orsetto

It depends on your use case: the 105 and 150 are similar in some ways, different in others. Your primary photography preferences would favor one or the other. The 105mm in 645 or 6x6 format, like 127mm in 6x7, is considered a "long normal" or "studio" lens. Bronica offered 105mm for both their ETR and SQ systems, Mamiya had 105mm for their 6x6 TLR and 110mm for their 645, Hasselblad had their legendary 100mm, and so on. This focal length offers a slightly flatter perspective and longer working distance than the standard 75/80 "normal" lens, while maintaining fairly close focusing ability: often ideal for a range of studio tasks. These lenses are often better corrected for distortion and other aberrations as well: the usual 75/80 entails a slightly retrofocus optical compromise to clear the large SLR mirror. The 105mm also pairs nicely with a 50mm wide angle as a versatile small kit for travel and street work. Choose the 105mm if you feel your photography would benefit from these features over your "normal" 75/80. Do note, however, the Bronica ETR 105mm is fairly uncommon (discontinued early on): available examples will be quite old and should be tested thoroughly upon purchase for shutter, aperture and glass integrity. The 150mm is easier to grasp: its simply the bog standard "portrait focal length" offered by every 645 and 6x6 camera system. It gives more flattering perspective for human subjects than 75/80/105 (tho care must still be taken when moving in close). Rather annoyingly, most 150mm lenses have close focus limitations due to the built in leaf shutter, which kind of defeats the purpose of a portrait lens. So if you plan on a lot of head-and-shoulders work, you will need an extension tube to get close enough. The 150mm pairs nicely with a 60mm wide-normal as a two-lens field kit. Some photographers prefer 200mm as a dual-purpose portrait + landscape-detail lens over the more common 150mm. In the ETR lineup, the 150mm f/3.5 is the oldest version, replaced by later iterations of an updated (but slower) f/4. If you'd like the newest possible example, look for the 150mm f/4 PE.

EDIT re the Nikon Df and split image focus screen: aside from the metering changes needed to accommodate such a screen, I should have mentioned the more significant conflict with the AF display overlay inherited from the D600/D7000. This came up in discussions during the old DSLR days when aftermarket geniuses like KatzEye were offering K screen upgrades for the D3, D700, D300 etc. The AF targeting display doesn't play nicely with the optical split image/microprism center aids. While an individual owner would understand and work around this messiness if they had such a screen custom installed, it would have been a marketing headache for Nikon with a production camera. In a special model with split image screen, the AF target overlay would need to be deactivated/omitted, which might be perceived as an unacceptable downgrade by buyers who wanted to use both AF and manual optics. Or Nikon could probably have made the AF targets more user-customizable at some expense, but they'd still look funky with the split when operational. Such a feature paradox would be a tough marketing challenge, likely why they didn't do it in the end. You could spin such a camera as manual-optimized with an AF option, or omit the AF altogether, but it would be tricky: the mfr would need to tolerate a low volume halo model. Stressed out Nikon of 2013 was far from king-of-the-world Nikon of 1973: in no mood for such a gamble. Retro-styling the D600 to retain existing Nikon customers tempted by the Fuji X system was the safer bet. Understandable, but disappointing.

Re the electronic rangefinder: the revelation that Nikon (and perhaps other AF brands) reduce the precision when non-AF lenses are mounted was first mentioned here by one of the really plugged-in Nikon experts (I don't remember who). It was later verified by some photographers known for their work with manual Nikkors. AFAIK, this only applies to lenses with no electronic contacts, tho I suppose its possible the module was programmed to do the same when it detects a totally manual but electronic coupled lens like the 45mm pancake of 2001. Dumbing the module down for expensive specialty lenses like the PC-E series seems counterproductive: I imagine those get the precision rangefinder mode, but perhaps not? Maybe the precision mode is simply unfeasible when AF is disengaged? Haven't checked the Dandelion scene in awhile: the idea is nice but I don't have the chops to pull off the extensive hackery required for my favorites like the 35mm f/1.4 AIs. Sources for the chips in Nikon format seem to have dried up: they're on backorder everywhere I checked tonight. Canon seems more available.

