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

[lxdude]

They are both first class reliable professional cameras, built to the highest standards, I own or have owned both of them and they are two of the best 35mm S.L.R' s ever made.

Yup.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I was just mentioning that in some cameras the fastest speeds are often stepless even if they are not advertised by the manual, by virtue of the curtain gap settings. This mode of operation does not require the clockwork.

The "switching" you mention regarding the Leicaflex happens in other cameras as well such as the Nikon F2. On the Nikkormat FT, again, i found that some clockwork ranges were stepless as well. In many shutter-control clockwork mechanisms for central shutters there is a "switching of modes" as well; i've seen this in the Prontor, Epsilon and (i think) one Compur.

"Steplessness" depends upon the construction of the cam which unlatches the second curtain. The Nikon F had a stepped cam - like the snail which controls the count in a repeating watch - - I've serviced them both and seen the cam/snail. The F2 has a precision ground stepless, i.e. smooth, cam - like the cam which lifts the valves in your car's powerplant - giving true stepless speeds.

 

[lxdude]

Do the ones with the snail tend to be slow?

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Do the ones with the snail tend to be slow?

Only at the slow speeds.

 

[flavio81]

For what it's worth,

Yesterday i sold my Nikon F Photomic TN. I liked it a lot; however, because it was in such excellent shape, i was afraid to take it ouside, preferring to carry my slightly battered Nikon F3 or my Nikon FE. Thus i sold it for a nice price to a photographer that will give it proper use.

Today i'm supposed to buy a Canon F-1 (early model), so i'll tell you how I find the camera compared to my old Nikon F. I won't compare it in terms of features, but on how it feels on actual usage.

 

[Les Sarile]

Today i'm supposed to buy a Canon F-1 (early model), so i'll tell you how I find the camera compared to my old Nikon F. I won't compare it in terms of features, but on how it feels on actual usage.

As I pointed out in the beginning, the "proper" comparisons should be the bodies with the same release dates which are as follows:

1. 1959 Nikon F is to the Canonflex
2. 1971 Nikon F2 is to the Canon F-1
3. 1980/81 Nikon F3 is to the Canon New F-1

 

[frank]

Canon F1n vs Nikon F2

So, no decision yet?

 

[benjiboy]

Canon F1n vs Nikon F2

So, no decision yet?

I have never owned the Canon F1n, but have owned both the Canon New F1 and the Nikon F2 which are both wonderful high quality professional SLR's that I have used for several years and I sold the F2 and chose the F1N , I now have three of them and have come to the conclusion that if God ever made a better manual focus SLR than the New F1 he must have kept it to himself.

 

[benjiboy]

I have them both and love them both. Silly question, but should I love one more than the other? This question is all about personal opinion but is it possible to quantify the advantages of one vs. the other and then decide the best camera?

Let my attempt this:

F2: Heavier. F1n: Lighter
F2: The exposure information in the finder is brighter and easier to read. Aperture and shutter speed are at bottom of frame and both are bright.
F1n: Gorgeous matte black finish and lovely lines
F2: Says "Nikon" on the front of the prism...
F1n: Doesn't
F1n: Pleasing font used for "Canon" on prism.
F1n: 50mm 1.4 is great lens, focus to 1 foot.
F2: 50mm 1.4 is a great lens, does not focus as close as 1 foot.
F1n: Lighted exposure info in prism.
F1n: Has Aperture priority AE mode (Should I be comparing the F1n to the Nikon F3??)
Both: Wonderful clunk when shutter is fired.
Both: Can be used as weapons if you are being mugged.
Both: Exchangeable finders and focus screens
Both: Excellent lenses available in all interesting focal lengths
F1n: Lenses are cheaper.
F1n: Professes a like for HP5+
F2: Won't load HP5+ without a bit of whining.

I think you're confused the Canon F1n (lower case) has a glossy black finish and is purely mechanical and the updated version of the original F1, the camera you describe is the canon F1N (upper case) or New F1 that is a completely different camera with a matte black finish, silicon cell metering and a hybrid electro- mechanical shutter.

 

[flavio81]

Update:

So i bought a Canon F-1 (original pre-update version) which seems mint, lucky me!!

