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

benjiboy · Feb 12, 2015

flavio81 said:
No racial stereotyping implied -- i said "design ice-cream" because of the over-abundance of round edges, curves and bumps on the Canon T90. Similar to a McDonald's vanilla ice cream.

By the way, i was raised in a family of italo-peruvians... i'm serious about how the pasta should be cooked and can differenciate between the tagliatelle, linguini, tagliarini, and fettuccini, as well as discriminate between tortellini and tortelli . Or the different levels of hardening of the polenta when it's prepared.

I realise your'e Italian Flavio, but to me the the design concept of the T90 is very German owes a lot to the ideas of Walter Gropius and the Bauhaus in particular the idea that "form follows function".

Les Sarile · Feb 12, 2015

Focusing screen on the New F1 is far brighter !!

What screen do you have in the Canon New F-1? Canon provided a new screen where the split image never goes dark even with dark lenses or even on bellows. Nikon didn't provide this type of screen until the FM3A.

BTW, did you notice that when you set the Canon New F-1 on aperture priority mode, that it doesn't show the 1/2000 shutter speed.

Canon - Shutter has mechanical backup but only from 1/125 to 1/2000.

I like that the Canon New F-1 has a range of shutter speeds available when batteries die. However, you physically have to remove the battery in order for this to work.

Also, you didn't identify that the Nikon F3 has TTL flash which the Canons don't have.

benjiboy · Feb 12, 2015

Les Sarile said:
What screen do you have in the Canon New F-1? Canon provided a new screen where the split image never goes dark even with dark lenses or even on bellows. Nikon didn't provide this type of screen until the FM3A.

BTW, did you notice that when you set the Canon New F-1 on aperture priority mode, that it doesn't show the 1/2000 shutter speed.

I like that the Canon New F-1 has a range of shutter speeds available when batteries die. However, you physically have to remove the battery in order for this to work.

Also, you didn't identify that the Nikon F3 has TTL flash which the Canons don't have.

If the battery in the New F1 dies and you have the motor drive FN attached you can't remove the battery without exposing the film.

lxdude · Feb 13, 2015

benjiboy said:
Just to correct you on one point Flavio before your racial stereotyping goes any further, despite his Italian name Luigi Collani is a German born in Berlin.

Maybe you meant cultural stereotyping?

Les Sarile · Feb 13, 2015

benjiboy said:
If the battery in the New F1 dies and you have the motor drive FN attached you can't remove the battery without exposing the film.

Although I have not had this happen, I believe that just by keeping the bottom holes pointed away from light source - when removing the battery+motor drive, will allow changing of the camera body's battery without exposing the film in the chamber.

On the Nikon F3, the motor drive (MD4) will continue to provide power to the camera when the two internal battery cels are depleted so they won't need to be replaced then. I am not aware of any other camera+motor drive combination that has this feature among the pro changeable viewfinder bunch.

horacekenneth · Feb 13, 2015

benjiboy said:
I realise your'e Italian Flavio, but to me the the design concept of the T90 is very German owes a lot to the ideas of Walter Gropius and the Bauhaus in particular the idea that "form follows function".

Now this is fascinating integration.

flavio81 · Feb 15, 2015

Hi friends,

Now, again, i put my money where my mouth is: I just bought a Nikon F2AS!

So now i have the F-1, new F-1, Nikon F2AS, and F3.

Once i play around with the camera a bit more, i'll be able to do a comparison against the Canon F-1. However, since my F2 is an "F2AS" model, it is a more advanced model than the 1971 F2.

Nevertheless i'll be able to finally compare it to the F-1.

Vilk · Feb 15, 2015

flavio81 said:
...it is a more advanced model than the 1971 F2.

A couple of wires in the head, really, perhaps a different slot on a screw or two...

flavio81 · Feb 16, 2015

Vilk said:
A couple of wires in the head, really, perhaps a different slot on a screw or two...

The F2AS model (1977) has a much improved (and different) photomic head, with SPC cells instead of CdS cells, AI indexing instead of the "nikon twist", an extended sensitivity range, and finder illuminator.