Shhhh! Saying that out loud around does not go over well! Those who love the Df seem to really love it, either despite the quirks or because of them: they'll politely listen to fair criticism, then usually dismiss you as a knuckle dragging heretic. I thought it an overpriced hodgepodge of missed opportunity when new, but for the right price I'd consider a used one just to try the bespoke sensor and some other features. The biggest issue with the Df was Nikon's lack of guts in delivering on the initial concept: offering a DSLR take on the Leica M9 (a body optimized for legacy lenses and fans of classic designs like the FM2). Alas the overall camera market had begun its precipitous decline, and Nikon got too spooked to spend dwindling resources on something so niche that wouldn't share significant parts with their mainstream models. Instead of a camera truly optimized for manual focus, we got a tricked out D600 with retro styling, semi-retro controls, the ability to safely mount and meter pre-AI lenses, and the unique D4 sensor. Everything else was off-the-shelf Nikon midrange AF DSLR, which undermined the whole point. For the rather high introductory price, it was a bit anticlimactic to those anticipating a "digital FM2". Especially disappointing was Nikon's refusal to at least compromise on the viewfinder: it was a specialty camera for a niche market that would have understood and welcomed an emphasis on legacy. All the other Df quirks and D600 derivations would've been taken in stride if the thing had the FM3a updated split/micro K focus screen. But this would have required reworking the metering system to account for the split image focus aid, perhaps simplifying or dropping the matrix meter for center weighted. Nikon apparently thought such a meter change would be perceived as a downgrade, or too expensive a parts revision for just one model. So we got what we got, take it or leave it. Piling on, the Sony A7 mirrorless upended the FX camera market right around the same time, offering both the sensor frustrated Canon EOS AF users wanted and the manual-focus improvements desired by legacy Nikkor glass fans, plus ability to mount nearly any random lens one cared to adapt. Any chance the confused Df had was blown into the weeds: in retrospect, Nikon would have been much better positioned if the Df had a proper K focus screen after all. They could have owned the small but adamant segment who dislike electronic viewfinders, and would pay a premium for a superior manual-focus OVF. By being over-cautious Nikon lost potential sales at a critical time, when they desperately needed a distinctive bridge model to tide people over during Z mirrorless development.

It can be annoyingly difficult to find a good affordable lens (esp wide angle) that performs nearly as well on DX digital as it does with FX sensors and/or film. In the early days of 4MP to 12MP Nikon DSLRs, there was a huge crowd of photographers recycling older manual focus and AFD Nikkor glass. But after the 16MP D7000, Sony's 24MP chip became the default DX sensor, and interest waned (24MP DX is about as forgiving as 42MP FX: i.e., not much). You really need to have a taste for "character" over eye shredding acutance to enjoy older non-DX-optimized glass on a camera like D7000. The DX-optimized, excellent 35mm f/1.8 AFS is going to be hard to beat as a "normal" lens on DX vs other 35mm lens options that can also double as wide angles on FX and film. The f/2.8 PC Nikkor may be among the least suitable: it was engineered to have good film-era performance across a huge image circle (vastly bigger than a DX sensor). On film, for the perspective-correcting use case it was made for, most examples PC Nikkor remain remarkably good performers even today. Works a treat on the 12MP D700 and 16MP D4/Df, but may falter on some DX and newer high-res FX sensors. What passes as amazing performance across a huge image circle can be a lot less impressive when you carve out a fractional chunk of that circle with DX. The same phenomenon occurs when we compare "legendary" medium format (120) and large format (4x5) lenses to, say, a Leica rangefinder lens: the Leica lens will seem dramatically better because all its performance is concentrated on the 24x36 frame. OTOH, try covering 6x7 with that Leica lens, and things will fall apart real quick. All the Nikon-made film-era 35mm are controversial for digital deployment. The manual focus f/2.8 non-PC is blah and meh, the f/2 can be good or bad depending on specific lens sample, the 1.4 is more of a wacky unpredictable artistic brush than an exacting razor sharp modern optic. The AFD 35/2 can be decent on film, performance on digital varies widely by sensor size/type and the subjects you shoot. If you need unquestionably stellar performance akin to your DX 35mm 1.8 AFS for film or FX, you'll probably be forced to jump up to a modern AFS FX model like the FX 1.8 or 1.4 (paradoxically, either of those might still disappoint you vs the DX 1.8 on a DX camera). Or, you'd need to choose a non-Nikon lens like the Zeiss ZF.2 35/2, 35/1.4, or Sigma Art 35/1.4. These are all larger, heavier, and very (very) expensive options.

