F3 HP and F3

[david_lau4]

I've recently purchase a Nikon F3 "HP". A friend tells me that he wants one that is a Pure F3 HP, I am assuming that the original owner

walked out of the shop with the HP finder attached. He also tells me that you can distinguish an F3 from an F3 HP by looking at the serial

digits. Is this true? Its driving me a bit nuts. I personally dont care. Not particularly brand loyal, but I do love certain cameras and the F3

was one of them.

[Jerry_]

The 'HP' on the finder is about the sole way a Nikon F3 and a Nikon F3 HP differ [to the best of my knowledge.]

 

 

 

If you wear eye glasses when shooting, the HP finder should be better for viewing. The image made by the camera will be the same with the HP finder or the regular finder on the F3 body.

[Michael R Freeman]

Put a HP finder on ANY F3, and it is a F3HP. I suppose that the early bodies (before the HP finder was introduced) might not be considered a "pure" F3HP if they have an HP finder attached, being that the body would have been built before the finder existed. But that is kind of twisted logic if you ask me.

 

F3 serial numbers (unofficial): http://www.nikonlinks.com/~nicke/photo/misc/f3date.html

[joe_a2]

Could your friend be talking about the F3P, or "Press"? Never heard the term Pure.

 

The first two years of the F3 were "non-HP" only, to expand on what Michael said.

 

And I'll add that if you don't wear glasses, the non-HP finder actually provides a better, more magnified view.

[david_lau4]

He is def talking about HP. It seem rather silly about this "Pure HP". He describes like cut and shunt, when you have 2

damage cars one from the rear and one from the front joined together. I said "whatever, like its really gonna help you take

better pictures if its a "Pure HP". Like michael said pure a HP finder on any F3 VOLA!! F3 HP no? or did I miss

something. Made a quick search around found nothing. So I am assuming that he is just be excessively pedantic, for no

reason. Or some "Pure Nikon-Zealot". I just bought a used one on ebay as I always fancied one as I was growing up as a kid.

[Sanford]

If he is thinking that a "pure" HP as distinguished by the serial number may have some higher value to collectors, the value of a

collectable F3 is affected far more by condition. Even the slightest mark on a "mint" F3, HP or not, will knock it's value way, way

down.

[Sanford]

OTOH, Nikon continuously improved their pro cameras over the course of their long life, up to ten years or more for some F's, so

there is a good chance a late F3 HP is a better camera than an early F3. Personally, I always thought the larger HP prism ruined

the fine Giugiaro design of the original F3. Kind of reminded me of the 2+2 E-Type Jaguar, just didn't look right.

[david_lau4]

If your collecting i guess your not shooting. I bought a fairly battered one with intent to buy to abuse. each to their own.

[lex_jenkins]

Comparing putting together an F3 body and an off-the-shelf HP finder to cobbling together a car from two damaged cars is a misconception. The F3 was designed with replaceable finders. A more accurate comparison would be fitting non-factory-standard tires to a new car.

 

I could be wrong but I've never heard of any definitive way to determine which finder an F3 or any other detachable prism/finder Nikon body was delivered with.

 

My F3HP and MD-4 were beaters when I bought the kit. And they look no worse for wear now. In that sense they're a matched set - they match the owner.

[gary_watson]

Pure insanity. I've got a very early F3 with a DE-2 finder and a very late one with the DE-3(HP) finder. Do I "purify" the oldie with a newer DE-3 finder? Go to www.nikonlinks.com and check the F3 serial #s listing for the approximate chronology, though the finders overlapped for a few years. Find some new friends, too.

[robert_hooper1]

"And I'll add that if you don't wear glasses, the non-HP finder actually provides a better, more magnified view."

 

Amen, Joe. A lot of people who bought the F3 with the DE-3 finder did not need it because they didn't wear glasses.

Somehow, it became a fad. I wear glasses and still didn't need that much high eyepoint compensation. I my opinion, the

DE-2 finder is far superior and I believe if more people had taken the time to compare the two by looking through them with

their own eyes, they would have purchased the DE-2/F3 combination. Looking through the F3HP you see a smaller image

than the F3: no thanks, give me the big picture.

[joe_a2]

Yep, Robert.... It's like widescreen!

[david_lau4]

The F3 I've always known is the F3 HP with the MD4, one of my best buddies got one, one who actually takes pictures and

a friends father who has one, mint from new. I have shot with there cameras, it just feels so good in the hand. I just knew

that the F3 was a box with loads of optional add ons. It just got to me last night cause a friend was looking for an F3 on

ebay and wanted a mint one. I'm no nikon expert and personally its irrelevant. If the F3 came in gold he would probably

buy it but if the prices was right.

 

Thanks guys thought I was going mad.

[richard_driscoll]

Robert,

 

Have you compared your DE-2 F3 with an FE2 or FM2?

 

I'm wondering about replacing my FE2 since with glasses I find I just can't see enough of the finder field. I'd wondered about an F3HP but from what you say a plain vanilla F3 might be OK.

 

Thanks,

 

Richard

[christiaan_phleger___honol]

The earliest serial number I have is a 13xxxx body, which I got from another photojournalist, who got it from a mutual

friend/photojournalist, who got it from another working news photojournalist, and we think that HE got it from someone else

in the biz or from a camera pool. This was at least 15-20 years ago. Over the years I've had a bit of work done on it by

NPS, pretty sure the main FPC thingy was replaced 10-12 years ago, and when they did that they replaced the right-hand

side with serial number, which is now boosted up to a 19xxxx. So, you really can't go by serial numbers. AFAIK it came as

an HP. As well, the non-HP finder is way lighter as well, makes a great tough travel body.

[david_lau4]

thanks alot guys for your time to confirming all this. Not really important to taking pics but just bugged me a bit.

[steve_barrett]

I might be wrong, but I remember reading that some of the very last F3's, those with serial numbers above 2 million, were sold with the DE-2 finder.

[joe_a2]

Richard.... I'll pipe in while we're waiting on Robert.

 

I'm guessing you'll have the same problem with the DE-2 that you are having with the FE2. The difference between the DE-2 and the DE-3 is one of "eye relief". Eye relief is basically the distance at which you can see the whole image, be it a focusing screen or the round edges looking through binoculars.

 

The High Eyepoint DE-3 finder has greater eye relief, so you can see the whole focusing screen from further away. There's room for eyeglasses between eye and camera. To see the whole rectangle from further away the magnification produced by the eyepiece needs to be lower. You see it from further away, but it's smaller.

 

On the DE-2 you need to get your eye right up to the eyepiece like you do on the FE2. No room for a pair of eyeglasses, but now you can practically look around inside the finder to see the corners of the larger, more magnified focusing screen.

 

Hope that helps explain the difference...

[richard_driscoll]

Joe,

 

Thanks for that. Yes I knew about the eye relief stuff and was rather surprised that Robert could manage with the DE-2. I did get as far as finding out the eye relief for several models from the specs. but the FE2 dates from a time when such things weren't published. It could be that because the F3 was not designed to be as compact as the FE2 that the eye relief in the DE-2 is better than that in the FE2 even though it is not a true high eyepoint design.

 

I think I'm particularly unlucky in this respect. Even when I wore contact lenses I still found the FE2 a little tricky. Nose sticks out too far, eyes too sunken perhaps. Mind you I don't look all that weird!

[richard_driscoll]

Oh and I forgot to say. On my F90x and even on my D40 I can see virtually all the screen at once. I find it so much easier to compose a photograph when I can see it all there in front without having to kind of look around corners to see it all. F90x does almost as much as an F3 in manual mode but I think I prefer a manual camera for film.