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

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Now that's convenience

I can get them at my local grocery store too. Same battery is used by the A1 and the AE1

Pick up a gallon of milk with a 4lr44 battery.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

Canon f1n take 4lr44 batteries which are doggie shock collar batteries. Cheap on eBay.

The F-1 and F-1n take two PX625's. The F-1N, which is what you're referring to takes the PX28 aka the doggie shock collar batteries, just like the Nikkormat EL.


The more fair comparison is F3 vs F-1N. Both of those cameras are their contemporaries. The F2 Photomic is better compared with the original F-1 and F-1n. I have considered buying an F-1n (the second version F-1 with the plastic tip advance lever) and having it recalibrated to 3 volts, so I can use the Nikon F Photomic battery adapter sold by CameraWorks on eBay. Allows use of two PX76's or one CR 1/3N in a camera that uses two PX625 batteries. I'd pair that with a 50/1.4 SSC...

To the OP, you may want to check with Camera Clinic in Shoreline and with Kenmore Camera to see if they've either an 85 or a 100mm FD mount lens for you. Also, consider picking up a DP-12 for your F2. LED meter readout like a Nikon FM2. With respect to your F2 whining about HP5+, sounds like the camera needs to be serviced. To be expected, since it's already at least 34 years old (last F2 was made this month in 1980). Should be completely smooth in operation. No grittiness nor whining.

-J

 

[elcabezagrande]

The F-1 and F-1n take two PX625's. The F-1N, which is what you're referring to takes the PX28 aka the doggie shock collar batteries, just like the Nikkormat EL.

The original F-1 (self-timer version) takes one battery, not two.

 

[benjiboy]

Canon actually recommend for the New F1 a PX 28L Lithium battery, they last for years and are currently manufactured, and easily available a big advantage against the banned PX625 Mercury batterys all the other cameras mentioned were designed for, but although there are alternatives to the Mercury batterys few of them have the correct discharge characteristics to give correct exposures throughout the batterys life.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

The original F-1 (self-timer version) takes one battery, not two.

I sit corrected.

 

[fotch]

One big plus for Nikon is the lens mount design. I can use all the Nikon lens I own on any Nikon, including current digital bodies.

 

[BradS]

WOW, COOL!

a classic "Canon/Nikon is better" thread....have not seen one of these in years.

I wanna play...but I've always been partial to the screw mount and early K-series Pentaxes.

Have fun.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

The F-1 and F-1n take two PX625's. The F-1N, which is what you're referring to takes the PX28 aka the doggie shock collar batteries, just like the Nikkormat EL.


The more fair comparison is F3 vs F-1N. Both of those cameras are their contemporaries. The F2 Photomic is better compared with the original F-1 and F-1n. I have considered buying an F-1n (the second version F-1 with the plastic tip advance lever) and having it recalibrated to 3 volts, so I can use the Nikon F Photomic battery adapter sold by CameraWorks on eBay. Allows use of two PX76's or one CR 1/3N in a camera that uses two PX625 batteries. I'd pair that with a 50/1.4 SSC...

To the OP, you may want to check with Camera Clinic in Shoreline and with Kenmore Camera to see if they've either an 85 or a 100mm FD mount lens for you. Also, consider picking up a DP-12 for your F2. LED meter readout like a Nikon FM2. With respect to your F2 whining about HP5+, sounds like the camera needs to be serviced. To be expected, since it's already at least 34 years old (last F2 was made this month in 1980). Should be completely smooth in operation. No grittiness nor whining.

-J

I have an F3 hp to compare to the F-1N but I thought it more appropriate to compare Nikon's second pro camera (F2) against Canon's second pro camera. As it happens, the Nikon F1 was introduced about 12 years before the Canon F-1 so the two companies are were a bit out of sync. If I were to compare cameras from a common decade, then it would be F2 against F-1 and F3 against F-1N. Both comparisons are interesting for their own reasons.

I am also interested in why professional photographers preferred Nikon over Canon by a large margin. If guessing, I would say it was because of the 12 year jump Nikon had on Canon. But Canon made such a great entry into the pro marketplace with the F-1, I am still a little bit surprised by the lack of pro adoption. Thoughts?

 

[BradS]

I am also interested in why professional photographers preferred Nikon over Canon by a large margin. If guessing, I would say it was because of the 12 year jump Nikon had on Canon. But Canon made such a great entry into the pro marketplace with the F-1, I am still a little bit surprised by the lack of pro adoption. Thoughts?

I think your guess is exactly correct. Nikon came first to market with a camera (and marketing campaign) aimed at working professionals. Canon were simply too late. Nikon was already too deeply entrenched and well established.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

WOW, COOL!

a classic "Canon/Nikon is better" thread....have not seen one of these in years.

I wanna play...but I've always been partial to the screw mount and early K-series Pentaxes.

Have fun.

This debate was a perennial favorite in photo magazines of the '70s. It makes even less sense now than it did then.
The answer now is "the one you like best", since not a single one of us will ever use these cameras and lenses as heavily as they were designed to be used. D@mn few did when they were current, nobody will now. Lens quality? yeah right. That one's been dead for decades too.
With the preference many (most?) have for getting another body rather than having one serviced, I wonder how many of either of these cameras are functioning anywhere near factory spec. Probably not many.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

One big plus for Nikon is the lens mount design. I can use all the Nikon lens I own on any Nikon, including current digital bodies.

That holds true for AI and later lenses only, pre AI lenses will damage the aperture coupling on many later bodies if yout try to mount them.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

My only data point on lens comparison is the 50mm 1.4 that I own for each of these cameras. I prefer the Canon lens... so far. I know that the Canon focus' closer, but I don't know that it is sharper. it appears so in the ground glass, but that could simply be an artifact of the GG itself. Another question: Does the Nikon focus screen transmit a less sharp image from the lens than the Canon focus screen? I don't know. Ultimately, I will need to set up a focus target and then expose the same film type through each camera where the subject is the focus target. The human variable in this test is my own eye. Can I focus perfectly?
I can pick up a Canon 105 or 85mm equivalent to my Nikon lenses of the same focal length and add another point to my dataset. Has anyone else got both Canon and Nikon lenses in the same focal length? I know that Nikon has a reputation of making better glass, but is that borne out by actual APUG user experience?

Another variable is the relationship between lens/mirror/screen and lens/filmplane. If this isn't spot on you'll be testing nothing.

 

[Clay2]

When both the Canon F-1 and Nikon F2 were the new products, I had to choose. I liked The Canon because the metre was in the body

so you didn't lose it when changing viewfinders. But I liked the Nikon glass better. The F2 is still going strong.

/Clay

 

[E. von Hoegh]

When both the Canon F-1 and Nikon F2 were the new products, I had to choose. I liked The Canon because the metre was in the body
so you didn't lose it when changing viewfinders. But I liked the Nikon glass better. The F2 is still going strong.

/Clay

Interesting. I like the fact that the F/F2 have no electronics in the body. Meter craps out? Just put another finder on, send the broken one to the repairman without tying up the entire camera.

 

[BradS]

.....The answer now is "the one you like best", since not a single one of us will ever use these cameras and lenses as heavily as they were designed to be used.

Learned this from my Mom. She worked as a newspaper journalist at a small rural paper and often photographed whatever (usually whoever) she was writing about. Toward the end of her career, she used a Pentax MG and a Canon sure shot....neither of which anybody would consider a "professional camera". She carried one or both of these with her virtually at all times and used them daily for years. I have both of them today. The canon is broken but, remarkably, the Pentax MG still works pretty well.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

Interesting. I like the fact that the F/F2 have no electronics in the body. Meter craps out? Just put another finder on, send the broken one to the repairman without tying up the entire camera.

Well, not entirely true. The F, yes. F2 does have the battery chamber, power switch, and the wiring in the body. The F only has the wiring for the sync contact. That's it. So, in the case of the F2, it may still have to go in, if the battery chamber tag or the power switch is the issue. If voltage is verified at the two contacts next to the mirror box, then, yes, just swap prisms and keep going.

-J

 

[Les Sarile]

I have an F3 hp to compare to the F-1N but I thought it more appropriate to compare Nikon's second pro camera (F2) against Canon's second pro camera. As it happens, the Nikon F1 was introduced about 12 years before the Canon F-1 so the two companies are were a bit out of sync. If I were to compare cameras from a common decade, then it would be F2 against F-1 and F3 against F-1N. Both comparisons are interesting for their own reasons.

I am also interested in why professional photographers preferred Nikon over Canon by a large margin. If guessing, I would say it was because of the 12 year jump Nikon had on Canon. But Canon made such a great entry into the pro marketplace with the F-1, I am still a little bit surprised by the lack of pro adoption. Thoughts?

The New F-1 was Canon's third pro SLR. It sounds like you're not aware of Canon's first pro SLR the Canonflex which was released at the same time as the Nikon F. This first release likely contributed to Canon playing catch up to Nikon thereafter.