Now here is my comparison against the Nikon F Photomic TN (1967). Yes, i know the fair comparison would be to the circa-1971 Nikon F2, but i've never owned the F2. I also own a Canon EF which is considered amongst the best of the "classic" canon FD-mount cameras. I also own a Nikon F3 which I like a lot:

- I really love this camera! If i had bought a F-1 years ago, perhaps i would have never sold all those FD lenses i had.

- This is a camera that looks even better than the pictures show. It is really beautiful, and more beautiful than the Canon EF which is dubbed "black beauty".

- It feels smaller in my hand than the Nikon F, and slightly better balanced. All in all it feels *much* better in the hands compared to the Nikon F (which I sold two days ago!). It feels lighter than the Nikon F, and curiosly it feels lighter than the Canon EF as well. This is high praise, since what i liked more about the Nikon F is how solid and balanced it felt in my hands.

- I'd say build quality is on par with the Nikon F, but different -- where the Nikon F has beautiful, rainbow-shining machined parts such as the rewind knob and handle, and beautiful inscriptions, the Canon F-1 feels more like "one piece" when squeezed, no doubt because of the fact that the bottom half of the camera does not come off like in the Nikon. Additionally, the prism mounting method is more precise than in the F (and F2); the prism will not move if grabbed from the top and moved about. No slack. The build quality of the prism mounting mechanism is a beauty to behold and reveals machined parts with a quality and precision rarely found in other cameras. Both the Nikon F and especially the F-1 have amazing exterior build quality, superior to the one on the Leicaflex SL (seriously, no kidding... no puny plastic lens release tab here!!)

- The Canon EF has better build quality than the FTb (which is otherwise a well built camera), but on close inspection and feel, the F-1 is of even higher feel quality. On close inspection I see that the EF is not really "based on the F-1 body" as it's sometimes claimed.

- Viewfinder has a precision that i have not found neither in my EF nor in my previous A-1. "Precision" in the sense naturally showing the real contrast the lens is sending out, and in the absence of ghost images. Focusing is also really easy. However, i feel that the viewfinder on my Nikon F was slightly, slightly brighter. Also, the viewfinder on my Nikon F did not have as much clarity (clarity as in "absence of abberations"). An interesting difference with the Canon EF is that the F-1 viewfinder does not add geometric (barrel) distortion on the corners of the image; it seems that the one on the EF does.

- In terms of viewfinder mounting, precision of mounting, profile, and easiness of mounting, this camera is on par with the Nikon F3 which came 9 years later (!)

- My Photomic TN meter did not work properly (aged CdS cells lost linearlity). The meter needle on that Nikon is easy to see and use, although it is not easy to know when you are outside of the coupling range. On the F-1 you know it, because the meter window goes red. The viewfinder display of the shutter speed is just beautiful and bright. The manual metering mode of the Nikon F3 is awful!!, one of the worst decisions on what is otherwise a near-perfect camera.

- I like the match-needle metering of the F-1 much more than the metering on other cameras i've owned (F, F3, FE, EF, A-1, AE-1, EOS 5, EOS 5D, EOS 650). Coupled with the precisely-defined "partial" metering, I find this is a metering method that should be very, very reliable. I am currently using a 675 zinc-air battery and will do some tests to see how reliable is that substitution.

- Mirror shock + shutter vibration is significantly lower than in the Canon EF (one the problems of the vertical Copal shutter), and lower than in the Nikon F. Note, however, that the shutter itself of the Nikon F is super smooth; it is the mirror who contributes more to the vibrations. My Nikon F3 seems to have lower vibrations than all those cameras. But -surprise surpise- last time i handled a Canon AE-1 (days ago), it was even smoother (!!)

- It is slightly noisier than my Canon EF (!) and, of course, than my Nikon F3.

- This is the "original" F-1 and thus it has a 180° film advance lever angle, and no plastic tip at the lever. However i find the usage of the advance lever just fine; and i can easily grab the lever with my thumb.

All in all, a camera that i'm starting to like, in actual use, more than my beloved Nikon F3. I'd say this is a great achievement. I know, the F3 has a SPD photometer, automatic stepless exposure, an excellent motor drive system, TTL OTF flash metering, display of the aperture value in the viewfinder, and the battery will last an eternity... but i am not a photojournalist and I don't need such features. For what I do, the F-1 is getting to be the closest to a perfect camera and I'm already contemplating selling the EF and buying another one. I'm even thinking about selling some of my Nikkors and buying more FD or FL glass!!

tl;dr: Better than the Nikon F, and in some aspects on par with the Nikon F3.

 

[Les Sarile]

Sensible first impression considering you just got it and haven't actually exposed any film through it yet.

Additionally, the prism mounting method is more precise than in the F (and F2); the prism will not move if grabbed from the top and moved about. No slack.
"Precision" in the sense naturally showing the real contrast the lens is sending out, and in the absence of ghost images. Also, the viewfinder on my Nikon F did not have as much clarity (clarity as in "absence of abberations").

There is no slack on the finders of my F's - or in any of my interchangeable viewfinder type cameras for that matter. Also, I cannot say that I have ever encountered ghost images in any of my finders as well as aberrations? You said your Canon F-1 is "mint" but you didn't say the condition of your F. Perhaps it was in need of CLA?

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I think you're confused the Canon F1n (lower case) has a glossy black finish and is purely mechanical and the updated version of the original F1, the camera you describe is the canon F1N (upper case) or New F1 that is a completely different camera with a matte black finish, silicon cell metering and a hybrid electro- mechanical shutter.

Whatever!
You know which camera I am talking about from my description. If you are anxious because I type "Canon F1n", you've earned the title of "Mr. Pedantic"

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Update:

So i bought a Canon F-1 (original pre-update version) which seems mint, lucky me!!

Now here is my comparison against the Nikon F Photomic TN (1967). Yes, i know the fair comparison would be to the circa-1971 Nikon F2, but i've never owned the F2. I also own a Canon EF which is considered amongst the best of the "classic" canon FD-mount cameras. I also own a Nikon F3 which I like a lot:

- I really love this camera! If i had bought a F-1 years ago, perhaps i would have never sold all those FD lenses i had.

- This is a camera that looks even better than the pictures show. It is really beautiful, and more beautiful than the Canon EF which is dubbed "black beauty".

- It feels smaller in my hand than the Nikon F, and slightly better balanced. All in all it feels *much* better in the hands compared to the Nikon F (which I sold two days ago!). It feels lighter than the Nikon F, and curiosly it feels lighter than the Canon EF as well. This is high praise, since what i liked more about the Nikon F is how solid and balanced it felt in my hands.

- I'd say build quality is on par with the Nikon F, but different -- where the Nikon F has beautiful, rainbow-shining machined parts such as the rewind knob and handle, and beautiful inscriptions, the Canon F-1 feels more like "one piece" when squeezed, no doubt because of the fact that the bottom half of the camera does not come off like in the Nikon. Additionally, the prism mounting method is more precise than in the F (and F2); the prism will not move if grabbed from the top and moved about. No slack. The build quality of the prism mounting mechanism is a beauty to behold and reveals machined parts with a quality and precision rarely found in other cameras. Both the Nikon F and especially the F-1 have amazing exterior build quality, superior to the one on the Leicaflex SL (seriously, no kidding... no puny plastic lens release tab here!!)

- The Canon EF has better build quality than the FTb (which is otherwise a well built camera), but on close inspection and feel, the F-1 is of even higher feel quality. On close inspection I see that the EF is not really "based on the F-1 body" as it's sometimes claimed.

- Viewfinder has a precision that i have not found neither in my EF nor in my previous A-1. "Precision" in the sense naturally showing the real contrast the lens is sending out, and in the absence of ghost images. Focusing is also really easy. However, i feel that the viewfinder on my Nikon F was slightly, slightly brighter. Also, the viewfinder on my Nikon F did not have as much clarity (clarity as in "absence of abberations"). An interesting difference with the Canon EF is that the F-1 viewfinder does not add geometric (barrel) distortion on the corners of the image; it seems that the one on the EF does.

- In terms of viewfinder mounting, precision of mounting, profile, and easiness of mounting, this camera is on par with the Nikon F3 which came 9 years later (!)

