Nikon F3 - suddenly a lot of love?

Sometimes it would fire before you wanted it to, other times it wouldn't fire at all: dependable F3 firing requires a light resting finger, but a quick sharp jab to reliably release.

Try a soft release button next time you purchase an F3.

Try a soft release button next time you purchase an F3.

 

For what it's worth, this just made me feel a lot better about my NAS. I have a lot of overpriced kit, but at least I've only got one of everything. Well, except SB-600s, I suppose. And arguably my four 50mm lenses aren't all that different. Okay, I feel bad again now.

For what it's worth, this just made me feel a lot better about my NAS. I have a lot of overpriced kit, but at least I've only got one of everything. Well, except SB-600s, I suppose. And arguably my four 50mm lenses aren't all that different. Okay, I feel bad again now.

 

Well, I'm pretty good about having one of a particular item if you get specific enough and only count ones that work :)

 

If we consider every F prism as a distinct item, and differentiate the flag photomic from the button photomic. Oh, I can't forget colors too, since I have a black FTN. Then, there's also the FTN with the motor on it...

 

Of course, the same applies to the F2-differentiating black from chrome and the different prism types. When it comes to that, I'm only guilty of duplicating chrome F2A s.

 

Plus, of course, the F3 and F3HP are distinct cameras, as are the F4 and F4s.

 

Then the FE2 and FM2n in black and chrome(one of each)...and the EL2.

 

So yeah, just one(we won't go into the 50mm 1.4s that I have paired with my Fs).

The metering pattern is an acquired taste I suppose, but I don't see why Nikon decided to change from the wonderful 60/40 pattern of other cameras to 80/20 on the F3.

 

How could I have forgotten that one! Yes, the F3 metering pattern is nothing less than bizarre for what is essentially an aperture-priority AE-only camera. Not quite spot, not quite centerweighted, just WTH. Nikon (and its proxies in the photo review magazines) made a ridiculous argument that the change to 80% centerweighting was an "improvement pros had requested". Complete BS: what pro (never mind amateur) would seriously "prefer" that choked-off neither/nor meter pattern in an AE-optimized body? It might make sense in a manual-exposure body with an informative, visible meter display but was not a good choice for the "AE or don't bother" F3.

 

More likely, they changed from the 60/40 they'd championed for decades prior because they couldn't make the classic pattern work with the new body-based, thru-the-perforated-mirror reading cell position. The followup F4 reverted to prism-based metering for day-to-day centerweighted and matrix mode, which tells you something about the limitations of the F3 perf-mirror gimmick (the F4 body meter got narrowed even further into a true spot meter).

 

Of course I "get" that many photographers were/are perfectly happy with that odd 80/20 pattern, or grudgingly learned to adapt their shooting style to it as the price of gaining other F3 advantages, but it remains a counterintuitive pattern as implemented in this particular camera (clearly intended as an AE-always, ready to fire action body). You can't expose with an F3 as casually as other AE bodies: for best results, you need to ride the annoyingly-placed AE-lock button like a manual-shift Porsche, which kind of defeats half the convenience factor of an AE mode. Again, I get it: most F3 buyers don't care and just learn to deal with it, but it was indeed a hotly-debated WTH issue when the camera was introduced.

 

The F3 is a beautifully made, refined, mostly well-designed SLR with a polarizing personality: depending on your shooting style, some aspects will strike you as either "quirks" or "dealbreakers". It had a remarkable, nearly 20 year production run. But that market longevity was due to a number of factors, not purely because it was "beloved". Nikon was King from 1959 thru 1989, most pros and a huge number of amateurs had piles of MF Nikkor lenses. For all these people, the F3 was a take it or leave it proposition, so they took it even if they didn't really love everything about it. The F4 stumbled out of the gate, so Nikon kept the F3 around to assuage pros they could still buy a new backup body they were familiar with. Even as late as the F5, there were still enough AF "resisters" to keep some demand up for new F3s (which by then was the only pro manual focus body available). Demand slacked off dramatically once Canon EOS began poaching Nikon customers in earnest, but the F3 remained in the line for as long as Nikon had parts and bodies stockpiled. No question, it justifiably earned its place in the Nikon pantheon.

Edited October 1, 2018 by orsetto

How could I have forgotten that one! Yes, the F3 metering pattern is nothing less than bizarre for what is essentially an aperture-priority AE-only camera. Not quite spot, not quite centerweighted, just WTH. Nikon (and its proxies in the photo review magazines) made a ridiculous argument that the change to 80% centerweighting was an "improvement pros had requested". Complete BS: what pro (never mind amateur) would seriously "prefer" that choked-off neither/nor meter pattern in an AE-optimized body? It might make sense in a manual-exposure body with an informative, visible meter display but was not a good choice for the "AE or don't bother" F3.