Preaching to the choir, brother: I was so happy when I finally got my hands on an "affordable" FX Nikon DSLR, only to immediately face crushing disappointment when I learned the unique "KatzEye" company had gone under the week before. I bought the camera with the express intent to send it to them for their exclusive split-image screen upgrade. Unfortunately the introduction of the Sony A7 gutted their business model: everyone and his mother who likes using vintage glass dropped DSLR for the Sony en masse by 2014. If you couldn't afford to jump on the Sony bandwagon, you were stuck with no good replacement source for the useless AF-centric screen in your DSLR. KatzEye was the only mfr that was accurate and worth a damn, all the others were/are junk knockoffs.

It seems that you haven't yet actually sold off your 501cm: somehow I got the impression it had left your hands. No one understands the economics of "too many cameras" better than me, so I empathize that current circumstances may be pushing you towards a sale. But I would caution you to consider all the ramifications of letting it go: depending on your present (and projected future) camera needs, it may be advisable to hold onto it if at all possible. The 501cm is a glorious camera, the apotheosis and perfection of Hasselblad's fundamental crank-wound mechanical leaf shutter concept. Unfortunately, it came very very late in the game, making it much scarcer and pricier than any other (non-electronic) 'blad camera body. Aside from the ridiculously overhyped 503cw and 503cwd, anyway, which merely add an inane winder option (cw) and digital back contacts (cwd) to the root 501cm. If you don't anticipate carrying a gigantic and slow motor winder or buying a $12K digital back, they're irrelevant vs the splendid 501cm. The 501cm has three big advances over earlier 500 series V bodies: the latest internal mechanical upgrades, the larger mirror that eliminates annoying finder cutoff with the >250mm teles or macro work, and the revised mirror construction employing durable metal positioning springs vs the 3 rotting foam pads that often cause focus accuracy drift in aging 500, 501c and 503 bodies. As more and more factory trained Hasselblad techs retire and pass on, any mechanical advantage that eliminates a failure point becomes increasingly desirable. The lenses and film backs being intractable money pits of maintenance cost are bad enough: choose (or hold onto) a later, trouble-free body cube if you can possibly afford to. The 501cm (along with 503cw/cwd) became stupid expensive recently: they were always about double the cost of a 500cm but now they've blown past that into Leica collectible territory. This trend shows no sign of abating, despite the price of 120 film skyrocketing in tandem. As long as 120 film is available and people want to shoot it, your 501cm will become ever more expensive to replace should you change your mind later. Such regrets aren't limited to Hasselblad: many of us who let go of systems that were commonplace ten years ago now find it virtually impossible to replace them locally at any cost. Literally overnight, North America completely emptied itself of good condition Mamiya RB/RZ67, first-gen Mamiya 645, Pentax 67 and Bronica SQ gear: astonishingly, the entire global stockpile of popular medium format is now in the hands of Japanese eBay dealers (and a handful of German dealers). Of course, one could also make the reverse argument that your 501cm has probably achieved peak value this year, so if you need to sell it its fortuitous timing that we're in a sellers market. Depending on what you paid for yours, a resale could result in minimal loss or even a tidy profit. This seems to be your reasoning: sell the white hot 501cm now, knowing its easily replaceable with a similar system later as long as you're willing to "settle" for the older, less advanced, but far more available and affordable 500cm. Much as I would like to replace my own three 500cm bodies with 501cm, the price difference is absolutely ludicrous: I can't justify the outlay, as I can't justify the beyond stupid money people are asking for the latest version A12 film backs. When looking for a replacement body, you may want to keep a few subtle points