Nikon F3HP: Worth the hype?

Moose22 said:

I hate it.

And the results are neither good nor consistent. My biggest issue is that I have constant problems with thing like the blue skies coming back with banding.. here's a super mild example:

But I've also had really major striping in skies on landscapes, way worse than this at times. I just have this one online as an example. So frustrating. We tried to figure it out, but never did, and anything with a sky is a roll of the dice.

And, frankly, it is someone else's vision processing it so I have no idea what they're thinking of when they choose contrast and color settings. I've brought enough back to try and get the striping fixed that I just gave up and spent a crapload of money to get my own scanning set up and I do anything at home that I might actually care about.

Noritsus were made for speed and to scan for scan-to-print machines. They're steam age technology by computer terms, the only reason they're good for labs is that they're mostly automated and fast.

Anyway, the point is that I have no idea about cinestill dynamic range based on a lab scan.

Click to expand...

Banding or the fact that as the viewing angle approaches the horizon, the light passes through more lower atmosphere and therefore shows haze and smog? Sometimes physics is a bitch.

Moose22 said:

I hate it.

And the results are neither good nor consistent. My biggest issue is that I have constant problems with thing like the blue skies coming back with banding.. here's a super mild example:

But I've also had really major striping in skies on landscapes, way worse than this at times. I just have this one online as an example. So frustrating. We tried to figure it out, but never did, and anything with a sky is a roll of the dice.

And, frankly, it is someone else's vision processing it so I have no idea what they're thinking of when they choose contrast and color settings. I've brought enough back to try and get the striping fixed that I just gave up and spent a crapload of money to get my own scanning set up and I do anything at home that I might actually care about.

Noritsus were made for speed and to scan for scan-to-print machines. They're steam age technology by computer terms, the only reason they're good for labs is that they're mostly automated and fast.

Anyway, the point is that I have no idea about cinestill dynamic range based on a lab scan.

Click to expand...

And that banding is another reason I stopped using TheDarkroom.com for my processing/scanning needs (before I just did it myself). So many images had banding from them, and they never would correct it.

Sirius Glass said:

Banding or the fact that as the viewing angle approaches the horizon, the light passes through more lower atmosphere and therefore shows haze and smog? Sometimes physics is a bitch.

Click to expand...

Not on the negative, but is in the scan.

Not in my scan, is in commercial scans.

It's the scanner.

And the banding is terrible when it screws up the sky in a beautiful landscape photo. I've dug into it and am convinced that it is a combination of how the can is done (the design of the Noritsu uses a point source LED and drags the film through while scanning) and the jpeg compression, which massively exacerbates the differences wen you do get banding. I mean, do a nice sky in the photo shops then reduce the image resolution and watch what happens. It is even worse in video when you UL to the you tubes. Compression doesn't handle gentle gradients well, much less banded scans.

Either way, my digicam scans are way better. I wish they weren't, as I'm profoundly lazy when it comes to anything that makes me spend more time on the computer than I have to, but if I want it pristine for any reason I just do it at home. Almost hilarious how amazing my Z7 rig is and it spends most of its life taking pictures of a film negative.

I'm just bitching here. This thread is about the F3, and now I'm feeling guilty that I posted an example from an FM3A instead of my F3.

This was with the F3, taken the same night as the Cinestill pics I posted as an example:




Shows the joy of the metering on the F3, I pointed at the building near the address numbers to make sure they weren't more than 2 stops down from where I was set, pointed to the interior to see how bright it was, split the difference and shot. Super quick, super easy.

Moose22 said:

Portra's latitude is ridiculous. Especially 160.

I haven't tested Cinestill much. I'd be interested to know if others have and how it compares. The scans I've posted are lab scans, and, frankly stated, the noritsu is a piece of shit. I get better with my camera, though I haven't tried bracketing like you.

What are you scanning with when you bracket like that?

Click to expand...

I've been scanning with the Coolscans 9000, 5000 and V with Nikonscan since they came out in early 2000. Clearly my favorite Nikon products! Prior to getting the Coolscan, I tried most all other desktop scanners available then as well as minilab scanners like Agfa, Frontier and Noritsu as well as Imacon. As I understand it, these minilab machines are very capable but it takes a knowledgeable operator to get the best out of them. Obviously, quality may vary lab to lab.

Using Nikonscan, I would set Master Gain manually bracketing and use HDR to merge the files.