 

More likely, they changed from the 60/40 they'd championed for 20 years prior because they couldn't make the classic pattern work with the new body-based, thru-the-perforated-mirror reading cell position. The followup F4 reverted to prism-based metering for day-to-day centerweighted and matrix mode, which tells you something about the limitations of the F3 perf-mirror gimmick (the F4 body meter got narrowed even further into a true spot meter).

 

Of course I "get" that many photographers were/are perfectly happy with that odd 80/20 pattern, or grudgingly learned to adapt their shooting style to it as the price of gaining other F3 advantages, but it remains a counterintuitive pattern as implemented in this particular camera (clearly intended as an AE-always, ready to fire action body). You can't expose with an F3 as casually as other AE bodies: for best results, you need to ride the annoyingly-placed AE-lock button like a manual-shift Porsche, which kind of defeats half the convenience factor of an AE mode. Again, I get it: most F3 buyers don't care and just learn to deal with it, but it was indeed a hotly-debated WTH issue when the camera was introduced.

 

The F3 is a beautifully made, refined, mostly well-designed SLR with a polarizing personality: depending on your shooting style, some aspects will strike you as either "quirks" or "dealbreakers". It had a remarkable, nearly 20 year production run. But that market longevity was due to a number of factors, not purely because it was "beloved". Nikon was King from 1959 thru 1989, most pros and a huge number of amateurs had piles of MF Nikkor lenses. For all these people, the F3 was a take it or leave it proposition, so they took it even if they didn't really love everything about it. The F4 stumbled out of the gate, so Nikon kept the F3 around to assuage pros they could still buy a new backup body they were familiar with. Even as late as the F5, there were still enough AF "resisters" to keep some demand up for new F3s (which by then was the only serious manual focus body available). Demand slacked off dramatically once Canon EOS began poaching Nikon customers in earnest, but the F3 remained in the line for as long as Nikon had parts and bodies stockpiled. No question, it earned its place in the Nikon pantheon. But like the F and F2 before it, wasn't perfect for everyone.

 

The metering of 80/20 in the F3 I believe was of necessary but Nikon said it an improvement. If it were to have the same 60/40 like the older Nikon the mirror must have a lot more holes and the secondary mirror must be bigger.

Canon's approach to metering on the F-1(all versions) and a few other mechanical bodies was to use a semi-silvered patch on the focusing screen. On the F-1s, the photocell is at the back of the focusing screen. The 12% partial pattern that was common was a rectangular box easily visible as it was darker than the rest of the screen. The New F-1, of course, gives you a CWA pattern, which isn't visible even though Canon used more of a Gaussian-type weighting on their meters than the distinct 60/40 Nikon pattern. The spot pattern is a true "spot"(that's something that annoyed me when I moved to Nikon-what they call a "spot" meter is what Canon wold call a partial meter) that's the size of the split image.

Wasn't the F4 also the last Nikon that had a 60/40 weighing - all subsequent center-weighted metering was 75/25 I believe?

Canon's approach to metering on the F-1(all versions) and a few other mechanical bodies was to use a semi-silvered patch on the focusing screen. On the F-1s, the photocell is at the back of the focusing screen. The 12% partial pattern that was common was a rectangular box easily visible as it was darker than the rest of the screen.

 

This was really clever of Canon at the time. It neatly sidestepped the metering foibles of their two main competitors in the pro system market (Topcon had ongoing issues with their behind-mirror cell placement, and everybody hated that Nikon lost all metering with their nifty action finder, mag finder or WLF). The only drawback that bothered some early users was the partially silvered metering area dimmed the screen right over any split image or microprism focus aid, making it harder to determine focus with slower lenses. This was offset somewhat by a brighter mirror in the slightly revised F1n, and several years later by "Laser Matte" brighter focus screens.

 

The original Canon F-1 and F-1n are masterpieces of the mechanical camera era: indestructibly built, yet beautiful to look at, hold and use. Canon went all out to topple the Nikon F, but Nikon countered with the iconic F2 (while keeping the venerable F available for three more years). Adventurous sports pros did switch systems after the Canon F-1 made notable splashes at the 1972 and 1976 Olympics. Some of the original Canon F-1 aura was lost with the much later electro-mechanical F-1 New (just as Nikon's electronic F3 was controversial at first). But at least one did gain smaller size, silicon blue cells, and much greater metering versatility with the F-1 New (not to mention practical inbuilt multi-mode AE).

