Why does the Canon F-1 seem to get relatively little love?

[George Mann]

it can still be repaired by some of the better long-term techs who can source compatible replacement cells.

My EL is in need of new cells. Can you share these repair sources?

 

[mcrokkorx]

My EL is in need of new cells. Can you share these repair sources?

Sorry, I assumed based on previous research. Checking now, some that I had bookmarked have gone out of business, others like Gus Lazzari are apparently no longer taking on new customers. I've heard varying reports that Nippon Photo Clinic, Zack's Camera, Garry's Camera, Abilene Camera, Steve's Camera Service, etc were doing it awhile ago but don't have recent verification on any of them. Of course one needs to factor in the total repair cost involved in replacing the cells, which can be rather high because Nikkormats are tedious to disassemble. The tech might even discover the CdS cells are OK but their wiring is corroded, etc.

It appears the actual CdS cell part is similar to the point of nearly identical across the Nikkormat FT series, the EL series, and the Nikon F2 DP1 and DP11 Photomic meter prisms (most of the difference is in the separate plastic mounting bracket fixing them in the eyepiece assembly). Sover Wong in UK had a large batch of new replacement CdS cells mfd circa 2013, but he doesn't work on Nikkormats. Richard Haw extensively documented his teardown of a Nikkormat EL here, you could try asking him if he knows of a current source.

 

[CMoore]

Nikkormats always seemed to have wild swings in popularity or status that would miss the mark of their intrinsic worth one way or the other. To some extent this hinged on the typical camera buyer of the era in question: during the earlier years of the late 1960s thru late 1970s 35mm SLR boom, huge numbers of mass market "consumer photographers" (distinct from amateur-enthusiasts) flocked to Japanese SLRs in the misplaced belief they were "required to take good pictures". These family snapshot and travel shooters were previously satisfied with box brownies, folding cameras and Polaroids: clever marketing by the camera industry combined with photography in general trending as a cool hobby stoked this belief. Such people really had no idea WTH they were buying or even why: purchase decisions were based almost solely on brand awareness or status. To be fair, there weren't really any other legit issues to consider anyway: all 35mm SLRs had essentially the same basic design, operation and handling. All had manual TTL match needle metering, aside from the pioneering higher priced Konica AutoReflex and a couple of odd-duck leaf shutter SLR systems from Kowa, Canon and Contax.

During this period Nikkormats were somewhat over-rated, viewed strictly as more affordable offshoots of the Nikon F. Association with the F made them seem "more desirable" in ways that had no direct correlation to their utility or monetary value to the average amateur or consumer photographer. Few consumers who bought an SLR ever bought additional lenses beyond the stock 50mm (and if they did it was usually an off-brand tele or tele-zoom, not the camera mfr glass). Yet somehow, Nikon marketing (with cheerleaders in the camera magazine press) very successfully planted the idea that owning a Nikkormat was "the key to the vast treasure trove of Nikkor lenses and accessories" (direct Keppler quote). This idea swayed disproportionate numbers of potential buyers to the Nikkormat, despite the fact there was virtually no chance they would ever buy another Nikon lens or accessory.

Also despite the fact there were several other cameras at similar or lower pricing that might be more suitable for average Joe or Jane than a Nikkormat. The first iterations of Nikkormat had dimmer highly-cropped focus screens, nail breaking inconvenient ISO setting, and a lens mounting/meter indexing process that gave Einstein a headache (more complicated than the later common "Nikkormat twist"). Competing brands at the same or lower pricing like Minolta SRT or Pentax Spotmatic were smoother and slicker to operate while retaining the same apparent build quality and large lens lineup. Nikkormat wasn't on quite the same footing as Minolta and Pentax until the later FTn (and esp FT2) revisions, at which point Canon's FTb offering became compelling to more sophisticated users who could appreciate its selective-area metering. And of course the budget-constrained might have been better off looking at second-tier options like Mamiya MSX/DSX, GAF/Chinon, Fuji. or even Miranda. But, Nikkormat had brand recognition nailed, attracting more buyers than it probably earned.

The second half of "the Nikkormat decade" was more contentious and competitive. Pentax added open aperture metering to the M42 stop down spec, introduced electronic shutters with AE, then K mount. Nikon countered with the Nikkormat EL, Minolta launched the XE-7, Canon the EF, and a new step-up premium-priced class of "AE SLR" arose. Back in the manual exposure trenches, Olympus OM-1 seized the imagination of the camera press and buyers alike, triggering a rush among all mfrs to reduce size and weight. Nikkormat FT2 came to be seen as clunky, old fashioned and overpriced: Nikon was slow to replace it with the FM (which was also way overpriced vs OM-1 and Pentax MX/ME), and stupid slow bringing out the FE. But Nikon still had the brand awareness edge, until Canon dropped the AE-1 and crapped in every other mfrs tea trays.

