Nikon F2 Photomic or Canon F-1n?

[chuckroast]

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.

On the sports photography side, I think that's certainly true. This was because Canon made the very smart move to rent or lend their "big gun" lenses at low/no cost to pro sports photographers. As you looked down the sidelines you'd see these bazookas with "Canon" printed on the side in giant letters. Tremendous marketing move on their part.

But forget the past. Keep an eye out at press conferences and the like. Lots of Nikon still to be seen, though I concur with whomever wrote that digital and film are such different product lines as to almost be like different companies entirely.

As an aside, I am always happily surprised when I remove the rather larger 28-300mm modern Nikon zoom from my D750 and mount a 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.4 Ai-S onto the body. The overall balance of the camera gets so much better and the legacy focusing helicoids of these lenses gives me considerably better feedback than the "modern" AF lenses, even when they are focused manually.

 

[Craig]

Conderider that the FD mount lenses were produced for roughly 20 years, and EF lenses have now been in production for over 35 years. Most of the people who bought FD glass would have been in the early to mid 80's, when the New F-1 Came out, rather than the earlier breechlock lenses.

So your real gripe only applies to a relatively small group of people who bough their lenses for a period of less than 10 years, over 40 years ago. Nobody who was starting working for a living doing photography would have bought new FD lenses or cameras after 1990, the writing was on the wall.

The main point was any Canon EF user can use any EF body together and expect full functionality. That isn't true for Nikon, no matter how much you tie yourself in knots trying to make it work. Why should we dismiss non-single digit "pro" cameras? They are a small fraction of the total market, and not everyone making money from a camera used one.

Even in Nikon there are plenty of limitations, I can't use a modern E lens on an F6 at anything other than full aperture for example. Which is mostly useless. Stopped down metering? Is this 1960? I'm not using a modern camera to use stopped down metering, I'll use a view camera instead. Or Canon, where I don't need to bother with all those hoops, it just works.

Canon chose not to be limited in the future and made a decision the FD mount wasn't good enough. Yes, it created some inconvenience for some users, but it also opened the door to success over Nikon in a way the FD mount never did. Canon's AF became superior to Nikon very quickly because if the in lens motor could be sized for the lens. Ever used a first generation AF80-200 F2.8 Nikkor? Focus speed is joke for a "professional" lens.

All you have to do it look at the press pool at any major news event or sporting event. In the 1990s the majority lenses changed from black to white and have stayed that way. There was a good reason for that.

 

[GregY]

Conderider that the FD mount lenses were produced for roughly 20 years, and EF lenses have now been in production for over 35 years. Most of the people who bought FD glass would have been in the early to mid 80's, when the New F-1 Came out, rather than the earlier breechlock lenses.

So your real gripe only applies to a relatively small group of people who bough their lenses for a period of less than 10 years, over 40 years ago. Nobody who was starting working for a living doing photography would have bought new FD lenses or cameras after 1990, the writing was on the wall.

The main point was any Canon EF user can use any EF body together and expect full functionality. That isn't true for Nikon, no matter how much you tie yourself in knots trying to make it work. Why should we dismiss non-single digit "pro" cameras? They are a small fraction of the total market, and not everyone making money from a camera used one.

Even in Nikon there are plenty of limitations, I can't use a modern E lens on an F6 at anything other than full aperture for example. Which is mostly useless. Stopped down metering? Is this 1960? I'm not using a modern camera to use stopped down metering, I'll use a view camera instead. Or Canon, where I don't need to bother with all those hoops, it just works.

Canon chose not to be limited in the future and made a decision the FD mount wasn't good enough. Yes, it created some inconvenience for some users, but it also opened the door to success over Nikon in a way the FD mount never did. Canon's AF became superior to Nikon very quickly because if the in lens motor could be sized for the lens. Ever used a first generation AF80-200 F2.8 Nikkor? Focus speed is joke for a "professional" lens.

All you have to do it look at the press pool at any major news event or sporting event. In the 1990s the majority lenses changed from black to white and have stayed that way. There was a good reason for that.

While all that is true, it's far from the OP's original question
"The two cameras I’m considering are the Nikon F2 with a photomic metering head and the Canon F-1 or F-1n (note: not the Canon New F-1)."
I interpret that as 'I want to buy an old classic camera.' As chuckroast mentioned....i'd go for a bigger negative most of the time.....and we all have set opinions. Old classic? I'd buy the Nikon F2 Titan...with the DE-1. They're all affordable & the OP's choice doesn't really hinge on our opinions or any rational/irrational reasons

 

[Mike Lopez]

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.

No apologies to me are needed at all. I was pointing out that his only basis for his statements are "because I say so, Canon is better, hands down, I like Canon!" Some arguments/debates just go off the rails and aren't worth pursuing. But if you want to continue investing your energy...

