Selecting a second film body with good viewfinder

Hello all,

 

I'm considering buying a second Nikon film body. I have an FE which I like a lot and I was initially thinking of getting an FE2 for the faster shutter speed. It occurred to me recently though that I should consider a camera with a better viewfinder. I now wear glasses, having entered middle age, and I notice I have some difficulty at times getting the focus right, especially with a 28mm lens. My FE has the "Type E" focusing screen and perhaps I'll do better with the Type K split focus screen. I wonder though if other models offer a more magnified field of view. Is that the case? The F3 looks interesting. How does the viewfinder on this compare to that on the FE? The F4 also looks interesting, especially for its advanced metering with Ai lenses, but I think I'd find it too bulky. My eyesight is not terrible, but it's not what it used to be. I don't at this stage want to go the auto-focus route as most of my lenses are manual anyway and I like manual focus.

 

Please send suggestions!

 

All the best!

If you are not limited to manual-focus, e.g FM/FE series cameras, the F100 or the older N90 (F90) or N8008 (F801) early AF bodies all have pretty good viewfinders, and they can be dirt cheap in the used market.

 

The F4 and F5 are good but they are bulky. I bought my F4 back in 1990 and its electronics failed about 10 years later. I still own that camera but it wouldn't switch on any more. For an electronic camera, I would get something newer, i.e. the F100 would be better than the N8008.

Edited September 24, 2017 by ShunCheung

I think the F4 is still the best manual focus AF camera Nikon ever made. I still miss mine. Has a fantastic viewfinder, lots of focusing screen options, it is solid as a brick, and the extra mass makes for very stable handholding (who needs VR!). I used it extensively with manual Ais lenses. I preferred the smaller 4 cell MB-20 battery pack loaded with AA Lithiums, which does reduce the bulk and weight quite a bit, but even in its smallest configuration it is still quite a bit larger and heavier than an FE. At one point a few years back the MB-20 was hard to find and commanded a rather high premium on the used market. Don't know if the same holds true today.

 

The F3 has a much better viewfinder than the FE series, both in terms of eyepoint and focusing screens. I believe the DE-2 standard viewfinder has slightly higher magnification than the high eyepoint DE-3, but the DE-2 is a much scarcer item since most F3's sold were F3HP models with the DE-3 finder.

 

Lots of good info on both the F3 and F4 here:

Modern Classic 35mm SLR Camera - The Professional Nikon F3, 1980~2001

Nikon F4 Series SLR camera models - Main Index Page

The standard F3 viewfinder gives you better coverage(100% vs. 93%) although at lower magnification than the FE finder(.8x vs. .86x). The high eyepoint finder(F3HP) lowers that to .75x.

 

With that said, for someone who wears glasses(I do) I find having a higher eyepoint to be advantageous. The F3HP is something of the gold standard in this department with a 25mm eyepoint, although higher end Nikons have generally kept the eyepoint in the 20mm+ range. The standard F3 finder is 20mm, while the FE is around 14mm. I know I can really struggle to see all the periphery information on low eyepoint finders with my glasses on.

 

For manual focus, using a modern camera is something of a double edged. Unless you've installed a screen intended for manual focus, the stock screens are almost always quite bright but don't have enough contrast to manually focus accurately. You really NEED to use the electronic viewfinder (>O<, with O meaning in-focus) with fast lenses as you will not see the focus accurately just by looking at the screen. Depending on the specific camera, a "fast" lens may be something faster than 3.5 or so. They can also seem small.

 

The F100 is good and has a nice, high eyepoint but there again the stock screen is not great for manually focusing.

 

If manual focus is your main concern, I'd suggest buying an F3. They remain popular enough that if you find it doesn't work for you, you can most likely sell it at no loss.

 

Also, one nice thing about the single digit F series bodies is that you have tons of focusing screen options and they are easy to change.

My F3T (fancy variant of the F3HP) is so good I really have little desire to buy any other MF Nikon. It's a joy to use, and beautiful!

 

 

Kent in SD

I would recommend the F100. It will utilize almost all Nikon lenses from manual AI or AI'ed lenses through the "G" lenses with VR. It will not handle the new "E" lenses with the electronic diaphragm, but no film body will.

 

If you want manual focus, either mount a manual focus lens or put it in manual focus - the flip of a switch.

Edited September 22, 2017 by bgelfand

F-801 might work. I remember that viewfinder image was clear and spacious with 28mm f/3.5 ai-s. There is no split image prism on matte glass, but there is yellow focus confirmation dot. The camera is rather heavy and motor drive is loud though.

