Canon F1n vs. Nikon F2? Really, is one better than the other?

[benjiboy]

.


Darn you! I love my F2. Now I want to try a Canon F1!!

I'm sorry for giving you G.A.S., I used to sell all these cameras Richard when they were current when I worked at a professional dealers I bought all my 3 F1N's second hand more than 25 years ago, and the only thing I've had to have done to them is recently when the oldest one developed a slow mirror fault because of dried out lubricant in the mirror mechanism that was easily remedied by a C.L.A by a camera technician that I got back last week. One of the things that surprises about these 3 bodys that were made several years apart is than when I tested their light meters against each other recently with a Kodak Grey Card and light meter of known accuracy they agreed with each other exactly which I'm very impressed with because they have never been adjusted since I've owned them.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Ben. You are not helping! Since you caused this problem only you can now solve it: sell me one of those three bodies with a nice 50mm on it at a good price. It's only fair. ;-)

 

[benjiboy]

Ben. You are not helping! Since you caused this problem only you can now solve it: sell me one of those three bodies with a nice 50mm on it at a good price. It's only fair. ;-)

Sorry they aren't for sale, but there's a nice one on E bay in Japan at the moment http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-F1-...-F-1-4-lens-Excellent-Condition-/251441655488
I know they aren't cheap but the Canon list price in the U.S.A. in 1986 was $1,057 with the AE finder and f1.4 lens which was a lot of bread at a time when the average house in the U.S. cost $44,000.

 

[wakarimasen]

As I've already written on this thread I have 3 New F1's for more than 25 years and I have never had any problems with the battery contacts on any of them, the only money I have had to spend on them in all that time is one of them recently developed a slow mirror fault, I had it C.L.A'd at my local professional dealers, their camera technician did a great job on it, and I'm as happy as Larry.

P.S. You can't compare the Canon A series cameras with the F series any more than you can compare the Nikon EM with the F2 or F3 because the consumer grade A series were made for a mass market to a price, The F series were made as a professional tool and to a quality. I have owned A series cameras in the past, the last one was an A1 that I had for about 25 years but never liked it,I eventually gave it to my niece last year.

Where in the UK did you have your F1's serviced?

 

[blockend]

Both cameras were massively over designed for the task they were required to do. Professional 35mm cameras took a wrong turn from the Leica (which I don't own) until the Olympus OM1 (which I did). Even Leica got caught up in the trend towards body mass with the M5 until they came to their senses. Having used a Nikon F in the 70s and 80s, I finally scratched the itch for an F2AS a few years back. As an object it evoked wonderful memories, as a 35mm camera it's slightly ridiculous considering it does the same job as my Olympus MjuII. I also use the Canon system and am much more likely to reach for an AV-1 than a T90. I just don't need that kind of Newtonian ballast to take a photograph. Maybe in a war zone.

 

[benjiboy]

Both cameras were massively over designed for the task they were required to do. Professional 35mm cameras took a wrong turn from the Leica (which I don't own) until the Olympus OM1 (which I did). Even Leica got caught up in the trend towards body mass with the M5 until they came to their senses. Having used a Nikon F in the 70s and 80s, I finally scratched the itch for an F2AS a few years back. As an object it evoked wonderful memories, as a 35mm camera it's slightly ridiculous considering it does the same job as my Olympus MjuII. I also use the Canon system and am much more likely to reach for an AV-1 than a T90. I just don't need that kind of Newtonian ballast to take a photograph. Maybe in a war zone.

All I can say is that if you think a Nikon F2AS does the same job as an Olympus MjuII your photographic horizons must be very limited.

 

[blockend]

All I can say is that if you think a Nikon F2AS does the same job as an Olympus MjuII your photographic horizons must be very limited.

It certainly does the same job as an F2AS with a 35mm f2.8 lens, at a fraction of the weight and size. Both take sharp pictures on film and it would be difficult to tell them apart. The point is cameras lost all relationship to the size of a 35mm film cassette, which was after all invented as a miniature format. The current market for film cameras reflects their value as tools fairly accurately. Small and well made stuff holds up pretty well, big and heavy, not so much.

 

[benjiboy]

It certainly does the same job as an F2AS with a 35mm f2.8 lens, at a fraction of the weight and size. Both take sharp pictures on film and it would be difficult to tell them apart. The point is cameras lost all relationship to the size of a 35mm film cassette, which was after all invented as a miniature format. The current market for film cameras reflects their value as tools fairly accurately. Small and well made stuff holds up pretty well, big and heavy, not so much.

