The Canon EF also has this design. Pretty neat IMO (Yes, I LOVE that beast! If only it had a true semi-auto mode, and interchangeable finders...)
View attachment 386097
Just like the left-'threaded' bayonet mount?
And a four-wheel drive?The Canon EF also has this design. Pretty neat IMO (Yes, I LOVE that beast! If only it had a true semi-auto mode, and interchangeable finders...)
View attachment 386097
F100?
that prism sits so low on the body, I wonder what's the VF magnification
Maybe not neededAnd a four-wheel drive?
I agree, this camera is truly unique, and the Copal square is a pleasure as it's so silent.I’ve always thought the EF felt a lot like the FTb in hand.
There’s a lot about the EF that really is unique to that camera, but a lot of it is kind of an F1/FTb mash-up.
I just wish Canon had kept with Copal Squares for the A-series, but that may well have put the price higher than the target.
It’s a shame too to me that the EF was kind of a dead end. The FTb to me pretty obviously competed head on with the SRT-101, and was a step above the K1000. The EF really is more in Nikkormat class of camera body, or more specifically the EL/EL2…
Textbook example of why I choose to leave camera repairs to the experts.
I’ve never owned a Nikon RF, but as I understand it the F is basically an SLR version of the SP. In fact if I’m not mistaken, some very early Fs(like the first couple hundred made, or maybe not that many) had cloth SP curtains. In turn, some late SPs had metal F curtains.
The F and I think also the SP follow the shutter button placement of Barnack Leicas with the button toward the rear of the top plate. The rotating shutter collar to set rewind is also Barnack.
Of course Leica by that time has moved to the shutter in the rewind pivot with the M3 and M2.
I think in this side discussion, it’s worth mentioning that there’s no one single innovative feature in the F. With that said, it was an innovative camera by combining a bunch of features from elsewhere(instant return mirror, automatic aperture, interchangeable finders, provisions for coupled metering, and a few others I’m forgetting) into a single camera and, probably more importantly, offering a full system from the beginning. By 1960, they’d covered 21mm to 300mm in rectilinear(plus an 8mm fisheye somewhere along the way), macro, and some other special purpose uses. That’s what made it such a game changing camera.
I’ll also mention that I will take a Canon Barnack clone over a real Leica Barnack any day. If the Leica IIIc was my only interaction with the brand, I’d not own another, and I’m hard pressed to think of a way a Canon IVs isn’t better. The M3 and subsequent M cameras are a different story, although the Canon 7 is a worthy match in a lot of ways. The 7 is the only RF I’ve been personally owned that combines a huge number of frame lines with the ability to only display one at a time…
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?