Which Nikon F do you feel is the most refined?

[Jim Jones]

The later Nikons may be more refined, but the original F had many intriguing options that were later eliminated, such as a Polaroid back and 250 exposure back. The monstrous Photomic finder did improve my exposure accuracy over a long trusted Weston meter. An F with a late plain prism is still a neat camera.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I might be mistaken, but Polaroid backs exist for other Nikon F, even the 4 and 5. 250 exp. back exists for the F4: it is the MB-24.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I might be mistaken, but Polaroid backs exist for other Nikon F, even the 4 and 5. 250 exp. back exists for the F4: it is the MB-24.

Sure they do, but really, how much are these features used these days?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Sure they do, but really, how much are these features used these days?

I'm sure that someone still uses them somewhere! And I was replying to this:

The later Nikons may be more refined, but the original F had many intriguing options that were later eliminated, such as a Polaroid back and 250 exposure back.

 

[John Koehrer]

ahhh IC...I think I will stick with the F/F2 for robustness and add a plain prism(I don't need a meter or auto-anything).

Quick question: the plain prism and the screens between the two are interchangeable, right? I believe so but I wanted to make sure.

The screens are compatible the metered prisms are not and the plain prisms is a maybe.
On the F the name plate remains on the body when the prism is removed, on the F2 it's attached to the prism.
If the name plate is removed from the F2 prism it will fit the F. I didn't think to remove the name from the F to try the F2 prism.
I no longer have the cameras so can't check it.

Advantage of the F2 is the swing open back and more comfortable(IMO) handling.

 

[clayne]

They are interchangeable after a certain serial number on the Fs. There's some webpage out there that has every minute detail on this, so you can search on it. Personally I think the old school Nikon name plate looks the best with the F and the F plain prism is sharper which matches the body better.

Probably the best of both worlds would be the Nikon F Apollo variation which uses an F2 style advance lever. These aren't too hard to find either. That being said I believe it's just the lever. The throw and internals are the same as a standard F.

 

[okto]

F3 with MD-4, all the way. The F3 is a pig without the motor drive, but together they make the best-balanced camera I've ever held.

 

[clayne]

Say what? The F3 is a small camera. I think "pig" would be more along the lines of an F5 or F6.

 

[Vilk]

those would be "hogs"

 

[Doug Smith]

I have an F3 and would never describe it as a pig, it is one of the best balanced and best feeling cameras I've used. To the OP, I have both the F3 and an F and the F3 is definitely more refined, however it has a clunky on off switch that I constantly am flipping off by accident. I use my F at least as much and it feels like an old friend in my hands.

 

[benjiboy]

I've owned in the past an F, F2, and F3, from new and never considered the F3 had the class, mojo, and feeling of general indestructibility of the two previous models, I sold the F3 after about three months and have never regretted it.

 

[JimCee]

You can actually leave the power switch for the Nikon F3 in the "on" position at all times. The camera will automatically turn the meter off after 16 seconds after your finger is removed from the shutter release button. A light touch on the release button will turn the meter on again. Here's a site that explains that procedure:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/htmls/index3.htm

 

[JimCee]

The Nikon F3 was in continuous production for 21 years, from 1980 to 2001, longer than any other "F" series professional camera model. There's a reason for that long run, the camera was used by many professional photographers, who aren't renowned for "tender" use of their equipment. Like the old Timex wrist watches, the Nikon F3 could "take a licking and keep on ticking"... Whether or not the camera had a "feeling of general indestructibility" or not, it was very reliable in actual use.

Jim

 

[okto]

I didn't mean the F3 was huge, I mean it handles badly. The balance is just awful. Real top-heavy. It's pretty clear that it was designed with the motor drive in mind.

That said, the F3 is not a small camera. A Leica is a small camera. An OM is a small camera.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My idea of "refined" is no-nonsense, reliability, compactness, and no battery dependence. So my favorite is the FM2n. I also have an FM3a,
but even it has a few too many bells and whistles, and I don't like the meter as well (though I normally use a handheld spotmeter).

 

[Les Sarile]

The F3 is surprisingly not much bigger then Nikon's smaller SLRs. However, it definitely has more substance - weight.

As far as balance is considered, I tilted all three forward (without lenses) and they all would fall forward past the 2 o'clock position so they all have the same balance.

