Canon F-1 professional use

[benjiboy]

Arnold Newman, Jay Maisel, Bert Stern and Minor White used Canon F1's, are they famous enough for you ?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Probably thousands of photographers in news organizations and other media worldwide used the Canon F-1.

 

[LeftCoastKid]

Arnold Newman, Jay Maisel, Bert Stern and Minor White used Canon F1's, are they famous enough for you ?

Sorry benjiboy, on Jay Maisel: Jay used Leicas and Hasselblads early in his career, but subsequently switched to Nikon with the introduction of the F (he owned, by his own estimation, around 14 at one time). He subsequently "upgraded" to the F3s when the camera became available (there is a picture of Jay in "A Day in The Life of Canada," which shows him toting a pair of large camera bags - one over each shoulder - with a pair of F3/MD4s displayed prominently) and later to the F5s (they were so reliable, that he saw the need to only own two). The Nikon F2 was the model Jay never owned; he considered them too electronic (?!?!). Jay's long-term loyalty to the Nikon brand is well known; check out his blog on Dead Link Removed, to read about what he thinks of how a certain rival manufacturer's d*****l offerings stack up against Nikon's (lol).

 

[benjiboy]

Sorry benjiboy, on Jay Maisel: Jay used Leicas and Hasselblads early in his career, but subsequently switched to Nikon with the introduction of the F (he owned, by his own estimation, around 14 at one time). He subsequently "upgraded" to the F3s when the camera became available (there is a picture of Jay in "A Day in The Life of Canada," which shows him toting a pair of large camera bags - one over each shoulder - with a pair of F3/MD4s displayed prominently) and later to the F5s (they were so reliable, that he saw the need to only own two). The Nikon F2 was the model Jay never owned; he considered them too electronic (?!?!). Jay's long-term loyalty to the Nikon brand is well known; check out his blog on Dead Link Removed, to read about what he thinks of how a certain rival manufacturer's d*****l offerings stack up against Nikon's (lol).

According to the Canon Corporation's advertising in the magazines of the time he used the Canon F1.
It makes no sense, the F3 is far more electronic than the f2.

 

[LeftCoastKid]

According to the Canon Corporation's advertising in the magazines of the time he used the Canon F1.
It makes no sense, the F3 is far more electronic than the f2.

I stand by my information. I have followed Jay's career since the late 1970s (he's one of my heroes). See for instance: http://bermangraphics.com/press/jaymaisel.htm. Jay may have appeared in an ad for Canon cameras, but he has been a Nikon shooter for something in the order of six decades. Remember, sir, that photographers, like any other profession, will often not hesitate to shill for a few $.

 

[LeftCoastKid]

Re: Jay's transition to the F3 from the F: "Blame one Mr Marty Forschner! Marty allegedly refused to continue repairing/CLAing Jay's F's (parts availability?). Jay, ever the technophobe (something he has readily admitted in more than a few interviews), was forced to "upgrade" by virtue of necessity!

 

[chip j]

Yeah, f**k Marty Forscher--I wrote him a letter about shutter bounce in my F and he responded saying that's a common problem and they fix that problem on every F they get. Well, after 4 tries, he ruined the mint condition of my black F and the shutter bounce was worse than ever!!!! for $200 1990's dollars

 

[LeftCoastKid]

[QUOTE="benjiboy snip
It makes no sense, the F3 is far more electronic than the f2.[/QUOTE]
No argument re F3. Here, are Jay's own words re his choice of cameras and his comments re the F2. Like you, sir, the F2 vs F3 comment left me scratching my head. http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2319595&seqNum=2

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I'm sure Jay would be successful with any equipment that he felt comfortable with.

As for the F2 comment, maybe he just didn't like the metering head.

 

[trythis]

Back in the 1990's I was browsing a camera store (and having them check out my A-1) in Kansas City I noticed a shelf full of Canon F-1 cameras that were pretty beat up. They were the Kansas City Star photographers cameras that had been traded in for Autofocus gear. The owner told me they were either all sold or in really bad shape and heavy and I didnt want them, my camera was fine. I don't know why I remember that, but its something that rolls around in my memory every once in a while.

Anyway, I took from that encounter that the KC Star reporters used F-1s.

 

[Andrew K]

I used to work for Canon Australia in the 90's doing repairs, so I knew quite a few local ones.

Roger Gould was one that springs to mind - he used NF1's, and was one of the best tennis/golf photographers in the world in the 80's/90's.

NF1's were also used by the Sun Newspaper in Melbourne for a few years and took some classic pictures. I was lucky enough to buy (the paper's staff got first pick) quite a bit of gear when they were changing over to Nikon (not by choice, but because of a change of ownership - they were the only paper in over 50 papers around the world using Canon gear which meant visiting photographers couldn't borrow gear if something broke while on assignment).

