michael_devoue

From what I understand from working in a repair facility, there is a small increase in drain when left on, but this is negligible- most F3's came in with the switch on- I get the feeling most owners do this, without ill effect. I don't, but I am a bit anal about my gear- everything in it's place, right down to exposure modes and other settings. I know right where everything is at when I open my bag- this is what is important in the end, and is the very reason many leave the F3 on.

 

Just don't pack it away with something touching the shutter button obviously.

 

Shoot away and have fun!

The FM2 should make a distinct sound at 1 sec., unlike the FE(2), whick uses an electronically timed shutter vs. mechanical. It's the slow speed escapement as a previous responder contributed.

 

At bulb, however, short of the slight reverberations of the "release" energy doing their thing, the FM2 shouldn't make noise.

 

Does it really do it on bulb? If so, get it checked out- that's odd.

I checked a weeks-old post I had contributed on tonight-

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006HwH

 

And thought I should explain.

 

I had made the comment that "If someone has no intellegence or

nothing but G lenses, they'll never know."

 

I meant that without the necessary intellegence and aperture rings,

you won't enjoy using the F3 with it's wonderful view.

 

Previous to the oft-cited remark, I "admitted" to using AF in

necessary situations. Both my for-pay and for-pleasure shooting

includes MF and AF cameras.

 

But if I had no intelligence or nothing but G lenses, I couldn't

enjoy my F3.

 

I didn't say one was an idiot if they didn't like/use the F3, nor one

would be an idiot to own nothing but G lenses.

 

I feel my words were terribly misunderstood and formally apologize to

any who were upset by my comment.

IMHO, anyone who argues the Leica's shutter isn't signifigantly quieter hasn't comapared the two side-by-side. Low-light focusing? Rangefinders rock in this respect. Period. Leica puts out wonderful niche equipment for the ultimate in close-range candid work. Nikon's system is more comprehensive, versatile, and affordable. Understandably, I chose the latter, but long for just one black MP with a 35/1.4.

 

On the quiet note, I am very happy with how close the F3 w/ mirror-up compares to an M3. No viewfinder, so I usally pre-focus and estimate framing. I'll use the motor in the configuration in some instances, but this reduces quietness and general steathy-ness.

 

My 2 cents.

I too love the car analogies- BUT-

I proudly own a Honda Accord with 190.000 miles and still running strong.

 

Nikon is the Honda. Leica is the Mercedes.

 

Sigma might be Daewoo, or Kia, or Hyundai, or Yugo.

 

Please don't ever compare Sigma's crap to Honda's well-engineered product.

 

Lets not BS ourselves- Nikon is not the Mercedes. Nikon is the Honda. Reasonably affordable, very reliable.

 

Leica is the Mercedes- Both expensive german stuff and all.

 

This lens comparison should be more like the Hyndai Tiburon vs. the Acura(Honda in the rest of the world) RSX Type S. 'nuff said.

WA or BC?

I was considering these bodies 2 years ago and here's my findings.

 

Everybody seems to miss the different focus screen setup issue-

 

Yes, both have interchangeable screens, but pop them both out and you'll see a huge difference- ALL the Nikon "F" series screens are sandwiched to an optical element. This provides a brighter, sharper, flatter-field image through the viewfinder- VERY IMPORTANT on a manual focus body. Focusing is much faster and more accurate FOR ME.

Many, many others agree. Try them both. Not just the bright store interior- try it in dark areas, low contrast subjects, etc.

 

Ultimately, I found that the F3HP and AS-17 TTL Flash coupler combo gave all the features of the FM3a in a more robust package with true Nikon "F" quality.

 

The only feature I miss on the F3 is the full range of speeds without battery. For that I keep an FM2 around for the rare occasion. And I mean rare- 1/60 is a versatile speed, and "T" works with aurora wonderfully.

 

Oh yes- button cells crap out fast in the cold- but mount the MD-4 to power the meter only (no wind-static) and it's cold-weather capacity increases dramatically. No DB-2 needed here...