- My Photomic TN meter did not work properly (aged CdS cells lost linearlity). The meter needle on that Nikon is easy to see and use, although it is not easy to know when you are outside of the coupling range. On the F-1 you know it, because the meter window goes red. The viewfinder display of the shutter speed is just beautiful and bright. The manual metering mode of the Nikon F3 is awful!!, one of the worst decisions on what is otherwise a near-perfect camera.

- I like the match-needle metering of the F-1 much more than the metering on other cameras i've owned (F, F3, FE, EF, A-1, AE-1, EOS 5, EOS 5D, EOS 650). Coupled with the precisely-defined "partial" metering, I find this is a metering method that should be very, very reliable. I am currently using a 675 zinc-air battery and will do some tests to see how reliable is that substitution.

- Mirror shock + shutter vibration is significantly lower than in the Canon EF (one the problems of the vertical Copal shutter), and lower than in the Nikon F. Note, however, that the shutter itself of the Nikon F is super smooth; it is the mirror who contributes more to the vibrations. My Nikon F3 seems to have lower vibrations than all those cameras. But -surprise surpise- last time i handled a Canon AE-1 (days ago), it was even smoother (!!)

- It is slightly noisier than my Canon EF (!) and, of course, than my Nikon F3.

- This is the "original" F-1 and thus it has a 180° film advance lever angle, and no plastic tip at the lever. However i find the usage of the advance lever just fine; and i can easily grab the lever with my thumb.

All in all, a camera that i'm starting to like, in actual use, more than my beloved Nikon F3. I'd say this is a great achievement. I know, the F3 has a SPD photometer, automatic stepless exposure, an excellent motor drive system, TTL OTF flash metering, display of the aperture value in the viewfinder, and the battery will last an eternity... but i am not a photojournalist and I don't need such features. For what I do, the F-1 is getting to be the closest to a perfect camera and I'm already contemplating selling the EF and buying another one. I'm even thinking about selling some of my Nikkors and buying more FD or FL glass!!

tl;dr: Better than the Nikon F, and in some aspects on par with the Nikon F3.

Now THIS is a wonderful, thoughtful, and very observant comparison.

Well done, sir!

 

[flavio81]

Thanks SchwinnParamount!

Sensible first impression considering you just got it and haven't actually exposed any film through it yet.

There is no slack on the finders of my F's - or in any of my interchangeable viewfinder type cameras for that matter. Also, I cannot say that I have ever encountered ghost images in any of my finders as well as aberrations? You said your Canon F-1 is "mint" but you didn't say the condition of your F. Perhaps it was in need of CLA?

Hi Les,

My Nikon F was really in excellent shape. It appeared unused!! No kinks on the curtain, no brassing, shutter speeds were correct despite no signs of having been dissasembled (!). The only service I did was disassembling the viewfinder to clean the optics, and trying to re-calibrate the Photomic TN (this procedure was a pain in the rear, and failed because of the CdS cells having lost linearlity).

By the way, on the photometer comparison -- the Photomic TN (and similars) use the troublesome variable resistor ring method; that is, a variable resistor adjusts the photometer sensitivity as the shutter speed is changed. In contrast the F1 works by physically turning the galvanometer housing each time the shutter speed is changed. Plus, this change is not linear with the shutter dial movement, but it is done through a special "correction cam"; in this way linearlity errors of the photometer at each shutter speed setting are compensated. The side effect is that the electronic circuit of the F-1 is dramatically simplified over the one on the Photomic TN and FTn, and thus more reliable over the years.

In fact i can tell you what the circuit is by heart:

--- battery ---> CdS cells (in parallel) --> fixed resistor --> galvanometer --> battery

That's it!!

I forgot to mention that the F-1 meter does not require manual ISO setting correction depending on the focusing screen fitted, unlike the Nikon F.

Also, on the F-1 you just fit a FD lens and the lens' speed is automatically compensated for. There is no need to do the cumbersome procedure of manually adjusting the ISO setting each time a new lens is fitted (as in the Photomic T, TN); nor there is no need to do the laughable procedure of having to twist the aperture ring twice each time a new lens is fitted (as in the later photomics and as in the Nikon F2 before AI-indexing).

Now, the viewfinder mounting method of the Nikon F is: on the bottom of the prism housing (Photomic TN in this case) there are two sort of spring metal clips that push against the focusing screen housing (visible on the pic below.) This pushes the prism housing "up" and the prism interlocks keep it in place. Thus you can push "down" the prism at will.