Are you trying to tell me and the majority of the members of this forum are misguided, and they should get rid of their high end pro quality equipment and buy plastic autofocus compact cameras like the Olympus Mju ?.

 

[darkosaric]

I just posted for sell 2 Mju cameras in Classifieds - after wrong auto focus and ruining great pictures from last weekend - I decided that my "everyday just in case" camera will be nikon F65 with 50mm. Bigger than Mju, but still light and small enough, and with manual focus I am sure that I will get what I want.

 

[blockend]

Are you trying to tell me and the majority of the members of this forum are misguided, and they should get rid of their high end pro quality equipment and buy plastic autofocus compact cameras like the Olympus Mju ?.

That's a strawman of your making. I'm saying history has re-assigned value by different criteria to those of the time such cameras were produced. People rarely use Nikon F or Canon F-1 cameras in the professional conditions they were intended for. Take away the collector and nostalgic market of people buying their youthful desires, and I fail to see which practical niche such cameras fulfil, and I think the market agrees with me. An Olympus XA in good condition sells for as much as a professional autofocus SLR, for example, an XA4 probably goes for more. This is because lightweight cameras with good image quality fit the lifestyle and needs of more contemporary photographers than those who require heavyweight pro SLRs. It doesn't make them 'bad' cameras, but the argument is like saying which was the better rocket, Saturn or Soyuz? Time has passed the discussion by. Both were very well made, absurdly heavy if you needed to carry more than one plus lenses, and are unlikely to ever occupy an evolutionary gap again. Who would have ever thought pocket size Japanese fixed lens rangefinder cameras would sell for much more than their original cost, for everyday use, when SLRs trade for a fraction of it? Needs and desires change.

 

[benjiboy]

That's a strawman of your making. I'm saying history has re-assigned value by different criteria to those of the time such cameras were produced. People rarely use Nikon F or Canon F-1 cameras in the professional conditions they were intended for. Take away the collector and nostalgic market of people buying their youthful desires, and I fail to see which practical niche such cameras fulfil, and I think the market agrees with me. An Olympus XA in good condition sells for as much as a professional autofocus SLR, for example, an XA4 probably goes for more. This is because lightweight cameras with good image quality fit the lifestyle and needs of more contemporary photographers than those who require heavyweight pro SLRs. It doesn't make them 'bad' cameras, but the argument is like saying which was the better rocket, Saturn or Soyuz? Time has passed the discussion by. Both were very well made, absurdly heavy if you needed to carry more than one plus lenses, and are unlikely to ever occupy an evolutionary gap again. Who would have ever thought pocket size Japanese fixed lens rangefinder cameras would sell for much more than their original cost, for everyday use, when SLRs trade for a fraction of it? Needs and desires change.

All your argument proves if true is that the general public don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, and it isn't true Olympus XA's in good condition don't sell for anything like as much as Nikon F3's or Canon F1N-AE's, and who the hell is going to turn up to shoot a wedding or any other paying gig with an Olympus mju ?.

 

[blockend]

All your argument proves if true is that the general public don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Given the amount of amateurs who insisted on carrying pro SLRs and all the gubbins that went with them in the 70s and 80s, just to look the part, I have to agree with you.

 

[blockend]

Maybe this is where it's at?

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/393783561138147001/

 

[blockend]

You said:

All your argument proves if true is that the general public don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, and it isn't true Olympus XA's in good condition don't sell for anything like as much as Nikon F3's or Canon F1N-AE's, and who the hell is going to turn up to shoot a wedding or any other paying gig with an Olympus mju ?.

I said:

An Olympus XA in good condition sells for as much as a professional autofocus SLR

Spot the difference.

How many photographers are booked to shoot a wedding with a 35mm camera? I shot one three years ago in black and white at the bride groom's request, but I'd guess non-digital, non-medium/large format wedding photography is as rare as it gets.

 

[blockend]

who the hell is going to turn up to shoot a wedding or any other paying gig with an Olympus mju ?.

Terry Richardson might:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8i3VETLflk

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Terry Richardson might:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8i3VETLflk

but Terry Richardson also thinks that cumshots are 'fine art'.

 

[blockend]

but Terry Richardson also thinks that cumshots are 'fine art'.

Is he paid a professional rate for them?

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Is he paid a professional rate for them?

Yes, good standard. Just like Johnny Knoxville is paid for his work too.

 

[blockend]

Yes, good standard. Just like Johnny Knoxville is paid for his work too.