Over the ensuing decades since its discontinuation, Nikkormat has been mostly under-appreciated (and esp in the early post-digital film camera selloff, vastly undervalued) compared to its same-era competitors. Its flaws (size, weight, shutter control placement, severely cropped viewfinder coverage, two-step lens mounting procedure) became exaggerated while advantages that took the passage of time to reveal were ignored. Compared to its '70s competition, the scales have flipped in terms of dollar value/usability today. Other than their CdS meters going half or fully dead (a common plague among all '70s SLRs), nothing ever goes wrong with Nikkormats: the film advance, Copal Square shutter, and body build are bulletprooof. Tons of Nikkormat FTn and FT2 were sold, so tons are still floating around the used marketplace in fully working (mechanical) condition. From 2010 thru 2020 they were an absolute glut on the market, literally sold as rear lens caps attached to a 50mm f/2.0 or f/1.4 Nikkor.

The once-vaunted, more elegant Minolta SRTs, Canon FTb (and to a lesser extent Pentax SP and K series) haven't fared quite as well: many now need film advance or shutter repair. The Pentax, Minolta and Canon manual-focus glass has jumped dramatically in resale value as demand for "character lenses" for mirrorless digital soared. Prices on fast aperture common focal lengths are significantly lower on some of the Nikkor classic optics vs other brands (partly because theres twice to thrice as many Nikkor lenses available, partly because '70s/'80s Nikkors have lost a bit of their cache and are considered "flat and boring" nowadays vs the exotic, harder to find Takumars, Rokkors, Hexars and Canon FDs).

Factor all this together, and the common-as-dirt Nikkormat becomes a compelling value proposition today for film newcomers on a tight budget. Cheap plentiful bodies, cheap-ish plentiful lenses, and (other than potential meter defects) no worries that an expensive repair from an 85 year old specialist technician might be required. One could do better than a Nikkormat in terms of some features, but one could also do a lot worse (or spend a lot more money for essentially the same setup, i.e. Pentax K1000). If you do feel something else would be a better fit, you can always resell a Nikkormat (esp with 50mm Nikkor attached) at breakeven or very little loss.

Circling back to under-appreciated nearly-forgotten Canon SLRs, the model at the opposite end of the F-1 in Canon's mid- '70s model lineup comes to mind: the Canon TX. Almost nobody remembers it, because it was very vanilla compared to its more expensive FTb, EF and F-1 brethren and it wasn't marketed well, failing to sell in appreciable numbers. But the TX was very well regarded by the camera press that tested it and the buyers smart enough to choose it. It was the most bang-for-the-buck manual exposure SLR Canon ever offered: a simplified FTb with less complex mechanism, easier to understand centerweighted metering, and brighter punchier viewfinder housed in a rugged body shell. It was aimed directly at the Nikkormat FT2, pitching the same feature set and comparably large lens selection at 30% lower price. Unfortunately it went nowhere saleswise, despite a big PR boost from Consumer Reports and other mass-market influencers. If you're looking for a vintage starter SLR like the Pentax K1000, consider the Canon TX instead: usually a much better deal (although nothings as cheap as a Nikkormat FTn in this category).

I had never heard of the TX before.
Maybe i have, and had forgotten.?
Honestly do not remember reading about or seeing the TX.
I will have to rake a look....Thank You

 

[wiltw]

I had never heard of the TX before.
Maybe i have, and had forgotten.?
Honestly do not remember reading about or seeing the TX.
I will have to rake a look....Thank You

Nor had I...FT, FTN, FTII

Maybe the FTX was marketed in one country but not in US?!

 

[mcrokkorx]

Nor had I...FT, FTN, FTII

Maybe the FTX was marketed in one country but not in US?!

Sorry for the confusion: I should have put my remarks on the TX in a separate post instead of appending to my Nikkormat post. To be more clear: the TX was a Canon camera that competed with the Nikkormat FT2. It was a "reduced content" version of the Canon FTb-N that was actually better in some ways than its more expensive brother (simplified film advance, brighter viewfinder, more amateur-friendly meter pattern).

