EXACTLY. For the very short period of time when I used a camera professionally, about 10 years, meaning that I was getting paid to use a camera in the performance of paid employment, I used Nikkormats on the job and a F3 for recreation.
Define "Pro". That's the gist of the problem. They weren't all hunting the same kind of subject matter, or all making their living doing exactly the same thing, so inevitably had somewhat different opinions about what potentially constituted the best equipment with the most relevant features. But even if you had two pros doing the very same kind of shooting, discussing it in the same room, they'd probably have divergences of personal preference, along with ergonomic proclivities.
EXACTLY. For the very short period of time when I used a camera professionally, about 10 years, meaning that I was getting paid to use a camera in the performance of paid employment, I used Nikkormats on the job and a F3 for recreation.
Why was that.?
Just curious.
I was never a pro and had a 30 year gap in my photo hobby, so i am still catching up on A LOT of stuff.
Brian, I had one Nikkormat and despite their toughness I never caught on to them. I still love the industrial feel of the F36 motordrive. I used the F3 with a motordrive for heli-ski photography. That with the 80-200 f2.8 were money makers.
I've always found it interesting when people use the experience and preferences of professional photographers as a guide when recommending a camera.
Over the years, I dealt with a lot of different users of cameras. People with all sorts of interests, levels of experience and requirements. And it was always clear to me that the pro level equipment was often much better suited to the experienced and very demanding professional than it was to most serious amateurs, even when the price difference didn't matter.
And as for the sales and longevity of F2 vs. F3 models? That was as much due to the expectations of the times as anything else. When you compare the times - F2 being current vs. F3 being current - one major difference was that during the F3's time there were many more areas of photography where the clients and customers who bought product from professional photographers were likely to accept the quality that then current 35mm film offered - the films were that much improved.
In addition, I would suggest that the sort of professional photography that makes/made use of 35mm film was the sort of photography where the practitioners tended to be younger, rather than older. The F3 was designed for the new photographers of its time. I would suggest that the F2 was designed as much as a needed upgrade for the older photographers who had been using the F as it was for the newer photographers coming into the profession.
All of this is of course speaking in generalities. I knew older photographers who happily upgraded to and really liked the F3, as well as younger photographer who sought out the F2 at the time of transition to the F3. But mostly, I encountered younger photographers who would never have considered the F, the F2 or the F3, because they had no use for their capabilities or complexities.
All these complaints about the F3 about not having proper pro camera features is very funny given the commentators.
What matters is was the F3 accepted by pros? Not only was it embraced, but if far outsold all the other cameras which some commentators claim are the real pro cameras.
Apparently pros did not agree. The F3 was so good Nikon continued to make it even when they made the F5!
But the peanut gallery here? Not a pro camera as only one manual shutter speed!
Perhaps you misunderstand me? I was responding to those claiming the F3 was a poor pro camera because it only has one mechanical speed etc.
Here's a question for all you manual meter users on electronic cameras...if you are shooting manual mode yet using the in-built meter for metering and simply turn the wheel till the needle matches...how is that different from A mode? And maybe some exposure lock if you need to adjust?
I'm just here enjoying the elders fighting over technicalities and disappointments of a half century ago.
The F3 has nearly 50 years of an amazing track record. Nitpicking some issues from 1981 Camera & Gear editorial section is refighting the war. No-one cares how bitter you were when the camera came out because of X Y and Z. It's the same group of sour guys that still won't touch Canon because they switched from FD to EF. Get over it. My generations sour patch is the switch from mirror to no mirror. I don't like it but I'll learn to live with it.
JMO, but as a "manual shooter".........................i would say a beginner in photography would do just as you say.
After you shoot fro awhile, however, the meter becomes a tool that we interpret MUCH More often and do not (always) just choose the setting it would have picked in auto mode.
my 2 cents, adjusted for inflation
Very extensive and informative list for sure!
I have the Modern or Popular Photography magazine of the F3 review from when they used to completely breakdown the camera to the components. I recall they had discussions with Nikon about the life span of the LCD and apparently at that time they weren't sure how long (months?) and therefore made it simple to replace. Obviously we're well beyond that expected life but both mine are good and I don't recall ever seeing that issue mentioned much - if at all. Anyone here experience that failure?
You do realize you're on the analog, aka "film" section of Photrio, yes?
I was an enthusiastic user when the F3 came out… and still using mine. It seems rather silly to attempt to relitigate history, but that seems par for the course on the internet.
EDIT: and I picked up an FE about 10 years ago, which I often grab when I grab a 35mm camera. It’s a dandy camera!
Forget about the Canon F1, F1n, all of the Canon Eos models, compared against the F2 they are simply toast.
(Oooops! I think I may upset some folks with the last sentence, but it is true!)
No, I understood you. Your post was just a good one to choose as a stepping off point for a comment about using the varying interests and concerns of pro photographers over the decades as a bellwether for these sort of discussions.
... I don't care about battery reliance as I have always run out of film before I have run out of batteries!
I always get a good chuckle when people reject a great camera that is "battery dependent". People will carry twenty rolls of film but cannot be bothered to carry an extra battery or two? Similarly with the wide spread fear of electronics...too funny.
This is why I like wind up cars that run on spring tension. Do not need gas or electricity like those loser amateur cars.
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?