Nikon F3HP: Worth the hype?

[bring_back_pro400h]

All you need is a Rolleiflex. You live amd die with a Rolleiflex. Ask Kerouac.

Oh.., nikon F3? Yes, excellent camera.

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.

 

[NB23]

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.

I remember reading something about him and a Rolleiflex.

And there was Jimmy Dean and his Rollei. No sir, no Blad.

 

[Craig]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Consider the Nikon F100 with all the latest features including built in spot meter and AF [if you ever need it] at a much lower weight and cost of the F6.

 

[BMbikerider]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Just be ready, like I am to buy a replacement.

 

[GregY]

Exactly, what Sirius said..... for as low as $200-300 USD... buying a replacement is the way to go.
Less than the cost of a box of 8x10 sheet film....to offer some perspective.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

First generation L glass was in FD mount, I had a T90 for a while, liked the camera and the few lens I had, the T90 is another electronic body camera that is not hold up well, I sold mine before I got too invested in Canon.

 

[GregY]

Re: the F4... i liked everything it did....but found it awkward to hold because of the thick grip. The F2,F3, F5 are the charm. They're all great cameras to work with, tools that produce excellent results and i've come to the line of thought that they're easier replaced than fixed when the electronics die. (I'm still a fan of the F2-Titan plain prism

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Ok, resident F3 know-it-all here, a couple of points

The T and the P are in fact, modified enough internally to warrant consideration IF you need what they offer. I can confirm this by close examination of both with the Nikon Factory service and part manuals; the P and T are essentially the same except for the removal of features for the P and the all-over Ti for the T, the P has brass tops and bottoms and a Ti prism cap only. Internal 'weather-proofing' are the same for both. I've had a P body (first group of 5000 Japan News only issue) since 93' and can confirm the toughness and longevity.

In my well used opinion a regular F3/HP is plenty durable. For my daily carry SLR I've switched to mostly using a F4 with the smaller MB-20 grip, about the same weight but slightly fatter, and I appreciate the F4's better viewfinder display and more flexible metering, with the higher shutter speeds coming handy in the bright Hawaiian sunshine.

In F3's I would avoid selecting a lower serial number, and be wary with exceptionally higher serial numbers. (I've in the past on APUG described one of my very low serial number F3's getting a new factory covering with a 19xxx serial number, it came back from an NPS repair looking externally mint minus but internally I knew it to have 5,000 plus rolls easy, ymmv). I'd look for a 16 or 17 starting serial number, and don't be shy about considering one with wear from hard use; lots of the F3's were hard working news cameras such as mine and were regularly maintained; I used to send all of my F3's into to NPS on a 1-2 year basis on the paper's nickel whether they needed a fixing or not.

One nice benefit with the Nikon MF universe is the wide range of lenses. MF Nikkor's such as the 180 (non-ED are a true bargain, make sure it has an Ai conversion) 35/1.4 and even a 300mm f/2.8 can be had for simply astounding prices. Have fun!

 

[albireo]

The F3 HP is a fine camera, but give me a cheapo N8008s any day. It's a better tool.

100% with Momus on this. Love my F801s, probably my most used 35mm camera.

For some reason, and in spite of being a Nikon film user for 25+ years, I've never really liked their mechanical/semi-automatic/pre-90s SLRs. My FM and FE sit mostly unused, I really must sell them. I vastly prefer my Olympus OM2n to them.

I've never seen the point (for my photography) of the F3 either. Too bulky for what it does IMO.

But then I'm odd: I prefer my F801s and F90X even to an F100 I used to own (and sold).

 

[film_man]

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.

 

[Craig]

I'd agree with the above. I have a Pentax 67ii, and I had a Hasselblad kit for a year and then sold it. I found it didn't fit in my hand and was slow to use, the Pentax was much easier. The Hasselblad is a studio tripod camera that doesn't want to get moved or focused much, the Pentax is an outdoors camera that can be used in faster changing situations.

 

[sterioma]

The Hasselblad is a studio tripod camera that doesn't want to get moved or focused much,

Many successful photographers would probably disagree (Michael Kenna comes to mind)

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[film_man]

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.. )

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.. )

Over a decade ago, I bought my superior Hasselblad equipment rather than the wannabee equipment and told everyone on the then APUG that 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?

 

[faberryman]

Is there Nikon F3HP hype?

 

[Huss]

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 have a gorgeous almost like new F3P w MD4 motordrive that I am thinking of unloading. Too many cameras. The P as has been mentioned, is built to a higher standard than the regular F3/hp. The regular F3 is weirdly prone to dented prisms - I've seen so many in that shape. It seems the metal is very thin.. Solved with the P, Ti and Limited versions.

It still is amazing to me that pro quality cameras like an F3hp, F100 etc are cheaper than some crappy plastic trendy may die any moment P&S like a Nikon L35AF or Yashica T4.

 

[Huss]

The thing that is really nice about any F3 is they feel really good in hand, much nicer than any FM/FE series Nikon. So it makes you want to pick it up and use it more.

 

[Paul Howell]

I The P as has been mentioned, is built to a higher standard than the regular F3/hp. T

I bought mine in London, the Nikon rep told me that it had better quality parts, after I got it and had it serviced the service rep told that, other than weather sealing and addition and removal of features it had the same gears, electronics as the standard F3. The prism with build in hot shoe likely was better build than the standard or high point prims. The weather although nice was no big deal as the lens and motor drive were not weather sealed.

 

[mrosenlof]

The F3 is what convinced pros that auto exposure and battery dependence might be an OK thing. Unless you really need/want the AE, your SRT-101 will do most things just as well as an F3. Both Minolta and Nikon made good glass. 35mm SLRs from the late 70s to early 80s are similar enough that I would suggest you think about what lenses you would like and then pick the film holder (body) that fits them.

That said, the F3 is a high quality durable camera with a lot of flexibility. You are unlikely to regret getting one.

 

[film_man]

Over a decade ago, I bought my superior Hasselblad equipment rather than the wannabee equipment and told everyone on the then APUG that 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?

Yup, exactly that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yup, exactly that.

Aww .....

 

[Huss]

The absolute crappiest part of any F3 is the LCD illuminator. So awful it is comical.