I don't know what other criteria there is? Professional photography is about differentiating yourself from the opposition to claim a creative, and hence financial, advantage. Every high street has a perfectly competent professional portrait and wedding photographer, with a range of pro kit. Richardson took a calculated creative risk by using a P&S camera to get a certain look, illustrate his disdain for the usual slick standards and separate himself from the herd. I'll wager his daily rate with his T4 was much higher than those jobbing high street pros. AFAIK Richardson didn't take a vow to use a T4 forever, he used it as a strategic career move, and he's remembered for it. I'd call that solid professionalism.

 

[darkosaric]

Nobody wants my 2 Olympus mju cameras? I can trade it for nikon F or F2 or F3. You get 2 cameras for one !

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I don't know what other criteria there is? Professional photography is about differentiating yourself from the opposition to claim a creative, and hence financial, advantage. Every high street has a perfectly competent professional portrait and wedding photographer, with a range of pro kit. Richardson took a calculated creative risk by using a P&S camera to get a certain look, illustrate his disdain for the usual slick standards and separate himself from the herd. I'll wager his daily rate with his T4 was much higher than those jobbing high street pros. AFAIK Richardson didn't take a vow to use a T4 forever, he used it as a strategic career move, and he's remembered for it. I'd call that solid professionalism.

It's not so much a case of what tool he uses to get the look he wants. My point was that what he considers to be appropriate is far outside the mainstream. He may have enough talent/self-promotional moxie/what-have-you to pull off selling photos taken with a Yashica T4 to Vogue, and he may have the whatever to call rape photos "art" and sell them, but he's still taking pornographic photos and passing them off as art.

 

[blockend]

It's not so much a case of what tool he uses to get the look he wants. My point was that what he considers to be appropriate is far outside the mainstream. He may have enough talent/self-promotional moxie/what-have-you to pull off selling photos taken with a Yashica T4 to Vogue, and he may have the whatever to call rape photos "art" and sell them, but he's still taking pornographic photos and passing them off as art.

Where do you draw the line? Is Helmut Newton art or porn? Nobuyoshi Araki? Robert Mapplethorpe? Damned if I know. What I do know is the market value of photographic images has very little connection to the equipment they were taken on.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Where do you draw the line? Is Helmut Newton art or porn? Nobuyoshi Araki? Robert Mapplethorpe? Damned if I know. What I do know is the market value of photographic images has very little connection to the equipment they were taken on.

I'd draw the line where the courts and the law generally draw the line- inclusion of bodily fluids and/or acts of penetration is legally porn. What that means from a moral standpoint is open to debate - can porn be art? can raw depictions of human sexuality be art?

To the intersection of Terry Richardson and cheap cameras - can a photograph intentionally made to appear 'amateur' through use of sloppy technique and cheap tools, and therefore 'edgy' in the commercial world, be 'art' or is it an artifice, a put-on, or just great marketing of otherwise mediocre photographic skill? If he were doing it all as an act, and it were all simulated, I'd buy the argument. But he's not- he's actively participating in his photographs, and he's using the photos as an opportunity to take advantage of young women who are not in a position to say no. So I'd say his moral creepiness overrides any artistic integrity his work may have.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Where do you draw the line? Is Helmut Newton art or porn? Nobuyoshi Araki? Robert Mapplethorpe? Damned if I know. What I do know is the market value of photographic images has very little connection to the equipment they were taken on.

To start with I'd never put Terry Richardson in any category near those others you mention.

 

[blockend]

To the intersection of Terry Richardson and cheap cameras - can a photograph intentionally made to appear 'amateur' through use of sloppy technique and cheap tools, and therefore 'edgy' in the commercial world, be 'art' or is it an artifice, a put-on, or just great marketing of otherwise mediocre photographic skill?

Nearly all photography is a "put-on", with the possible exception of family snaps, and even then people wear their best faces. My wife receives a catalogue for women's clothes on a regular basis, and many of the pictures in it contain flare. I haven't seen a lens achieve/suffer from such lack of contrast for many a year, so I assume the photographer wants to evoke a mood, something it seems to do pretty effectively as parcels arrive from the company on a regular basis. A technical fundamentalist may see this as a flaw, but the photograph does what's required - sell clothes. Perhaps he uses a fogged and scratched up old Barnack, it's hard to say.

An Ansel Adams picture taken on a plate camera isn't objectively better than a Daido Moriyama taken on a pocket Ricoh, though it's certainly different. Was Adams less mannered with his artificially enhanced filters than Moriyama with his flash gun? Both deceive the viewer's eye to the reality of what was in front of them, both are very good printers, both have their own fans and buyers. A camera is a tool, no more, no less.