in mind. Two great non-mechanical advantages of your 501cm are the late version WLF (black pull up tab, totally sealed hood/round magnifier when open) and Acute Matte focus screen. While sellers at this point know they must include these items with any 501cm or 503cw/cwd, they are often stripped from all other Hasselblads for separate accessory resale at much higher pricing. The newer WLF easily sells for $250 by itself, and you can pretty much name any price you want for an Acute Matte D screen (the split image with microprism donut can set you back a cool $500, and even the plain cross version hits $250 for the D). Don't forget the large modern winding crank: most older 500 bodies come with the plain knob or older smaller crank (if you need to replace the old knob with a new style crank, thats another $125 outlay). All this stuff can add up fast. So shop carefully and examine listing photos closely. The older WLF with silver button is fine if you don't wear eyeglasses and don't often shoot with the sun blasting you. The newer WLF is better sealed against stray light screen reflections and its larger round eyepiece is more hospitable to eyeglasses (making the screen corners more visible). Focus screen type is difficult to determine from a listing photo, unless it has the two little semicircle cutouts in the metal frame indicating an Acute Matte D. Earlier non-D Acute Matte can be hard to identify in a photo unless very large and clear. The AM standard cross screen has very thin fine translucent cross bars vs the commonplace dim ground glass with its thick black painted cross. Anything split image, microprism, or checker grid with a raised bubble over it is the old dimmer ground glass type. These can be OK if you mostly shoot outdoors: they are actually easier to focus than Acute Matte in good light. The 42234 screen with huge central microprism is particularly nice, as is the 42250 which adds a checker grid. The early split image/groundglass screens are not as nice, and most cheap third party knockoff split screens are terrible (worse than the'blad originals for even illumination and focus accuracy). Choosing among the various iterations of 500 body style can be confusing and tricky: each has advantages and drawbacks. I personally cannot stand the now-useless (and ugly) flash ISO dial of the 503cx and cxi. The 501c is a "cheapened" version of the 503cx, omitting the flash system and the body cocked indicator, and only available in black finish: nice if you like the black finish, but its harder to find matching film backs and WLF in black. The 500cm comes in a slew of versions, as it was updated over the decades. I prefer the late-70s era: fairly fresh and up-to-date, but before the questionable yucky crack-prone dust-generating "palpas antireflection" glop got slathered all over the body cavity and barn doors around 1982. Between the "who asked for this $@!&?" palpas nonsense, plus the self-destructing plastic trim rings and rub-right-off cheaply painted numerals on the $2K+ "new improved upgraded" CF lenses, Hasselblad really lost the plot for a minute in 1982. Pre-1982 bodies have nice clean black metal barn doors and body cavities, less messy to own, nicer to look at and a bit easier for techs to pull apart for repair. Later 500cm bodies have the potential advantage of being newer, more refined and perhaps less abused, but across fifteen or so 500cm I've bought and sold since 2006 I haven't seen a particular trend either way. Some older bodies are flawless, and I've had the worst headaches from funky late-80s CMs that seemed mint in every respect when purchased. For a long time, bargain hunters have searched out the last production run of the earlier 500c model, which was actually updated to CM before Hasselblad decided to rename the body as such. Nowadays the secret is long exposed, so sellers often don't give much of a discount on them, but you can still find one occasionally at an excellent price. They are internally and functionally equivalent to first-generation 500cm, including mechanical upgrades from the 500c and user-changeable focus screen. You can identify these "stealth" CMs by the focus screen: if the 500c listing pics show the typical removable screen, its an early CM.