Thanks for the great information everyone. I'm inclined to go for the F3 HP or T for the high eyepoint feature and because it looks similar to the FE in its operation (and I prefer physical dials etc to digital displays - I'm one of those people that still listens to LPs....). I need to visit a larger city where I can try one out before purchasing. I've only ever seen Fs and F2s for sale where i live. Hard to know if my problem is with magnification or "low eyepoint" issues. Will do some tests. All the best!

Agree with Shun on the AF bodies. The 8008s/801s and N90s/F90x all have big bright viewfinders and good eye relief. Their electronic rangefinders accurately confirm focus with manual focus lenses. All have far faster upper shutter speed limits than any manual body--a nice feature if you shoot ISO400+ film in bright sunlight at wider apertures. Concerns about AF models focus screens for manual lenses are largely irrelevant. Have F3s and think their viewfinders are great but overrated.They also have a ridiculously tiny LCD readout in the view finder than can fade with age.They're also getting a bit long in the tooth--tough but not immortal. The late AF models are far newer and easy to find in good shape.

Agree with Shun on the AF bodies. The 8008s/801s and N90s/F90x all have big bright viewfinders and good eye relief. Their electronic rangefinders accurately confirm focus with manual focus lenses. All have far faster upper shutter speed limits than any manual body--a nice feature if you shoot ISO400+ film in bright sunlight at wider apertures. Concerns about AF models focus screens for manual lenses are largely irrelevant. Have F3s and think their viewfinders are great but overrated.They also have a ridiculously tiny LCD readout in the view finder than can fade with age.They're also getting a bit long in the tooth--tough but not immortal. The late AF models are far newer and easy to find in good shape.

Another vote for the F3HP.

I have an F4 that offers no better viewing. It's bulky, heavy, unergonomic and, as I found to my cost, has a plastic top plate that can be split with a careless knock.

 

The F3 has all metal construction and is a joy to use. My F4 now only serves as a paperweight or doorstop - and an ugly-looking one at that!

 

I'd also take a neat little F-801s/N8008s over a lumpy F4 anyday.

 

However, the range of interchangeable screens for the 801s is limited, whereas the F3 can accept about a dozen different types of screen.

Edited September 23, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

All have far faster upper shutter speed limits than any manual body--a nice feature if you shoot ISO400+ film in bright sunlight at wider apertures.

 

Back when I did do outdoor portraits with 35mm(I use medium format now) I never found 1/2000 to be a handicap. With ASA 400 film in full sunlight, per sunny 16, you are at f/8. Going to a body with 1/8000 only gets you to f/4. In the shade(which is where I usually work for portraits) f/4 and larger are certainly possible with ASA 400. I have one medium format camera that does 1/1000(Bronica S2A, focal plane shutter) but 1/500 is typical for a 645 or 6x6 leaf shutter camera and my RB67 lenses top out at 1/400. I make it work with those.

 

The real answer, though, is don't use ASA 400 film for outdoor portraits. ASA 160 buys you 1 1/3 stop, and if you need larger apertures most color negative films(and Portra 160 in particular) will eat up 1/3 or 2/3 stop of overexposure without batting an eye.

If you wish to shoot fast films in bright light, a set of ND filters, 2,4,8, are invaluable and solve many problems.

I think the F4 is still the best manual focus AF camera Nikon ever made. I still miss mine. Has a fantastic viewfinder, lots of focusing screen options, it is solid as a brick, and the extra mass makes for very stable handholding (who needs VR!). I used it extensively with manual Ais lenses. I preferred the smaller 4 cell MB-20 battery pack loaded with AA Lithiums, which does reduce the bulk and weight quite a bit, but even in its smallest configuration it is still quite a bit larger and heavier than an FE. At one point a few years back the MB-20 was hard to find and commanded a rather high premium on the used market. Don't know if the same holds true today.

 

The F3 has a much better viewfinder than the FE series, both in terms of eyepoint and focusing screens. I believe the DE-2 standard viewfinder has slightly higher magnification than the high eyepoint DE-3, but the DE-2 is a much scarcer item since most F3's sold were F3HP models with the DE-3 finder.

 

Lots of good info on both the F3 and F4 here:

Modern Classic 35mm SLR Camera - The Professional Nikon F3, 1980~2001

Nikon F4 Series SLR camera models - Main Index Page

 

The Nikon F4, the best Manual Focus camera Nikon ever made, is an oxymoron. The Nikon F4 is the camera responsible for pros switched to Canon. Nikon never really recovered from that.

The Nikon F3, which was heavily criticized at introduction being an electronic camera, is the longest camera in production Nikon ever made. It did so without any fancy stuff but it's a simple camera that simply works.

The real answer, though, is don't use ASA 400 film for outdoor portraits. ASA 160 buys you 1 1/3 stop, and if you need larger apertures most color negative films(and Portra 160 in particular) will eat up 1/3 or 2/3 stop of overexposure without batting an eye.