If I recall correctly, there is supposed to be a strip of foam located on the body below where the viewfinder opening sits, which would take up the slack. Probably this foam wasn't so "fresh" on my Nikon F, and this would explain the "slack" that i felt if i pushed down the prism housing against the body.

(...Now back to the Canon F-1 versus Nikon F2 topic...)

All in all, I am really impressed by the Canon F-1, it is clear that the Canon worked real hard to beat the Nikon F (and beat it regarding lenses too); It is definitely a superior machine to the Nikon F, and the Canon engineers thought it too. This is what is written at the beginning of the F-1 service manual:



But is it superior to the Nikon F2? I'm not so sure. I need to own a Nikon F2 to do a proper comparison, but on paper these are the improvements of the F2 over the F:

- Better photo meters - but all of them of the "+/- needle" or "+/- LED" type
-----> I prefer the "lollipop+needle" metering of the F-1 in this case. It allows to easily see how far off you are from the suggested metering, and to easily compensate +1 EV or -1EV as desired, considering that the lollipop's inner circle dimensions are span exactly 1 EV on the scale.
-----> Also, before Nikon introduced the AI indexing, mounting a lens of different max aperture required the ridiculous "twist twice the aperture ring" thing. Still it's not a big deal (i owned a Nikkormat FT2 and liked it a lot), but here the F-1 wins.

Score: Canon 1 / Nikon 0

- A kludgy, rube-goldberg device for shutter-priority AE which phisically adjusts the aperture ring (!)
-----> This is a tie with the F-1, the F-1 has also a device for shutter-priority {Servo EE finder} which is not as kludgy, but it is BIG, requiring you to carry an 8-AA-cells battery pack (!)

Score: Canon 1 / Nikon 0

- Allows mechanical speeds down to 10 seconds by use of the self timer
-----> Nice feature but the F-1 allows for electronically-controlled speeds down to 60 seconds by adding the "Booster T finder", which also adds ultra-sensitive metering and a viewfinder illuminator. I'd give 0.5 points to Canon here.
Score: Canon 1.5 / Nikon 0

- Smoother mirror mechanism
-----> I'll need to compare with the F-1 mechanism. Probably they are equally good.

Score: Canon 1.5 / Nikon 0

- Stepless shutter speeds
-----> Now this is a plus over the F-1, but for some users of course. 1 full point for Nikon since few 35mm SLR cameras have this feature.

Score: Canon 1.5 / Nikon 1

- More streamlined motor drive
-----> Probably better than the F-1 equivalent. Nikon makes great motor drives. 1 point for Nikon.

Score: Canon 1.5 / Nikon 2

- Same finder mounting mechanism than the Nikon F.
-----> F-1 is better, period. 1 full point for Canon.

Score: Canon 2.5 / Nikon 2

- Wider lens choice (in 1971)
-----> Still, if we include the Nikon AF lenses, even today the lens choice of Nikon F-mount lenses is wider. However, the Canon FD mount has some lenses that have no equal Nikon F-mount and that approach technical perfection, like the Canon FD 55/1.2 Aspheric, or the Canon FD 85/1.2L. And there is practically no lens to be left missing, the system spanning lenses from the fisheye to the special ultra-rare and huge 5200mm mirror lens. For me, overall, and from about 1968 onwards, Canon made optically better lenses than Nikon. But Nikon lenses are generally better built. I'd call it 0.5 points for Nikon.

Score: Canon 2.5 / Nikon 2.5

- Same center-weighted metering pattern
-----> No contest. The precise "partial" metering of the F-1 is better. Centerweighted is best for AE shooting, of course, and this is exactly what Canon's Servo EE finder gives you, when fitted. So the system allows for two metering patterns. 1 point for Canon.

Score: Canon 3.5 / Nikon 2.5

 

[Les Sarile]

I have the good fortune of perfectly good F's and F2. No slackers here . . .

Since you didn't mention it, maybe you don't consider the 100% viewfinder coverage of the Nikon F series to be of merit. I believe Canon didn't achieve this until the Canon EOS1.

