Question for Nikon F3 enthusiasts

[McDiesel]

I am looking at F3 and F3 HP. Is the difference between the two entirely contained to a prism? In other words, simply swapping a regular "eye level" prism for HP prism my regular F3 will become F3 HP?

I googled but couldn't find the definitive answer to this question.

My 2nd question is just my curiosity: why are F3 focusing screens so thick and heavy vs FM3a/FE2 thin & simple screens? Visually I can't tell much of a difference, they're both great.

Thanks.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes, and yes… the diff is the finder.

The F3 screen has both a screen and a lens. The FE screen is just the screen. Visually, both are great.

 

[McDiesel]

@BrianShaw thank you sir!

 

[jimjm]

If you wear glasses, the HP finder allows you to see the entire frame much easier.
Focusing screens for the F-series pro bodies were made from glass rather than acrylic, surrounded by a metal frame. Much less prone to damage and easier to clean.

 

[Nitroplait]

I own both finders and can confirm they are interchangeable.

The DE-2 finder (non-HP) finder is preferable in most cases: Greater finder magnification and lower profile. I use glases and there are no obvious advantages to me of the added bulk of the HP finder.
The DE-3 (HP) finder mainly allowed press photographers to frame with their eye fairly far from the ocular but it came at the cost of lower finder magnification and a bigger prism - probably of little significance to them as their cameras were already bulked up with MD-4 motordrive and heavy zooms.

For an entusiast I fail to see the need for the HP finder if you already own the DE-2.

The picture below shows the DE-2 (left) next to the DE-3 (HP)

 

[250swb]

I agree with the above comments regarding the HP finder, the regular DE-2 finder easily shows 100% of the frame when wearing glasses.

 

[McDiesel]

@Nitroplait I see. My use case is actually a weird one. I have a regular F3 and I frequently mount DW-3 waist level finder on it. So much so, that I am thinking about getting a second body for convenience to reduce finder swapping somewhat. But majority of F3s out there are of HP variety, so i just wanted to make sure that they're identical.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Well, I guess it depends on the glasses wearer. I definitively prefer the HP finder. With the DE-2 I am mashing the finder and my glasses up close to my face. Different strokes for different folks.

TTBOMK, the only difference between the two F3's is the finder. For collector purists who want the correct HP/non HP serial number on the body - 'ef 'em.

F3 screens incorporate the 'field lens' and so you change out the screen itself, the lens, and a metal surround holding the two together. The FM2/FE2 screen is just the screen - the field lens remains in the body. I don't know if Nikon matches the strength of the F series field lenses to the screen - maybe yes, maybe no. In both cases the screen itself is plastic.

FM2 screens are a bit fiddly to insert into the camera and require a special tool. F3 screens are easy to flip in and out and the only tool needed is your fingernail.

 

[benjiboy]

The High Eyepoint viewfinder on the F3 is indeed a great boon to eyeglass wearers, you can see the whole screen and indeed turns a regular F3 into an H.P one.

 

[Nitroplait]

@Nitroplait I see. My use case is actually a weird one. I have a regular F3 and I frequently mount DW-3 waist level finder on it. So much so, that I am thinking about getting a second body for convenience to reduce finder swapping somewhat. But majority of F3s out there are of HP variety, so i just wanted to make sure that they're identical.

Yeah, the HP finder became standard fairly early on - and is also a fine finder. I just wanted to point out that it is a common misconception that the HP finder is somehow better. Few people have used them side by side.

 

[Chan Tran]

I bought the F3HP back in 82 when I was 27 and I needed no eye glasses but I still like it better than the non HP model.

 

[Les Sarile]

I got both just bacause . . .

Nikon F3 - DE2 & DE3 by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[flavio81]

I am looking at F3 and F3 HP. Is the difference between the two entirely contained to a prism? In other words, simply swapping a regular "eye level" prism for HP prism my regular F3 will become F3 HP?

I googled but couldn't find the definitive answer to this question.

Yes.

My 2nd question is just my curiosity: why are F3 focusing screens so thick and heavy vs FM3a/FE2 thin & simple screens? Visually I can't tell much of a difference, they're both great.

As pointed out, the F3 screen has an acrylic screen and a glass lens, the ones on the FE/FM series are only a piece of acrylic.

The DE-2 finder (non-HP) finder is preferable in most cases: Greater finder magnification and lower profile. I use glases and there are no obvious advantages to me of the added bulk of the HP finder.

Yeah, the HP finder became standard fairly early on - and is also a fine finder. I just wanted to point out that it is a common misconception that the HP finder is somehow better. Few people have used them side by side.

I had the F3 with the non-HP finder, then the one with the HP finder and also the rather rare F3P camera which has a titanium HP finder with hotshoe.

I liked, by far, the non-HP finder. It is smaller, lighter, and has bigger magnification. I need +0.5/1.0 diopter to be able to really nail focus, and it's far easier and convenient to screw an eyepiece diopter. Plus it makes the image even bigger.

However, neither of those finders is better to the quality, brightness and size of the image provided by my Nikon F2SB camera. This reason, among others, made me selll my last F3 camera.

 

[McDiesel]

@Les Sarile do you mind me asking: how many cameras do you have?

 

[ic-racer]

Out of curiosity, which one is most similar to the prism on the f6?

 

[mshchem]

F6 finder is fixed. That's no fun

 

[Les Sarile]

Out of curiosity, which one is most similar to the prism on the f6?

The F3 (DE-2) has a magnification of 0.8X, the F3HP (DE-3) is 0.75X and the F6 is 0.74X.

 

[Les Sarile]

@Les Sarile do you mind me asking: how many cameras do you have?

Been awhile since I've done inventory a few . . .

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

One additional point to add to the above fine comments;

DE-3, DE-4 and DE-5 HP finders came with rubber seals; the non-HP DE-2 does not; the DE-2 thus sits flush.
Someone needs to re-manufacture those rubber/silicone seals; Those are easy to pinch when replacing the finder and causing wear.

The DE-2 is also lighter by 30g.

 

[mshchem]

I got both just bacause . . .

Nikon F3 - DE2 & DE3 by Les DMess, on Flickr

I love looking at your cameras. Just to be clear, you know should keep a copy of these photos in your bank box for insurance purposes

 

[Huss]

Out of curiosity, which one is most similar to the prism on the f6?

Having both, well, there really is no similarity.

 

[__Brian]

The F3HP is likely to be newer. Check the SN on the body. The F3 came out 40 years ago, production continued for about 20 years. SN around 2Million indicates a very late run.