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

NB23 said:

Fully mechanical, undestructible Nikon engineering.

Click to expand...

Ok fair enough. And which Minolta lenses and why over a whole slew of terrific Nikkor glass? Personally I'm loving the classic 1960's-1970's "F Nikkor-x glass" lately for my B&W work but like the more modern lenses too for other reasons, but am curious where the Minolta lenses are of such adoration for you. (I have an old Minolta SR-1 body inherited from an uncle and would love some suggestions of some nice glass for it).

Basically, one can choose blindly any of the Nikon cameras and have a wonderful camera in their hands, as opposed to Minolta's plastic, battery-dependent cameras, mostly.

Minolta lenses are better made, IMO. The feel, the construction, the optics, and even the focus travel (close to infinity) is more logical versus Nikon's backwards focus. Even Nikon's mounting is backwards and requires one to hold the lens on the metal ring. All in all, many little things.

That was my personal opinion.

Nikons are great cameras, but the ergonomics can often be better -- I'm thinking especially of viewfinder layout. And how about all those interlocks on the F4? Minoltas may not be as rugged, but the viewfinder layouts are excellent, and their focusing screens are the best. My x570 may not take the beating my FM has been subjected to, but it has lasted this long with no problems, it's a pleasure to use, and Rokkor lenses can be very fine. My XD-11 is very well-constructed. The N90 and F100 are not built like the FM, either.

I think that there was a drop in build quality from the Nikkormats to the FM/FE.

frank said:

I think that there was a drop in build quality from the Nikkormats to the FM/FE.

Click to expand...

Well, there was a drop in build quality from the F/F2 to everything. Those two represent the pinnacle of Nikon SLR build quality, with the first generation Nikkormats a very close second.
But, the FM became the FM2, and then the FM2n which was quite a nice camera even though only one of my eight lenses will mount on it.

E. von Hoegh said:

Well, there was a drop in build quality from the F/F2 to everything. Those two represent the pinnacle of Nikon SLR build quality, with the first generation Nikkormats a very close second.
But, the FM became the FM2, and then the FM2n which was quite a nice camera even though only one of my eight lenses will mount on it.

Click to expand...

The build quality of the F And F2 has nothing to do with my comparison between the Nikkormats and FM/FE. I've owned FM, FE, FM2, and FE2 cameras.

As a user, I sense no difference between my Ftn, Ft2, or Ft3, so I'm skeptical about your "first gen of Nikkormats" statement.

Yes, I agree 1000000% that the minolta viewfinders were the best.
Nikon was backwards on everything. Still, their bodies are indestructible. Even the FM2n is so sexy. Damn! Touching and using that thing is a great experience, and what to say about the F, F2, F3...

At the current prices for 35mm cameras, you can have one of everything (except an F6).

frank said:

The build quality of the F And F2 has nothing to do with my comparison between the Nikkormats and FM/FE. I've owned FM, FE, FM2, and FE2 cameras.

As a user, I sense no difference between my Ftn, Ft2, or Ft3, so I'm skeptical about your "first gen of Nikkormats" statement.

Click to expand...

The first generation of Nikkormats: FS, FT, FTN, FT2, and FT3.

NB23 said:

Basically, one can choose blindly any of the Nikon cameras and have a wonderful camera in their hands, as opposed to Minolta's plastic, battery-dependent cameras, mostly.

Click to expand...

I don't think I'll ever buy another mechanical shutter camera.

In 2007, two years before Marty Forscher died, I spoke with him about the build quality of Nikon vs. Canon vs. Leica.
His comment was: "The Nikon F2 is the finest 35mm camera ever made. Period. The shutter is deadly accurate, the film transport is rugged, the viewfinder is bright, and the body is almost indestructible. If I could have only one 35mm camera, it would be an F2."

If you don't know who Marty Forscher was, Google him.

Really, this thread is like arguing about orgasms. Even the worst is awesome.

Karl K said:

In 2007, two years before Marty Forscher died, I spoke with him about the build quality of Nikon vs. Canon vs. Leica.
His comment was: "The Nikon F2 is the finest 35mm camera ever made. Period. The shutter is deadly accurate, the film transport is rugged, the viewfinder is bright, and the body is almost indestructible. If I could have only one 35mm camera, it would be an F2."

If you don't know who Marty Forscher was, Google him.