Edited October 1, 2018 by orsetto

This was really clever of Canon at the time. It neatly sidestepped the metering foibles of their two main competitors in the pro system market (Topcon had ongoing issues with their behind-mirror cell placement, and everybody hated that Nikon lost all metering with their nifty action finder, mag finder or WLF). The only drawback that bothered some early users was the partially silvered metering area dimmed the screen right over any split image or microprism focus aid, making it harder to determine focus with slower lenses. This was offset somewhat by a brighter mirror in the slightly revised F1n, and several years later by "Laser Matte" brighter focus screens.

 

One of the other downsides to this approach-at least at the time-was that the cameras really SHOULD be used with a circular polarizer. A linear polarizer can can metering issues on all the Canon bodies that uses a beamsplitter in the focusing screen(going back to the FT and Pellix).

 

As much as a DEARLY love the F2, I would counter that the F-1 and F-1 revised(F-1n) really are formidable competition for it and still do some things better. It's hard to beat the F2SB and F2AS(for cameras of the era) in terms of low light sensitivity, and the entire integration of things including the ability to use the self timer to make timed exposures out to 10 seconds is a big deal. Still, the F-1 has a lot of nice touches. Canon beat Nikon in moving the back latch to the rewind knob rather than having a separate key on the bottom. Of course, it's also nice that you get metering with the compact plain prism, and don't need a metered prism hanging off the top. The film advance is quite nice-it's not F3 or Minolta X700 smooth, but I'd say a tiny bit nicer than the F2(I've noticed a tendency on late F2s for the advance to develop a slight "whine" that can be off-putting).

 

When you throw the DP-3 or D-12 into the mix, the F2 definitely comes out on top in everything but size. Still, though, I'd say it's a pretty fair shoot-out when comparing the standard meters.

 

One other thing worth mentioning-I've found that, in general, Canon tends to be a lot more forward thinking in their lens mounts than Nikon. It's amazing that Nikon has kept the F mount for nearly 60 years, but at the same time the mount on my D800 has very little in common with the mount on my F-basically only the bayonet lugs, the locking pin, and the stop down lever are the same. Canon FD mount lenses made in 1973 work perfectly on the T90, and lenses made in 1987 work perfectly on the FTb. The only substantial change was moving from having a discrete breech lock ring to making the entire lens body the breech lock ring, but this didn't affect the operation of the lens. Canon has done even better with the EF mount, as(discounting EF-S lenses) I'm not aware of any current production EF lens that does not have full functionality on a first generation EOS camera from the late 1980s, nor are their lenses from the 1980s that do not work on any current production EOS camera.

As much as a DEARLY love the F2, I would counter that the F-1 and F-1 revised(F-1n) really are formidable competition for it and still do some things better.

 

We both forgot the brilliantly designed combination self-timer/DOF preview/mirror lockup lever on the Canon, to this day the best implementation of those features compared to any other pro 35mm SLR. The DOF and mirror lockup on the Nikon F/F2 was balky and resistant, and you lost a film frame disengaging MLU on the Nikon F. Yeah, the Canon advance lever WAS somewhat better: the F2 advance often develops some roughness as years pass, and it has an annoying tendency to snap past the ready position (which turns off the meter).

 

When you throw the DP-3 or D-12 into the mix, the F2 definitely comes out on top in everything but size. Still, though, I'd say it's a pretty fair shoot-out when comparing the standard meters.

 

Indeed: back in 1973, it could be tough to choose between Canon and Nikon based on their meters. The standard centerweighted Nikon DP-1/DP-11 CdS needle-meter heads for the F2 were a stop more sensitive in low light than the comparable Canon F-1 spot meter, vs the Canon advantages of more detailed meter display, metering with all interchangeable finders, and the spot meter itself (if you preferred that meter pattern). The Canon meter was also a bit more rugged and less prone to mechanical wear.

 

By 1976, Nikon took a more distinct lead with their pricey DP-3 (F2SB) and DP-12 (F2AS) meter heads, after a long painful detour with the buggy DP-2 (F2S). The DP-3/DP-12 were as compact as the DP-1, but offered innovative silicon blue cells that could read down to EV -2 without a booster (a range matched only by the Leica M5 and SL2). The Canon F-1 required a large "booster" meter prism to compete, which read even lower (down to EV-3.5) but still used slow CdS cells. You also sacrificed the spot meter pattern for overall averaging, and open-aperture coupling for stopped-down with the booster, although it did have a nice electric long exposure mechanism that would hold the shutter button down for up to 60 seconds per the meter reading. The F2SB/F2AS were far more elegant, integrated, responsive tools for "available-darkness" shooters, and they pioneered the five-level "- 0 +" low-power LED display later popularized by the FM/FM2.

