- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 199
- Format
- 35mm
Is there a "preferred" screen for the Nikon F [?]
So I have a Nikon F on its way. I'm starting with a Nikon 58mm f1.4 and 28mm f2.0 both non-ai. I plan on getting a Nikon 105mm f2.5, non-ai (sonnar version).
I think that a Nikon F + 58mm f1.4 + 28mm f2.0 + 105mm f2.5 will be a decent Nikon F starter kit. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself but now I'm wanting to know more about the bodies.
Hmmm, no. If there was "the one preferred screen" then there would be no need for a choice...
What you prefer may or may not be what anyone else prefers.
Me, I like the P (diagonal split RF central spot w/ microprism surround) and the E (grid on plain ground glass). The P isn't much good with >200mm lenses, and neither is optimal for <24mm. Nikon makes special screens for long and short lenses, but most people don't bother with them.
Without the gridded E screen my wide angle shots are invariably tilted a few degrees to the left.
So I have a Nikon F on its way. I'm starting with a Nikon 58mm f1.4 and 28mm f2.0 both non-ai. I plan on getting a Nikon 105mm f2.5, non-ai (sonnar version).
I think that a Nikon F + 58mm f1.4 + 28mm f2.0 + 105mm f2.5 will be a decent Nikon F starter kit. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself but now I'm wanting to know more about the bodies.
1. Is there a "preferred" screen for the Nikon F. I do not know how good/bad my screen is but with some cameras like Rollei and hasselblad, everyone wants to get a Maxwell/Acute Matte D, etc. I'm used to Leica M RF's so I worry that screen brigthness and contrast might be a problem.
2. My next body would probably be an F3 or F4. Basically some body with motordrive. Is there a reason to get an F3 + MD over an F4? Are the screens between the F's, atleast the first four, interchangeable? I'd think that the F4 screen might be even worse since it is an AF camera.
3. Glass-wise. Is there a preferred low-cost 20mm? I'm thinking 20mm f3.5 UD or one of the AI/AIS ones at comparable speeds. Or just opting for a CV 20mm f3.5.
The F3/MD4 combo is a beauty. It's dense and durable and inspires confidence the way a hammer does. It is quite heavy, something like 2kg all dressed, but that extra weight is a helluva damper for camera shake. I could hand-hold mine at 1/15 on the regular, 1/8 if I got my breathing just right.
I can't see a reason to own an F4 in 2012. The AF is pathetic, it's plasticy-feeling for an F, the ergonomics are strange, the viewfinder is a hellscape of information overload, and it somehow manages to feel even bigger than it actually is. Matrix metering is great and all, but the only time I see a need for it is when shooting quickly, a situation in which you would also want an AF system which can track a moving objectsomething the F4 can only do in lab-ideal conditions.
Everything about the F4 screams "stop-gap"; it's not really an MF body, it's not really an AF body, it's not really traditional ergonomics, it's not modern ergonomics. It's the middle child of Nikon history, neither here nor there.
I have owned a few F3s, an F2, a couple of F4s, and a couple of f100s, an FM, FM2, and even an FM3A, but I have sold all of them except my old plain-prism F. This is my favorite Nikon camera, it's simplicity and ruggedness appeals to me, and I get great photos with it. Don't knock the old F, it's more than enough to get the job.
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?