Nikon F2 Photomic or Canon F-1n?

[BradS]

..... I do not have any photographs of my camera.

Why not?

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

For 35mm I'm a Nikon fanboy all the way, but surprisingly some of my favorite sub-35mm cameras are Canon (Demi, 110ED 20).

 

[faberryman]

Why not?

I can't think of any good reason to take photos of my cameras. I mean, my camera is not bigger than your camera so why bother.

 

[BradS]

I can't think of any good reason to take photos of my cameras. I mean, my camera is not bigger than your camera so why bother.

What was your childhood like?
What kind of relationship did you have with your parents?
Are there other areas in your life where you feel inferior?

 

[faberryman]

What was your childhood like?
What kind of relationship did you have with your parents?
Are there other areas in your life where you feel inferior?

I don't think my sense of self-worth is predicated on having a certain kind of camera, but maybe it is a blind spot. People do tend to have blind spots when arriving at judgments about themselves.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer Nikon.

View attachment 344281

I use NIkon AF cameras but without large battery packs or motor drives. I like to keep my weight down for myself and my cameras when possible.

 

[BradS]

I use NIkon AF cameras but without large battery packs or motor drives. I like to keep my weight down for myself and my cameras when possible.

I love the F2 and have exposed many rolls of film and traveled many thousands of miles with the several that I've owned but since buying the F3, I've have not used any of the F2 at all. As much as I love the F2, the F3 is better in just about every meaningful way...including the motor drives (which are really just for fun nowadays)

 

[4season]

My F-1 photographed with a Bronica. In trying to come up with a good compromise focus point, I wound up not really focusing on anything! Mixed light sources, so the color balance is kind of wonky, but as they say, live and learn.

 

[CMoore]

Cool Thread
It is always Fun/Interesting to discuss these two iconic cameras.
Not sure what to compare it to.....

Ali Vs Frazier
Magic Vs Bird
Jets Vs Colts Super Bowl-3
Ford Vs Chevy
Jameson Vs ....... Bushmills
Brazil Vs Germany
Mothra Vs Godzilla

BTW, i did not know there was a 'Z' in the name Frazier.
Thought it was an 'S'

 

[bambiwallace]

in college when i was trying to decide between canon and nikon my professor told me to look through both viewfinders to determine whether or not i could see the full frame. i couldn't see the full frame on the nikon but could on the canon. i went for the f-1.

 

[Les Sarile]

Some have suggested an F2 with the plain prism finder rather than a photomic finder since there's a good chance the meter won't be working anyway.

Assuming I get one with a bad meter, isn't a photomic still preferred for the shutter speed and aperture displays in the finder? Are there any drawbacks to using an F2 with a photomic finder with a dead meter versus the plain prism finder (other than weight, of course)?

Don't forget looks as the plain finder is far better looking . . .

F2_F2A by Les DMess, on Flickr

How about a minty FM2n? Decades newer than an F2 or F-1 and not as likely to need major (or any) work to make it usable.

Not quite pro-class, but probably good enough for my purposes (street photography).

Sounds like you're not even going to take advantage of the interchangeable viewfinder so the FM2 style would make sense. So how about one of these that perhaps you haven't experienced . . .

Fast glass by Les DMess, on Flickr


Of course if you do want to have alternate viewfinders, then the LX has all the VF configurations you might want in that form factor . . .

LX Viewfinders by Les DMess, on Flickr


But if you only want eye and waist level, then maybe the Ricoh TLS 401 . . .

Ricoh TLS401B by Les DMess, on Flickr


Want the ability to shoot portrait/landscape mode without rotating the camera - or full and half frame? How about the Konica Auto-Reflex . . .

Konica Auto-Reflex by Les DMess, on Flickr

Want to go old school - fully mechanical but with a light meter the consider the Baldamatic 1 . . .

Balda 1959 Baldamatic 1 by Les DMess, on Flickr

And by the way, for daylight shooting, don't let the lack of metering hinder your choices. Most of all today's color negatives and b&w film have so much latitude that you only need to get "in the ballpark". And by that I mean within several stops close. I mean you can literally guess and it will be fine provided you go towards overexposure . . .

Kodak Portra 400 exposure range by Les DMess, on Flickr

With a clean slate there are so many options!

 

[chuckroast]

The F2 Photomic, for one simple reason: The AiS lenses for this camera will work on any modern Nikon full frame DSLR. So, you don't have to change glass or buy different lenses when switching between film and digital. Canon did not preserve their lens mounts as they advanced their camera line, which I consider a fundamental error.

 

[faberryman]

The F2 Photomic, for one simple reason: The AiS lenses for this camera will work on any modern Nikon full frame DSLR. So, you don't have to change glass or buy different lenses when switching between film and digital. Canon did not preserve their lens mounts as they advanced their camera line, which I consider a fundamental error.

The OP said he is only planning on using a 35mm or 50mm lens.

Availability of esoteric lenses isn’t an issue as this camera will be used mostly casually with a 50mm or 35mm lens.

I'd say for casual shots why not split the difference and get a point and shoot with a ~42mm lens. Why carry a brick around? I had a Canonet 28 back in the 1970s for casual shots which worked just fine. Every camera manufacturer made one so there are lots to choose from.

 

[BMbikerider]

The plain prism version is smaller, lighter, better balanced. You don't really need to see the aperture or shutter speed in the finder. There's a lot to be said for clean minimalism.

I quite agree. My first 'proper' SLR was a Pentax SV with a 55mm Super Takumar and later 35 and 135 Super Takumars, together with a Weston Master1V meter and invercone. (I still have that but I would not vouch for it's accuracy now) I had that camera from 1965 right up until around 1985 and in those years I used it entirely for B&W with no interference from colour. I have always processed my own in my own darkroom, in the works darkroom or a friends.
I got far more satisfaction and success out of the SV with it's simple layout and no nonsense simple screw thread lens mount than almost any other camera that have owned. Without counting they must have been almost a camera with a name for every letter of the Alphabet.
It was only sold when I discovered Nikon and a few others a little more modern and probably use more colour negative film than B&W nowadays but I still miss the SV.