The quite a bit turned out to be over 20 F1N bodies (most with motordrives) and over 60 lenses....

 

[GRHazelton]

I wonder what is his reference camera then.

I consider the old F-1 to be significantly better built and finished than the Nikon F2. However, i think the operation of the F2 is better to me (i can see the f/stop, aperture and metering in a very easy way with the F2, and I like how you can upgrade the meters. Also the F-1 meter is slow in low light).

As for lenses, 1971-1977 Canon FD lenses are probably superior optically to the Nikon lenses up to 1976 or so. This because at that point in time many Nikkors were using the same optical designs than in the early 60s. In 1977 Nikon updated many lens designs as part of the introduction of the AI line, and in this update they catched up with the (more modern) Canon FD designs.

The dark horse in optics here is Pentax, though.

On the other hand I find the Canon NEW F-1 superior to the F, F2 and F3. It is the best 35mm SLR i've used, although i've not tried a Pentax LX or a Minolta XK. Viewfinder on the New F-1 i consider as good as the acclaimed viewfinder of the Leicaflex SL, and light years beyond the overrated, glorified viewfinder of the Olympus OM-1.



The Canon EF also has a hybrid shutter; electronic from 30sec -> 1sec, mechanical from 1/2 to 1/1000 sec. I bet there are other cameras with hybrid shutters as well. I guess you can consider the Nikon F3 to have a "hybrid shutter"... if you like shooting mechanical only in 1/90 and B

On the other hand a Pentax Spotmatic isn't any special camera on paper, but sometimes I feel it has better ergonomics than any of the Canon and Nikon cameras listed above.

The Pentax LX, a full system contemporary with the Nikon F3, has a hybrid shutter. Titanium curtains, mechanical from 1/70 to 1/2000, electronic below 1/70 to many, many minutes.

 

[flavio81]

The Pentax LX, a full system contemporary with the Nikon F3, has a hybrid shutter. Titanium curtains, mechanical from 1/70 to 1/2000, electronic below 1/70 to many, many minutes.

I like Pentax products and the LX is amazing , it would be a superior camera if it had a perfect reliability record like the Nikon and Canon professional machines. Alas, it seems that for the first production years there were problems.

Edit: I thought you were user Ektagraphic, who mentioned a friend that considered the F1 inferior to his reference camera. I wonder what the reference camera is, and assumed it was the LX.

 

[benjiboy]

Eliott Erwitt had a big case with some F-1 bodies and many many FD lenses. He was endorsed by Canon back in the 70s and used the F-1 for "professional" assignments.

Peter Parker, better known as Spiderman, used a Canon New F-1, as well

I used to know a guy called Peter Parker strangely enough Flavio, he was the chief photographer at a large local eye hospital, but as far as I know he wasn't Spiderman

 

[flavio81]

I used to know a guy called Peter Parker strangely enough Flavio, he was the chief photographer at a large local eye hospital, but as far as I know he wasn't Spiderman

He would never tell you...

 

[removed-user-1]

The first photographer I ever assisted used a pair of Canon F1s as her main cameras. This was in the mid-1990s.

 

[miha]

I like Pentax products and the LX is amazing , it would be a superior camera if it had a perfect reliability record like the Nikon and Canon professional machines. Alas, it seems that for the first production years there were problems.

It would be really aprreciated should you present some hard, that is non-anecdotal evidence when claiming such things.

 

[flavio81]

It would be really aprreciated should you present some hard, that is non-anecdotal evidence when claiming such things.

No, there are not hard facts. But so far every discussion i've found regarding the LX mentions reliability issues. Don't get me wrong, i like Pentax cameras and I would love to get a LX!
But for a sample of what i'm referring to, you just go into the pentax fan forum and find the user reviews of the LX and you find things like:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/camerareviews/pentax-lx.html


1."Superb little cameras when they are working well. "
2."Mine has periodic sticky mirror syndrome, (...) managed to get it overhauled with new pads and a new control board because my meter was not automatically turning off."
3."In addition to this, the 3rd body I purchased at low cost (it had been abused) developed erratic manual shutter speeds"
4."but for info, avoid copies with "sticky shutter" problems "
5."There is one blemish on the record of this awesome camera: the sticky mirror. Probably every LX ever made will have (or has had) this problem. "
6."My experience with the LX was mixed. (...) Yet my unit's shutter & electronics didn't perform any better than the [Canon] A-series cameras, needless to mention the "others"."
7."Purchased it in 1982. Yet sadly when the odd critical malfunction of the shutter in (about 1999 or 2000?) led to handing it over to a claimed "Authorized Pentax Repair" shop... found out later, a very dishonest one...and the LX has function oddly ever since, yet the strength of the camera still out stripped the problems (partial sticky mirror). "

7 of 25 user reviews mention or hint at some sort of problem. That's 28% of the reviews. That's pretty high for a pro camera. Mind you, these reviews come from a forum of Pentax fans. They all love the camera.