Click to expand...

If I were in a foxhole in Vietnam, the F2 is the camera I'd take. I asked myself how many war zones I was likely to to encounter, and came up with a round figure. The F2AS was sold without a backward glance. Heavy metal cameras don't fit people's requirements of 35mm in a digital world. Fine engineering that puts a groove in my shoulder to transport a 35mm film cassette efficiently is bad design. Unless you're in a war zone.

blockend said:

If I were in a foxhole in Vietnam, the F2 is the camera I'd take. I asked myself how many war zones I was likely to to encounter, and came up with a round figure. The F2AS was sold without a backward glance. Heavy metal cameras don't fit people's requirements of 35mm in a digital world. Fine engineering that puts a groove in my shoulder to transport a 35mm film cassette efficiently is bad design. Unless you're in a war zone.

Click to expand...

These were pro cameras built to last more use and extreme conditions not really intended or aimed the average consumer who wants,small, light, and portable, they are far above the price the majority of them would pay, even today Nikon F6's and pro digital SLR's have magnesium bodies and are heavy.
In the days that the Nikon F2 was current I worked at a leading professional dealer for seven years and can only recall one amateur ever buying an F2 and one buying an F3 from the company in all that time.

NB23 said:

Nikon bodies, Minolta lenses. That's perfection to me.

Click to expand...

Amazing, my wish would be Nikon or Minolta bodies with Canon lenses.

But i'm perfectly fine with both the Nikon manual focus, Canon manual focus, and canon Auto Focus systems. The Nikon AF system (with in-camera motors) i could never like.

blockend said:

Nikon got in first on the professional market. Then Canon stole their dinner with SLRs for the masses. Nikon responded by making some cheap and fairly nasty cameras to play catch up. By the AF era both companies made excellent professional cameras, as well as some plastic not-so-fantastic rubbish. The digital era has seen both manufacturers looking like dinosaurs while Fuji, Panasonic and Sony invent new rules.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I think the story goes more or less like this:

Canon was very focused in stealing Leica's rangefinder market share with more economic camera bodies of good quality. In optics they were very focused in competing against Leica for the M39 threadmount rangefinder lenses, patenting their new lens designs worldwide, sometimes forcing Leitz to use different optical designs because of this. A good site mentioning this is http://www.taunusreiter.de/. You can read in many leica-thread-mount (LTM) forums or sites how good are Canon LTM lenses were in the 60s.

Nikon, meanwhile, saw that the future was in the 35mm SLR, not rangefinder, and devoted to preparing a 35mm professional SLR system, preparing a complete line of lenses for it's introduction. Nikon was a conservative manufacturer and they tried to incorporate the best and tried-and-true mechanisms available by then. That's why, for example, the shutter of the Nikon F is exactly the same of the then-current Nikon rangefinder. If they had a great shutter, why change it? There was nothing new on the Nikon F camera itself -- instant return mirrors were already available on the Asahi Pentax; bayonet mount and interchangeable viewfinders were already available in the Exakta, etc. etc. But the Nikon F was a careful, well-balanced combination of the best technologies available, and with the highest build quality possible. Plus it introduced the concept of the "system", and it was introduced with a complete lens line.

At the same time the Nikon F was introduced, Canon introduced the Canonflex SLR which had a very incomplete lens system; only two lenses had automatic diaphragms (!) and it was introduced with NO WIDEANGLES (!!) Meanwhile, Canon had all sort of lenses for LTM rangefinders.
It was obvious that Nikon was fully commited with the SLR while Canon did not believe in the 35mm SLR so much. The Canonflex is a good camera but mediocre for Canon standards. Canon could have done a much better camera by then, if they would have decided to fully devote their resources to it. It appears that the Canonflex was a rushed project created just as soon as Canon learned that Nikon were preparing a SLR...

Now, thanks to the Nikon F, Nikon got the professional lead. Meanwhile Canon saw SLR sales rise during the 60s and then focused on beating Nikon with a next-generation pro camera. This also meant developing SLR lenses of top quality and I would guess they invested A LOT of money into optical R&D since for the introduction of the F-1 in 1971 they came up with high technology, high-performance lenses that got stellar reviews in lens magazines and in independent tests.

Now, the pros were already using Nikon and with Nikon releasing the excellent F2 camera, they had no reason to bother switching to another system (and thus having to sell all their lenses, and accustom to a system with an inverse focusing and lens-mounting way.)

