Most Rugged, Long Lasting Nikon?

[DBP]

Batteries only die when you are not expecting it. So it is a good idea to routinely carry spares. If you like, you can clip a hearing aid battery case to your camera strap to be safe.

 

[Roger Hicks]

do you mean like you don't know the exact day and hour they'll fail? or are we talking about a window of a week or something?

Days. a week. what does it matter? How do you tell?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Batteries only die when you are not expecting it. So it is a good idea to routinely carry spares. If you like, you can clip a hearing aid battery case to your camera strap to be safe.

A hearing aid battery case? How long is that going to survive on a camera strap? And won't it get in the way? I'm not being combative: I'm genuinely curious.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[copake_ham]

How often do they die unexpectedly? In 40 years' experience, regularly.

Also, a lot depends on how many pics you take, how often you meter without taking a picture, and how far from home you are e.g. being in China for 3 weeks is a bit unlike being out for the day.

With many older cameras, the only warning you get that they are running low is when they grow erratic and die.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger,

With all due respects, these days most batteries are made in China. So batteries failing while there would probably not be much of a big deal.

Here's my take:

1) My F3HPs/FT-2 etc. run on common LR-44 "buttons". Easy to find (any Radio Shack or drugstore etc.) and easy to carry spares.

2) My F100 and F5 run on AA's. Even easier to find and carrying a half dozen is lighter than one prime lens.

3) I only use my F (FTn model) for "special occassions" so would not be relying on it such that battery failure would seriously inconvenience me.

So, at the end of the day, I still fail to see why such battery-phobia exists.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

With all due respects, these days most batteries are made in China. So batteries failing while there would probably not be much of a big deal.

Here's my take:

1) My F3HPs/FT-2 etc. run on common LR-44 "buttons". Easy to find (any Radio Shack or drugstore etc.) and easy to carry spares.

2) My F100 and F5 run on AA's. Even easier to find and carrying a half dozen is lighter than one prime lens.

3) I only use my F (FTn model) for "special occassions" so would not be relying on it such that battery failure would seriously inconvenience me.

So, at the end of the day, I still fail to see why such battery-phobia exists.

Not many Radio Shacks in some of the places I go -- rural China, rural India, even rural France. Beijing is a different matter but who would want to spend more time in Beijing than they had to?

LR44 is hopelessly short lived; SR-44 is a lot harder to find.

AAs are another matter. Yes: much easier.

As for battery-phobia, I could equally reply that I can't see why such battery-worship exists. A lot of it is, after all, personal perception.

Cheers,

R.

 

[DougGrosjean]

A hearing aid battery case? How long is that going to survive on a camera strap? And won't it get in the way? I'm not being combative: I'm genuinely curious.

Cheers,

Roger

My Minolta XD-11 (circa 1982) actually came with a battery-holder on the neckstrap.

FWIW, when I've had batteries fail on semi-electronic manual cameras (Olympus XA and Minolta XD-11) it's been sudden. Like maybe the camera would be acting a little flaky, and perhaps just hours later it's dead.

Currently, I'm shooting mostly on older cameras that are fully mechanical, but I use a handheld meter. And that battery dies in the same way the camera batteries would die.

Only good thing is that the two cameras above, and my meter, all take the same battery.

On more modern cameras, where the battery winds and focuses and does many jobs, first thing I notice is slow re-winding of the film. Shortly after, maybe hours again, or less, it's dead.

 

[DBP]

A hearing aid battery case? How long is that going to survive on a camera strap? And won't it get in the way? I'm not being combative: I'm genuinely curious.

Cheers,

Roger

It is designed to go on a keychain, so it should be able to hold up well enough to normal abuse. Whether it gets in the way depends on where you attach it. The one shown holds two SR44s.

 

[copake_ham]

As for battery-phobia, I could equally reply that I can't see why such battery-worship exists. A lot of it is, after all, personal perception.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

It's not a matter of battery worship it's just recognizing reality. Battery operated gear provides for a number of very useful features and to me, generally provide advantages which far outweigh the disadvantage of occassional unexpected failure. Failure which can be easily compensated for simply by carrying a couple spare.

