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

[TheFlyingCamera]

Perhaps it's not clear I've been facetious...I'm aware that the topic got derelailed by Richardson in person and his Yashica, but still...what the frak are they talking about? Art, commerce and porn are the same thing, everybody knows it!


Are these shots artistic, professional, commercial or pornographic?

To be equally snarky, it could be argued that they are none of the above, but instead are mere snapshots taken without any intent whatsoever. They could be artistic (photographed with intent to communicate, not just document), they could be commercial (taken for advertising purposes). I seriously doubt they would qualify as pornographic to any but the most thoroughly degenerate mind stricken with industriomania (the eroticization of public infrastructure and industrial buildings). But generally, not pornographic as there's nary a penis nor boob in sight.

 

[cuthbert]

To be equally snarky, it could be argued that they are none of the above, but instead are mere snapshots taken without any intent whatsoever. They could be artistic (photographed with intent to communicate, not just document), they could be commercial (taken for advertising purposes). I seriously doubt they would qualify as pornographic to any but the most thoroughly degenerate mind stricken with industriomania (the eroticization of public infrastructure and industrial buildings). But generally, not pornographic as there's nary a penis nor boob in sight.

The tunnel can be considered a Freudian allusion...

Cuthbert, gorgeous images. I have that lens too. I'll have to compare it against my Nikon 50

Thanks Schwinn, for the record I use a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 S-C Auto, one of the last non Ai lenses converted to AI standard by the factory, I think it's a good match for my 1974 F2 upgraded to AS in late 1978.

This is the other beast, a bokeh study of one almost destroyed Micro-Nikkor I got for scrap.

Yeah, not the pic "snapshot" but the lens is really in pathetic conditions.

 

[blockend]

Which gave rise to someone citing an example of Terry Richardson using a Yashica T4 to shoot fashion spreads for Vogue, made to intentionally look "un-professional".

I'm not sure a T4 would make a fashion spread look unprofessional. The Yashica compact was one of a number of manufacturers' attempts in the nineties and early noughties, to make a pocket camera that gave results at least as good as their SLR equivalents.

I suspect Richardson's initial reasoning was to use a small flexible camera that allowed him to engage with his models in a flexible, dynamic way - or whatever euphemism you might use for squirming about. An AF compact would perform that role very well, without getting in the way, or wearing out the photographer. Professionals in the 70s and 80s tended to be defined by the size of their rig (no pornographic pun intended), most of which was about separating themselves from amateurs by virtue of bulk and weight. Personally speaking, I can't tell the difference between a shot taken on my Olympus MjuII and my pro SLRs. That being so, I defy anyone in a blind test to differentiate the results from Nikon F2 and a Canon F1 with similar spec lenses. And if you can't tell any difference by the output, "better" is a very subjective term.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm not sure a T4 would make a fashion spread look unprofessional. The Yashica compact was one of a number of manufacturers' attempts in the nineties and early noughties, to make a pocket camera that gave results at least as good as their SLR equivalents.

I suspect Richardson's initial reasoning was to use a small flexible camera that allowed him to engage with his models in a flexible, dynamic way - or whatever euphemism you might use for squirming about. An AF compact would perform that role very well, without getting in the way, or wearing out the photographer. Professionals in the 70s and 80s tended to be defined by the size of their rig (no pornographic pun intended), most of which was about separating themselves from amateurs by virtue of bulk and weight. Personally speaking, I can't tell the difference between a shot taken on my Olympus MjuII and my pro SLRs. That being so, I defy anyone in a blind test to differentiate the results from Nikon F2 and a Canon F1 with similar spec lenses. And if you can't tell any difference by the output, "better" is a very subjective term.

Where the "unprofessional" thing comes in with the T4 is not the lens, but the flash. It's a pretty weak flash, and it's very close to the lens, so when using a flash it gives a very point-n-shoot-y look to the images. That's what I mean by "unprofessional", and that's probably why TR chose that camera to use for his shoots - he wanted that look. Much like those Calvin Klein underwear ads that were so controversial a few years back, shot in a 1970s style wood-paneled basement, where an off-camera voice was giving these very teenage-looking models posing direction.

 

[Shootar401]

I was always told by my father "Nikon for pro's, Canon for amateurs"

Nikon has a better resale value, is more durable and better engineered. Even the lowest end Nikon body will last decades longer than the best Canon body. Nikon lenses run circles around Canon lenses all day, and twice on sunday.

 

[benjiboy]

I was always told by my father "Nikon for pro's, Canon for amateurs"

Nikon has a better resale value, is more durable and better engineered. Even the lowest end Nikon body will last decades longer than the best Canon body. Nikon lenses run circles around Canon lenses all day, and twice on sunday.

