I do not own, or know much about a "Modern Day" 35mm SLR.
Why is it no longer (or maybe it is) a concern to be able to change the Focus Screens.?
How common was it, for the majority of 35mm users, to change the screens circa 1975.?
I do not own, or know much about a "Modern Day" 35mm SLR.So unless need interchangeable viewfinders or focusing screens skip the F2 and 3 and get another N90 as backup. I know that the military and AP issued N90s, rugged, pretty good AF, fast motor drive, had the features needed by most pro's, likely cost Nikon F4 and F sales. If you want manual focus body, get a FM2 or 3.
I do not own, or know much about a "Modern Day" 35mm SLR.
Why is it no longer (or maybe it is) a concern to be able to change the Focus Screens.?
How common was it, for the majority of 35mm users, to change the screens circa 1975.?
Yes....of course, makes sense.Back in the day, different types of photography was aided by different screen types, since none were perfect for everything.
Today, those who wish to use manual lenses with modern cameras may wish to use screens optimized for this purpose
So unless need interchangeable viewfinders or focusing screens skip the F2 and 3 and get another N90 as backup. I know that the military and AP issued N90s, rugged, pretty good AF, fast motor drive, had the features needed by most pro's, likely cost Nikon F4 and F sales. If you want manual focus body, get a FM2 or 3.
The sole purpose for my F2 is to be able to use the pre-AI lenses that I still have.
Its sentimental value now exceeds its market value too.
So unless need interchangeable viewfinders or focusing screens skip the F2 and 3 and get another N90 as backup. I know that the military and AP issued N90s, rugged, pretty good AF, fast motor drive, had the features needed by most pro's, likely cost Nikon F4 and F sales. If you want manual focus body, get a FM2 or 3.
I think that those who are looking at an F2 or F3 have no interest in the technical superiority of cameras like an F90. It's about slowing down, the process blah blah blah..
My N6006 works perfectly after 30 years. Here are some shots recently with Tmax400.I have an fm2n. I prefer mf bodies for certain styles of shooting, I have a lot of mf glass, and I prefer a smaller body (the f2 and f3 are smaller than the n90s). I go back and forth between af and mf bodies...same for my canon setup as I have a full set of fd and eos lenses. I have thought about another n90 body as I like it so much. I have a 6006 and am not sold on it so probably will sell it.
My backup for the manual focus F2 was the manual focus Nikon EM (upper right) and my backup for the auto focus F4 was the auto focus Nikon N70.
The FTn is good but I dislike the tiny little lever that operates the speed ring. And I don't feel that they improved it for the FT3's that I've handled. Nevertheless it was my main Nikon until my first F2.the backup to my F2 is another F2.
seriously, I like my Nikkormat FTn as much or maybe a little more then the F2. I prefer the F2s viewfinder, 1/2000 shutter speed, but the FTn has prettier lines, weighs less, and has the shutter in a ring around the lens. Between them, they are two of my three favorite 35mm SLRs (along with the diminutive Pentax MX.)
the backup to my F2 is another F2.
I had the F2 and it's quite delicate instrument and won't survive if you drive nail with it. People like to say that or call it the hockey puck but cameras are all delicate instruments and can't take abuses.I think you could probably drive nails with an F2 then do a shoot with it.
It's hyperbole. But the F2 will survive a lot that lesser cameras won't, as any number of professional photographers who worked under bad conditions in the 70's will tell you.I had the F2 and it's quite delicate instrument and won't survive if you drive nail with it. People like to say that or call it the hockey puck but cameras are all delicate instruments and can't take abuses.
They had a good number of them destroyed too but it's their job and they could afford it. The F2AS cost me $550 ($700 with the 50mm f/1.4 lens) in 1977 and I was making $5 an hour I wouldn't want to use it to drive nail.It's hyperbole. But the F2 will survive a lot that lesser cameras won't, as any number of professional photographers who worked under bad conditions in the 70's will tell you.
It's just an old joke. I was making 20 an hour when I bought the first of my two F2's for 300 bucks last year, and I still would never be anything but gentle to it... you can't deny however that Nikon F-series cameras, especially rhe F2, are built exceptionally ruggedly for a wide variety of professional use casesThey had a good number of them destroyed too but it's their job and they could afford it. The F2AS cost me $550 ($700 with the 50mm f/1.4 lens) in 1977 and I was making $5 an hour I wouldn't want to use it to drive nail.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?