Holy Trinity of Manual Focus Nikon SLRs...

[flavio81]

and the 105 2.5 greatestlensofalltime

Hard to agree. I've owned two 105/2.5 Nikkors;

My 105/1.8 was more interesting; brighter, and of course with this comes more potential for bokeh. Sadly it got stolen.

The Canon FDn 100/2.8 is significantly smaller than any 105/2.5 Nikkor, and also has exemplary bokeh. Very sharp, too.

However, the real reason I sold my 105/2.5, was the 85/1.8 Nikkor-H / Nikkor H-C / Nikkor K. Absolutely superb lens!!

Still I don't think i'll ever sell my 85/1.8. I sold my 85/1.8 Nikkor-H, repented, and now I got a 85/1.8 Nikkor-K, the latest version of that amazing optic.

The F3 should have been the height of mechanical F designs except for that stupid LCD illuminator button. ICT has a mod that replaces the button with something more substantial but my F3 is so clean I hate to modify it.

The F3 is probably the professional camera with the highest amount of stupidity / stupid design decisions.

For me it's really frustrating that Nikon created what is basically an excellent shutter/mirror/advance mechanism and wrapped it on a camera full of really stupid, idiotic stuff. The apex of stupidity being placing the GLASS FRE (functional resistance element) directly below the flash shoe. So, fit a flash there, knock your flash against a wall or something else, and CRACK, broken FRE and thus dead meter.

One of the many silly decisions on the F3. Canon showed how to properly do a 1980s manual focus SLR with the New F-1, and Pentax went even beyond doing a better product than Nikon and Canon, the exemplary LX. Now that's what the F3 should have been.

I don't see much difference between having a few rolls of film in the gadget bag and having a replacement battery in the bag. They are both consumables.

Agree.

 

[Cholentpot]

Hard to agree. I've owned two 105/2.5 Nikkors;

My 105/1.8 was more interesting; brighter, and of course with this comes more potential for bokeh. Sadly it got stolen.

The Canon FDn 100/2.8 is significantly smaller than any 105/2.5 Nikkor, and also has exemplary bokeh. Very sharp, too.

However, the real reason I sold my 105/2.5, was the 85/1.8 Nikkor-H / Nikkor H-C / Nikkor K. Absolutely superb lens!!

Still I don't think i'll ever sell my 85/1.8. I sold my 85/1.8 Nikkor-H, repented, and now I got a 85/1.8 Nikkor-K, the latest version of that amazing optic.




The F3 is probably the professional camera with the highest amount of stupidity / stupid design decisions.

For me it's really frustrating that Nikon created what is basically an excellent shutter/mirror/advance mechanism and wrapped it on a camera full of really stupid, idiotic stuff. The apex of stupidity being placing the GLASS FRE (functional resistance element) directly below the flash shoe. So, fit a flash there, knock your flash against a wall or something else, and CRACK, broken FRE and thus dead meter.

One of the many silly decisions on the F3. Canon showed how to properly do a 1980s manual focus SLR with the New F-1, and Pentax went even beyond doing a better product than Nikon and Canon, the exemplary LX. Now that's what the F3 should have been.



Agree.

I have both versions of the 105 2.5 and it's still the greatest lens of all time. I also have the 85 1.8 H and it's also a great lens, but not as great as the 105 2.5

 

[flavio81]

I have both versions of the 105 2.5 and it's still the greatest lens of all time. I also have the 85 1.8 H and it's also a great lens, but not as great as the 105 2.5

Try the 105/1.8 ... !

 

[Bruce Butterfield]

Hard to agree. I've owned two 105/2.5 Nikkors;

My 105/1.8 was more interesting; brighter, and of course with this comes more potential for bokeh. Sadly it got stolen.

The Canon FDn 100/2.8 is significantly smaller than any 105/2.5 Nikkor, and also has exemplary bokeh. Very sharp, too.

However, the real reason I sold my 105/2.5, was the 85/1.8 Nikkor-H / Nikkor H-C / Nikkor K. Absolutely superb lens!!

Still I don't think i'll ever sell my 85/1.8. I sold my 85/1.8 Nikkor-H, repented, and now I got a 85/1.8 Nikkor-K, the latest version of that amazing optic.




The F3 is probably the professional camera with the highest amount of stupidity / stupid design decisions.

For me it's really frustrating that Nikon created what is basically an excellent shutter/mirror/advance mechanism and wrapped it on a camera full of really stupid, idiotic stuff. The apex of stupidity being placing the GLASS FRE (functional resistance element) directly below the flash shoe. So, fit a flash there, knock your flash against a wall or something else, and CRACK, broken FRE and thus dead meter.

One of the many silly decisions on the F3. Canon showed how to properly do a 1980s manual focus SLR with the New F-1, and Pentax went even beyond doing a better product than Nikon and Canon, the exemplary LX. Now that's what the F3 should have been.



Agree.

I bought my LX sometime in the early eighties, used it for ten years, then got into Nikon and never looked back. A few years ago I pulled the LX out of a drawer (batteries had been pulled so no corrosion), put new batteries in and voila! Dead LX. Can’t fire or wind the shutter, 50mm f1.4 had stiff focus, etc. In the same drawer was a much older, undisturbed Nikon F with 50mm f1.4 which to this day works like new. I do appreciate how small and (apparently) well-built the LX was but I can’t honestly put Pentax in the same league as Nikon. I’ll take a larger, heavier camera that I can rely on over a more elegant but also more fragile one every time.

Just my own experience, of course.