 

[SodaAnt]

In the current market (digital DSLRs and mirrorless cameras) Canon has always been more popular than Nikon. Nikon had a hit with the D8xx series, but nearly dropped the ball with mirrorless out of the gate with anemic offerings in the form of the Z6 and Z7. They've made up some ground with the Z6ii and Z7ii and the Z9 is fully competitive with the Canon R3 and Sony A1.

Canon and Sony are very diversified companies, much more so than Nikon, which has some people worried about Nikon's future now that the camera market is being decimated by smartphones with ever-increasing photographic and video capabilities.

 

[GregY]

In the current market (digital DSLRs and mirrorless cameras) Canon has always been more popular than Nikon. Nikon had a hit with the D8xx series, but nearly dropped the ball with mirrorless out of the gate with anemic offerings in the form of the Z6 and Z7. They've made up some ground with the Z6ii and Z7ii and the Z9 is fully competitive with the Canon R3 and Sony A1.

Canon and Sony are very diversified companies, much more so than Nikon, which has some people worried about Nikon's future now that the camera market is being decimated by smartphones with ever-increasing photographic and video capabilities.

Ant, since you posted in the analog sub-forum.... the current crop of digital cameras and the state of those companies doesn't have much bearing on the topic you started.

 

[SodaAnt]

Ant, since you posted in the analog sub-forum.... the current crop of digital cameras and the state of those companies doesn't have much bearing on the topic you started.

I know. Just pointing out the current situation, as neither Nikon nor Canon stopped producing cameras when they discontinued their film cameras.

 

[GregY]

I know. Just pointing out the current situation, as neither Nikon nor Canon stopped producing cameras when they discontinued their film cameras.

BTW.....have you gotten the new/old object of desire?

 

[SodaAnt]

BTW.....have you gotten the new/old object of desire?

Yes. I got a Canon EOS-1N HS in like-new condition for a ridiculously low price.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Yes. I got a Canon EOS-1N HS in like-new condition for a ridiculously low price.

I'd love to know your impression about its auto focus performance. I don't really need another camera, but... you know...

 

[chuckroast]

I'd love to know your impression about its auto focus performance. I don't really need another camera, but... you know...

I think it's safe to say that most all of us left "need" a long time ago

 

[Anon Ymous]

I think it's safe to say that most all of us left "need" a long time ago

Agreed!

 

[SodaAnt]

I'd love to know your impression about its auto focus performance. I don't really need another camera, but... you know...

You might want to ask someone else about that because my use of autofocus is minimal. I only use the center focus selector and only on mostly stationary objects. I don't photograph sports or little kids or other rapidly moving objects so I've no experience with the autofocus modes used with those subjects.

With that said, autofocus on the 1N works very well for me, especially as my eyesight isn't what it used to be! I photographed some test targets in various lighting conditions and it nailed focus every time.

 

[George Mann]

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

Nikkor lenses have better color rendering making it a toss-up.

 

[Chan Tran]

70s? How about Minolta XK with integrated motor drive and Minolta 50mm 1.2. Second Swiss Alpa 11E with Kern Swiss 50 1.7 macro.

That thing is too slow. Only 2 fps. I went for the F2 because you can have the fastest motor drive on it. Any way after buying the F2AS I couldn't afford the MD-2/MB-1 combo so I bought the F3HP and the MD-4 which was less expensive.

 

[Anon Ymous]

You might want to ask someone else about that because my use of autofocus is minimal. I only use the center focus selector and only on mostly stationary objects. I don't photograph sports or little kids or other rapidly moving objects so I've no experience with the autofocus modes used with those subjects.

With that said, autofocus on the 1N works very well for me, especially as my eyesight isn't what it used to be! I photographed some test targets in various lighting conditions and it nailed focus every time.

Thank you.

 

[mshchem]

I have all the Nikon stuff soup to nuts. I will always grab my F5 before the manual focus bodies. Unless of course if I would have to carry it for more than an hour, then it's a F3 slap on a 35 f1.4 AiS heaven

 

[chuckroast]

I have all the Nikon stuff soup to nuts. I will always grab my F5 before the manual focus bodies. Unless of course if I would have to carry it for more than an hour, then it's a F3 slap on a 35 f1.4 AiS heaven

I bought one of those 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S lenses in a well used state. It needed the aperture ring disassembled, cleaned and lubed but was optically perfect. At $200 is was a steal - even came with the hood. That lens along with the 20mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.4 have become my standard 35mm kit, replacing my beloved 24mm f/2.8 and 105mm f/2.5 - both of which I own and love but use far less frequently now. Both the 35mm and the 85mm are just spectacular walkin' around lenses.