At some point or another, I've owned every version of the 80mm Planar (C chrome barrel, C black T*, CF, "New C", CB, and CFe). Short version: theres almost no chance you'll detect the slightest difference when replacing your 80mm CB Planar with the earlier CF Planar, aside from barrel appearance (and firmer focus ring turn on the CF). Long version: All but the CB (which you had on your 501CM) are optically identical aside from the coatings: single coating on the initial chrome barrel C, with all the others having T* multicoating. Presumably like other mfrs, Zeiss made slight updates to their T* coatings between 1973 and 2001, but no one has ever reported a significant impact. The most important differences for most users would be the ergonomic changes. The original all-metal silver or black C lenses are the most compact, the most nicely made, but have the least popular ergonomics: sawtooth serrated control rings, focus so stiff and fine you need a pipe wrench as a handle, the love it (or mostly hate it) always-locked EV system of conjoined aperture and shutter settings, and conflicting filter sizes (Bay 50 for 80mm thru 250mm, Series 8 for the SWC 38mm, 50mm and 60mm, insane large and rare 104 bayonet on the 40mm). The Cs also have the sticking-prone oldest Compur shutter mechanics. Next came the CF, which ranged thru the 1986 era in question. These have nicer ergonomics: diamond grip rubber focus ring, default uncoupled aperture and shutter rings, shared Bay 60 filter size on all the common focal lengths (60mm thru 250mm). Shutter is the newer Prontor design. Includes the "F" shutter setting (missing from CB) for enhanced convenience with focal plane bodies in the 2000/200 series. Focus feel is noticeably stiffer and harder to turn than CB, but much less painful than the old metal C. Optically different from your CB: 7 elements vs 6 (see below for details). The short-lived "New C" came next, a transitional design midway between CF and CB, and my personal favorite version. Looks much like the CF, but slightly more compact, with much softer focus feel similar to CB. Like the CB, omits the special "F" shutter setting. Also omits the EV locking feature altogether: the only Hasselblad "CF" lens that ever dispensed with it. Again in common with CB/CFie, the "New C" ditches the vulnerable detachable plastic CF focus ring for a single-cast, non-removable all-metal focus ring. The "New C" came about when the 500 series split off into the premium 501CM/CW and base 501C/503CX: it was offered only as part of a "budget" starter kit with the base cameras. A couple years later Hasselblad bizarrely came up with the idea of offering a complete alternative "budget" lens line, the CB series. The discount over CF barely made an 8% dent in the retail price, rendering the idea pointless, but the lenses were quite nice and introduced the final evolution of barrel mechanics. The 60mm Distagon was carried over with identical optics to CF, the rare 120 CB Makro was alleged to be slightly altered but nobody has nailed down definitive proof. The 160mm Tessar was entirely new and exclusive to CB, as was the 80mm CB Planar. Your 80mm had all the CB barrel updates (softer focus feel, better paint durability of the markings, better rubber inserts, elimination of fragile plastic trim rings but addition of more vulnerable plastic DOF and flash controls), and a simplified optical formula from the decades-unchanged original C/CF Planar. The CB was newly formulated to 6 elements vs 7 in the CF: this was the subject of hot debates during the film era, which have quieted down considerably in recent years. Examined with a perfectionist geek eye, there are minor differences, mostly concentrated in a single aspect: the C/CF Planar has more even performance across the frame at the cost of a slight sacrifice in center sharpness, while the CB has enhanced center sharpness but sacrifices the corners a bit to achieve that gain. In actual use almost nobody can detect a difference on film between the 1986 (or so) CF and the "simplified" CB. If anything, the CB became the preferred choice for use with digital backs: since these crop the center of a 6x6 frame, the enhanced center performance of the CB was desirable (if mostly theoretical). Unless the CF you buy to replace your CB is grossly defective, its highly unlikely you'd see a difference in performance. The "pro" version of CB was named CFi, replacing most of the CF lineup. CFi has the CB barrel, but adds back the "F" shutter setting, optional EV interlock, and same optics of the CF series (tho the 40mm was reworked significantly). CFi also adds better blackening of internal surfaces to minimize flare, and an upgraded extra-durable Nivarox mainspring. Being the newest version, the CFi are highly sought after and considerably more expensive the CF or CB, but no different optically. The very last V lens iteration was CFe, which is identical to CFi but adds electronic meter coupling contacts for the excruciatingly expensive automated 200-series focal plane bodies. CFe remains ghastly expensive due to newness and comparative rarity: there is no advantage whatever to choose CFe over earlier versions unless you truly need the electronic metering contacts. Or, you stumble across a fantastic deal on one: I unexpectedly acquired my 80mm CFe from a distressed studio for just $395 a few years ago, less than a third the usual second-hand price.