The Canon TX sold as a complete package deal including 50mm f/1.8 FD lens and never-ready case for an amazingly low $169 at NYC mail order dealers during the late '70s (vs Nikkormat FT2, Canon FTb-N, Olympus OM-1 and Minolta SRT-101 at approx $235, with lens but without the case). Minolta SRT-102 and Pentax KM bridged the gap at about $210. Eventually Canon gave up on the slow selling TX, passing the rock bottom $169 torch to Pentax' new K1000 (which ran with it far more successfully for many years after).

 

[CMoore]

Nor had I...FT, FTN, FTII

Maybe the FTX was marketed in one country but not in US?!

Yeah, i was taken by surprise ......i read a few links, including the one below.

http://classiccameraguy.com/2017/05/28/canon-tx/

 

[flavio81]

I read a lot about the Nikon F and F2 on this and other forums, but I see relatively little about the Canon F-1. What I have read seems to indicate that the Canon is a truly professional grade camera and was built at least as well as the Nikons, yet they don't seem to get the same level of notoriety. Can anyone shed some light on why this might be the case? Lack of marketing? Came out too late and Nikon already had the pro market sewn up? I'm curious...

Because we, the F-1 fans, don't want prices to rise. So we keep quiet.

KEEP
QUIET

I own six F-1 cameras (3 new, 3 old) and many Canon lenses. I've sold all my Nikons save for my F2 and one FM i plan on reselling.

 

[flavio81]

What about the F mount makes it more special than the FD mount? Compatibility with a wider array of lenses?

Wrong... you can mount Nikon F lenses on Canon FD bodies and not the other way around (without ugly optical adapters). Also M42, Exakta lenses and in theory many other mounts, without optical adapters.

 

[flavio81]

My guess is because it's predecessor - the Canonflex, was as spectacular a failure as the Nikon F was a success . . .

Selection 43 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Obviously, Nikon's marketing did a pretty good job

Agree.

 

[flavio81]

Yes, Nikon had a head start. But by the mid-'70s, when I started being aware of these things, Canon was every bit as visible as Nikon and was considered a direct and worthy competitor in the pro SLR market. .

Yes, however, as many said here, Nikon got a fantastic head start in 1959, relesing the Nikon F, a very well conceived product, with an useful array of lenses. While Canon's Canonflex was ill-conceived (although beautifully made) and released with a very small lens system, no wideangles for example (!)

Canon didn't really make a truly good (i.e. equal or better than the competition) SLR camera until, arguably, the Canon Pellix or the Canon FT, of the mid 60s. Before that, Pentax and Minolta (and Nikon) were making better designed, better featured cameras.

 

[flavio81]

In these Canon F-1 vs Nikon F2 discussions, the importance of the well-heeled amateur market to sales and popular awareness of nominally "pro" cameras in the '70s always seems to get overlooked. The simple fact is, the (original) Canon F-1 had absolutely zero sex appeal to the amateur with enough money to afford it. Prior to its AE-1 swinging a wrecking ball that destabilized the entire camera market, Canon was spinning its wheels with well-built but basically ho-hum (to amateurs) SLRs like the FTb

The FTb was a big sales success for Canon.

These were competitive with Minolta SRTs, Pentax Spotmatics and Nikon's Nikkormat line, but didn't particularly stand out on the camera shop shelf and scream "kewl kid".

Agree!

That is not to say the original mechanical Canon F-1 (and F-1n revision) wasn't a worthy option for professionals vs the Nikon F2: it most definitely was. To a certain degree, Nikon was trapped by its runaway success with original F, which constrained how imaginative they could get with a followup F2. I love the F2, its my favorite camera of all time, but it was forced to carry on some quirks from the original F instead of being entirely clean-sheet. Canon cleverly seized on this, "correcting" several of the glaring deficiencies inherent in the F/F2 design, and boy did they promote these improvements.
.

As an owner of the F2 (and prior owner of an F) agree too!

Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to sell the F-1 in quantities that would enable cult status on par with the Nikon F2 decades later. The Canon F-1 sold successfully into the pro market to photographers who recognized and exploited its advantages over the Nikon, but stalled there. Nikon, OTOH, easily sold a few hundred thousand F2s to amateurs, while virtually owning the pro market.

I think i have the total sales figures somewhere, I recall it was about 4 or 5 nikon F2/F3 cameras for every F-1/New F-1. But on the other hand it was the only pro camera to have that amount of sales compared to Nikon offerings. The other competitors (i.e. Minolta XK, Pentax LX) doesn't even near those figures.

