If you were to add a 35mm 'manual' SLR...

<<The Nikon F is rough and crude in comparison.>>

 

Doug is right as always, in fact here are some factual comparisons to illustrate just how rough and crude the Nikon F is compared to a Leicaflex SL.

 

100% viewfinder: Nikon F, yes. Leicaflex, no.

 

Interchangeable finders: Nikon F, yes. Leicaflex, no.

 

Interchangeable screens: Nikon F, yes. Leicaflex, no.

 

Mirror Lockup: Nikon F, yes. Leicaflex, no (unless you take advantage of an unintentional design flaw)

 

Titanium shutter: Nikon F, yes. Leicaflex, no.

 

Chosen by working photojournalists in Vietnam alongside Leica M:

 

Nikon F, yes. Leicaflex, no.

In between my 40 years of Leica nuttiness, still evident, I tried a Leicaflex and then a SL and was disturbed by the lack of real viable zoom lenses and bought a Nikon F3 and then a FM2n with several lenses plus the Visoflex lenses I had. After many years of using both the Leica Ms and the Nikons, I came to the conclusion I really preferred the Leica Ms and the Nikons have remained unused for some time except for the occassional need to use really long telephotos. I do have the 180 f2.8 ED but since I managed to work out using a rangefinder coupled 180mm f6.3 Teletessar and with the quality of present fast color negative film (ASA 400) I'm happy I can use the Leicas for almost everything. Since I have a Visoflex with a beamsplitter mirror installed, I'm considering trying it with a Leica M7 with a 400mm Telyt which I rarely use now.

> The Nikon F is rough and crude in comparison

 

Jay - you forgot one. The F has a shutter so loud that jack-hammer operators

wearing earmuffs can still hear it...

 

Seriously though, for a while in the late 90s I had both a R6.2 and Nikon F2A (the

latter which I eventually had modified so it could use Leica R lenses).

 

So both cameras could use Leica glass but... the Nikon was really rough when

compared to the Leica. Using it all day side-by-side, the Nikon would "clatter"

(shutter/mirror noise) while the R6.2 would "purr".

 

The difference was so jarring that I finally sold the F2A to Steven Gandy.

 

(This is coming from someone who was Nikon-Man all through the 80s and early

90s!)

The Nikon F is durable precisely because it is "rough," i.e., it was built to lower tolerances (parts fit together more loosely), so dirt, gunk, and other crud is less likely to cause lockup. At least that's what I've read.

 

I'm always chagrined by the high praise for the FM2, which most people consider rugged. Perhaps I got a lemon, but mine developed (at about one year) an erratic meter which seems incapable of repair. I just use it with a handheld meter.

Oh, and to address Patrick's question: nice, clean F3's are dirt cheap right now, and Nikon primes are plentiful on the second-hand market. That's what I'd buy if I were willing to sink money into film-based equipment anymore.

I would go with the Olympus OM1 or 2/2n. They are nice and small and handle like an M in alot of ways. I also like the old Pentax Spotmatics. They also have a nice feel and you can get a zillion different lenses for the M42 mounts

You've obviously got too much input already, but I vote with all those who say Nikon AI / AIS lenses and a servicable body that mounts them. No other manual slr system is even in the same category. My favorite body is the FE2, but others have their fans, including the new Fm3a (which is ergonomically an FE2).

I have and still use Olympus OM 4Ti's for my SLR work. Fabulous metering systems, light, durable (within reason), great lenses, daylight flash, great macro system, affordable, plentiful. Nits: cold weather suceptibility, no flash balancing, noisy motor, no DX.

 

And.....the OM-System's Zuiko lenses turn in the same direction as Leica lenses. For me, the direction the lens' turn has become VERY important for any camera that I want use for any fast-paced work. I have far too much muscle memory to turn the lens to the right to focus closer to enable me to work with another camera line efficiently. And why fight that?

 

I just sold my Nikon F, 50/2 and 105/2.5 because the lens direction drove me nuts.....as did the weight and heavy feel. It took nice pix though. Ditto a Canon new F1 setup a few years back.

 

Other than the OM's, I'd try Pentax LX, Contax RX, and Leicaflex. I did try the Leicaflex for a few minutes one day and it was real heavy and seemed far too much like a 50's body, instead of the more modern Nikon F (even though the F was based on the SP). I guess I've gotten far too used to the svelte OM's and Leica M's for the past 30 years.

 

Skip

<i>...you'd just get an

fm3a, the camera the m7 should have been.</i>

<p>

Thanks for the laugh. Good one, Roger.

If you already have Canon lenses get one of the Canons recommended above. I'm lucky enough to have a Nikon F3hp with three primes that has never given a moments trouble in the 17 years I've owned it. Just a delight to own and use.

<i>Doug is right as always...</i>

<p>

Yeah, his photos are right, that's for sure!

I'd want my old Nikon F Plain Prism. It was a tank and worked flawlessly. And I had a 105mm lens that was sweet. That combo with a 50mm and my Luna Pro was great!!

<<Yeah, his photos are right, that's for sure!>>

 

Never said otherwise.