BTW, the Minolta XK was a technical achievement being released in 1972 - just after the Nikon F2 and Canon F-1. Among others, it has the fastest sync speed (1/100) of all the interchangeable viewfinder bodies with horizontal curtains.

I still need to acquire a Canonflex and Canon F-1 to complete the experience.

 

[benjiboy]

I have the good fortune of perfectly good F's and F2. No slackers here . . .

Since you didn't mention it, maybe you don't consider the 100% viewfinder coverage of the Nikon F series to be of merit. I believe Canon didn't achieve this until the Canon EOS1.

100% viewfinder coverage is a definite disadvantage if you shoot slides because you loose a small parentage of the image from the slide mount, or if shooting neg film the negative carrier, the Canon F1 give you 98 % viewfinder coverage which to me is ideal.

 

[benjiboy]

Whatever!
You know which camera I am talking about from my description. If you are anxious because I type "Canon F1n", you've earned the title of "Mr. Pedantic"

Sometimes being precise is necessary. I don't think if anyone bought a F1n off eBay because they wanted an all mechanical shutter camera and what they received was an F1N they would be very pleased , and the accessories , drives prism's focusing screens etc.. are not interchangeable between the models so it is important.

 

[Les Sarile]

100% viewfinder coverage is a definite disadvantage if you shoot slides because you loose a small parentage of the image from the slide mount, or if shooting neg film the negative carrier, the Canon F1 give you 98 % viewfinder coverage which to me is ideal.

No doubt this is something we can adjust to. Obviously Canon thought enough of it to finally include it in their later flagship EOS models. Personally, I put more emphasis on larger viewfinder magnification then coverage but that is because I don't wear glasses.

Sometimes being precise is necessary.

Although I agree in this case, Canon shares the blame given their confusing model naming convention.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

36 pages?
The F2 is better because I have only Nikkor lenses.

 

[frank]

36 pages?
The F2 is better because I have only Nikkor lenses.

Finally an answer! Thanks!

 

[benjiboy]

No doubt this is something we can adjust to. Obviously Canon thought enough of it to finally include it in their later flagship EOS models. Personally, I put more emphasis on larger viewfinder magnification then coverage but that is because I don't wear glasses.



Although I agree in this case, Canon shares the blame given their confusing model naming convention.

Canon couldn't call it the F2 because Nikon already manufactured the F2 and F3 at that time, the correct name for the last version of The F1 is the "New F1" according to Canon.

 

[Les Sarile]

Canon couldn't call it the F2 because Nikon already manufactured the F2 and F3 at that time, the correct name for the last version of The F1 is the "New F1" according to Canon.

They only had ten years to think about it . . .

 

[flavio81]

Update:

I put my money where my mouth is: I traded my mint Canon EF for a semi-battered Canon New F-1 (or "F-1N") with the AE Finder.

Well, if somebody wants to see my take on the New F-1 versus Old F-1 versus Nikon F3, here it is:

New F1 versus Old F1 versus Nikon F3:
{scoreboard is for F-1 Old versus New, and Canon F-1N versus Nikon F3}
Don't take this too seriously guys...

Canon - Old F1 has a nicer shiny black finish; i don't like how the matte paint of the New F1 feels in my hands. It almost looks cheap!
Nikon - F3 paint is just as good as the one in the old F1.
{ Old: 1 / New: 0 ------ Canon: 0 / Nikon: 1)

Canon - Focusing screen on the New F1 is far brighter !!
Nikon - Bright as well; but the one on the F1 is a bit better to my eyes. Note that i don't have the "F3HP" finder. 0.5 points to Canon.
{ Old: 1 / New: 1 ------ Canon: 0.5 / Nikon: 1.0)

Canon - Match-needle metering on the New F1 is taken to new heights; now with display of the actual aperture under manual mode. AND when switching to aperture-priority AE, the finder display changes radically, to reveal the aperture dial setting and the speed selected by the camera. Fantastic!! An excellent improvement over the F-1, and FAR better than the AE implementation on the Nikon F3 which has a really tiny LED viewfinder, not a proper analog needle that steplessly displays the selected speed.
Nikon - As said above, here the New F1 wins by a large margin. So large that i need to give 2 points to Canon.
{ Old: 1 / New: 2 ------ Canon: 2.5 / Nikon: 1.0)

