• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Who's the Greatest

Latest Gallery

Lutheran Cemetery Angel

H
Lutheran Cemetery Angel

  • 0
  • 0
  • 28
Dystopia

A
Dystopia

  • 2
  • 1
  • 45

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,944
Messages
2,847,946
Members
101,550
Latest member
Paris-Belle
Recent bookmarks
0
The only thing I can say is the quality of my camera (Contax G2) largely exceeds my skills as photographer.
 
chip j said:
But really, folks, the best-built film camera EVER was the Rolleiflex (better than any Leica).
Click to expand...

The best built film 35mm camera ever made was the Alpa. I had seen Alpas off and on over the years, then last year a friend of mine wife inherited an 11e with 3 lens. He sent it to me to check it out as they were thinking of selling it. Odd camera, not the most modern in terms of design, the build quality is off the charts. I have had many fine quality cameras, Nikon, Canon RF, Leica, Kodak Retina III C big, in terms of build quality and quality of the lens, I don't know of any better. Having said that it is odd to use, did not come with a electric motor drive, (I have seen pictures of a all mechanical drive, very strange). The lens quality is so good that they kept the camera and bought an adaptor to use the lens on Sony mirrorless camera. If I had the money I would not buy one, just too odd to use.
 
A another post on Rollei promotional matches reminded of another system I keep forgetting, the Rollei 2000, 3000, I have never seen a Rollei 2000 or 3000 let along shoot with one, but as I call it quite the system in the day. In the past folks have claimed that it was the Rollei 2000 that did Rollei in, never made any money with it, could not recoup the investment. Had bodies, backs, drives, huge range of Zeiss lens.
 
The Leica M cameras are not even in the same league as most 35mm cameras. They're in a different bracket all together, AFAIC. What I had in reference to was the normal cameras most folks buy, Nikon, Canon, Leica R, Pentax, Minolta, etc. The kind of cameras most can afford.

To an earlier question, I think the only F2's that had leds(dots) were the non-AI F2SB and the AI F2AS.
 
ColColt said:
The Leica M cameras are not even in the same league as most 35mm cameras. They're in a different bracket all together, AFAIC. What I had in reference to was the normal cameras most folks buy, Nikon, Canon, Leica R, Pentax, Minolta, etc. The kind of cameras most can afford.

To an earlier question, I think the only F2's that had leds(dots) were the non-AI F2SB and the AI F2AS.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is by greatest you mean run of the mill great. Like asking what is the greatest car, but don't think about the really good ones, just Fords and GM.

The F2 is a very good camera, but not as good as a F3 or F3 J, or a F5, or Pentax LX, or Canon New F1, or any other of a handful of good cameras.
 
Yep, run of the mill. The M Leicas are anything but run of the mill...different class-they're not SLR's. F2 not good as a Pentax? That'll be the day.
 
As Joanne Nosuchinsky says, "let the market decide". :smile:
 
Look at all the great combat photographers of the 60's and 70's like Eddie Adams,Horst Faas, Henr Huet, etc., they carried M2, M3's and Nikons...very little if any others.
 
I had an F3 and the F2AS. Sold the F3, the F2 is better to me.

The Canon New F-1 is better than those.

The old F-1 is better built than all those. The Leicaflex SL is probably even better built but it's not a better "user" camera than the New F-1.

I have not used or seen a Pentax LX.

With all said, I'd say that either a Contarex or a Rolleiflex is better built than all the above cameras.

Alpas? I guess Alpas are great if you like running 10 miles with stilleto shoes on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As long as we're showing a gallery of Nikon F2 love, here are mine:
 

Attachments

  • IMAG2983m25.jpg
    IMAG2983m25.jpg
    246.5 KB · Views: 123
My beauties, Canon and Nikon.

20150622_185335.jpg
 
I came real close to getting the old Canon F-1 back in the late 70's I guess it was. I think what prompted me to go Nikon was the name and the fact the first one I saw was at the PX in Frankfurt around 1966 when I was stationed close by. It was the FTN Photomic, best I recall, and I lusted after something I knew a SP-4 couldn't afford. I told myself when I got back to the world I was going to have one...I did. You can see where the back leatherette has come loose but I shot a lot of good pics with that camera.

 
ColColt said:
Look at all the great combat photographers of the 60's and 70's like Eddie Adams,Horst Faas, Henr Huet, etc., they carried M2, M3's and Nikons...very little if any others.
Click to expand...

Horst Frass and Henr Huet also shot with Liecaflex and Contaxt. The Air Force, Army and Marines started with Nikon in the early 60s as the F was the first out of the gate with a complete 35mm system camera, once invested they stayed with the system. The Navy did comprehensive testing and picked the Topcon SuperD and Canon F1 and new F1. In my time in Southeast Asia the Air Force and Army shot with Nikon as did AP, UPI, the Europeans shot with Nikon, but also Liecaflex, the freelancers shot with Nikon, but I also saw with Spotmatic, Petri, Merandia, you name it if it worked they used it. As a Air Force photographer I used M2, M3 and Fs, as a freelancer and with the wires I shot with F, F2, and F3 J. The F3 J was a better camera camera than the F2, had hot shoe, weather seals, and a faster motor drive.

Other than the fact you own an F2 what is your data to show that the F2 was better then the Pentax LX, Olympus M4,Canon F1 or for that matter the T90? What makes the F2 a better camera than a F5, F6 or EOS 1V or Minolta 9?
 
I could have sworn I saw pictures of those guys with a Nikon F around their neck...no matter. The F2 doesn't need an introduction nor does it need me to stand up for it. It's longevity and reliability speaks volumes for itself since it's introduction. I doubt you'd find a combat photographer, photojournalist or anyone that made their living with the camera with a Pentax or Minolta around their neck. I've never seen one. Sure, they all work. You can get from point A to B with a Volkswagen or you can go with a BMW.
 
ColColt said:
I could have sworn I saw pictures of those guys with a Nikon F around their neck...no matter. The F2 doesn't need an introduction nor does it need me to stand up for it. It's longevity and reliability speaks volumes for itself since it's introduction. I doubt you'd find a combat photographer, photojournalist or anyone that made their living with the camera with a Pentax or Minolta around their neck. I've never seen one. Sure, they all work. You can get from point A to B with a Volkswagen or you can go with a BMW.
Click to expand...

Bold statement there. Pretty sure most pros would use what every camera fit there needs best regardless of brand if they are not endorsed.

Since I'm left handed. I have to say exakta vx iib/a is one of the best. It is a bit odd but I love it.
 
ColColt said:
I came real close to getting the old Canon F-1 back in the late 70's I guess it was. I think what prompted me to go Nikon was the name and the fact the first one I saw was at the PX in Frankfurt around 1966 when I was stationed close by. It was the FTN Photomic, best I recall, and I lusted after something I knew a SP-4 couldn't afford. I told myself when I got back to the world I was going to have one...I did. You can see where the back leatherette has come loose but I shot a lot of good pics with that camera.

Click to expand...

You should have gone to the Canadian PXs in Zweibruken or Baden-Baden in 1966. I went there as a PFC & bought a new FTN for $95! A year later I bought a new M4 for $164! (and 5 new M lenses from 21mm to 135mm, and I was only a SP4!!!
 
chip j said:
You should have gone to the Canadian PXs in Zweibruken or Baden-Baden in 1966. I went there as a PFC & bought a new FTN for $95! A year later I bought a new M4 for $164! (and 5 new M lenses from 21mm to 135mm, and I was only a SP4!!!
Click to expand...

Quite a deal. According to one internet site (*), $95 in 1966 is $701 today; $164 in 1967 is $1170 today.



(*) http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom