Nikon F2 Photomic or Canon F-1n?

[SodaAnt]

Another very robust mechanical camera from the same era as the F2 and F-1 that I rarely see discussed here is the Leicaflex SL2.

Is this a worthy contender? Too quirky? Too rare?

 

[benjiboy]

Www

One thing worthy of consideration is batteries. I'd pick a camera that can use currently available batteries if you want to use a meter. The original Canon F-1 uses the 1.35V mercury cells. There used to be a guy in Russia who sold Russian made cells on Ebay, but obviously that's not an option anymore. I bought some and they work perfectly in an F-1.

I have an original F-1, but my preference would be for a New F-1. Still has the classic SLR feel, but uses a 6V battery and has a lot of options available to customize it to your needs.

Certainly look at Pentax as well, there are lots of K mount lenses out there which are excellent and a lower price point than Nikon or Canon.

If you consider a Nikon F, be aware that they are bottom loading and considerably slower and more fiddly to load film than later cameras that are back loading.

You do have to try them out, for me the New F-1 fits my hands the best.

Gratuitous camera photos...

I have owned Nikon F2s in the past, and currently own 2 Canon F1n,s, and 2 Canon New F1N AEs ,and I firmly believe the Canon New F1 N AE is a better professional camera in all aspects than any Nikon F2 ever made, and it works with currently available OF 28 silver oxide or OF 28L Lithium batteries.

 

[SodaAnt]

In case anyone was wondering what I ended up with... Drum-roll please! Turns out I made a complete U-turn and bought a like-new Canon EOS-1N HS. They're practically giving these things away on eBay and I couldn't resist.

I rented a 1N for a a project when they were the current model and I was very impressed.

 

[miha]

Good choice!

 

[Craig]

That will be a great camera, the EOS 1's are fantastic machines.

 

[benjiboy]

Old batteries can be replaced with an appropriate adapter. The Nikons use the MR9 adapter, I suspect the Canon might also, though I've not checked.

The Canon F1n works fine with the MR 9 adaptor, the Canon New F1 needs no adaptor because it uses a modern PX 28 silver oxide battery.

 

[GregY]

Another very robust mechanical camera from the same era as the F2 and F-1 that I rarely see discussed here is the Leicaflex SL2.

Is this a worthy contender? Too quirky? Too rare?

The Leicaflex was definitely well built and robust, but back in the day the lenses were super expensive compared with Nikon & Canon. They were heavier and felt bulky to me and i always preferred the variable head options on the F2 especially the standard non-meter prism.

 

[eli griggs]

The Canon F-1, any model but particularly the F-1n, hands down is the better camera than the Nikon F2.

 

[eli griggs]

The Canon F1n works fine with the MR 9 adaptor, the Canon New F1 needs no adaptor because it uses a modern PX 28 silver oxide battery.

Or you can use a stack of Silver cell SR44 button batteries, on the F-1N.

The F-1, F-1n do not need power to work, needed only for meter work and a good camera repair person, or even the operator, can install a Schottkey diode so SR44 and/or LR44 batteries can be used without the expensive transformative adapter.

The F-1N, with batteries removed has a wide range of typical mechanical shutter speeds, so your not screwed if the batteries fail.

 

[chuckroast]

The Canon F-1, any model but particularly the F-1n, hands down is the better camera than the Nikon F2.

By what measure?

Both are built like battle tanks, both have - at best - OK metering. Both had a superb lens family to support them. The difference is that Canon abandoned their existing base by changing lens mounts, Nikon never did.

All things being equal, both cameras are capable of fine results, up to the limit of the format, but it never felt right that Canon utterly ignored people with thousands of dollars in glass investment.

 

[GregY]

The Canon F-1, any model but particularly the F-1n, hands down is the better camera than the Nikon F2.

Eli, Back in the day it was a Chev/Ford argument that was never settled. Now it's history and doesn't really matter. I used every Nikon over decades from the F to the F5 (when the new one i bought did 3 trips for service in it's first 2 months because the batteries died after rewinding one roll).... Then i went to the EOS..... and finally left those in favour of MF/LF

 

[SodaAnt]

The difference is that Canon abandoned their existing base by changing lens mounts, Nikon never did.

Can you still say that Nikon never did? What about the Z mount? That's not directly compatible with earlier lenses without an adapter.

 

[MattKing]

It has been more than 1/3 of a century since Canon made the then radical decision to go with an entirely different lens mount.
Their old mount was incompatible with the types of improvements they wished to include in their cameras.
Their decision was prudent, in that it allowed them to become dominant in market segments where previously others had been dominant, and to continue with a strong and near dominant presence in other segments, in both the film and digital world, without the necessity of further modifying the mount.
Some photographers have never forgiven Canon for that. It reminds me of some of the family law and estate law clients I used to deal with when I practiced.

 

[eli griggs]

By what measure?

Both are built like battle tanks, both have - at best - OK metering. Both had a superb lens family to support them. The difference is that Canon abandoned their existing base by changing lens mounts, Nikon never did.