I would also bet that the optical system was upgraded, because the viewfinder is as bright as the one in my F3.

flavio81 · Feb 16, 2015

Preliminary comparison: F-1 original (1971) versus F2AS (1977) versus F-1N (1981)

Solidness: F-1 by far. The Nikon F2 feels less solid than the original F, and a quick test for this is trying to squeeze the top plate flange sides with your fingers. In the F2 they can be squeezed. The F-1 and F-1N can't.

Overall the wall thickness of the top and bottom plate of the F2 are surprisingly light and thin for such a camera!!

Canon F-1 wins here over a large margin.

Smoothness: Shutter vibration and film advance equally smooth between the F-1 and F-2, a pleasure to use.

Viewfinder: Markedly brighter on my F2AS, but i'm suspecting this is due to having a 1977-state-of-the-art screen and mirror, so it's not a fair comparison. Would need a 1971 F2 to properly compare.

Nikon wins here by a large margin, with a brightness equal to the one on my F3.
However, the F-1N(1981) viewfinder is even brighter!

Ergonomics: F-1 and F2AS have great ergonomics overall. Can't decide.

Viewfinder mounting: I'd say improved on the F2 over the F. About equal; i'd say viewfinder is quicker to remove on the F-1, but screens can be removed without touching them on the F2.

Preliminary Verdict?

I will probably keep my just-acquired F2AS forever; it''s everything i want in a Nikon camera. The F3 will be sold, i think.

I love my F-1 and will keep it forever as well, if i had a brighter screen it would be perfect; probably the F-1n (1976) has a much brighter screen and I can just replace the one on mine with the improved version.

I think at the end it's a tie and this match would be decided by the lenses, and i'm a bit partial to the Canon FD and FL line over the Nikon Ai and Pre-Ai lines. Back in 1971-1973 the Canon FD lenses were generally more technically advanced than their Nikon pre-AI, K-series counterparts (sometimes FAR advanced), but afterwards Nikon counterattacked with the Ai line (and their improved optical designs and coatings.)

benjiboy · Feb 16, 2015

I have owned both and to me personally I prefer the New Canon F1 I have three of them however there are no "bests" it's too simplistic to make absolute pronouncements on these two high quality professional SLR's it depends on the tastes of the end user.

frank · Feb 16, 2015

Alternatively, you can save yourself the anguish over which to keep and which to sell, by keeping them all. I mean, it's what you do with your children, right?

blockend · Feb 16, 2015

Thirty nine pages are testament to the ability of men of a certain age to argue over team A or B to the bitter end. Picker either or neither. In the great scheme of things, Kwanon or Nippon Ikon, it doesn't matter a jot to the pictures you can take.

flavio81 · Feb 16, 2015

benjiboy said:
I have owned both and to me personally I prefer the New Canon F1 I have three of them however there are no "bests" it's too simplistic to make absolute pronouncements on these two high quality professional SLR's it depends on the tastes of the end user.

Yes, i've seen you post many times here that you believe the Canon F-1N is the ultimate 35mm manual focus SLR camera, and it is due to those posts that i set myself on finding a New F-1. And it was a great buy

fstop · Feb 16, 2015

frank said:
Alternatively, you can save yourself the anguish over which to keep and which to sell, by keeping them all. I mean, it's what you do with your children, right?

Vintage cameras bring more than children, but its still worth selling them.

benjiboy · Feb 16, 2015

fstop said:
Vintage cameras bring more than children, but its still worth selling them.

The difference is Frank that children can be made by unskilled labour

Theo Sulphate · Feb 17, 2015

Les Sarile said:
This is a handy timeline of SLR releases from Minolta, Canon, Nikon & Pentax -> Minolta SLR's vs. Canon, Nikon & Pentax

That's a very nice chart - thank you.

Xmas · Feb 17, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
That's a very nice chart - thank you.

Yes it is, but as an aside lots of Nikon Pros did not bother with the F3 'upgrade', ...

They kept their F2.
A battery dependency was something they did not need in a camera.

I stayed with a F2, but also stayed with Leica M2s and Canon rfdrs P and VI....

Things have changed now most (99.97%) pros use D cameras, the only one I'm aware of who does not, 'carries' both a FM2n and M6.

Noel

Les Sarile · Feb 17, 2015

That's a very nice chart - thank you.