Moving on to APUG:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

APUG user AOCo (which by the way is an abbreviation of Asahi Optical Co, the makers of the LX, so this guy is clearly pro-Pentax):
"I also had an LX, but ended up only keeping the spotmatics...
LX is a very good camera, but mine suffered reliability issues, that a CLA did not solve, hence I did not
want to use it that much. "

Roger Cole (pretty well known user here):
"I am considering sending my LX to Eric though. It seems too many frames have tilted horizontals compared to my other cameras and I'm really beginning to wonder if it's something in the fit of the finder."

My point is, i'm not inventing this out of nowhere, when you read comments about a pro camera like the Nikon F2 they almost never mention any failure (other than the meter resistor ring which wears down on the first versions of the Photomics), but with the LX there is often a mention of problems.

What would constitute "hard" evidence? Sworn oaths signed by the posters above? I mean, Pentax is not going to release an official statement saying "Yeah, you know, perhaps we rushed the design of certain parts within the LX to be able to release a pro camera just after Nikon released the F3".
The experiences of the owners are what count, i think.

Again, i am a Pentax fan myself as well, so no hidden agenda here. Meanwhile i'll keep using the Spotmatics.

 

[miha]

It's not about being a Pentax fan or not, nothing to to with evaluation of this particular camera. The fact is amateurs ("Pentax fans" if you please) are buying these cameras for cheap, some are ex press cameras, most are 30 years old and they expect them to be faultless?? Get them properly serviced first then evaluate. I'm using R Leicas, they are generally rubbish because they have been neglected and "new" owners, that is "Leica fans" who get into this obscure niche of reflex Leicas for little money (an R4 goes for penuts thease days) have no interest and no resources to get their new babies propely serviced and so the camera dies quickly.

A hard evidence would be a reputable service guy/gal with decades of experience in servicing Pentax cameras, not 7 (seven) users reporting a problem. #2 had resolved the problem by a proper service, #3 purchased an abused camera, #7 shutter broke down after 18 years of use.
I'm not convinced.

 

[benjiboy]

He would never tell you...

True my friend, but I just can't imagine him having ginger hair and glasses before the transformation to Spiderman

 

[benjiboy]

No, there are not hard facts. But so far every discussion i've found regarding the LX mentions reliability issues. Don't get me wrong, i like Pentax cameras and I would love to get a LX!
But for a sample of what i'm referring to, you just go into the pentax fan forum and find the user reviews of the LX and you find things like:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/camerareviews/pentax-lx.html


1."Superb little cameras when they are working well. "
2."Mine has periodic sticky mirror syndrome, (...) managed to get it overhauled with new pads and a new control board because my meter was not automatically turning off."
3."In addition to this, the 3rd body I purchased at low cost (it had been abused) developed erratic manual shutter speeds"
4."but for info, avoid copies with "sticky shutter" problems "
5."There is one blemish on the record of this awesome camera: the sticky mirror. Probably every LX ever made will have (or has had) this problem. "
6."My experience with the LX was mixed. (...) Yet my unit's shutter & electronics didn't perform any better than the [Canon] A-series cameras, needless to mention the "others"."
7."Purchased it in 1982. Yet sadly when the odd critical malfunction of the shutter in (about 1999 or 2000?) led to handing it over to a claimed "Authorized Pentax Repair" shop... found out later, a very dishonest one...and the LX has function oddly ever since, yet the strength of the camera still out stripped the problems (partial sticky mirror). "

7 of 25 user reviews mention or hint at some sort of problem. That's 28% of the reviews. That's pretty high for a pro camera. Mind you, these reviews come from a forum of Pentax fans. They all love the camera.

Moving on to APUG:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

APUG user AOCo (which by the way is an abbreviation of Asahi Optical Co, the makers of the LX, so this guy is clearly pro-Pentax):
"I also had an LX, but ended up only keeping the spotmatics...
LX is a very good camera, but mine suffered reliability issues, that a CLA did not solve, hence I did not
want to use it that much. "

Roger Cole (pretty well known user here):
"I am considering sending my LX to Eric though. It seems too many frames have tilted horizontals compared to my other cameras and I'm really beginning to wonder if it's something in the fit of the finder."