I had no idea so many others preffered their F3HP to the AF bodies- I have an F100, F3HP, and FM2- the F3 and FM2 definitely see more film.

I use AF for special events- weddings, etc. but for everyday "pleasure" shooting, I too prefer the beautiful view through an F3HP. If someone has no intellegence or nothing but G lenses, they'll never know.

I would not recommend dis- and re- assembling this lens. Retrofocus lenses esp. this wide require extremely precise positioning and centering of the optics. Fungus does indeed feed on the coatings, so glass is affected. I would just replace it- your safest and possibly least expensive (time and money-wise) option.

I run my F3 alongside AF cameras, lenses, and flash- I like the AS-17 so I can carry one flash with two cameras.

 

Just a vote for keeping an eye on the future; the F3 with AS-17 setup makes more sense than the F3-foot flashes IMO.

I'm using one with an SB-28, and pleased with the results. I feel the need to mention a few points on its use, however.

 

1) I don't expect 3D Matrix results. I use exposure compensation even in 3D Matrix, and I can't apply the same technique as I would use on the F100- I have to think about subject distance, reflectivity, and desired effect before selecting an ISO setting on the unit.

 

2) The interface confuses some- but you achieve a range of ISO 20-500 in 1/3rd steps. The accuracy of these changes is very repeatable, but changing the setting is necessary for good (sellable) images.

 

3) Keep ambient light levels in mind and expose accordingly.

 

Problems? IMO, none. I ran sufficient tests on tranny film in differing conditions. Conclusively, I found you cannot just set this thing to the film box ISO and run with it. Go Matrix if that's what you're after.

 

I wanted to use the sb-28 on the F3, hence the AS-17. I don't use it often, just when necessary. Like when I have no Matrix, or I chose to take only one body, the F3.

 

Last point- some may mention the Vivitar adapter, but I have reservations about aftermarket gear. I don't believe the Vivitar has a facility for ISO adjustment- something must be missing. If I understand correctly, the modern flashes (SB-24,25,26,28) cannot "tell" the F3 what ISO to use. The ISO scale on the camera and flash matters none in TTL Flash mode. It is my opinion that Nikon knows best. $120 isn't that much. If it seems like alot, maybe add the cost of the Vivitar toy some end up tossing.

What's your favorite color? (answers may vary.)

My opinions/feelings-

Black feels understated, chrome feels flashy. Both are noticeable as they are nikons, but the tape over the logo works. Unless it's chrome.

 

I had the same choice in tripods- went with black- as it won't reflect nearly as bad as the natural AL legs. I'd think the same would apply to the camera. All my bags are black. All my straps are black. See a pattern?

 

Not that you should follow it- but every time I see a chrome FM3a I wonder why it's not black.

 

I guess it looks fabulous next to the Rolex when in chrome trim.

I can vouch for all- sharpness is incredible in the 2.8's, and the 35 has a wonderful look- and is fairly well-matched to the others @f/8.

 

I can't imagine these four without one of the 180ED's- hands down the most brilliant lens in the nikkor lineup, IMO. Tight portraits to wonderful landscapes, it's all in this lens.

Gerhard-

 

I'm very sure that storing the lenses at f/22 won't harm the blades- if anything it increases it's strength- their formation moves more like one unit, versus several independent leaves. Those individual leaves glide in thier own track, however, so it doesn't matter much.

 

Three years ago a small backpack with a "forgotten" 180/2.8 AF-n enclosed was thrown over a creek. I remembered the instant it left my hand- it impacted on the mount side, with a rear cap on. Set @ f/11 (I remeber quite well), but i couldn't mount it for the next three days, so in a way I spent the time eagerly awaiting my return to work because...

 

At the time I was working for a repair shop with access to all the cool test equipment. It was carefully inpected on monday and suprisingly, only the lens mount and aperture ring needed replacing. Two weeks later the lens was repaired and tested, and to my surprise, the optics were perfectly aligned, and yes, the diaphragm tested out perfect. I was thrilled! Until that moment, I was sure that I would eventually replace it, but it still lives in my bag and has paid for itself over and over and over.