Canon - Does not feel as firm as the old F-1 because of the battery cover which (at least in my camera) does not stay completely still against the camera body.
Nikon - About equal to F-1N. Canon old F-1 is still firmer in feel.
{ Old: 2 / New: 2 ------ Canon: 2.5 / Nikon: 1.0)

Canon - Film advance lever is not smooth, similar to the Canon A-1. The old F-1 is far smoother here.
Nikon - Nikon F3 wins, remarkably smooth film advance.
{ Old: 3 / New: 2 ------ Canon: 2.5 / Nikon: 2.0)

Canon - Shutter has mechanical backup but only from 1/125 to 1/2000. Old F-1 is better here.
Nikon - Both Canons are better. Nikon F3 only has 1/90 as manual speed, and requires to use a separate shutter release
{ Old: 4 / New: 2 ------ Canon: 3.5 / Nikon: 2.0)

Canon - SPC metering is overall better than CdS metering. New F-1 is better here. Multiple patterns.
Nikon - Nikon F3 has SPC metering but with only one metering pattern. Still, the F3 meter is pretty good. 0.5 points to Canon.
{ Old: 4 / New: 3 ------ Canon: 4.0 / Nikon: 2.0)

Canon - "Old F-1" lens stop-down lever is very easy to operate. New F-1 lever i find ackward to operate. New F-1 has no mirror-lock-up.
Nikon - Easy to operate stop-down button. Easy to operate mirror lock-up.
{ Old: 5 / New: 3 ------ Canon: 4.0 / Nikon: 3.0)

Canon - "Old F-1" feels slightly lighter and/or better balanced in my hands. 0.5 points.
Nikon - F3 feels well balanced in the hands. I'd say better than the New F-1
{ Old: 5.5 / New: 3.0 ------ Canon: 4.0 / Nikon: 4.0)

Canon - New F-1 adds aperture-priority AE, and optional shutter-priority AE, over the old F-1
Nikon - Only aperture-priority AE. 0.5 points to Canon because you need to attach the motor on the F-1N to use shutter-priority AE.
{ Old: 5.5 / New: 4.0 ------ Canon: 4.5 / Nikon: 4.0)

Canon - Old F-1 classic, great looks messed with due to an ugly AE prism and an ugly eye-level prism. The fat, mutant "super-size-me" version of the slender, beautiful F-1.
Nikon - Classic F and F2 looks messed with by Pininfarina, Bertone, Giugaro or whatever car design studio which should NOT be allowed to design a camera. However the F3 is a nice looking camera. But i hate the tiny switches below the shutter dial and the shutter button. Or the tiny switch for turning the finder light on.
{ no change in score }

By the way, i find the Canon T90 an ugly camera, not a beautiful camera. Luigi Colani should design ice cream. The T70 even worse looking. The T50 makes me want to puke. For a really beautiful Canon camera there is the Canonflex R2000, EF, A-1 and F-1.

There you are...

The Nikon F3 and the Canon F-1N about evenly matched.
The Old F-1 i still prefer a little bit over the New F-1.

If the F-1 would have the screen brightness of the new F-1, and a proper aperture display on the viewfinder, it would perhaps be the ultimate 35mm pro SLR!!

BTW i don't care about 100% viewfinder coverage. Viewfinder subjective quality, and easyness of focus is much more important to me, however. In this regard all three cameras listed are just fine.

 

[benjiboy]

Update:

I put my money where my mouth is: I traded my mint Canon EF for a semi-battered Canon New F-1 (or "F-1N") with the AE Finder.

Well, if somebody wants to see my take on the New F-1 versus Old F-1 versus Nikon F3, here it is:

New F1 versus Old F1 versus Nikon F3:
{scoreboard is for F-1 Old versus New, and Canon F-1N versus Nikon F3}
Don't take this too seriously guys...