 

Both Canon F-1 and Nikon F2 offered ridiculously complex, clumsy Rube Goldberg contraptions that would convert them to shutter-priority autoexposure. There was nothing to choose from in this regard: both hideously-expensive AE options were terrible. Marvels of 1972 engineering, to be sure, but large, heavy, awkward, slow and unreliable. The Nikon F2 maybe had a slight edge in entertainment value, because its EE servo was external (you could watch it laboriously turning the lens aperture ring back and forth in response to light changes). The dawning of 1980 at last ushered in modern integrated electronic auto-exposure for both flagships, bringing us out of this thread digression and back to its original topic: the legendary Nikon F3. ;)

Edited October 2, 2018 by orsetto

Canon beat Nikon in moving the back latch to the rewind knob rather than having a separate key on the bottom.

 

I didn't know that. Both my Canon film bodies (Eos 620, Eos 500) have, IIRC, separate releases for the back. After I got my F5 it took me a while to work out how to open it.

 

Canon has done even better with the EF mount, as(discounting EF-S lenses) I'm not aware of any current production EF lens that does not have full functionality on a first generation EOS camera from the late 1980s, nor are their lenses from the 1980s that do not work on any current production EOS camera.

 

The only niggle I'm aware of is that STM lenses only offer continuous autofocus in live view on some bodies (or, possibly, that continuous live view with some bodies is only available with STM lenses). I'm not sufficiently up to date on Canon digital bodies to know - my 300D doesn't have live view. :-)

 

Still, my AI lenses work just fine on my D850. Admittedly the maximum aperture and focal length aren't communicated mechanically, and I'm still dubious about whether AI-S lenses have such nonlinear aperture levers that you couldn't control the aperture from a modern body (not that it would be hard to calibrate it), but it works as well as it would on an F.

I don't have the F2 for so long and now I did like the back latch of the F2. I don't like to pull up on the rewind crank. The Df tries to copy the back latch of the F2 for its battery door but no way as nice as the F2.

Well.. I just saw that one of my oldest photo's in my photo.net profile Albin Hunia | photo.net was taken with my F3T at Northern Namibia's Kwando-river, on slide film, in December 2005. TTL FLASH.. that wasn't one of the F3's strengths.. But if you knew its quirks, it was doable.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Albin''s images

My F3T is my favorite modern camera. It looks sharp and always performs.

 

 

Kent in SD

My F3T is my favorite modern camera. It looks sharp and always performs.

It sure sounds like you and I have drastically different definitions for being "modern." :cool:

We both forgot the brilliantly designed combination self-timer/DOF preview/mirror lockup lever on the Canon, to this day the best implementation of those features compared to any other pro 35mm SLR. The DOF and mirror lockup on the Nikon F/F2 was balky and resistant, and you lost a film frame disengaging MLU on the Nikon F. Yeah, the Canon advance lever WAS somewhat better: the F2 advance often develops some roughness as years pass, and it has an annoying tendency to snap past the ready position (which turns off the meter).

 

Yes indeed, I don't know how I could forget that. Canon introduced it with the FT and in addition to the F-1(n) used it on the FTb, TX, TLb, and EF. The Pellix also uses the same general design, although obviously the MLU position is missing(it would be nice if they'd added a position that lowers the secondary metering mirror behind the reflex mirror, although admittedly that's not a huge deal since it makes relatively little vibration vs. a 24x36mm or larger mirror).

 

The only thing that would have REALLY made it a knock-out is if it had been fitted with a time scale like the self timer on the F2.

 

I will say that F2 MLU is a BIG improvement over the F, since on the F you actually lose one frame in each direction(engage MLU and the mirror doesn't return after the next frame, disengage it and the mirror returns after the following frame). Still, I wish that it allowed you to lock the lens stopped down as on virtually all MF Canon bodies.

 

Even so, Nikon apparently thought it was a good design, since they didn't mess with the same basic operation until the F5 came out. I seem to recall that the stop down button/MLU lever in interchangeable between at least the F2 and F3, if not the F4 also.

 

In any case, this thread has me staring at my shelf. I have an F3 with a standard prism that was my first Nikon and I'll probably never rid myself of, but there's also a nice F3HP sit right next to it that I might consider parting with. Still, though, I like having a F3HP around as it's probably the single best viewfinder(IMO) put on a camera...at least for glasses wearers.