All things being equal, both cameras are capable of fine results, up to the limit of the format, but it never felt right that Canon utterly ignored people with thousands of dollars in glass investment.

You're preaching to the choir, when it comes to Canon, abandoning lens mounting system, at least twice, especially when it came to the F-1, FD lenses, which Canon promised in at least one brochure I had/have somewhere that read that when Canon FD users were ready to move on to future cameras, they would continue to be able to use those FD system lenses with them.

Canon only released a very limited adapter that would only partially allow the use of FD glass, IIRC.

I called Canon USA and was connected to several Canon people, including one of their lawyers, when I asked about why they advertised in that brochure the FD lenses would remain usable with the new lens mount series cameras and what were they doing to make good that promise that was a big part of many buying FD glass, particularly the L series lenses, which I had several of.

When the Canon people asked what I wanted them to do about it, I simply told them I just want them to keep that promise.

Nothing was done, that I've ever known of, to rectify the situation, so, again, I know that Canon History.

I've used Canon FD cameras and lenses for decades now, and I've had/have used the Nikon manual cameras, including the F2, and some of their good glass, but hands down, Canon made a superior Camera, lenses, to the F2.

The F2, can be a pretty unit. But the Canon F-1n is head and shoulders above that camera and Canon F-1's are reliable workhorses to this day, and FD glass is highly sought out, for modern video work, as well as traditional photography.

IMO.

 

[eli griggs]

By what measure?

Both are built like battle tanks, both have - at best - OK metering. Both had a superb lens family to support them. The difference is that Canon abandoned their existing base by changing lens mounts, Nikon never did.

All things being equal, both cameras are capable of fine results, up to the limit of the format, but it never felt right that Canon utterly ignored people with thousands of dollars in glass investment.

You're preaching to the choir, when it comes to Canon, abandoning lens mounting system, at least twice, especially when it came to the F-1, FD lenses, which Canon promised in at least one brochure I had/have somewhere that read that when Canon FD users were ready to move on to future cameras, they would continue to be able to use those FD system lenses with them.

Canon only released a very limited adapter that would only partially allow the use of FD glass, IIRC.

I called Canon USA and was connected to several Canon people, including one of their lawyers, when I asked about why they advertised in that brochure the FD lenses would remain usable with the new lens mount series cameras and what were they doing to make good that promise that was a big part of many buying FD glass, particularly the L series lenses, which I had several of.

When the Canon people asked what I wanted them to do about it, I simply told them I just want them to keep that promise.

Nothing was done, that I've ever known of, to rectify the situation, so, again, I know that Canon History.

I've used Canon FD cameras and lenses for decades now, and I've had and used the Nikon manual cameras, including the F2,

 

[GregY]

Can you still say that Nikon never did? What about the Z mount? That's not directly compatible with earlier lenses without an adapter.

Ant, the entire digital game is a world apart from the history of those two companies in film cameras.

 

[Tony-S]

You're preaching to the choir, when it comes to Canon, abandoning lens mounting system, at least twice, especially when it came to the F-1, FD lenses, which Canon promised in at least one brochure I had/have somewhere that read that when Canon FD users were ready to move on to future cameras, they would continue to be able to use those FD system lenses with them.

Some photographers have never forgiven Canon for that. It reminds me of some of the family law and estate law clients I used to deal with when I practiced.

The good news is that we can now use our FD lenses with Canon’s RF cameras!

 

[chuckroast]

It has been more than 1/3 of a century since Canon made the then radical decision to go with an entirely different lens mount.
Their old mount was incompatible with the types of improvements they wished to include in their cameras.
Their decision was prudent, in that it allowed them to become dominant in market segments where previously others had been dominant, and to continue with a strong and near dominant presence in other segments, in both the film and digital world, without the necessity of further modifying the mount.
Some photographers have never forgiven Canon for that. It reminds me of some of the family law and estate law clients I used to deal with when I practiced.

Yet Nikon didn't have to do that and my old Ai and Ai-S lenses work just fine on my D750, and will work - with an adapter - on the Z bodies.

And I've never bought the argument that Canon won much of any market share or that they made better cameras. I worked for on of the largest big city pro rental shops in the US - renting to pros covering sports, fashion, photogjournalism ... - and ALL we rented was Nikon and it took the steady day-to-day pounding that only a rental can inflict without complaint. Nobody was asking for Canon. It was Nikon and Hasselblad. That's it.

 

[Craig]

Yet Nikon didn't have to do that and my old Ai and Ai-S lenses work just fine on my D750, and will work - with an adapter - on the Z bodies.

A major difference is that all Canon EF lenses have full functionality on any body that accepts EF lenses natively.

There are many restrictions and limitations with the Nikon F mount. For example, if you have F80 camera the light meter will not work with non AF lenses. There are many other examples of Nikon bodies not having full functionality with some lenses. Unlike Nikon, with Canon EF you're never wondering "what doesn't work with this lens"?

 

[chuckroast]

<SNIP>

I've used Canon FD cameras and lenses for decades now, and I've had/have used the Nikon manual cameras, including the F2, and some of their good glass, but hands down, Canon made a superior Camera, lenses, to the F2.