Canon launched some nifty F-1 ad campaigns in Popular Photography etc, featuring younger hipper pros doing super-cool work like shooting album covers for The Who, but it didn't increase sales to non-pros by much. And Nikon somehow kept making lemonade out of lemons with the F2, keeping it evergreen and ever popular. You say the F2 sucks because it can't meter with all its viewfinders? True, buuuttt... have you seen our snazzy new meter prism with two big red LED meter lights that reads down to available darkness without a huge clumsy booster? Bang... zoom... F2S sales soared. A couple years later: have you seen our newer smaller LED meter prism with 3 count 'em 3 LEDs and (wait for it) memory-free silicon cells? Usher in the legend of the Nikon F2SB and F2AS.

Canon couldn't even get status traction from its F-1 FD lenses being engineered from scratch for shutter priority automation when used on the F-1 with its AE finder, because Nikon offered the most PT Barnum sideshow attraction ever seen before or since: the DS EE accessory, a little motor that attached to the F2 lens mount and physically turned the aperture ring of all Nikon lenses according to the meter reading. Slow as hell AE, burned thru its battery within 40 mins, but golly gee was it trippy and fun to play with (and looked hella better than the gigantic Frankenstein-esque AE finder attached to the Canon F-1).

Spot on!!

History repeated itself somewhat when Canon replaced the all-mechanical F-1 with the more advanced electromechanical F-1 New. Compared to the Nikon F3, the Canon F-1 New was so much more advanced and versatile it wasn't even funny.
.

Except for TTL flash, of course. That, the F3 did well. But even build quality is better on the Canon.

Personally, I can't stand the F3: the dismal meter display alone is enough to make me want to take up another hobby,
.

Agree.

Poor Canon was once again shunted aside into also-ran lane: existing Canon pros loved the F-1 New,
.

I disagree. It was the New F-1 and the 80s where Canon marketed more to the sports shooters and they started to gain even more traction in the pro field. They also release a ton of state of the art tele lenses in the 80s. Previously they only had a limited variety of FL-F (flourite) lenses.

It took the rise of autofocus for Canon to finally free itself from Nikon's shadow in the pro as well as amateur markets with its entire camera lineup. It also took a lot of guts, and a lot of luck with their bet that the future lay in fully electronic lens couplings, but they ended up dominating the camera field and reducing proud Nikon to seemingly permanent catch up mode (Nikon sometimes has the edge in technology and a few lenses, but it never shifts their market position anywhere close to Canon's). So Canon got its revenge after all, eh?

Yes...

 

[flavio81]

Sorry, kids. if you're gonna sport a beautiful handmade original Canon F-1, make the effort to find a couple matching silver breech ring original FD lenses to go with it

I do. I have the 28/3.5, 35/2, 50/1.8 and 100/2.8 all in chrome nose + silver breech ring versions. Do I win the prize?

 

[flavio81]

The OM-1 was probably the most well-conceived, jewel like cameras of the '70s: I begged my father to buy me one for my 16th birthday and was shocked that he agreed to let me pay off the $240 cost bit by bit. Wonderful camera, totally lived up to its rep as the "Leica M3 of SLRs"

Here we disagree. The OM wasn't much smaller than the older (pre-spotmatic) Asahi Pentax cameras (whose lenses are tiny as well). I can't call "well-conceived" a camera with the ISO dial where the speed dial should be. And I can't say "the Leica M3" of SLRs when the film advance mechanism is so fragile.

Great idea, with revolutionary marketing since it made smaller cameras fashionable, poor execution.

The OM-1, in my view, was so ill-conceived that Pentax just took 4 years to totally obliterate it with the Pentax MX, a completely superior camera of similar (even smaller?) dimensions and very good reliablity. And, of course, the M system of lenses. And the ME and ME Super -- well conceived, highly ergonomic and practical cameras, and enormous sales success for Pentax. And there's the LX, which on paper should be the ultimate pro manual focus camera.

 

[flavio81]

The Nikkormat variations sound more solid in operation than their tinny-sounding FM/FE successors

YES, my minoltic friend!! YES!!

, and they don't employ perishable foam sound deadeners like the pro F2 (an intact F2 sounds great, but most suffer from decayed internal padding that leaves them with a firing sound like a cracked rusted-out bell rung by Quasimodo).

I'd say Canon F-1 (original model) cameras have the same problem too.