You would no sooner go for a drive without a spare tire in your car - so why is it so difficult to pack a couple of button batteries for your camera? And speaking of autos, I presume yours uses a battery to start it - or do you prefer a manual crank?

I'm not at all opposed to manual cameras. I have a Nikon S2, an SP as well as a Contax IIIa and a Kiev 4. They are fun to use although I usually also carry my Cosina/Voightlander shoe-mounted light meter. The one you speak highly of in your book. As you know it uses LR-44/SR-44 batteries.

In the end, I am very "middle of the road" on this subject. If a piece of gear meets with my needs and desires than I am not at all concerned whether it is entirely manual, or partially or even fully battery dependent.

Ciao,

 

[snegron]

I guess that this thread has turned into a debate as to whether electronic cameras are tougher than non electronic cameras. Both have thier advantages and disadvantages. I have had both manual and electronic cameras fail, newer and older cameras as well. I think that the issue here would be which particular model has more of a proven track record. Or, better stated, which would be less likely to fail. As mentioned before, many people have a tendency to believe that anything electronic is prone to fail sooner than non electronic equipment. This probably stems from bad experiences with other electronic equipment that went bad sooner than expected. In all fairness, Nikon's F line was built for professionals in mind. Nikon did produce several other non-F bodies that were tough as nails like the FM2, but it was their F line that made Nikon famous in terms of ruggedness and reliability.

It appears so far that in this thread the top three choices for toughest camera so far are the F, F2, and F3. The F100, F4, and F5 have also had many votes so far, but not as many as the first three. Although not necessarily the nicest looking of the three, I think I am starting to lean more toward getting another F3HP with MD4. I don't think I would shoot with the F or F2 as carefree as I would with an F3HP. I see the F and F2 as more collectable masterpieces than the F3HP and would be too afraid to run them to the ground as I would an F3HP. Not that the F or F2 would not withstand the beating, but I think it is more of psychological factor. I compare it to using a sportscar for daily use. I would not mind parking a newer Mustang in at the grocery store or taking it out under any weather condition, but I would would not dare take out an old vintage Shelby Cobra for fear of ruining its value. I don't mind tossing my F3HP in the camera bag, bouncing it around, rolling around all day taking pictures under any condition. After all, if it breaks it could be replaced easily as there are plenty of F3HP's out there still. On the other hand, if I broke my vintage FTN or F2A I would have a tougher time replacing them as fewr good examples are available today.

 

[Sparky]

I don't think I would shoot with the F or F2 as carefree as I would with an F3HP. I see the F and F2 as more collectable masterpieces than the F3HP and would be too afraid to run them to the ground as I would an F3HP. Not that the F or F2 would not withstand the beating, but I think it is more of psychological factor. I compare it to using a sportscar for daily use. I would not mind parking a newer Mustang in at the grocery store or taking it out under any weather condition, but I would would not dare take out an old vintage Shelby Cobra for fear of ruining its value. I don't mind tossing my F3HP in the camera bag, bouncing it around, rolling around all day taking pictures under any condition.

You've got it backwards, methinks! Think of the F and F2 as more like a dodge dart GT than a shelby cobra. They're beaters! But oh so dependable. I think the F and F2 are made for tossing around MUCH more than the F3. Anyway - DON'T listen to me. Get your hands on all three models and see for yourself!

 

[copake_ham]

Reply to Snergon's last comment:

Since this is more subjective than objective we will all undoubtedly continue to disagree.

Do you have a Nikon RF - particularly a SP?

If so, you will find that the film advance lever feels like butter as you push it. I also have a F - and it is a crank compared to the SP.

I don't know about the F2 but I have a F3 and it too has that "butter feel" I find on the SP.