With the MD4 the F3 stands taller than it's contemporaries but is actually quite svelte compared to the modern design like the 1V.

 

[clayne]

I didn't mean the F3 was huge, I mean it handles badly. The balance is just awful. Real top-heavy. It's pretty clear that it was designed with the motor drive in mind.

That said, the F3 is not a small camera. A Leica is a small camera. An OM is a small camera.

If you say so...


Nikon F3HP + Leica M4 by kediwah, on Flickr

I'd agree with you if you were comparing an F5 or an F6 to an M - but the F3 is actually a fairly small body (it's not petite, but it's not large). I don't have issues with it's balance personally.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

I would suggest that an extensive overhaul is in order for your F3 if it's film advance has deteriorated to the level of those trio! The FG is as sophisticated as any camera of that time but nobody is mistaking it's cheap feel with any of the manual F's.

The F3's film advance is smooth but if buttery smooth film advance across the whole range is the criteria, then my vote goes to the Minolta XE-7. Try it at your own risk as it may leave you wondering if there is something wrong with your other camera's film advance . . .

Every single F3 I've used has had the same feel to it. Even like new condition F3/T cameras. It makes sense, since Nikon did, after all, use the same mechanism in the EM, FG, and FG-20 that they did in the F3. It's that way by design.

Try an FG with your F3 next to it. You'll see that it is the same.



-J

 

[Les Sarile]

Every single F3 I've used has had the same feel to it. Even like new condition F3/T cameras. It makes sense, since Nikon did, after all, use the same mechanism in the EM, FG, and FG-20 that they did in the F3. It's that way by design.

Try an FG with your F3 next to it. You'll see that it is the same.



-J

See the picture I posted of the FG and F3, I couldn't believe someone could make such an obvious mistake so I tried it again just to be sure. Unless something is very broken, there can be no mistaking the difference between advancing the the FG and the F3. Both of my FG's and F3's are in KEH EX+ condition . . .

 

[Les Sarile]

It makes sense, since Nikon did, after all, use the same mechanism in the EM, FG, and FG-20 that they did in the F3.

I have the F3 service manual which shows the film advance mechanism and reference the EM's film advance on Nikon's history site and there is not mistaking they are not the same mechanism.

 

[okto]

clayne: They may be similar in 2D size looking at them from the front, but the F3 occupies a lot more volume. I don't just mean in the sense of how much water it displaces; I mean real-world, how-much-space-does-it-take-in-a-bag-or-a-pocket. I can fit my M3 with a collapsible lens in my front pocket. I couldn't fit an F3 in there even without a lens mounted.

 

[clayne]

clayne: They may be similar in 2D size looking at them from the front, but the F3 occupies a lot more volume. I don't just mean in the sense of how much water it displaces; I mean real-world, how-much-space-does-it-take-in-a-bag-or-a-pocket. I can fit my M3 with a collapsible lens in my front pocket. I couldn't fit an F3 in there even without a lens mounted.

You know what else you couldn't fit in your front pocket? Your M3 with any other normal Leica lens that doesn't collapse. Try doing that trick with a 50 'cron which would be a much realistic comparison.

The only real difference in size is the prism and that's a given seeing that its an SLR. As someone who owns both an F3 and an M4 and used them together countless times I'm simply stating F3 size is a non-issue and on the smaller end of the scale.

 

[JimCee]

Your photo shows the Nikon F3 with the same width as the Nikon FM3a (142mm). According to the Instruction Manual for my Nikon F3HP camera, the width of the F3 camera is 148.5mm.

I agree that the Nikon F3/F3HP isn't an especially large camera when considering just the camera body, without an MD-4 motordrive attached. Recently, I took the MD-4 motordrive off my Nikon F3HP just to have a camera that's much lighter and more easily carried. I may mount the MD-4 drive again, but it's nice to try the camera by itself again. The silky smoothness of the film advance lever is a pleasure.

Jim

 

[Les Sarile]

Your photo shows the Nikon F3 with the same width as the Nikon FM3a (142mm). According to the Instruction Manual for my Nikon F3HP camera, the width of the F3 camera is 148.5mm.
Jim

Thanks for pointing that out. Corrected text info as shown below.

 

[clayne]

The silky smoothness of the film advance lever is a pleasure.

I only with the F3 had the exact same throw as the F2 - which is shorter and firmer.