparently poked herself in the eye with the film advance lever when using one of the Nikons (FM or FE) that require it to be out in order to meter. I've not encountered this myself.

That's why I like the F-3, they got away from that nonsense with the film advance.

 

[cooltouch]

It was the EOS revolution with AF lenses and all controls on the body which was the precursor of the current body design in digital cameras. Before the EOS came along, film SLRs were pretty traditional with shutter speed knobs on top of the camera for focal plane shutter cameras (except for the OM series and the Nikkormat and Topcon D-1).

Actually, the revolution can be traced back even further than the EOS cameras. It was the Canon T90 that was the big game changer in SLR camera design. And as for "all controls on the body" with the exception of focus, you can look all the way back to a 1978 design -- the Canon A-1 -- that could make this claim. Namely, movement of aperture control to the body when the camera is in Aperture Priority AE.