 

I haven't seen the potential problem you point out Gerhard, but I'm not saying it's impossible- an exposed diaphragm can be forced to close up star-trek style, but I don't think it's likely in an assembled, working lens.

Re: the Sub-Command dial- very ergonomic IMO- canon's is backward with it above the shutter button. Main- Thumb. Shutter release- Index. Sub- Middle. Index always on the shutter button, I agree. SUB, MIDDLE. SUB, MIDDLE. Lets all say it- Submittal!

 

Re: Aperture rings- Gotta use em on my F3, no doubt. I choose not to on the F100. Why? Because I can lock it when using the body to set it. When my Minolta meter says F/4 and 6 tenths or whatever, I can come very close. Yes, I know I can set an infinite number of settings with the ring, I can't lock it. All studio shooters should understand.

 

I don't feel threatened by the apperance of the G's. I feel threatened by the disappearance of the aperture rings.

 

I chose Nikon for battery independent reasons. Throw out the aperture ring and throw out this possiblity.

 

When Nikon has stopped production on all bodies requiring a ring, then it's time to worry. Nikon's AF primes (non-DX) all have rings. Nikon still makes more primes than zooms, too. I can't imagine a G prime unless it's (of course) a DX.

 

Above all, I hope to god Nikon realizes that many F5 and F100 owners will sometimes use an FM2 or F3.

 

Yes, we understand that change is inevitable, but cost-savings isn't why the 70-200 has no ring. VR maybe, but the 80-400 did. These high-end lenses should have them, and there is no legit(IMO) reason it can't. So it will gain size- who cares? Cost? really........

 

Thank god they're leaving the primes alone.

Both are very good.

 

I actually think that this is one of 2 lenses Tamron does better, the other being the 90/2.8-

 

If you can get them both in your hands, you may see why I don't mind the Tamron- extend the nikkor and tamron side by side and tap the lens tube- Tamrons clinks of metal, the nikkor is more space-age-plastic. Under heavy use I have seen examples of the nikkor get sticky(zoom + focus) in operation.

 

Optically both are good, but have different "character". Mixing Nikkors and Tamrons may give different renditions- esp. in reproducing the more subtle colors. May not matter in B/W, may not matter to one anyway! May mean everything.

 

The Nikkor is good- you about get what one expects of this lens.

The Tamron is good- It's shocking how well it compares, optically and construction-wise.

 

This isn't my kind of lens. Given the choice, Tamron for me.

Ilkka-

 

The "F" series cameras are the original Nikon F, the F2, the F3, the F4 and F5. They represent the culmination of engineering efforts at the time of design. All have 100% viewfinder coverage/accuracy, an interchangeable viewfinder system with an improved optical path for viewing, rewind knobs, Mirror lockup, and sub-60ms lag time for the F3,4,and 5. I may have missed one or two characteristics, but the first four mark all F-series cameras. The only instance where Nikon has sold two F-series cameras concurrently was 1996-2002, with the F3 and F5.

I like the inflation issue, David, interesting point! O/W there are many valid points, but we live in a world where we often have to choose between two evils. There are other choices, as well, but come on, let's talk reality. I like being able to use a mechanical camera here in alaska. I just prefer to avoid batteries in these conditions, and Nikon allows this. Nikon's 180 isn't available in an Canon mount, and believe me, I tried Canon's 200's. Nikon's 180 is head and shoulders above the (affordable) Canon 200's. Solve those two issues and I'll think about Canon.

 

Yes, I would like to see all bodies meter(matrix incl.) with AIS lenses. Yes, G lenses make it seem Nikon is stepping back off their total compatibility stance, but they still have one foot on it with their pro stuff. I believe that Nikon is a more comprehensive system, so I chose it. The lesser of two evils, right?

I should add that the 3 lenses, the 24/2.8, the 50/1.8, the 85/1.8, and the 180 as well, have a very well-matched character to them. At f/8, sharpness is "clinical", and all have very low distortion. I can't stress how well these lenses work together for me. Many other photogs cannot tell which lenses I use, although no-one has mistaken the 24 for the 180, some have mistaken the 180 for the 24.