My point is, i'm not inventing this out of nowhere, when you read comments about a pro camera like the Nikon F2 they almost never mention any failure (other than the meter resistor ring which wears down on the first versions of the Photomics), but with the LX there is often a mention of problems.

What would constitute "hard" evidence? Sworn oaths signed by the posters above? I mean, Pentax is not going to release an official statement saying "Yeah, you know, perhaps we rushed the design of certain parts within the LX to be able to release a pro camera just after Nikon released the F3".
The experiences of the owners are what count, i think.

Again, i am a Pentax fan myself as well, so no hidden agenda here. Meanwhile i'll keep using the Spotmatics.

I know the Pentax LX was a very fine camera, but the professional camera market is a very small one and very conservative as well as competitive. At the time the LX came out Nikon with the F2 and F3 had the lion's share of the market and Canon was desperately trying to break in Nikon's strangle hold on the market and produce an even better product with the Canon F1, F1n and New F1 and for the huge investment they must have incurred in research and development from these cameras I seriously doubt because the pro. market was so small and they were so expensive at the time, they may have got a lot of prestige from them but I doubt they actually made much profit from them.
In those days I worked at a leading professional dealer whose customers were about 85% pro's and I never saw a Pentax LX because we didn't stock them because nobody ever asked for them, and our hire department only had Nikon and Canon lenses because they were the industry standards Pentax really never broke into the pro market to any significant degree.

 

[CMoore]

Sorry benjiboy, on Jay Maisel: Jay used Leicas and Hasselblads early in his career, but subsequently switched to Nikon with the introduction of the F (he owned, by his own estimation, around 14 at one time). He subsequently "upgraded" to the F3s when the camera became available (there is a picture of Jay in "A Day in The Life of Canada," which shows him toting a pair of large camera bags - one over each shoulder - with a pair of F3/MD4s displayed prominently) and later to the F5s (they were so reliable, that he saw the need to only own two). The Nikon F2 was the model Jay never owned; he considered them too electronic (?!?!). Jay's long-term loyalty to the Nikon brand is well known; check out his blog on Dead Link Removed, to read about what he thinks of how a certain rival manufacturer's d*****l offerings stack up against Nikon's (lol).

Jay has some Awesome frames...!!

 

[CMoore]

Sorry benjiboy, on Jay Maisel: Jay used Leicas and Hasselblads early in his career, but subsequently switched to Nikon with the introduction of the F (he owned, by his own estimation, around 14 at one time). He subsequently "upgraded" to the F3s when the camera became available (there is a picture of Jay in "A Day in The Life of Canada," which shows him toting a pair of large camera bags - one over each shoulder - with a pair of F3/MD4s displayed prominently) and later to the F5s (they were so reliable, that he saw the need to only own two). The Nikon F2 was the model Jay never owned; he considered them too electronic (?!?!). Jay's long-term loyalty to the Nikon brand is well known; check out his blog on Dead Link Removed, to read about what he thinks of how a certain rival manufacturer's d*****l offerings stack up against Nikon's (lol).

Jay has some Awesome frames...!!

 

[CMoore]

Sorry benjiboy, on Jay Maisel: Jay used Leicas and Hasselblads early in his career, but subsequently switched to Nikon with the introduction of the F (he owned, by his own estimation, around 14 at one time). He subsequently "upgraded" to the F3s when the camera became available (there is a picture of Jay in "A Day in The Life of Canada," which shows him toting a pair of large camera bags - one over each shoulder - with a pair of F3/MD4s displayed prominently) and later to the F5s (they were so reliable, that he saw the need to only own two). The Nikon F2 was the model Jay never owned; he considered them too electronic (?!?!). Jay's long-term loyalty to the Nikon brand is well known; check out his blog on Dead Link Removed, to read about what he thinks of how a certain rival manufacturer's d*****l offerings stack up against Nikon's (lol).

Jay has some Awesome frames...!!

 

[CMoore]

Sorry benjiboy, on Jay Maisel: Jay used Leicas and Hasselblads early in his career, but subsequently switched to Nikon with the introduction of the F (he owned, by his own estimation, around 14 at one time). He subsequently "upgraded" to the F3s when the camera became available (there is a picture of Jay in "A Day in The Life of Canada," which shows him toting a pair of large camera bags - one over each shoulder - with a pair of F3/MD4s displayed prominently) and later to the F5s (they were so reliable, that he saw the need to only own two). The Nikon F2 was the model Jay never owned; he considered them too electronic (?!?!). Jay's long-term loyalty to the Nikon brand is well known; check out his blog on Dead Link Removed, to read about what he thinks of how a certain rival manufacturer's d*****l offerings stack up against Nikon's (lol).

Jay has some Awesome frames...!!