The resistor ring is a bugbear for many Nikon & Nikkormat models, but Nikkormats frequently have one of their two CdS cells die from age. The worn ring resistor causes jerky response and gaps in response, a dead or dying CdS cell manifests as consistent exposure inaccuracy

...and...
The Canon F-1 and FT/FTb/TX use no such resistors. There isn't anything to wear down on the metering circuit, save for the CdS cells itself. But i've yet to find one of those cameras with a aged (worn down, faulty) CdS cell or cells.

 

[flavio81]

I had never heard of the TX before.
Maybe i have, and had forgotten.?
Honestly do not remember reading about or seeing the TX.
I will have to rake a look....Thank You

I had one. Lovely camera. And agree with @mcrokkorx , a good alternative to the K1000.

 

[MattKing]

The TLb and its successor, the TX, were the entry level Canon SLRs.
In Canada, Simpsons-Sears (who sold far more Canon SLRs than all the rest combined) had an exclusive on the TX for quite a long time after it was withdrawn from the normal market (after the AE-1 was introduced), and many of them were sold - particularly through their catalogue operations.
And flavio and I totally disagree about the Olympus OM-1 and its successors!

 

[mcrokkorx]

Olympus attempted to crash multiple market segments at once, from Clueless Joe to advanced enthusiasts to pros, with a subcompact SLR with pro accessories and broad lens lineup for a new system. Those who didn't need absolutely bulletproof Nikon F, F2 and Canon F-1 build quality were happy enough with it, esp since you could purchase two or three OM-1 bodies for the price of one traditional pro camera (instant backup system). The OM-1 was dead quiet for an SLR, attracting the Leica comparisons, but its film advance wasn't anywhere as smooth as Leica or the later Pentax and Minolta knockoff compacts (the Olympus advance feel is pretty grungy, actually: very disappointing considering the refined shutter/mirror action).

Later compact SLRs had the benefit of a few years more camera part evolution: at the time OM-1 was engineered, it needed the odd control placements to house the older bulkier meter and shutter parts in a small body. Like many other classic cameras that were considered paragons in their day (Minolta SRT & XD, Pentax LX, Topcon Super, Contax RTS etc), the OMs were reliable enough during their intended lifespan but at quadruple that span they break down at a higher rate than the Nikon and Canon pro bodies.

I wasn't entirely happy with some aspects of my OM-1 (like the CdS meter cells and needle display for low light shooting, or heavy focus feel of the lenses), so when the Pentax MX arrived I eagerly traded my OM-1 for it. That thrill lasted thru a couple weeks use of the MX, after which I hated the damned thing. The multicolor LED meter display that solved my low light issues proved unexpectedly useless outdoors because bright daylight totally washed it out, and when it developed advance and shutter problems after a few months I traded it back in at a loss for another new OM-1 (which I used without incident for the next fourteen years until I could afford the Nikon F2AS system I'd always dreamed of). I was hardly alone in having mechanical issues with an MX, and decades later they seem to have roughly the same percentage of "needs repair" bodies in circulation as OM-1. No one should expect to find a flawless example of either camera at this point: most need some servicing.

The MX ticks the same feature boxes as the OM-1 for most people, so the choice is down to subjective preference in body operation and lens lineup. The older Spotmatics weren't all that comparable IMO. I picked up a couple of those with some beautiful screw mount Takumars during the mass digital exodus: they're compact but not quite as small, quiet-ish but not as damped as OM, viewfinders are dimmer/less contrasty, no open aperture metering, no interchangeable focus screen, no (common) motor option. I keep meaning to try using my M42 lenses on an ME Super via the Pentax M42>K adapter: I like the ME series much more than the MX (even smaller body but same large bright viewfinder, meter display more readable in all lighting, and the Seiko shutter seems less problematic as long as the electronics hold out).

 

[mcrokkorx]

The Canon F-1 and FT/FTb/TX use no such resistors. There isn't anything to wear down on the metering circuit, save for the CdS cells itself. But i've yet to find one of those cameras with a aged (worn down, faulty) CdS cell or cells.

The (mechanical) meter system engineering in the original 1970 Canon F-1 series is really outstanding: so much better designed than the Nikon F/F2 meters it makes those look cheap and pathetic (granted, Nikon had to shoehorn their complete meters into a prism housing, but still). Brilliant: one has to see it in a partially disassembled F-1 to believe it. I don't think even the insanely overbuilt Leicaflex or Zeiss Contarex had such cleverly implemented metering mechanics.

 

[swchris]

I've got one Canon F-1 and multiple Nikon F2s.