Huss said:

The F3 offers not only the 80:20 pattern, but AE lock.

Click to expand...

As does my F90x.

Shows the joy of the metering on the F3....Super quick, super easy.
Moose22

This is a such a great point. Having shot F3's I can confirm. It will do negative film no problem, you do have to be careful in Auto with slide film, but especially in just plain old A aperture priority, it was so simple and fast.

Shooting, processing and printing mostly B&W for the paper with a couple of rolls a week of E-6 slide, I had to get the metering correct and even more so with the slide film. Coming from an Olympus OM-3/4 I was a bit mm "picky" about metering and E.I.'s and stuff. Once made the commitment to shoot Nikon was made ( in part due to a desire to shoot the Nikkor 300mm f2.8) I had to learn how to use the F3's meter effectively.

At first it seemed to me relatively 'crude', but aside from the larger spot, if you paid attention to the +/- symbols you could nail the exposure. I usually would shoot at least a few frames on Auto using the Exposure Lock Button, which is I think ideally placed when using the F3 with the MD-4. With Auto you can get the in-between shutter speeds which was sometimes required with E-6 slide film.

An aside; bulk loaded EPD 200 Kodak Ektachrome was the film, it certainly wasn't the Fujichrome 400Di wanted to shoot at the time but I grew to like EPD, certainly more as I got into the processing. Exposure Index of 640 was the sweet spot, with slight pushes. Lovely stuff, I wish they would bring back that version of Ektachrome.

George Mann said:

As does my F90x.

Click to expand...

Nope, 75:25 on the F90x

(which is still awesome!)

The Nikon F6 allows for spot metering (based on the focus point selected), 8mm, 12mm, 15mm, 20mm diameter, average and matrix patterns.

Huss said:

The Nikon F6 allows for spot metering (based on the focus point selected), 8mm, 12mm, 15mm, 20mm diameter, average and matrix patterns.

Click to expand...

Which is about the only thing the F90x lacks.

As does the F5, and on mine I do adjust to the F3's 80/20

I have my F6 set for 12mm. I can go back and forth to the F3 and it feels close enough I can shoot the same way, though the F6 is true spot.

I think that says it all about the F3 - those of us with F5s and F6s pick the same meter ratio pattern!

It also says something about my addled brain not being able to go back and forth between cameras without having to think about differences.

Thinking is hard. I try to do it as little as possible.

Ha yes it is telling; I do think it is from not wanting to think too much between cameras, I often carry two bodies for beach/surf shooting loaded with different films (CatLABs 200 is next btw) and for me it's a good idea keeping things consistent.

I also find that I use the Matrix metering pattern mostly with the F4 and the 'adjusted' Center-Weighted with the F5, since my lenses I use are not always AF with a chip that is needed for Matrix metering on the F5. Another point for my own "F4 is the most flexible exposure camera" score.

I like to shoot my F3 just to crank the sublimely smooth winder If for no other reason.

Okay, a bit late to the party, but I'll play. As someone who owns an F2(AS), F3(HP), F4 (all three battery grips) and FE, I have a little experience.

The F4 was my first "pro" camera. I really like it, and of all the above cameras it has the best metering system (although more about that in a minute). However, it is bigger, heavier and noisier. And it's got loads of motors in it besides the electronics, if almost any one of which conks out (ask me how I know they will do that), you have an unusable and probably unrepairable camera. But they are, for their age, amazing beasts in terms of capability, and represent a quantum leap in camera tech that was quite historical. And, they are loads of fun to shoot--possibly Nikon's best manual focus camera ever overall, and the autofocus is actually quite usable, too. If you're going to shoot with flash, and want TTL--very *good* TTL--the F4 is the only way, effectively, to go out of the four Nikon film cameras I've got. But probably not the camera the OP is looking for.

The F2 is of course Nikon's ultimate completely mechanical camera. It just *feels* like it could go on forever--and, given that people like Sover Wong are basically restoring their internals to like-new condition nowadays, you probably could shoot with one for life. But the meters are a bit awkward, the camera is also large and heavy, and it's not as ergonomically smooth and shapely as later cameras. And if you want a motor drive at any point, the F2 is the least practical/convenient to use one with.

The FE? Nice little camera to carry around. Doesn't feel nearly as rugged as the "pro" cameras, but it is very capable indeed. You can shoot in aperture priority (with exposure lock available), the motor drive (get an MD-12, not an MD-11) gives it a bit of useful bulk and stability, and if you pimp it out with a K3 or E3 screen (from the FM3a), it becomes even a bit easier than it is already to use. The match needle meter is nicer than what's in the F2 or F3, especially if you're shooting in daylight. It and the F4 have the best meter displays in my opinion, because you can see quite easily exactly how much the camera says you are under/overexposing for those of us who know how to interpret and use meter readings instead of just taking them at face value. It's the most compact (without a motor drive) of the four cameras I'm talking about. And you can usually get 38 or 39 shots on a roll, exposed at whatever speed you want to shoot at with that camera even before you reach 1 on the counter.

The F3HP was the last one I bought--primarily because given that I owned the first three, I was kinda "meh" about the F3 in general. But one day not long ago at a camera swap meet, a guy had an F3HP with a couple lenses, selling them for a price that was really, really hard to resist. So I played around with the camera--and I bought it. And other than the F4, which as I said I don't think is what the OP is looking for, I found I like it a lot better overall than the other two. It has a pro feel, and a reasonably nice built in grip without being quite so big as the F4. The film advance is indeed buttery smooth. The meter display isn't so great, although the meter is very accurate, and the illumination switch is as beastly (in a not good way) as others have mentioned. I do love that you can pick up all kinds of accessories for it--screens, motor drive (a really valuable addition, despite its bulk), finders, etc.--quite cheaply, for the most part, on eBay and at second-hand places in general. Other than an FE, it's the stealthiest of the cameras I'm talking about, if that's important--it's very quiet, and especially with the original prism (or a waist level finder), it's much smaller and less noticeable than the F2 or F4.

One thing I haven't seen people mention above--unless I missed it--is that of the F2, F3 and F4, the F3 is the *only* one that will meter fully as designed with a waist-level finder, a chimney finder, or no finder at all. In the F2, any metering is entirely in the finder. In the F4, matrix and center weighted metering are done in the DP-20 or DA-20 finder, the body has only a spot meter. The F3 has a bunch of tiny holes in the mirror (if you've never noticed them, take a close look) and so the metering is done by an SPD cell in the body. So if you are going to shoot with a waist level or chimney finder, such as in macro photography, the F3 is the only camera that will meter exactly the way it normally does, and will do so with Nikon's extension tubes, too, if you're shooting closeups. I bought a DW-4 chimney finder for mine, and as soon as I get a chance, I'm going to use it for some macro work.

So, to sum up: yes, the F3 *is* a great camera, and will serve you very well indeed. Is it a *perfect* camera? No. But then *no* camera is. (I also have Hasselblads--a 500CM and 553ELX, Leicas--an M3 and M6, a Rolleiflex, an RZ67, and a Mamiya Universal. Plus a Nikon D810 and D700. *All* of them have their inconveniences, irritations, irrationalities, imperfections, and intricacies that have to be known and respected.) There may be another camera system that suits *you* better. *Personally*, I have found the awkward and unsatisfying things about Nikon cameras--and particularly the F3, as that's what we're talking about--to be *generally* less annoying and compromising than those of other 35mm camera systems I've tried. Nikons, especially if we're talking film cameras, seem to overall be the easiest system to use because the cameras are generally quite capable, they are built (even the consumer models, mostly, at least the metal ones) to very high standards and most work fine today, even the old ones tend to take batteries available today and not some extinct mercury cells or something else weird, they don't have anything egregiously off-putting about their operation or bits that are notorious for failing prematurely (Canon shutter squeal, OM prism foam, et al), they are so widely and commonly available that prices for even pro cameras are quite modest, they have a stupendously wide array of high quality lenses (most of which don't have major issues with fogging/separation/etc., plus you can use a load of Nikon's autofocus lenses on MF bodies, and MF lenses on AF bodies, unlike with most manufacturers), and they produced a vast range of accessories that will allow you to do practically anything you'd ever want to do with a film camera.

To the original question then: I vote yes.

I dont find the film advance in any F3 I’ve had to be smooth or buttery. I feel it’s the worst part with its loose, light and floppy feel w vertical play due to the use of ball bearings. Nikon’s goal was to make it as light as possible.
Want smooth and perfect feeling? Minolta XE5/7, Leica Ms.

Huss said:

I dont find the film advance in any F3 I’ve had to be smooth or buttery. I feel it’s the worst part with its loose, light and floppy feel w vertical play due to the use of ball bearings.

Click to expand...