1. Nikon F and Canonflex in 1959
2. Nikon F2 and Canon F-1 in 1971
3. Nikon F3 (1980) and Canon New F-1 (1981)

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

 

[SchwinnParamount]

This debate was a perennial favorite in photo magazines of the '70s. It makes even less sense now than it did then.

If you want a debate that makes sense, you will have a hard time finding it on APUG. As a matter of fact, you won't find sensible debates in any arena (certainly not D.C.). But then again, I am not interested in sensible debates. I am interested in the opinions of photographers.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

The New F-1 was Canon's third pro SLR. It sounds like you're not aware of Canon's first pro SLR the Canonflex which was released at the same time as the Nikon F. This first release likely contributed to Canon playing catch up to Nikon thereafter.

1. Nikon F and Canonflex in 1959
2. Nikon F2 and Canon F-1 in 1971
3. Nikon F3 (1980) and Canon New F-1 (1981)

I've always thought of the Canonflex as a false-start rather than a serious professional camera. It wasn't part of a "system" as the Nikon F1 was. It never got any traction although it was Canon's first SLR. There were later Canon SLRs (Pellix, for one)... which is where the FL mount comes from. At the time Canonflex was introduced, most professionals weren't using 35mm anyway and thought of the 35mm rangefinder as kind of old-fashioned. They were still mostly in the speed-graphic world or the 6x6 world. As far as I've read, it was the F1 that finally convinced the majority of professionals to consider 35mm. When they decided to get serious about professional 35mm cameras, they produced the F-1.

It seems to me that Nikon defined what a professional camera system (lenses, finders, bodies, motor drives...) should be with the F1 while Canon ignored the pro 35mm market for almost a decade. When they finally took the plunge, they brought out a camera that I believe is the equal of the F2. Their second (third if you count the F-1n... a minor upgrade of F-1) effort at a pro camera was the New F-1... which is the camera that I have now.

 

[dynachrome]

I have all three Canon F-1 models as well as a number of Nikon F2s. Of the Canon F-1s I prefer the original. The F-1N (last model) does have a faster working meter but when I use it wth the AE finder in aperture priority mode, there is no button to lock the reading. I find myself going back to manual metering. In that case an earlier F-1 works just as well. With the earlier F-1s I can use all of the shutter speeds even without a working battery and I also have mirror lock-up for when that's needed. I only wish the F-1N's version of a Waist Level finder was availabe for the F-1 and F-1n. If I must use soemthing like that I will ut the 6X finder on a Nikon F2. The Canon F-1/F-1n is less bulky that a Nikon F2 with a standard (metered) prism finder. Even though the F-1/F-1n has the meter in the body, you can't see the needle with a waist Level finder attached. The Speed Finder will show the needle. With the Nikon F2 I need to keep my eye centered in a very narrow range to see meter readings. I use Canon F-1s and Nikon F2s but I use and like the Canons more.

Both companies made good lenses over the years. The 105/2.5 Nikkors were all good and the 100/2.8 Canon FD lenses were also good. The 28/3.5 AI Nikkor was better than earlier 28/3.5 Nikkors and the 28/2.8 FD SC was a sleeper and an excellent lens. Both companies made decent standard lenses. The 55/3.5 Micro Nikkors were good and so were the 50/3.5 Canon FD SSC and New FD lenses. The 200/4 Nikkors from the QC on were very good as was the 200/4 FD SSC. The 35/2 Nikkors are all good and so are all of the Canon 35/2 models. The 135/2.8 Nikkor QC and K have very nice out of focus rendition and so does the 135/2.5 Canon. If you are looking to do some good work you won't have any advantage using a Nikon F2 as opposed to a Canon F-1/F-1n/F-1N. It's more fun to use and enjoy both systems than to worry which body or lens is 1% better than another.

 

[benjiboy]

I have all three Canon F-1 models as well as a number of Nikon F2s. Of the Canon F-1s I prefer the original. The F-1N (last model) does have a faster working meter but when I use it wth the AE finder in aperture priority mode, there is no button to lock the reading. I find myself going back to manual metering. In that case an earlier F-1 works just as well. With the earlier F-1s I can use all of the shutter speeds even without a working battery and I also have mirror lock-up for when that's needed. I only wish the F-1N's version of a Waist Level finder was availabe for the F-1 and F-1n. If I must use soemthing like that I will ut the 6X finder on a Nikon F2. The Canon F-1/F-1n is less bulky that a Nikon F2 with a standard (metered) prism finder. Even though the F-1/F-1n has the meter in the body, you can't see the needle with a waist Level finder attached. The Speed Finder will show the needle. With the Nikon F2 I need to keep my eye centered in a very narrow range to see meter readings. I use Canon F-1s and Nikon F2s but I use and like the Canons more.