That the meter is inside the body of the F-1 is definitely better, Nikon only had that with the F3.

But, I don't like the F-1. Sure, it's built like a tank and a good camera, but compared to my F2 it's somehow awkward:

- with mirror up 1/2000s speed cannot be used (wtf?)
- from motor manual: "Stopped-down photography with the stopped-down lever or with the mirror in up position is not possible (When the stopped down lever is pushed down, the electric circuit is cut off.)

F2 has no problems with such operations...

 

[flavio81]

Sure, it's built like a tank and a good camera, but compared to my F2

Well, i own both cameras (classic F-1 and Nikon F2SB) and i do think the F2 is a better designed camera in some aspects. However, the Canon F-1 is far more ergonomic in use, feels better balanced, nimbler, and I enjoy using it more. Even though the F2SB is close to my camera ideal -- except for the ergonomics.

All though this 2 years of pandemic i could choose between using the F-1, F-1N, Nikon F2, F3, Pentax MX, ME, KX, SPF, and other MF and rangefinder cameras. The camera I used the most, by far, was the classic F-1 followed by the F-1N. I l almost never used the Nikons. Last month I sold my F3, gone gone. Go away you evil machine!!! I'm keeping my F2 since i have an enviable collection of classic Nikkor lenses. However i also have real gems in the FD line, so they aren't an advantage over my Canon system.

 

[George Mann]

Well, i own both cameras (classic F-1 and Nikon F2SB) and i do think the F2 is a better designed camera in some aspects. However, the Canon F-1 is far more ergonomic in use, feels better balanced, nimbler, and I enjoy using it more. Even though the F2SB is close to my camera ideal -- except for the ergonomics.

Have you tried using your F2 with a Buttergrip?

 

[BradS]

... the F2SB is close to my camera ideal -- except for the ergonomics.

Interesting. The Nikon F2 ergonomics are just about perfect for me. Of course, ergonomics is intimately related to the specific dimensions and geometric proportions of an individual and so there is no absolute truth to be found here.

... I sold my F3, gone gone. Go away you evil machine!!!

I bought a Nikon F3 this year after coming to the realization that I have wanted (but couldn't afford) one ever since it was introduced back in 1980. I love the Nikon F3...it's a fantastic camera. It is my everyday user now.

... I'm keeping my F2.

Me too. I've sold a bunch of mine these past couple years but still have four. Yeah, I guess I have a "thing" for the NikonF2.

 

[wiltw]

Here we disagree. The OM wasn't much smaller than the older (pre-spotmatic) Asahi Pentax cameras (whose lenses are tiny as well).

The H1 and H3 were somewhat compact, but neither had built-in metering to contain within. I include a few other cameras with TTL metering, as a comparison of metering 'contemporaries'. The Minolta SRT-101 was somewhat compact and light, too.

• Pentax H3: 143mm x 92mm x 47mm; 548g
• Olympus OM-1: 136mm × 83mm × 50 mm, 510g
• Pentax Spotmatic (original): 143mm x 92mm x 88mm (with lens), 621g w/out lens
• Mamiya 1000DTL: 148mm x 95mm x 51mm, 721g
• Miranda Sensorex: 146mm x 94mm x 52mm, 650g
• Minolta SRT-101, 145mm x 89mm x 51mm, 560g

 

[flavio81]

I bought a Nikon F3 this year after coming to the realization that I have wanted (but couldn't afford) one ever since it was introduced back in 1980. I love the Nikon F3...it's a fantastic camera. It is my everyday user now.

Different strokes for different folks. I had the Nikon F3 twice, and twice I sold the camera. It's a love-hate relationship. The F2 i liked more.

 

[flavio81]

The H1 and H3 were somewhat compact, but neither had built-in metering to contain within. I include a few other cameras with TTL metering, as a comparison of metering 'contemporaries'. The Minolta SRT-101 was somewhat compact and light, too.

• Pentax H3: 143mm x 92mm x 47mm; 548g
• Olympus OM-1: 136mm × 83mm × 50 mm, 510g
• Pentax Spotmatic (original): 143mm x 92mm x 88mm (with lens), 621g w/out lens
• Mamiya 1000DTL: 148mm x 95mm x 51mm, 721g
• Miranda Sensorex: 146mm x 94mm x 52mm, 650g
• Minolta SRT-101, 145mm x 89mm x 51mm, 560g

Good info, thanks. Well, it is very close in size to the H3, But you're correct, it has no meter.