The F and by and large the F2 were "hybrids". Nikon mounted SLR viewfinders and mirrors onto a RF body. They were built to last forever and feel like it. The F is top-heavy compared to the SP before it or the F3 after it.

That giant shutter speed dial alone says it all. The "compactness" of the F3's VF (even as a HP) shows that it is Nikon's first "true SLR" designed to that fact from the ground up rather than relying on a RF body with a ur-SLR VF crammed on top.

Now - outta this thread and off to shoot some film!

 

[Roger Hicks]

It is designed to go on a keychain, so it should be able to hold up well enough to normal abuse. Whether it gets in the way depends on where you attach it. The one shown holds two SR44s.

Thanks. Certainly worth trying. I think I'll buy several and try them as zipper-pulls on my camera bags -- I think they would get in the way on the strap.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Battery operated gear provides for a number of very useful features and to me, generally provide advantages which far outweigh the disadvantage of occassional unexpected failure.

Dear George,

Here is where we really differ. I don't see what these advantages are, except for a meter, and if the meter goes (because of battery failure), I'd like to go on using the camera without it.

The only top-quality camera I own that uses a battery (and then only for the meter) is my Leica MP; the Alpa, the Linhofs and the Gandolfis don't even have space for one... Actually, very few of my cheaper camera take batteries either.

In other words, given that I can do everything I want without battery dependency, I'd be a fool to buy a camera which is battery dependent.

As for the starting handle, actually, yes, I do have one and I have used it twice in the last year -- flat battery from leaving an in-car refrigerator on too long. Yes, it's my own fault, but because I'm not a slave to batteries, it wasn't a problem. On one of those occasions I was over a mile from the main road, at a bridge that was out. If I hadn't had the crank, it would have been a long climb up the valley and then I'd have had to flag down a car and ask someone for a jump-start in Portuguese (and yes, I also carry jump cables).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

You've got it backwards, methinks! Think of the F and F2 as more like a dodge dart GT than a shelby cobra. They're beaters! But oh so dependable. I think the F and F2 are made for tossing around MUCH more than the F3. Anyway - DON'T listen to me. Get your hands on all three models and see for yourself!

Dear Sparky,

The F is more like a Land Rover, I'd say. But then, as well as several Fs, I have a '72 88-inch station wagon. With starting handle (see earlier post).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I guess that this thread has turned into a debate as to whether electronic cameras are tougher than non electronic cameras. Both have thier advantages and disadvantages. I have had both manual and electronic cameras fail, newer and older cameras as well. I think that the issue here would be which particular model has more of a proven track record. Or, better stated, which would be less likely to fail. As mentioned before, many people have a tendency to believe that anything electronic is prone to fail sooner than non electronic equipment.

Not so much a question of which is more reliable, but HOW they fail. Mechanical cameras generally give some warning: increasingly rough or crunchy, or something minor failing that prompts a general service (such as the frame counter on an F). When an electronic camera fails, it usually does so completely and without warning.

Electronics are probably more reliable than mechanical, but as we are talking about cameras that are for the most part quite old, both mechanical and electronic very likely WILL fail sooner or later.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Sparky]

Not so much a question of which is more reliable, but HOW they fail. Mechanical cameras generally give some warning: increasingly rough or crunchy, or something minor failing that prompts a general service (such as the frame counter on an F). When an electronic camera fails, it usually does so completely and without warning.

Electronics are probably more reliable than mechanical, but as we are talking about cameras that are for the most part quite old, both mechanical and electronic very likely WILL fail sooner or later.

Cheers,

Roger

Perhaps, if you consider environmental permability...! Do you know the dart?? Solid as a tank, with the simplest engine you can imagine - mechanics everywhere are big fans because they're impossibly simple to work on (about like a lawnmower engine) - and just DON'T stop running...! Anyway - sure - we'll say landrover. I'm sure that works too.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Sparky,

I have to admit only a passing acquaintance with the Dart, and I also have to say that even Land Rovers don't last forever without repair. I just put a new galvanized chassis under mine, after a mere third of a century. Of course the galvanized one should last better than the non-galvanized version.