Canon - Old F1 has a nicer shiny black finish; i don't like how the matte paint of the New F1 feels in my hands. It almost looks cheap!
Nikon - F3 paint is just as good as the one in the old F1.
{ Old: 1 / New: 0 ------ Canon: 0 / Nikon: 1)

Canon - Focusing screen on the New F1 is far brighter !!
Nikon - Bright as well; but the one on the F1 is a bit better to my eyes. Note that i don't have the "F3HP" finder. 0.5 points to Canon.
{ Old: 1 / New: 1 ------ Canon: 0.5 / Nikon: 1.0)

Canon - Match-needle metering on the New F1 is taken to new heights; now with display of the actual aperture under manual mode. AND when switching to aperture-priority AE, the finder display changes radically, to reveal the aperture dial setting and the speed selected by the camera. Fantastic!! An excellent improvement over the F-1, and FAR better than the AE implementation on the Nikon F3 which has a really tiny LED viewfinder, not a proper analog needle that steplessly displays the selected speed.
Nikon - As said above, here the New F1 wins by a large margin. So large that i need to give 2 points to Canon.
{ Old: 1 / New: 2 ------ Canon: 2.5 / Nikon: 1.0)

Canon - Does not feel as firm as the old F-1 because of the battery cover which (at least in my camera) does not stay completely still against the camera body.
Nikon - About equal to F-1N. Canon old F-1 is still firmer in feel.
{ Old: 2 / New: 2 ------ Canon: 2.5 / Nikon: 1.0)

Canon - Film advance lever is not smooth, similar to the Canon A-1. The old F-1 is far smoother here.
Nikon - Nikon F3 wins, remarkably smooth film advance.
{ Old: 3 / New: 2 ------ Canon: 2.5 / Nikon: 2.0)

Canon - Shutter has mechanical backup but only from 1/125 to 1/2000. Old F-1 is better here.
Nikon - Both Canons are better. Nikon F3 only has 1/90 as manual speed, and requires to use a separate shutter release
{ Old: 4 / New: 2 ------ Canon: 3.5 / Nikon: 2.0)

Canon - SPC metering is overall better than CdS metering. New F-1 is better here. Multiple patterns.
Nikon - Nikon F3 has SPC metering but with only one metering pattern. Still, the F3 meter is pretty good. 0.5 points to Canon.
{ Old: 4 / New: 3 ------ Canon: 4.0 / Nikon: 2.0)

Canon - "Old F-1" lens stop-down lever is very easy to operate. New F-1 lever i find ackward to operate. New F-1 has no mirror-lock-up.
Nikon - Easy to operate stop-down button. Easy to operate mirror lock-up.
{ Old: 5 / New: 3 ------ Canon: 4.0 / Nikon: 3.0)

Canon - "Old F-1" feels slightly lighter and/or better balanced in my hands. 0.5 points.
Nikon - F3 feels well balanced in the hands. I'd say better than the New F-1
{ Old: 5.5 / New: 3.0 ------ Canon: 4.0 / Nikon: 4.0)

Canon - New F-1 adds aperture-priority AE, and optional shutter-priority AE, over the old F-1
Nikon - Only aperture-priority AE. 0.5 points to Canon because you need to attach the motor on the F-1N to use shutter-priority AE.
{ Old: 5.5 / New: 4.0 ------ Canon: 4.5 / Nikon: 4.0)

Canon - Old F-1 classic, great looks messed with due to an ugly AE prism and an ugly eye-level prism. The fat, mutant "super-size-me" version of the slender, beautiful F-1.
Nikon - Classic F and F2 looks messed with by Pininfarina, Bertone, Giugaro or whatever car design studio which should NOT be allowed to design a camera. However the F3 is a nice looking camera. But i hate the tiny switches below the shutter dial and the shutter button. Or the tiny switch for turning the finder light on.
{ no change in score }

By the way, i find the Canon T90 an ugly camera, not a beautiful camera. Luigi Colani should design ice cream. The T70 even worse looking. The T50 makes me want to puke. For a really beautiful Canon camera there is the Canonflex R2000, EF, A-1 and F-1.

There you are...

The Nikon F3 and the Canon F-1N about evenly matched.
The Old F-1 i still prefer a little bit over the New F-1.

If the F-1 would have the screen brightness of the new F-1, and a proper aperture display on the viewfinder, it would perhaps be the ultimate 35mm pro SLR!!

BTW i don't care about 100% viewfinder coverage. Viewfinder subjective quality, and easyness of focus is much more important to me, however. In this regard all three cameras listed are just fine.

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.

 

[flavio81]

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.

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.