I own the lenses in option 3, along with a 180(nothing to be jealous of Rick- mine's very scratched and looks bad, but optically astounding; sharpest nikon lens @ maximum aperture)- and love the setup. Yes, it is a drawback to have to change lenses, but I am reminded why I go this route every time I see my proofs. Prime vs. zoom setups both have they're successes and failures, so decide what is more important to you. If you shoot nothing but static subjects, you know which way to go- If you shoot nothing but moving subjects, you know which way to go.

 

To a point- I sidestep the changing lenses thing by not doing it- 4 lenses, 4 bodies. Not cheap or light, but very convienient, with the glorious performance of primes. But this works best using only one kind of film, or maybe 100iso in the f/1.8 cameras and 400iso in the f/2.8 cameras. Color and black and white? make that 5 bodies- do you see where this is going?- Ultimately you have to strike the comprimise for yourself and bring it home.

Almost forgot.... The viewfinder issue-

 

Beyond the 100%, upon inspection, you'll see that the F-series cameras (not the F100; F,F2,F3,F4,F5 are "F" series cameras)have a different style focusing screen- sandwiched with an optical element. IMO, this makes a huge difference in manual focusing- the image brightness and resolution is uniform across the finder image, and miles better than the fresnel-lens appreoach of the N-series cameras (F-100 applies here- No 100%, No interchangeable finder, no rewind knob, no lighting-quick sub-60ms shutter lag for the electronic shutter F-series, and no 150,000 cycle shutter integrity).

 

And you are going to have to manually focus either of these bodies- The F-series are better suited. Of the F-series, an F-3 with a DW-4 6x finder on an all-matte field produces stunning focus accuracy. You can't do it with and FM3a near as easily or as well as the F-series setup.

I should add that the "rift" between the 100 and 5 is less (IMO) than the difference in the 3hp vs. the m3a. Simply used the 100 and 5 as an illustration. You still get what you pay for. I want to be cut open when I die and have an F3HP inserted in my body so my cold, lifeless hands won't have anything to give up, and the camera stays with me.

David's right about the regret part- they'll be gone soon.

However, construction is the primary difference to me- F3 is solid, like a leica, but the FM3a is a lighter duty camera- maybe perfect for your backup purposes.

 

The only advantage to the FM3a (IMO) is the hybrid shutter that fires mechanically at all speeds. Size and weight is subjective.

 

The advantages to the F3 are robust construction, interchangeable 100% viewfinders (indispensible for FF b+w shooters), and the wonderful MD-4 that rewinds for you and is a bit more reliable.

 

The two stand on level ground for flash technology- maybe the F3 comes out ahead because you can still TTL flash with NO Batteries in the camera- slightly counterbalanced by the need for an AS-17 to achieve this.

 

Nikon makes F-series cameras for "professional" use- IMO they're just the cream of the crop.

 

The nikon F100 is not an F5, just like the FM3a is not an F3HP. Price differences in both cases are indicative of quality. I used to work in a repair shop, and the techs raved about the F3, esp. the very elegant circuit flex and exemplary "nikon" execution in all areas.

 

You get what you pay for. Period.

Oh yeah, the 24 is stellar. not much desire for any other wide, with the exception of the 17-35. I'd still carry the 24 for close-up exaggeration though. Pulls this off VERY nicely.

I don't feel too much of a gap between 24 and 50 or even 55mm. Truth be told, I have a 35/1.4 that I keep in my "gear support" bag with all kinds of filters and 2 zooms as well sync cords, tripod plates- spares and such. But my shooting bag has 24, 50, 55, 85, and 180. If I felt the "gap" I would remove the 50 for the 35, but the 50 AF's and it's a pleasing lens to use.

 

However, on a recent "pack light" trip to the alaskan bush, I brought only the 35/1.4 and a FM2. Worked great under all conditions- coincidentally, by the time you crop a neg to 8X10, 35 is closer to "normal" than a 50 in a FF format.