I've been tempted to go with a TLR in the past, either a Rolleiflex or a Mamiya C330. I think that ultimately the genre of TLRs isn't for me.
All you need is a Rolleiflex. You live amd die with a Rolleiflex. Ask Kerouac.
Oh.., nikon F3? Yes, excellent camera.
OK, so what did Kerouac say about a Rolleiflex? BTW, I met him once but he was passed out with his head on the bar.
The Achilles heal with all the electronic Nikon cameras from the era of the F3 in all it's forms and a few others older than the F3 are the electronics. There are virtually no spares to affect a repair should the circuit boards decide they have had enough.
Mechanical versions made by Nikon so long as they have not previously been butchered by other owners they can be repaired so long as there are technicians capable of doing the job.
I'd also consider an F4 from Japan with the 4 battery grip. It's not that much bigger than an F3, and gives you full compatibility with all the Nikkor lenses, plus gives you matrix and spot metering. The focus confirmation for manual focusing is very accurate too.
If you want the more "traditional" SLR feel, look at the Canon F1 as well. Generally, the Canon FD lenses are cheaper than the Nikon, but just as good optically, and in some cases superior. Canon had a number of lenses that Nikon didn't make in manual focus too.
The F3 HP is a fine camera, but give me a cheapo N8008s any day. It's a better tool.
Many successful photographers would probably disagree (Michael Kenna comes to mind)The Hasselblad is a studio tripod camera that doesn't want to get moved or focused much,
You look a bit all over the place. You have the 67, a tiny XA, a digital and a manual SLR. All valid options for a kit and they don't necessarily replace each other. What are you going to shoot?
However, if you want an all in one, sure get the F3. I had the F3HP and F3, I wear glasses, the HP is marginally better but I did fine with the plain F3. So I wouldn't worry too much (or spend a lot more) to get the HP if I were to get one again.
I've also owned Hasselblads (501CM, 500ELX and the H2F which is a different thing altogether. Consider that with a Hasselblad, handheld you get a shutter speed of 1/60, 1/125, 1/250 and 1/500 to use with a 80/2.8 lens. So do the math and see what film you need. Also, Hasselblads currently are stupidly expensive, you can sell *everything* you have and still not get one, you now need a good 2k for an ancient 500CM kit. Plus servicing. You also get a very slow to operate camera plus you need to make sure you get one of the later focus screens as the old/stock ones for 500CM are just plain unusable (in my opinion) unless you're on a tripod and have all the time in the world to figure out focus.
You could get a TLR if you want to stick with MF but again, different things. Personally I'd rather have a Mamiya C TLR than a Hassy, even better a Rollei 2.8.
As for Leicas, well rangefinders are great and I have two (film + digital) but a 50 on an SLR is much more versatile given the 0.7m focus limit on the Leica. Also...a body in good condition is more than an entire F3 kit.
Back to the F3, great camera, loved mine, preferred it as a manual option to everything but the Leica R8 (which is more expensive, has fewer lenses and are more expensive).
So yeah if you want a manual SLR that does the job and has autoexposure, the F3 is simply excellent. Add a 28/2, 50/1.2 and whatever tele and you're still very budget friendly. It is a setup that simply lets you fully explore what can be done with 35mm film.
One more thought: if you want manual focus and are not averse to more electronic cameras, a Canon EOS 1/1N/1V/3 with the Ec-S screen is just as good (or maybe a bit better...?) for manual focusing. Get a Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 or ZE 50/2 and you've got a superb manual focus camera that will also work with the latest gen EF IS telephotos. Just a thought. A 1N isn't even much heavier than the F3, has just as good a viewfinder and is half the price.
Aside from the fact one will get more money selling a Hasselblad than they paid for it. I am glad to see that you will not be competing with me for Hasselblad lens. Opps, I already have all the lenses I need.
But why buy to sell it when you can save yourself the bother and get a better camera like the Pentax or Mamiya Rb67.
(I'm just going to sit and wait now and see if he bites..)
I'm a college student with four main cameras: Pentax 6x7, Sony A7Rii, Olympus XA, and a Minolta SRT-101.
I'm most likely selling off all but the Olympus to simplify my gear, and picking up a Nikon F3 with a good ecosystem of lenses (wide angle, 50 1.4, and telephoto) plus a truckload of Portra and HP5.
I'm on the fence about doing that, or selling everything and getting a Hassy 500CM. They're different cameras but I'm mainly focused on the F3 in this post.
I'd just like to hear general thoughts on the F3, its various Nikkor lenses, the titanium version, and just the experiences you guys have had with it. I'm looking to simplify my gear down to something that'll accompany me anywhere, and I'm thinking the F3 plus the Olympus XA might do that quite well.
I The P as has been mentioned, is built to a higher standard than the regular F3/hp. T
Over a decade ago, I bought my superior Hasselblad equipment rather than the wannabee equipment and told everyone on the thenAPUGthat Hasselblad cameras and lenses were the bargain of the century. Many of you laughed and now have to use Pentax or Mamiya RB67. I hope the users of RB67s have good strong trusses for safely carrying the very heavy RB67 and tripods while I shoot the Hasselblad hand held.
Is that the reaction you were looking for?
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?