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

[Chan Tran]

Like I said in previous post comparing the F2 and the New F1 isn't fair as they were introduced in different times. But you make me pick I pick the F2. The new F1 is way too complicated.
I even pick the F3 is you were to make that comparison. In fact I pick the Nikon any time before the introduction of the EOS.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Like I said in previous post comparing the F2 and the New F1 isn't fair as they were introduced in different times. But you make me pick I pick the F2. The new F1 is way too complicated.
I even pick the F3 is you were to make that comparison. In fact I pick the Nikon any time before the introduction of the EOS.

For me, personally, Nikon may as well have stopped building cameras after the F2 - there's not a one I'm really interested in, the FM2N is a very nice camera but only one of the seven Nikkor lenses I own will mount on it. As for the Canon, the only reason I don't have an F1 is that I refuse to start accumulating another set of lenses - but if a good deal (a very good deal) presented itself at a weak moment while flush with cash, I'd probably grab one.

 

[vpwphoto]

Are we still debating.... I was talking about the New F-1 matt black, the last one, the one I bought one new in 1987, and it was a sublime thing that served me well, until Nikon trumped it with TTL flash that worked crazy good and the specter of Auto focus.

 

[benjiboy]

I just had one of my Canon New F1's serviced because the mirror had started to become very slow, it cost £95 ( $156 ) which isn't bad averaged out per year considering I bought it second hand in 1983 and it's given faultless service for thirty years.

 

[clayne]

While I basically don't own any older Canon for the most part, I definitely wouldn't mind an F-1 with an 85/1.2. However, as others have mentioned, I'm not going to start accumulating more stuff.

 

[rolleiman]

I used the F1n professionally for a number of year, but Canon never really developed their all mechanical bodies in the same way Nikon did. When Nikon came out with the FM2n around 1980, pros went for it, including myself...main reason?...The FM2n offered a 1/250th flash sync, very important at the time since colour was starting to make inroads into the media world.

 

[benjiboy]

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.

Just as a matter of interest I have 3 Canon New F1 bodys all manufactured in different years all bought second hand between 20 and 30 years ago, and when I check the cameras light meters against each other with a Kodak Grey Card and a handheld meter of known accuracy they all agree exactly, which quite frankly amazes me, and one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of the New F1.

P.S.
F1's are such quality cameras I would rather get my F1's serviced than replace them with ones of unknown history from auction sites where the previous owners may have had them apart on their kitchen table, that may prove eventually to have even worse faults than mine, and I know where the ones I own have been for the last 23-30 years.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Just as a matter of interest I have 3 Canon New F1 bodys all manufactured in different years all bought second hand between 20 and 30 years ago, and when I check the cameras light meters against each other with a Kodak Grey Card and a handheld meter of known accuracy they all agree exactly, which quite frankly amazes me, and one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of the New F1.

P.S.
F1's are such quality cameras I would rather get my F1's serviced than replace them with ones of unknown history from auction sites where the previous owners may have had them apart on their kitchen table, that may prove eventually to have even worse faults than mine, and I know where the ones I own have been for the last 23-30 years.

Yep, You're right.

That being said, I am SO torn between my Nikons and the single Canon I own now (owned a few before, but never an F-1). Nikon, has everything the F-1 has, minus the reliable meter (oops!). Canon... wait for it.
Ok there is one knock against the F-1. That freaking battery chamber spring. The one that holds the negative battery terminal post up against the battery. Every Canon I've ever owned, the spring gives up the ghost and I end up having to put in a stop-gap copper thingie to make the negative terminal contact. That is just so amateur. WTF Canon? You have a great camera in virtually all respects except you drop the ball BADLY in the one bit that really kills the camera. The electronics.

 

[benjiboy]

Yep, You're right.

That being said, I am SO torn between my Nikons and the single Canon I own now (owned a few before, but never an F-1). Nikon, has everything the F-1 has, minus the reliable meter (oops!). Canon... wait for it.
Ok there is one knock against the F-1. That freaking battery chamber spring. The one that holds the negative battery terminal post up against the battery. Every Canon I've ever owned, the spring gives up the ghost and I end up having to put in a stop-gap copper thingie to make the negative terminal contact. That is just so amateur. WTF Canon? You have a great camera in virtually all respects except you drop the ball BADLY in the one bit that really kills the camera. The electronics.

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.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

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

Ben,
Actually, you can compare the EM to a F3 to a certain point. They both use the same metal for the internal structure: copper silumin aluminum. And both were designed by the same designer: Giorgetto Giugiaro. In other aspects, they are quite different.
See: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/emfgfg20/em/
They are quite sturdy and most are in working order, even after 30 years.