Now, in 1976 Canon releases the AE-1 and changes the camera market forever, since it opens the 35mm SLR to a wider public. They get a lot of profit from it and become a very powerful company that enters other business like computers.

In 1985 (?) Minolta releases the Maxxum line and suddenly Minolta is a market leader, and pros start to use the Minolta system. Nikon, always a very conservative company, decide to use the same type of system for their pro AF camera -- lens motor inside the camera body.

Meanwhile, Canon, already a bigger company than Nikon, decides to "bet the company" and devote fully all their camera and optical resources to create the best AF system possible. The result is the EOS system, which was introduced with lenses including an EF 300/2.8 lens with fast ultrasonic focusing and outstanding optical quality. Any pro photographer who really could benefit from a fast and reliable AF system switched to Canon, and they did switch to the EF system in masse.

The rest, as they say, is history.

In essence, this 32 page thread has devolved to chanting "rah rah your team $ucks".

E. von Hoegh said:

In essence, this 32 page thread has devolved to chanting "rah rah your team $ucks".

Click to expand...

True, though I only stop by occasionally and have skipped most of it. Still, I think it was worth waiting 32 pages for Marty Forscher to weigh in. And Marty must be right, I only ever managed to break two F2's.

Tony-S said:

I don't think I'll ever buy another mechanical shutter camera.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. Why??
I'd never buy a camera with an electronic shutter. Why? because the mechanical shutters can be repaired and maintained, at a certain point the electronic shutters will be beyond repair due to lack of replacement parts.
As an example, I have two cameras needing new shutter curtains (which are essentially the same for mechanically or electronically timed shutters). No spares are available for 65 year old cameras, but curtain cloth is and it's relatively simple to duplicate the original curtains. It's possible, but considerably more involved, to duplicate (say) a release solenoid for an electronic shutter. It is not practical to duplicate the chips, flexible circuits, etc. for an electronic shutter - and many if not most of them will eventually fail.

Most good quality mechanical cameras will be repairable for many decades, if not a century or two.

Mark Crabtree said:

True, though I only stop by occasionally and have skipped most of it. Still, I think it was worth waiting 32 pages for Marty Forscher to weigh in. And Marty must be right, I only ever managed to break two F2's.

Click to expand...

That's two more than I have ever been able to do! My only ever F2 issue was a film advance lever that refused to budge; a trip to Sover Wong, however, fixed the problem in short order...

The professional camera market is a very small part of the total market and the huge amount of investment in research and development not to mention plant and machinery to produce a new professional camera model is huge, for example it took Canon 10 years R&D to produce the New F1 and I doubt that either the F2 or the New F1 were huge money spinners for either company because the mass consumer market is where the money is which Canon was the first to cotton on to with the AE1 and A1 in which they used new plastics and automated manufacturing techniques and assembly lines which enabled them to produce hi-tech lightweight automatic cameras cheaply at a price the consumer was willing to pay that left Nikon standing at that time.

Mark Crabtree said:

True, though I only stop by occasionally and have skipped most of it. Still, I think it was worth waiting 32 pages for Marty Forscher to weigh in. And Marty must be right, I only ever managed to break two F2's.

Click to expand...

How did you do that, with a framing hammer??

E. von Hoegh said:

How did you do that, with a framing hammer??

Click to expand...

Pontiac Ventura, IIRC.

Mark Crabtree said:

Pontiac Ventura, IIRC.

Click to expand...

Ah, thanks I was worried for a minute having just bought an F2A.

I knew 5 professional photographers in the 80s all of whom used F2s, I don't remember any of them ever "breaking" one - or even having issues - although two of them were pretty religious about regular CLAs.

The professional camera market is a very small part of the total market and the huge amount of investment in research and development not to mention plant and machinery to produce a new professional camera model is huge, for example it took Canon 10 years R&D to produce the New F1 and I doubt that either the F2 or the New F1 were huge money spinners for either company because the mass consumer market is where the money is which Canon was the first to cotton on to with the AE1 and A1 in which they used new plastics and automated manufacturing techniques and assembly lines which enabled them to produce hi-tech lightweight automatic cameras cheaply at a price the consumer was willing to pay that left Nikon who made largely pro and semi-pro models at that time standing.