With care and proper development, I get amazing results with 35mm film I would have never thought possible 40 years ago. The combination of Pyrocat and semistand/EMA development is jaw droppingly good. And it's good with Tri-X, Double-X, FP4+ ...

 

[mshchem]

I bought one of those 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S lenses in a well used state. It needed the aperture ring disassembled, cleaned and lubed but was optically perfect. At $200 is was a steal - even came with the hood. That lens along with the 20mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.4 have become my standard 35mm kit, replacing my beloved 24mm f/2.8 and 105mm f/2.5 - both of which I own and love but use far less frequently now. Both the 35mm and the 85mm are just spectacular walkin' around lenses.

With care and proper development, I get amazing results with 35mm film I would have never thought possible 40 years ago. The combination of Pyrocat and semistand/EMA development is jaw droppingly good. And it's good with Tri-X, Double-X, FP4+ ...

I got a couple good deals in the last few years on stuff one involved a box of stuff that had 5 AiS lenses and a F 100. I cleaned up the goo on the F100, worked perfectly, plucked a mint 35 1.4 and a 28 f2, out took the well used 50 1.4, 105 2.5, and 180 2.8 to my guy who is still liquidating this and some other stuff of mine. I only paid $150 for the box so I'm happy. I have 85 AF-D 1.4, in fact I bought a backup I love this lens so much. These lenses works on every camera Nikon has ever made in F mount. And affordable!

 

[swchris]

I've got both Canon F1n and Nikon F2. To me the F2 is the better camera, without strange restrictions. Also it looks and feels nicer.

 

[JParker]

I sold all of my 35mm gear years ago and went completely digital. Now I want to get back into film and am looking for a vintage 35mm slr. I have no existing equipment, and will be starting from scratch, so compatibility with an existing system is not an issue.

The two cameras I’m considering are the Nikon F2 with a photomic metering head and the Canon F-1 or F-1n (note: not the Canon New F-1).

I recommend to try finding a place (film camera shop, local or regional film photographer community) where you can try both cameras. Handling and using a camera by yourself is the best way to see which one fits best.

A general advantage of the Nikon is that there are new, excellent manual lenses offered for it by Zeiss, Voigtländer, Irix, Meyer-Optik-Görlitz.
In film photography the film and the lens are most important for quality, the camera body less so.

 

[Hassasin]

I've got both Canon F1n and Nikon F2. To me the F2 is the better camera, without strange restrictions. Also it looks and feels nicer.

To each their own. I have all F1s, and F2. Not one time did I see what you see. Finder attachment alone spells the difference in design. By that I mean how finders fit onto the camera, high precision with Canon, not so much with Nikon.

Canon's approach to metering and how screens were utilised in metering modes is something to argue over, but it gave those who needed such options an unparalleled advantage.

As for looks, same thing, but too subjective to fret over.

Ergonomics are also subjective, but I frankly can't see where Nikon is better. Even the earlier F1s with no body grip, feel far more secure in my hand than F2, likely due to roundness of F2. New F1 was a big step forward in that sense.

Nikon's F3 was a bit closer to New F1, but while I see F3 as way above F2 in handling, I still prefer New F1 in every respect.

As for lenses, I'm not one to discuss glass "qualities", both are pretty much on par to me. But just about every Canon FD lens feels operationally better than any Nikkor. For some reason I have had too many Nikkors with sloppy rings, virtually none on Canon's side. And I must add, it was a big surprise to me. Not Canon's mechanical quality, but Nikkors' comparative lack of. Even if the latter is not completely common, I can't see how that could be assessed as somebody else's fault (i.e. well, you know Nikkors had a lot more use by pros so they wore down faster, etc.).

In this comparison, Canon EF needs a mention. Not as flexible as either of above, it was a revelation in my collection. Too bad it was not developed further.

 

[SodaAnt]

To each their own. I have all F1s, and F2. Not one time did I see what you see. Finder attachment alone spells the difference in design. By that I mean how finders fit onto the camera, high precision with Canon, not so much with Nikon.

This is my own observation as well. The F2 with a photomic head always seemed like a mechanical kludge to me, and and the connection between the two seemed to rattle. The Canon prisms, in comparison, seem like a much better, precise fit to the body.

 

[benjiboy]

I agree entirely with the previous two posts, in addition the Canon pro. " L" low dispersion glass lenses in the era these camera were currently manufactured about thirty years ago no other leading optical company Nikon Leica or Minolta were making anything like them, unfortunately I'm old enough to remember .

 

[swchris]

From memory, two senseless/unexplainable restrictions on the F1:
- "B" cannot be used with Motordrive
- 2000 cannot be use with self timer

Especially the first one is annoying.

Edit: or was is 2000 cannot be used with mirror up?