Nobody knows better than I that F1,s are heavy, I have four of them, but I find that because of their weight and the inertia created by it they are much easier to hold still especially for longer exposures.Some dumbbell weights for a few weeks will handle the load, somewhat, but other issues like rotator cups, arthritis, nerve damage etc, can interrupt those intentions for better weight/F-1 handling.
I also have my F-1 ae wearing a motor winder.
I bought one here, for the F-1n in an 'as is' condition, but, the top grip's shutter button fell apart and I've not been able to recover the pieces.
I guess another one is on my watch list, so I keep an eye open, as I can.
Sooner or later I likely will find another for parts or straight away uses condition.
Nobody knows better than I that F1,s are heavy, I have four of them, but I find that because of their weight and the inertia created by it they are much easier to hold still especially for longer exposures.
I often wonder if 35 mm S.L.R. cameras of the quality of Canon F1 cameras were manufactured today how much they would cost.
The Nikon F4 is made of up about 1750 parts http://ss-it.de/data/prospekt/F4.pdfComplex in terms of electronics and functions, yes, complex in terms of numbers of discrete parts, no at least with regards to pro mechanical cameras. The Nikon F2 has around 1500 parts. Electronics greatly simplified the internals of many cameras for a given number of features. Saw some pics of the shutter mechanisms of the Olympus OM-4Ti (electronic) vs its close sibling, the OM-3Ti (mechanical). The OM-4Ti shutter was much simpler.
Today's professional DSLR cameras are of comparable quality but far more complex.
Today's professional DSLR cameras are of comparable quality but far more complex.
Perhaps you are right, I admit I have no experience of today's profession digital cameras, but their Achilles heel in my opinion is in their electronic complexity, and their built in planned obscilecence because of the vulnerability of the electronics in the near future to being updated in the introduction of subsequent models.
I think that in more than thirty years from today unlike the Nikon F 2,( many of which are still up and running) and Canon F 1, the current professional digital S.L.R cameras will be inhabiting the land full.
It's not particularly the hardware of digital S.L.Rs that will be broken, but the electronics that will be outdated by the technology.
It's not particularly the hardware of digital S.L.Rs that will be broken, but the electronics that will be outdated by the technology.
Surpassed by new technology != broken.It's not particularly the hardware of digital S.L.Rs that will be broken, but the electronics that will be outdated by the technology.
Surpassed by new technology != broken.
Exactly!
As long as a digital camera outputs an image in a format my computer can understand via media I have hardware to read, said camera will be functional until it actually breaks.
Otherwise we might as well declare anything developed before a decade ago "broken".
Chris
We might want to rethink words like "quality" when comparing the beautiful, durable, excellent F-1n or N ae to here today and in a year or two, forgettable digital cameras.
A huge part of the quality of an F-1, any generation but especially the F-1N, and comparables like the Nikon F, F2AS, Minolta Autocord or Hasselblad, etc, is their ability to endure heavy use, repairs, and their basic electronics.
Compared to even the best digital cameras, I and others don't really see that happening.
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?