Have you ever actually owned a Canon New F1, or any of the fantastic Canon FD L lenses? because I own and have owned both of these camera systems and used to sell them both professionally at a leading U.K. professional dealership and can say unequivocally that your assessment of these two professonal cameras and their lens systems is too partisan and uninformed for words to say the least if not downright silly.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

He hooked you.

 

[BradleyK]

They are both very fine cameras, how good they are depends on who is using them.

Although I am an admitted Nikon partisan, your remark, Sir, should be the closing post on this matter. Well and succinctly put.

BLK

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I was always told by my father "Nikon for pro's, Canon for amateurs"

Nikon has a better resale value, is more durable and better engineered. Even the lowest end Nikon body will last decades longer than the best Canon body. Nikon lenses run circles around Canon lenses all day, and twice on sunday.

Do you live under a bridge and dine regularly on goat?

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I ate goat meat curry once. It was delicious.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I was always told by my father "Nikon for pro's, Canon for amateurs"

Nikon has a better resale value, is more durable and better engineered. Even the lowest end Nikon body will last decades longer than the best Canon body. Nikon lenses run circles around Canon lenses all day, and twice on sunday.

I'm a Nikonist. You and your father are idiots.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I ate goat meat curry once. It was delicious.

When I was in the middle east I ate lots and lots of shawarmas, which probably contained goat, camel, sheep, and who knows what else. Delicious.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I'm a Nikonist. You and your father are idiots.

I'm a Nikonist too, but I must say my Canon IIb from '49 or '50 works a treat. It's also 15~ years older than my newest Nikon...

 

[lxdude]

I was always told by my father "Nikon for pro's, Canon for amateurs"

Nikon has a better resale value, is more durable and better engineered. Even the lowest end Nikon body will last decades longer than the best Canon body. Nikon lenses run circles around Canon lenses all day, and twice on sunday.

Looks like someone has canonized Nikon...

 

[benjiboy]

These sort of discussions never come to any concrete conclusions are futile and can go on for ever, suffice it to say they are both first class professional cameras built to the highest standards that have stood the test of time capable of the finest results in the right hands,which you choose or have chosen is a matter of the personal preference of the photographer.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I'm a Nikonist too, but I must say my Canon IIb from '49 or '50 works a treat. It's also 15~ years older than my newest Nikon...

E., Canon has always made good quality cameras and lenses. I have nothing against Canon. If I'd bought into Canon SLRs before the EOS mount was introduced I'd have been irate for a while, but that has no bearing on how capable Canon's products are. I've used Canon cine cameras and been happy with them.

 

[blockend]

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.

 

[lxdude]

Nikon got in first on the professional market. Then Canon stole their dinner with SLRs for the masses.

You left out the part where the masses were catered to by Minolta, Pentax, Ricoh, Yashica, etc.

 

[blockend]

You left out the part where the masses were catered to by Minolta, Pentax, Ricoh, Yashica, etc.

That's true. However the AE-1 gave the public what they thought they wanted, inexpensive, plastic bodied SLRs with automation. It left manufacturers of metal bodied cameras with manual metering looking old fashioned, to Joe Public at least, and other makers fell in line including Nikon. I don't know how many A-series cameras Canon sold, but it must have been millions.

IMO the best value for money camera made by either company were the Nikkormats. These were hand built to the same standard as the F and F2 with a few system accessories removed, and pitched at a price around, or little more than inferior opposition. Only the name protected brand prestige. I was an Olympus guy in that era, but we were seen as quirky at a time when people wanted bigger SLRs, not smaller ones. The truly miniaturised 35mm SLR idea never took off, because a pancake lens range didn't fit most peoples' idea of what an SLR should be.

 

[benjiboy]

I'll tell you how long life and reliable the electronics are in the Canon New F1, I have four bodies all made in different years in the 1980's and as far as I know none of the meters have ever been adjusted.
I recently checked the meter accuracy of all of them against each other with a digital spot meter of known accuracy and a Kodak Grey Card, and they all agreed with each other within 2/10ths of a stop, for cameras that are more than thirty years old I think this is pretty impressive.

 

[NB23]

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

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

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

Which Nikon body in particular and what features does it have that you cannot find in any of the Minolta bodies?

 

[NB23]

Fully mechanical, undestructible Nikon engineering.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

E., Canon has always made good quality cameras and lenses. I have nothing against Canon. If I'd bought into Canon SLRs before the EOS mount was introduced I'd have been irate for a while, but that has no bearing on how capable Canon's products are. I've used Canon cine cameras and been happy with them.

Oh I agree, I particularly like their later screwmounts such as the P and 7 series. Also, I'm always tempted to grab an F1 and a three lens outfit, but I just can't rationalize/ justify it, I have enough cameras of all sorts.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

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

What's wrong with Nikkors??