You're welcome as I thought it was a handy guide myself.

Yes it is, but as an aside lots of Nikon Pros did not bother with the F3 'upgrade', ...

There may have been a reluctance to upgrade early on - just like there was from the F to the F2, but there is no denying the success of the F3 given it's numbers and 20 year production cycle. Users ranged from NASA to the commoner I suppose. Not to mention that it was quite expensive too.

gone · Feb 17, 2015

Some people prefer the Canon glass, some the Nikon. Both have their great ones in their line ups, along w/ some slugs. But, you can't put a Leica R lens on a Canon camera w/ an adapter, while you can on the Nikon. You can also put the Canon lens on the Nikon bodies w/ a cheapie adapter. So that would be that, in my mind.

I have always preferred the Nikon bodies to Canons, but the FD/FL lenses have some excellent selections. Neither maker is going to be as good as the top of the line Leica R lenses, so you get more versatility w/ the Nikon cameras, and better bodies IMO.

Xmas · Feb 17, 2015

Les Sarile said:
There may have been a reluctance to upgrade early on - just like there was from the F to the F2, but there is no denying the success of the F3 given it's numbers and 20 year production cycle. Users ranged from NASA to the commoner I suppose. Not to mention that it was quite expensive too.

The commercial success is independent of pro take up.
I bought a beaten up F3 in 86 while F2 was in for damage repair and sold it when I got F2 back.
I was only semi pro...

Xmas · Feb 17, 2015

momus said:
Neither maker is going to be as good as the top of the line Leica R lenses, so you get more versatility w/ the Nikon cameras, and better bodies IMO.

Well not my experience I had a set or Cosina lenses and a set of Leica M lenses did a shoot out and sold the Leicas.

I'm not saying that Cosina make better lenses than Nikon or Canon either.

Les Sarile · Feb 17, 2015

The commercial success is independent of pro take up.

Correct, while Nikon may have cared that their "pro" followers - as well as semi pro too, would be encouraged to acquire the F3, I am certain that the commercial success of the F3 made that a secondary consideration.

Most have to keep in mind that not everyone needed an F3 - or for that matter any other model/brand "pro" camera then, and even much less now.

Consider this proposed comparison of two system cameras. Other than the bodies, none of the system components were even brought into consideration. In fact, the features that made one standout over the other were not even a feature considered. It could be argued that even the simpler non-interchangeable viewfinder cameras would have sufficed.

Well not my experience I had a set or Cosina lenses and a set of Leica M lenses did a shoot out and sold the Leicas.

I would be interested to see the results of your testing if you can share it.

flavio81 · Feb 17, 2015

momus said:
I have always preferred the Nikon bodies to Canons, but the FD/FL lenses have some excellent selections. Neither maker is going to be as good as the top of the line Leica R lenses,

See Marco Cavina's website of in-depth-analysis of camera optics and you might change your mind. Back in the early 60s Nikon was already challenging Leitz with some innovative designs, and in the late 70s Canon had arguably surpassed Nikon in terms of innovation. Canon has some SLR lenses which surpass anything offered by Leitz, for example the FD 55/1.2 aspheric (Leica expert Erwin Puts rates it better than any Leitz R-mount offering), or the EF 50/1.0L, or the 85/1.2L.

It's very simple -- Canon is a far biggest company than Leica nowadays, they have far more resources for R&D; back in the 70s they invented machines for computer-controlled grinding of aspherical lenses, Leitz did not have that and they had to resort to designs without aspherical surfaces, with the subsequent performance penalty. Canon also invested heavy R&D for a method of artificially growing fluorite cristals, and thus they had a lead in telephoto design which they arguably still keep.

Meanwhile Leitz had to resort to an association with Minolta to design Zoom lenses since they didn't have either the resources or the experience...

miha · Feb 17, 2015

momus is quite correct. Top of the line Leica R lenses (19mm II, 28mm II, 50mm Lux E60, 90mm APO ASPH, 100 Macro APO, 180 APO Summicron and Elmarit, 280 Elmarit APO, plus some of the latest zooms, like their Vario 70-180 f/2.8) were never surpassed by CaNikon.

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency