I'd do some pretty sketchy stuff...

ChristopherCoy said:

So it's the D700 of Nikon's film line.

Click to expand...

My D300s is heavier than my F2. The D700 is larger and heavier still.

George Mann said:

My D300s is heavier than my F2. The D700 is larger and heavier still.

Click to expand...

The D700 is largely considered the quintessential camera in Nikons lineup. Like the F3, everything just worked with that camera they way it should. There wasn’t a dslr before it, or after it that has been able to match the way it captured colors with the ease of use it provided.

ChristopherCoy said:

I hear a lot about the F3HP. I don't want this to sound flippant, but what's so great about it?

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on your preference. Some like it and some hate it. Just like me I hate the F4 but so many people love it. I like the F3 because it's simple in design. It has a traditional Nikon horizontal travelled shutter. The shutter is electronically timed and really doesn't function without battery. Only the 1/60 speed works but you must release with a separate release and wait until the camera turns off. It has 1 single photocell for all the metering function including TTL flash. The meter is fully functioning without any viewfinder (although the F4 and F5 meter do work without the viewfinder but limited to spot mode only). It has a simple yet having high enough speed motor drive.

The F5’s meter works without the viewfinder? There’s a tidbit I didn’t know!

Craig said:

The film wind lever is the smoothest I have ever used, including Leicas in that comparison. ...

Click to expand...

Craig said:

A bit of a "Goldielocks" camera - everything was just right. Rugged, dependable, not too big or heavy, versatile with all the accessories available it could do virtually anything. The film wind lever is the smoothest I have ever used, including Leicas in that comparison. The HP finder made it easy to see 100% of the viewfinder with glasses on.

I'd call it the ultimate "traditional" SLR, as opposed to the modern F4 and subsequent cameras. You could make an argument that the Canon F-1 was more versatile, with it's different metering patterns and shutter priority AE, but it doesn't have the smoothness and intangible "rightness" about it. I have had both, and prefer the F3.

Click to expand...

I have two perfect condition F3s - an F3P and an F3Ltd. I've also had a regular HP in the past.
I don't get the praise for the film winding action. To me it feels a light, sloppy mess. There is lots of play in the vertical axis because Nikon incorporated ball bearings purely for speed. Not for smoothness or precision.
The winding action on so many of my other cameras is much smoother - whether it is a Nikon S2, Minolta XK, Leica R5/6/7/8/9, Nikon F2, Leica M etc.
While the viewfinder is excellent from a coverage standpoint, the exposure readout information is lacking, and that has always been a complaint with the camera.

Don't get me wrong, I still really like using it because it just feels so good in the hand. Much nicer than an F2. Nikon finally incorporated curves to make it fit in your hand! And the handling is spectacular with the MD4 motordrive.
Ultimate traditional SLR? I'd say the FM3A easily takes that crown from the F3, and traditional SLRs like the Leica R7 that has a perfect viewfinder information package (that got even better with the R8 and R9), along with multiple metering modes really moved that along.

The standard F3 really did lose a lot of that sense of ruggedness that the earlier, and later , F models had. I've never seen more cameras with dented/caved in prisms as the standard F3 and F3 HP models. The metal construction was very thin, something that Nikon recognized when they released the up built F3P.

cjbecker said:

Only 35mm b&w prints. I do all my own black and white printing in the darkroom, and no matter what I do, I prefer b&w prints from medium format and 4x5. Even small 5x7 prints, I can’t get the same feel as I get with medium and large format. The convenience I get from 35mm is not worth the final print I get from the smaller negative. So I went back to shooting all 6x6 and 4x5 for my b&w images.

Click to expand...

Just reading an interview with Lewis Baltz, who shot his pictures in 35mm. He used ISO 6 B&W film, always on a tripod, using the smallest F stop available. Those prints rival large format. ,

MartinCrabtree said:

bah......Corvette......dime a dozen. 1969 Camaro Z28 DZ302. There's a find.

Click to expand...

Just wish I still had my 1970 Plymouth 440 Cuda, pistol grip shifter and three two-barrel carbs.

Arthurwg said:

Just reading an interview with Lewis Baltz, who shot his pictures in 35mm. He used ISO 6 B&W film, always on a tripod, using the smallest F stop available. Those prints rival large format. ,

Click to expand...

I've seen some of his prints from the Prototype Works series and they were amazing. I have to continually remind myself that they were shot on 35mm. The ones from the Candlestick Point series didn't seem to be quite as good, not sure if he changed his film/technique at that time.

Arthurwg said:

Just reading an interview with Lewis Baltz, who shot his pictures in 35mm. He used ISO 6 B&W film, always on a tripod, using the smallest F stop available. Those prints rival large format. ,

Click to expand...

I would really enjoy shooting 35mm b&w just for the size of the camera, Especially for traveling. As of now I have to carry 2 systems traveling, 35mm for slides and medium format for b&w.

I looked at some of lewis baltz pictures and they do look really good. Kinda hard to find a lot of examples on line though. At some point I will go down the 35mm road again trying to achieve results im happy with.

MartinCrabtree said:

bah......Corvette......dime a dozen. 1969 Camaro Z28 DZ302. There's a find.

Click to expand...

I am not into the whole 1/4 mile thing....i do not race from one red light to the next.
I am not much of a "Muscle Car" guy either, but........i always preferred those 5.0 liter cars much more than the 7.0 liter models.
Maybe it had something to do with Trans Am.....Peter Revson, Vic Elford, Mark Donohue, etc etc

ChristopherCoy said:

I've never shot an F2, never even seen one in person... but I think I'd probably do some seriously sketchy stuff for this thing. Oh why can't prostitution be legal?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Unused-in-...121436?hash=item23ec686adc:g:5LcAAOSw5e1f~nY2

View attachment 267416View attachment 267417View attachment 267409View attachment 267418View attachment 267419View attachment 267410 View attachment 267411 View attachment 267412 View attachment 267413 View attachment 267414 View attachment 267415

Click to expand...

For a 40+ year old camera which certainly needs a major CLA??

You're silly.

ChristopherCoy said:

Nah... it's more like finding a never driven classic corvette in a barn. You'd have to change the tires, and belts, and spark plugs, and put oil in it.... but when it does finally fire up and the rubber meets the road.....

Click to expand...

.... you're driving an outdated plastic armadillo. that will likely have a major failure very soon.

CMoore said:

I am not into the whole 1/4 mile thing....i do not race from one red light to the next.
I am not much of a "Muscle Car" guy either, but........i always preferred those 5.0 liter cars much more than the 7.0 liter models.
Maybe it had something to do with Trans Am.....Peter Revson, Vic Elford, Mark Donohue, etc etc

Click to expand...

I get it. My daily is a '17 WRX with a 2 liter engine.