 

[Les Sarile]

And actually you can compare them all and point out things that can be measured like features and specs but to declare one is better over the other is completely subjective to the end user. For instance these all had interchangeable prisms and screens, titanium horizontal curtains and the top of each manufacturers specs at the time of their releases. Magazine reviews of the day used to actually disassemble them to determine what they were made of to predict how they should last. They also subjected them to some strenuous environmental testing that maybe few of us today would even think of let alone conduct. Unfortunately I didn't find any bulletproof or use them as hammer testing but maybe myth busters can do that . . .

Of course some time has passed since these were available factory new which really skews the perspective of new users.

 

[benjiboy]

The camera manufacturers at the design stage decide what materials to make the camera of, what tolerances the components should machined to, and what their probable service life should be before they fail, and what price the camera should sell for against the other competing manufacturers.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

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.

I must be extraordinarily unlucky then. I've had two F-1s with broken springs, an A-1 with a broken spring, and an AE-1 with a broken spring. I've never had a Canon that did not fail in this way.

 

[Les Sarile]

I have them both and love them both. Silly question, but should I love one more than the other?

Going back to your original question, is there a feature or function that one can't do given a particular shooting requirement?

For instance do you need the F2's MLU to minimize camera movement or the New F-1's autoexposure mode in fast shooting conditions? Given the specific conditions, maybe it's a case of horses for courses and you need both.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Going back to your original question, is there a feature or function that one can't do given a particular shooting requirement?

For instance do you need the F2's MLU to minimize camera movement or the New F-1's autoexposure mode in fast shooting conditions? Given the specific conditions, maybe it's a case of horses for courses and you need both.

Yep, that's right. Of course, when I want a perfectly still camera for a tack sharp image, I usually go to the RB-67 and a tripod. Now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever used the MLU on any of my Nikons.

 

[Les Sarile]

Yep, that's right. Of course, when I want a perfectly still camera for a tack sharp image, I usually go to the RB-67 and a tripod. Now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever used the MLU on any of my Nikons.

But you didn't answer the question of what feature one has over the other besides "looks" and "nameplate". For instance I prefer the LX's ability to aperture priority autoexpose a scene for as long as it takes - a feature that no other camera brand or model, past or present, can do. This gives me a photographic opportunity such as the 35 minute autoexposure example below on Kodak Ektar 100.

Hoover Dam at night

 

[benjiboy]

But how many 35 seconds exposure do you get before the battery is exhausted ?

 

[Les Sarile]

But how many 35 seconds exposure do you get before the battery is exhausted ?

That's 35 minute not seconds. I haven't counted but quite a few. Besides, the batteries the LX uses are cheap compared to the one used by the New F-1.

There are not many features that are unequaled in the history of camera technologies like this.

 

[Les Sarile]

Duplicate

 

[ME Super]

Canon or Nikon

Which is better, Nikon or Canon? Pentax!

No, seriously. With my PZ-20, which does not require a KA lens to operate, I can use every Pentax lens ever made with the exception of the DA lenses, which are designed for the smaller APS-C image area. I would need an adapter only for the screw-mount lenses. Canon changed the lens mount when they went from MF to AF, Nikon has AI and Non-AI, Pentax has screw mount and K-mount, and all you need to go between the two is the appropriate adapter.

The camera I have has more bells and whistles on it than I'll ever use, and it was a bargain to boot!

 

[jimjm]

But you didn't answer the question of what feature one has over the other besides "looks" and "nameplate". For instance I prefer the LX's ability to aperture priority autoexpose a scene for as long as it takes - a feature that no other camera brand or model, past or present, can do. This gives me a photographic opportunity such as the 35 minute autoexposure example below on Kodak Ektar 100.

Hoover Dam at night

Actually, I've gotten auto-exposure times over an hour with the Nikon FE. Never tried it with the FE2, but I suspect there may be a few other brands/models out there that have this capability. Although I usually time long exposures manually to compensate for reciprocity - something the camera's meter can't do for you.

 

[Les Sarile]

Actually, I've gotten auto-exposure times over an hour with the Nikon FE. Never tried it with the FE2, but I suspect there may be a few other brands/models out there that have this capability. Although I usually time long exposures manually to compensate for reciprocity - something the camera's meter can't do for you.

Interesting since I tested all my Nikons too including the FE2, FG, FA, F3, FM3A, N2020, N70 and others.

I suppose the LX's real time off the film monitoring of the scene for lighting change - and adjusting accordingly, makes it unique then.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

For instance I prefer the LX's ability to aperture priority autoexpose a scene for as long as it takes - a feature that no other camera brand or model, past or present, can do.

My Contax G2 does this quite well. At least up to a few minutes. Have not tried any longer. I think my RX does too.

 

[Les Sarile]

I have conducted exposures greater than 4hours with both my LXs.

I tested all my Canons and they all max out at 30seconds. The Minolta vary up to 30seconds.

 

[Les Sarile]

Delete duplicate