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...
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.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.
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 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.
The Canon F-1, any model but particularly the F-1n, hands down is the better camera than the Nikon F2.
The Canon F-1, any model but particularly the F-1n, hands down is the better camera than the Nikon F2.
The difference is that Canon abandoned their existing base by changing lens mounts, Nikon never did.
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.
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.
Can you still say that Nikon never did? What about the Z mount? That's not directly compatible with earlier lenses without an adapter.
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.
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.
<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.
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.
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"?
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.
@chuckroast He's obviously not going to give you a meaningful answer to your repeated question. Time to move on.
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?