 

With my set of custom-fit Cobra golf clubs I wouldn't stand a chance against Tiger Woods armed with a set of warped wooden-shaft relics from someone's attic. Does that mean my Cobras are not as good as a set of old, warped wooden-shaft relics, or that I don't have any right to claim the Cobra's are better clubs?

 

Put me in a new Mercedes S500 and Richard Petty in a '72 Caprice and he'll beat me around a NASCAR track. Does that mean the old Chevy is a more capable car than a new Benz, or that I don't have a right to say so?

 

Just because someone has the talent to make good photos with mediocre equipment doesn't make the equipment less mediocre or great equipment less good.

 

And as good as Doug is, I don't hear his name uttered in the same breath with Len Rue, Art Wolfe, Frans Lanting, John Shaw, Heather Angel or a long list of others who achieved great fame as nature photographers using Nikon and occasionally Canon equipment. So take their word, not mine.

<<Jay - you forgot one. The F has a shutter so loud that jack-hammer operators wearing earmuffs can still hear it... >>

 

Myth. Put one next to a Leicaflex SL and both in front of a tape deck with a level meter and see if one jumps the needle more than the other. Now, if you had said an F3 with an MD4, I'd agree with you.

 

<<The Nikon F is durable precisely because it is "rough," i.e., it was built to lower tolerances (parts fit together more loosely), so dirt, gunk, and other crud is less likely to cause lockup. At least that's what I've read.>>

 

Who cares even if that's the case? The shutter has no more deviation than a Leica shutter and the frame spacing is even. What's the point of tighter fitting parts if you don't get more accuracy and need to work them once a month to keep them from needing a CLA?

Jay, there's no need to get your shorts in a knot over my 'crude and clunky' comment. I used the Leicaflex SL and Nikon FTn side-by-side for 6 months and the Nikon felt crude and clunky to me. Not to mention the Rube Goldberg mechanisms the the Nikon's meter prisms with resistor rings that can't handle a few summers in Alaska. I'll bet the PJs in 'nam used plain-prism Nikons.

<P>

As for my name not being mentioned alongside the others you mentioned... with a full-time office job and a ranch to maintain I have 3 or 4 hours per month for photography. Perhaps that's a factor in my lower productivity. Or is the brand of camera as important as you imply?

Umm, Jay, I was just stating something I've read about the Nikon F. I agree with you: Who cares about tolerances as long as it works? I'm not arguing that point.

Nikon F2AS. Gets you modern LED metering and compatibility with manual focus AI/

AIS/AI'd lenses or most of the modern Nikkor autofocus (non-G-type) lenses. Tough

as nails, 100% viewfinder.

Jay, you seemed to be implying that Douglas in general doesn't know what he's talking about! Maybe your intention was otherwise, but it was the reason for my response to your comment.

Craig, I'm curious about the F2AS. Does its meter prism allow the use of non-AI lenses?

<I>"Why couldn't those have been done with an M? Interesting photographs plus a bunch of post-production work. Or am I missing something?</I>-- John R. Fulton Jr.<P>John, you are right, but most Leica-M users are not into heavy duty post-production work of that sort; they are more "reality-based." To them, whatever comes out of the film canister is the only thing that's real, the rest is not Leica-esque, and is a manipulation that violates the spirit of Leica.<P>PS. Patrick, Sorry about the R-Rated link at the office, it slipped my mind.

on this, I will have to agree with Jay - a Nikon F but with standard prism. Mine is with me for many years now. Has been more than one war but several: dropped several times, hit by a car door, sat on a burning stove by accident (only a moment though before it burnned my hand), forgotten in a bag for a couple of years, chew by a dog and peed on by a cat...still works. Only had one minor CLA in the past 15 years.

My Nikon F got a cracked frame when the strap slipped off my shoulder and the camera landed on the ground. Similar accidents with the Leicaflex SL have flipped the mirror up, easily reset by making a blank exposure or by removing the lens and pulling the mirror down with a finger.

Uh, excuse the hell out of me! I thought the question was about opinions on "manual" SLR's. Most of the cameras mentioned here are not "manual" in any way, shape or form.

 

The Canon AE-1. Didn't the AE stand for "automatic exposure". Wasn't there a "Program" model, as well? Automatic is not "manual". Same for the other autoexposure cameras mentioned such as the Canon A1, all the EOS models, the Nikon F3, Leica R's, almost all Contax SLR's (they only had one "manual" body and I don't remember its model) and most of the others.

 

If you just want an SLR, buy any of those currently available and put the mode dial on "M". To get a truly "manual" SLR, you'll probably have to go back a couple of decades.

Look into my eyes and see the SLR of champions......<p><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1567721&size=md"><p>Nikon F Photomic FTn

<P>Given the Leica/Minolta relationship during the 70's and 80's:</P>

 

<UL>

<LI>XE-7 body</LI>

<LI>MC Rokkor-X 24, 50, 85 or 100 or 135 primes</LI>

<LI>Maybe an MD 70-210mm f/4</LI>

</UL>