But I don't think the Dart has light-alloy bodywork (no rust), a front bumper you can demolish things with, etc. According to a friend who was working there at the time (in the late 60s/early 70s), when they did the original crash testing with the 88 inch, they used the same car for the 10mph, 20mph and 30mph concrete block tests. After the 10 mph and 20 mph tests they simply pushed the dummy out of the way, got in, backed up and set it up for the next one. At 30 mph into a concrete block they finally kinked the chassis.

Another friend of mine once said that my LR doesn't have a straight panel on it. I think he was exaggerating -- probably at least half of them are as straight as when it left the factory -- but I was thinking of the chassis and bodywork, rather than the engine, when I read (and heartily agreed with) your post about an F being a camera you can literally toss in the back of the car.

Cheers

R.

 

[DBP]

Thanks. Certainly worth trying. I think I'll buy several and try them as zipper-pulls on my camera bags -- I think they would get in the way on the strap.

Cheers,

R.

Good idea. I think I will move mine to there.

 

[snegron]

Reply to Snergon's last comment:

Since this is more subjective than objective we will all undoubtedly continue to disagree.

Do you have a Nikon RF - particularly a SP?

If so, you will find that the film advance lever feels like butter as you push it. I also have a F - and it is a crank compared to the SP.

I don't know about the F2 but I have a F3 and it too has that "butter feel" I find on the SP.

The F and by and large the F2 were "hybrids". Nikon mounted SLR viewfinders and mirrors onto a RF body. They were built to last forever and feel like it. The F is top-heavy compared to the SP before it or the F3 after it.

That giant shutter speed dial alone says it all. The "compactness" of the F3's VF (even as a HP) shows that it is Nikon's first "true SLR" designed to that fact from the ground up rather than relying on a RF body with a ur-SLR VF crammed on top.

Now - outta this thread and off to shoot some film!

I don't own an SP but I would love to! Of course, that would put me back at square one; I would not dare use an SP as a beater. I do agree that the F and F2 were almost identical in size and design to the SP except for the prism.

I currently use an F3HP with MD4 and an F2A with MD2. My F2A with motor drive weighs a ton. I keep both cameras with motor drives and four prime lenses in one camera bag. Maybe it's just me, but when I grab my F2A I do so more carefully as if I was using an antique camera. On the other hand, I just yank my F3 out of the bag and shoot away without as much care.

 

[MacCaulay]

Definitely the F. The meters on my Fs are still accurate using the wein type of battery.

 

[Claire Senft]

I can not fathom my having a camera that was so nice that I would not use it.

On the other hand, I can not fathom using a camera that would meet my criteria of being a beater.

 

[snegron]

I can not fathom my having a camera that was so nice that I would not use it.

On the other hand, I can not fathom using a camera that would meet my criteria of being a beater.

The idea of a "beater" camera is to have an all around camera that is with you at all times, no matter what. I see it as a camera that you can toss in the back seat of a car, take it anywhere under any adverse conditions and not have to worry about scratches or dings or malfunctions. If you have it on a strap and it ocassionaly hits or bumps a wall as you are walking near a building, on rock formations, getting into and out of cars, etc., and you don't really care about getting dents, scratches, or dings and you are still able to get great shots, that is what I consider a "beater" camera.

I have several nice cameras that I would not put through so much daily abuse, however, I have decided to turn my F3HP with MD4 into my "beater". It will soon start showing signs of wear because of the soft copper-type construction, but for the most part it is reliable and when it dies it will not be difficult to find another good replacement.

On the other hand, I treat my near mint F2A with the utmost care. Short of using gloves and storing it in museum-like conditions, I just don't have the heart to use it on a daily basis. It is very difficult to find an F2A in this type of condition, so I consider it more of a collector's item than an every day tool. I keep it with me in my camera bag all the time, but it is in a self contained, sealed pocket. It is there mostly for inspiration and motivation believe it or not!