 

Obviously, Ben. Point is, though, that the 1/8000 provides tremendous flexibility in a 35mm SLR where mid-roll film swaps aren't an option. ND filters are also a pain for casual or street shooting.

The Nikon F4, the best Manual Focus camera Nikon ever made, is an oxymoron.

 

I know you relish every possible opportunity to criticize the F4, but why do you consider this an oxymoron?

 

Even though the F4 IS capable of autofocus, it is also a superb camera for manual focus lenses. If you want a motor drive, it's smaller and lighter than an F3. Focusing screens with focus aides are plentiful(including the K screen) and the camera also has the benefit of an electronic rangefinder-really it's the best of both worlds. At least for me, I much prefer the viewfinder read-outs relative to the F3. The multi-mode metering is also a big deal and I find the matrix meter to be excellent, but I also prefer the more traditional 60/40 weighting of the CWA meter vs. 80/20 on the F3.

 

As meters go, it's also worth mentioning that the weighting of the F3 does take some getting use to, especially if you are coming from a different CWA Nikon body.

in a 35mm SLR where mid-roll film swaps aren't an option. ND filters are also a pain for casual or street shooting.

Well Watson -- couldn't resist that, being a Sherlock fan. I believe I've been around the block with film for enough decades to disagree with you on a couple of points. I /We did swap film in mid roll. You rewound carefully and wrote the number of exposures used and other info on the film leader. If it was important stuff or you were getting paid, you sacrificed the remainder of the roll. If not, you reloaded it, went to a dark place with lens cap, fastest shutter speed, smallest aperture and cranked off the number of shots plus two. As to ND filters, easy as pie -- if you have a good filter case that permits rapid access and keeps them clean. For street I often had a ND 4 in my shirt pocket in a soft case.

So far, though it is heavy, I really like the F 4. It is entirely different than my previous film Nikons, but I'm busy learning the camera..

 

Likely has a lot to do with the fact that I scan my own with a Coolscan but Portra films can be overexposed by more than 7 stops, processed normally and scanned successfully just using default Nikonscan settings. With additional controls and a little post work, you can likely overexposed even more.

 

I don't shoot a lot of Portra these days(I prefer B&W processed myself and I do transparencies for color, although I'm warming up to Ektar) but I've shot a lot of Portra in NC and VC trims, and from what I've used of the new stuff is an even more versatile film than what I use to use.

 

Back when I was cutting my teeth in photography, I burned the 5-packs of Fuji Superia 400 at Wal-Mart like crazy. I pretty quickly started exposing it at 200 when I could because I thought that the Frontier minilabs gave better colors with some over-exposure.

 

Now that I scan myself(and wet print my B&W) I find starting with a correctly exposed negative easiest, but like you I've found that my Coolscan can pretty easily scan over-exposed Portra. Not too long ago, I scanned some 400UC(what a great film) that I had noted as being shot at 100, and I've been getting great results. I don't doubt that 7 stops gives a workable negative.

Well Watson -- couldn't resist that, being a Sherlock fan. I believe I've been around the block with film for enough decades to disagree with you on a couple of points. I /We did swap film in mid roll. You rewound carefully and wrote the number of exposures used and other info on the film leader. If it was important stuff or you were getting paid, you sacrificed the remainder of the roll. If not, you reloaded it, went to a dark place with lens cap, fastest shutter speed, smallest aperture and cranked off the number of shots plus two. As to ND filters, easy as pie -- if you have a good filter case that permits rapid access and keeps them clean. For street I often had a ND 4 in my shirt pocket in a soft case.

So far, though it is heavy, I really like the F 4. It is entirely different than my previous film Nikons, but I'm busy learning the camera..

 

Easier still? Buy a second body...

Easier still? Buy a second body...

Probably hard for you to believe, but we had those in film days as well.

I know you relish every possible opportunity to criticize the F4, but why do you consider this an oxymoron?

 

Even though the F4 IS capable of autofocus, it is also a superb camera for manual focus lenses. If you want a motor drive, it's smaller and lighter than an F3. Focusing screens with focus aides are plentiful(including the K screen) and the camera also has the benefit of an electronic rangefinder-really it's the best of both worlds. At least for me, I much prefer the viewfinder read-outs relative to the F3. The multi-mode metering is also a big deal and I find the matrix meter to be excellent, but I also prefer the more traditional 60/40 weighting of the CWA meter vs. 80/20 on the F3.

 

As meters go, it's also worth mentioning that the weighting of the F3 does take some getting use to, especially if you are coming from a different CWA Nikon body.

 

It's an oxymoron to call the Flagship Autofocus Camera as the best manual focus camera.

It's an oxymoron to call the Flagship Autofocus Camera as the best manual focus camera.