 

[chuckroast]

The OP said he is only planning on using a 35mm or 50mm lens.



I'd say for casual shots why not split the difference and get a point and shoot with a ~42mm lens. Why carry a brick around? I had a Canonet 28 back in the 1970s for casual shots which worked just fine. Every camera manufacturer made one so there are lots to choose from.

Depends on the lenses. The 50mm is normally an f/1.4 and the 35mm an f/2.8, though Nikon also made a 35mm f/1.4 if you're willing to pay a rather steep price for one.

Personally, when I shoot 35mm - admittedly rarely - I cannot live without having at least a 20mm or 24mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.4 in my bag for my various Nikons.

In any case, if the OP wants an SLR, why buy one that cuts off options if/when they switch to a digibody?

 

[faberryman]

Depends on the lenses. The 50mm is normally an f/1.4 and the 35mm an f/2.8, though Nikon also made a 35mm f/1.4 if you're willing to pay a rather steep price for one.

Personally, when I shoot 35mm - admittedly rarely - I cannot live without having at least a 20mm or 24mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.4 in my bag for my various Nikons.

In any case, if the OP wants an SLR, why buy one that cuts off options if/when they switch to a digibody?

Did you read the OP?

 

[Sirius Glass]

The F2 Photomic, for one simple reason: The AiS lenses for this camera will work on any modern Nikon full frame DSLR. So, you don't have to change glass or buy different lenses when switching between film and digital. Canon did not preserve their lens mounts as they advanced their camera line, which I consider a fundamental error.

That was why went I had a choice between Nikon and Canon just before I was flying out of town I chose Nikon. Only recently I learned that Canon had to change its mount in order to accommodate the AF feature.

 

[Paul Howell]

Well that is true, but Canon's AF was so much better than Nikon early AF that Canon EOS 1 to 1 V became the default pro level 35mm. Nikon did catch up with the F100, N90, and F5, but by that time it was way too late. Other factor is that every (I think every) full frame EOS lens will work on both digital and EOS film cameras. I was very late to AF, started with Sigma SA 7 and 9, then when the Sigma cameras view finders developed a yellow tint I gravitated to Minolta and later Sony digital. My only gripe is that my Minolta 9 or 9xi will not work with silent wave motors lens, yeah all Minolta lens, 5 and 8 pin lens will work on my
Sony A mount bodies. But no issues at all with Canon, you don't need a chart to figure out which lens will work with what EOS bodies.

 

[GregY]

Well that is true, but Canon's AF was so much better than Nikon early AF that Canon EOS 1 to 1 V became the default pro level 35mm. Nikon did catch up with the F100, N90, and F5, but by that time it was way too late. Other factor is that every (I think every) full frame EOS lens will work on both digital and EOS film cameras. I was very late to AF, started with Sigma SA 7 and 9, then when the Sigma cameras view finders developed a yellow tint I gravitated to Minolta and later Sony digital. My only gripe is that my Minolta 9 or 9xi will not work with silent wave motors lens, yeah all Minolta lens, 5 and 8 pin lens will work on my
Sony A mount bodies. But no issues at all with Canon, you don't need a chart to figure out which lens will work with what EOS bodies.

While that may be true, the OP was looking at Nikon F2 or Canon F1 with just a couple of prime lenses. He had sold his digital gear.... there was no mention of AF......

 

[Sirius Glass]

While that may be true, the OP was looking at Nikon F2 or Canon F1 with just a couple of prime lenses. He had sold his digital gear.... there was no mention of AF......

Part of the question and answer is how big a pool of lenses does the OP want.

 

[GregY]

Part of the question and answer is how big a pool of lenses does the OP want.

"Availability of esoteric lenses isn’t an issue as this camera will be used mostly casually with a 50mm or 35mm lens."

 

[Sirius Glass]

"Availability of esoteric lenses isn’t an issue as this camera will be used mostly casually with a 50mm or 35mm lens."

My comment was for an audience beyond other OP. Others may read this thread while considering the same choice with different criteria.

 

[chuckroast]

My comment was for an audience beyond other OP. Others may read this thread while considering the same choice with different criteria.

Exactly.

There seems to be a slavish literalism hereabouts that is hard to understand.

Sometimes I read these threads in my mind's eye with the voice of Raymond in "Rainman" - Yeah, I'm an excellent photographer ...

 

[faberryman]

Part of the issue in deciding between a Nikon F2 and a Canon F1 is that you haven't considered the offerings from Minolta, Olympus, and Pentax. Those need to be considered as well.

And what about auto exposure, and motor drives, and macro capabilities including bellows, and a comprehensive flash system, not to mention camera straps.

And what about rangefinders, and medium format cameras, and large format cameras, not to mention video cameras?

Maybe just using his phone would be the best option. Which phone has the best camera?

And what about scanners and Adobe Photoshop and its competitors?

I'm thinking about buying a computer. Any ideas?

Let's not be too literal in addressing the OP's question. There's no telling who will be reading the thread in the future.

 

[SodaAnt]

I’m only interested in a fully mechanical, non-electronic camera from the mid-70s era. I have no interest in autofocus, autoexposure, motor drives, or flash capabilities. I want a camera that I can carry around when I visit the city and take street photos (and satisfy my nostalgia for cameras of that era, particularly the cameras used by pros).

I already have medium format (I have a Hasselblad and an RB67) and large format (I have a Sinar F2 and a Toyo VX125) covered.