This doesn't sound right. It may be time to have your checked out by a trained technician.

Huss said:

I dont find the film advance in any F3 I’ve had to be smooth or buttery. I feel it’s the worst part with its loose, light and floppy feel w vertical play due to the use of ball bearings.

Click to expand...

Amazing observation! Your comment illustrates perfectly how subjectively we evaluate cameras. I nod enthusiastically when someone says that the F3's advance is buttery smooth, and I found myself nodding while reading your comment as well: "loose" is a fitting description.

I happen to love it precisely for being smooth, loose, lightweight and robust at the same time!

@BradS Huss is referring to the vertical travel which exists in all F3 cameras. Mine is "new old stock" from Japan and yes it's not as tight as FM3a or my Leicas.

George Mann said:

Which is about the only thing the F90x lacks.

Click to expand...

Put on a long telephoto lenses or long ended zoom lens to get the spot reading.

Sirius Glass said:

Put on a long telephoto lenses or long ended zoom lens to get the spot reading.

Click to expand...

1. the F90X does have spot reading capability. He was referring to the fact that it could not adjust the size of the center weighted reading.
2. Just get closer to your subject and take a reading, or take a reading off the back of your hand or whatever else matches your subject. Or I guess you could carry a telephoto lens for the purpose of 'spot' metering - that sounds much more convenient and quicker..

Huss said:

1. the F90X does have spot reading capability. He was referring to the fact that it could not adjust the size of the center weighted reading.
2. Just get closer to your subject and take a reading, or take a reading off the back of your hand or whatever else matches your subject. Or I guess you could carry a telephoto lens for the purpose of 'spot' metering - that sounds much more convenient and quicker..

Click to expand...

I do not want the exercise that comes from walking closer to the subject.

Sirius Glass said:

I do not want the exercise that comes from walking closer to the subject.

Click to expand...

Yes, much better carrying around a large heavy lens for those times when you want ‘spot’ metering.

rulnacco said:

One thing I haven't seen people mention above--unless I missed it--is that of the F2, F3 and F4, the F3 is the *only* one that will meter fully as designed with a waist-level finder, a chimney finder, or no finder at all. In the F2, any metering is entirely in the finder. In the F4, matrix and center weighted metering are done in the DP-20 or DA-20 finder, the body has only a spot meter. The F3 has a bunch of tiny holes in the mirror (if you've never noticed them, take a close look) and so the metering is done by an SPD cell in the body. So if you are going to shoot with a waist level or chimney finder, such as in macro photography, the F3 is the only camera that will meter exactly the way it normally does, and will do so with Nikon's extension tubes, too, if you're shooting closeups. I bought a DW-4 chimney finder for mine, and as soon as I get a chance, I'm going to use it for some macro work.

Click to expand...

Of course in aperture priority mode, the selected speed is very hard to see in that teensy tiny window . . .

Selection 17 by Les DMess, on Flickr

The eyelevel finders (DE-2 & DE-3) have viewfinder blinds to keep stray light out that may influence the meter unintentionally and the WL - and others, do not. So be mindful of this.

Les Sarile said:

I do have the teardown evaluations conducted on Modern and Popular photography magazines for these and there are no complaints on the LX. Topnotch as they say. I can understand that as a business one may not work on an item for any number of reasons - technical and/or philosophical.

Click to expand...

The problems seem to arise in the electronics, for the most part. Well, that and "sticky mirror syndrome", which a simple servicing takes care of. The LX is very robust, mechanically. As with any electronics-dependent camera, over time the electronics become the most suspect. No more electronic parts, no way to repair. Unlike with mechanical parts, pulling circuitry from a donor camera is never a sure thing.

lxdude said:

The problems seem to arise in the electronics, for the most part. Well, that and "sticky mirror syndrome", which a simple servicing takes care of. The LX is very robust, mechanically. As with any electronics-dependent camera, over time the electronics become the most suspect. No more electronic parts, no way to repair. Unlike with mechanical parts, pulling circuitry from a donor camera is never a sure thing.

Click to expand...

Both of mine work perfectly so to me the LX are completely robust. My second one was off auction for cheap listed as "not working for parts don't know anything about it" but arrived in perfect working order. Of course electronics problem can mean anything. Although I have yet to work on these in earnest, I doubt it can be catastrophic since it uses vary low current and voltages. Fortunately, the LX has sync to top speed available if batteries or electronics die.