No it is not. The F4 was the flagship Nikon film SLR from 1988 to 1996, when Nikon introduced the F5. However, 1988 was the beginning of the AF era and AF was extremely primitive back then. I bought an N8008 in 1989 and then an F4 in 1990. It was nice to have AF, but at least Nikon's AF was slow and unreliable in that era with screwdriver AF. Most Nikon users were still focusing manually. In 1992 Nikon introduced the N90 and its AF immediately surpassed that on the F4.

 

Meanwhile, Canon started putting the AF motor in the lenses and completely beat Nikon to the punch. Soon Canon became the choice for sports photographers. After 1992, the remaining sports photographers that used Nikon opted for the N90/N90S instead of the F4, until the F5 and AF-S emerged in 1996. The F5 was the first Nikon AF body with more than one AF point, and AF was fairly useful.

 

I would say the F4 is mostly a manual-focus camera with some primitive AF capability.

No it is not. The F4 was the flagship Nikon film SLR from 1988 to 1996, when Nikon introduced the F5. However, 1988 was the beginning of the AF era and AF was extremely primitive back then. I bought an N8008 in 1989 and then an F4 in 1990. It was nice to have AF, but at least Nikon's AF was slow and unreliable in that era with screwdriver AF. Most Nikon users were still focusing manually. In 1992 Nikon introduced the N90 and its AF immediately surpassed that on the F4.

 

Meanwhile, Canon started putting the AF motor in the lenses and completely beat Nikon to the punch. Soon Canon became the choice for sports photographers. After 1992, the remaining sports photographers that used Nikon opted for the N90/N90S instead of the F4, until the F5 and AF-S emerged in 1996. The F5 was the first Nikon AF body with more than one AF point, and AF was fairly useful.

 

I would say the F4 is mostly a manual-focus camera with some primitive AF capability.

 

So like I thought, if one wanted to stay with MF the F3 is just fine. It doesn't have matrix, doesn't have P and S modes, Doesn't have high shutter speed or high sync speed but it works well and that's why it stayed in Nikon line up for a long time. Those who wanted AF switch to Canon. So to me the F4 really had no place.

 

As for me personally, if I want to use only MF lenses then the F3 is better than the F4. I don't need shutter speed faster than 1/1000. I never need flash sync speed higher than 1/60. I never used P and S. The MD-4 with the MN-2 battery is just as fast as the F4 and I have the option of not using it when I want.

Edited September 24, 2017 by BeBu Lamar

So like I thought, if one wanted to stay with MF the F3 is just fine. It doesn't have matrix, doesn't have P and S modes, Doesn't have high shutter speed or high sync speed but it works well and that's why it stayed in Nikon line up for a long time. Those who wanted AF switch to Canon. So to me the F4 really had no place.

 

As for me personally, if I want to use only MF lenses then the F3 is better than the F4. I don't need shutter speed faster than 1/1000. I never need flash sync speed higher than 1/60. I never used P and S. The MD-4 with the MN-2 battery is just as fast as the F4 and I have the option of not using it when I want.

 

Once again, I think we've established that you really don't like the F4, but that doesn't make it a bad camera.

 

To me, the metering thing IS a big deal. I love matrix metering, and the ability to get it with AI/AI-s lenses makes the camera worth using. Yes, it's also possible to get matrix with an FA, but then you had a go at it not too long ago as well(of course it's also available on the F6, but I have a hard time stomaching $1K used).

 

And, there again, I'll go back to the center weighted average metering in both cameras. I come from a long history with Canons, where we call a 12mm patch in the center partial metering, although I know Nikon calls this a spot meter(Canon spot metering is much smaller-on MF bodies its the size of the split image). The F3 meter is effective a partial meter since it gives the center circle an 80% weight, but I'd rather have it "all or nothing"-or in other words rather than weighting the center that much I'd rather it just exclude the edges. The 60/40 weighting on the F4 and basically all other Nikons going back to the F Photominc Tn is-to me-much easier to use.

 

Then there's also the issue of the meter read-out. The little LCD in the corner of the screen isn't as easy to see as the big one in the bottom of the F4 finder. Also, I find the F3 all but useless in the dark. The little button on the side of the finder is awkward to reach and I find it too dim to help that much. By contrast, the green LEDs on the F4 are nice and bright without being obtrusive, and can be set to turn on and stay on with a tap on the shutter button. In addition to legibility, in manual mode you get an actual scale rather than the tiny + and - in the F3 finder.

 

To each their own, but the F3 actually is my least favorite "F" series camera. I have one and enjoy using it every once in a while, but I'm more likely to grab one of my F2s or my F4 for actual use. My F4 has become my preferred Velvia camera.

I agree on the F2 -- everything you need, not much you don't.