Both companies made good lenses over the years. The 105/2.5 Nikkors were all good and the 100/2.8 Canon FD lenses were also good. The 28/3.5 AI Nikkor was better than earlier 28/3.5 Nikkors and the 28/2.8 FD SC was a sleeper and an excellent lens. Both companies made decent standard lenses. The 55/3.5 Micro Nikkors were good and so were the 50/3.5 Canon FD SSC and New FD lenses. The 200/4 Nikkors from the QC on were very good as was the 200/4 FD SSC. The 35/2 Nikkors are all good and so are all of the Canon 35/2 models. The 135/2.8 Nikkor QC and K have very nice out of focus rendition and so does the 135/2.5 Canon. If you are looking to do some good work you won't have any advantage using a Nikon F2 as opposed to a Canon F-1/F-1n/F-1N. It's more fun to use and enjoy both systems than to worry which body or lens is 1% better than another.

I believe that Canon didn't provide an A.E lock on the New F1 because it's a professional camera and they expect the users to know enough about exposure to use the exposure override, whereas the consumer grade A series provide the facility.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I have all three Canon F-1 models as well as a number of Nikon F2s. Of the Canon F-1s I prefer the original. The F-1N (last model) does have a faster working meter but when I use it wth the AE finder in aperture priority mode, there is no button to lock the reading. I find myself going back to manual metering. In that case an earlier F-1 works just as well. With the earlier F-1s I can use all of the shutter speeds even without a working battery and I also have mirror lock-up for when that's needed. I only wish the F-1N's version of a Waist Level finder was availabe for the F-1 and F-1n. If I must use soemthing like that I will ut the 6X finder on a Nikon F2. The Canon F-1/F-1n is less bulky that a Nikon F2 with a standard (metered) prism finder. Even though the F-1/F-1n has the meter in the body, you can't see the needle with a waist Level finder attached. The Speed Finder will show the needle. With the Nikon F2 I need to keep my eye centered in a very narrow range to see meter readings. I use Canon F-1s and Nikon F2s but I use and like the Canons more.

Both companies made good lenses over the years. The 105/2.5 Nikkors were all good and the 100/2.8 Canon FD lenses were also good. The 28/3.5 AI Nikkor was better than earlier 28/3.5 Nikkors and the 28/2.8 FD SC was a sleeper and an excellent lens. Both companies made decent standard lenses. The 55/3.5 Micro Nikkors were good and so were the 50/3.5 Canon FD SSC and New FD lenses. The 200/4 Nikkors from the QC on were very good as was the 200/4 FD SSC. The 35/2 Nikkors are all good and so are all of the Canon 35/2 models. The 135/2.8 Nikkor QC and K have very nice out of focus rendition and so does the 135/2.5 Canon. If you are looking to do some good work you won't have any advantage using a Nikon F2 as opposed to a Canon F-1/F-1n/F-1N. It's more fun to use and enjoy both systems than to worry which body or lens is 1% better than another.

Excellent comments and very interesting observation of detail. As it happens, I picked up a near mint Canon 28mm f2.8 S.C. today ($59). I am impressed with what I see through the viewfinder, but will need to develop my film and make a couple of 11x14 prints before I can judge the lens.

 

[lxdude]

I've always thought of the Canonflex as a false-start rather than a serious professional camera. It wasn't part of a "system" as the Nikon F1 was. It never got any traction although it was Canon's first SLR. There were later Canon SLRs (Pellix, for one)... which is where the FL mount comes from. At the time Canonflex was introduced, most professionals weren't using 35mm anyway and thought of the 35mm rangefinder as kind of old-fashioned. They were still mostly in the speed-graphic world or the 6x6 world. As far as I've read, it was the F1 that finally convinced the majority of professionals to consider 35mm. When they decided to get serious about professional 35mm cameras, they produced the F-1.

It seems to me that Nikon defined what a professional camera system (lenses, finders, bodies, motor drives...) should be with the F1 while Canon ignored the pro 35mm market for almost a decade. When they finally took the plunge, they brought out a camera that I believe is the equal of the F2. Their second (third if you count the F-1n... a minor upgrade of F-1) effort at a pro camera was the New F-1... which is the camera that I have now.

There was no Nikon F1. It was simply the Nikon F.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

There was no Nikon F1. It was simply the Nikon F.

Ok, Mr. Pedantic.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I have an AE motor drive fn, high power nicad battery, charger and a dummy battery for my F1n I'm not using. Makes my camera too heavy for this old cat.