By what measure?

The F2, can be a pretty unit. But the Canon F-1n is head and shoulders above that camera and Canon F-1's are reliable workhorses to this day, and FD glass is highly sought out, for modern video work, as well as traditional photography.

IMO.

My mid 1950 Nikkormat still works just fine.
So does my later Nikomat
So does my late 1960s Nikon F
So does my early 1970 Apollo F
So does my 1980s F2
So does my 1990s F3

They are all absolutely bullet proof. I once sat down and reloaded a non-metered F and forgot to put the neckstrap back on. When I stood up, the camera went flying and hit concrete from about 3 feet up. Other than a very minor ding, it continued to work absolutely perfectly thereafter.

How good- or bad the lenses were varied somewhat by generation and focal length, but the 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 stand as equals almost to anything made today. The 20mm f/2.8 is superb. So is the 105 f/2.5 and the 180mm f/2.8.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I worked for one of the largest pro rental shops in the US at one point and no one was asking for Canon anything. It was Hassy and Nikon 99% of the time for still film, Arirflex and Panaflex for movies, and Nagra for location sound recording...

 

[chuckroast]

A major difference is that all Canon EF lenses have full functionality on any body that accepts EF lenses natively.

There are many restrictions and limitations with the Nikon F mount. For example, if you have F80 camera the light meter will not work with non AF lenses. There are many other examples of Nikon bodies not having full functionality with some lenses. Unlike Nikon, with Canon EF you're never wondering "what doesn't work with this lens"?

That's a false comparison for a number of reasons:

• All Nikon Ai and Ai-S lenses will meter just fine in stop down mode and with cameras that support aperture priority. This includes recent digital camera bodies.
• I can't speak to the F80 because it was a consumer camera whose name should not be spoken in the same sentence as the traditional Nikon and Canon pro bodies.
• If you stick to all CPU lenses, every modern Nikon body digital body will focus and meter through them, but you have the choice of using legacy lenses if you want to. That choice does not exist with Canon.

I'm not busting on Canon here. They made fine cameras for a very long time. They just screwed pro shooters around the world with this we have to change the mount to make everything work right nonsense. What you're claiming as a virtue for Canon is actually a limitation. You don't have the choice of using legacy lenses. Nikon upgraded their autofocus and CPU-based lens systems a number of times without obsoleting the mount so it was certainly possible. My Ai-S lenses will even work on Z body (not that I want one of those). Pros make significant investment in glass. The bodies are more-or-less disposable and the expectation is that a replacement body shouldn't obsolete the much larger glass investment.


I routinely use legacy Nikon primes from 20mm to 180mm on my D750 and am entirely happy with the outcomes. The only modern lenses I think are head and shoulders better are the zooms. Legacy zoom lenses were uniformly pretty terrible ... from everyone, Nikon and Canon included. Modern computing and manufacturing made it possible to build very well corrected zooms that we could have only dreamt of 50 years ago.

 

[MattKing]

The professional support for Canon quickly surpassed Nikon once the EF mount was fully established. The rental sources around here that catered to the pros mostly switched over.
If you were fortunate enough to spend any time around the photographers who covered the 2010 winter Olympics, it was almost entirely Canon.
Nikon became mostly a niche offering - catering to the ever dwindling number of pros who insisted on continuing with legacy equipment.
On the amateur side, Canon has always had a much larger presence in our market.

 

[eli griggs]

Yet Nikon didn't have to do that and my old Ai and Ai-S lenses work just fine on my D750, and will work - with an adapter - on the Z bodies.

And I've never bought the argument that Canon won much of any market share or that they made better cameras. I worked for on of the largest big city pro rental shops in the US - renting to pros covering sports, fashion, photogjournalism ... - and ALL we rented was Nikon and it took the steady day-to-day pounding that only a rental can inflict without complaint. Nobody was asking for Canon. It was Nikon and Hasselblad. That's it.

That was then, and Nikon, was the popular name that most people invested in, for their own systems, because IT WAS EXPECTED, and there is the reason Nikon was so popular.

The Canon F-1 was the better camera, though the original Nikon F was and is a beauty on its own, and the Canon FD glass was in a class by itself, especially when the L series hit the scene.

Professionals and laymen both found the Canon offerings to be excellent kit, which is why Canon exploded onto the Market and is still going strong and building on the successes of the F-1's and FD optics.

 

[Mike Lopez]

@chuckroast He's obviously not going to give you a meaningful answer to your repeated question. Time to move on.

 

[chuckroast]

@chuckroast He's obviously not going to give you a meaningful answer to your repeated question. Time to move on.

Sorry if it seemed I was being argumentative. I was genuinely curious how Canon might be objectively 'better'. I have been a very long time Nikon shooter (the rare moments I shoot tiny negatives) and know very few Canon users - and none who used F1s - so I was just wondering by what measure they are preferable.

The truth is that both systems are terrific and always have been. I prefer Nikon because they didn't bankrupt me by changing mounts every decade or so, but that doesn't make Canon a bad choice.