So Ben and I were wrong, and you DID own the specialty PC Nikkor 35mm f/2.8! Oh, well, perhaps my remarks on the far more common non-PC f/2.8 might still be useful in future to someone looking for info on all three standard variants (2.8, 2.0, 1.4). You can see where we would assume otherwise: you mentioned your 2.8 lens being reviewed across the board as "mediocre", a rating which is almost always made re the standard-use 2.8. The specialty 35mm f/2.8 PC-Nikkor was one of Nikon's best-performing wide lenses for decades, so its rare to hear someone slam it as sub-par. The distortion figures you pulled from Ken Rockwell are excellent, and one reason some photographers chose the less-convenient PC version even for non-PC applications. One would not normally need to input those miniscule PhotoShop distortion corrections for this lens unless the project involved was excruciatingly exacting. Of course, its certainly possible your particular example was not great: maybe it was old and had been knocked around before you got it. Performance of the manual focus 35mm PC Nikkor also depends on the camera format its attached to: great on film, good on earlier lower res digital sensors below 16 MP, but those with high expectations for it on high-res 36+ MP have lately begun posting less enthusiastic reviews. Which is one reason many of us have dropped out of the latest-greatest sensor race, and will mourn when 36MP takes over from 24 MP as the "low end" standard: anything beyond 24MP, you can forget using your favorite old school optics. Their "character" morphs into "utterly unacceptable flaws" in the eyes of perfectionists, so we're seeing a lot of updated reviews now that slam formerly legendary lenses. For still photography, anyway: the attitude is far different for video-oriented applications (videographers are snapping up so-called "mediocre" vintage manual focus glass at an alarming rate at ever increasing prices). Evaluations can change with your individual attitude toward photography, the gear, and budget concerns. Personally, I find the current wisdom almost comic (i.e., claiming the venerable manual focus 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor is suddenly garbage, and only the newest 105mm f/1.4 AFS Nikkor (at $2K!) is acceptable on the D850 or Z8 sensor). It depends on your expectations and use case: the way some casual non-pro photographers completely lose their ever-lovin minds over a little chromatic aberration visible at 400% magnification makes me scratch my head sometimes. I don't always need IMAX-capable performance for every shot: horses for courses.

It seems unlikely that you would have randomly acquired the special-purpose 35mm f/2.8 Nikkor designed specifically for architecture: that lens certainly does not get "mediocre reviews", and if you did have it you'd probably have raved over it in your original post (while asking about a faster more convenient 35mm Nikkor to supplement it). It sounds more likely you picked up the standard 35mm f/2.8 Nikkor, which was the low end of Nikons manual-focus 35mm 2.8, 2.0, 1.4 lineup. Mostly because it was the most affordable wide angle lens for many years, the f/2.8 was in production quite awhile thru at least three known versions. The first version is the original, now-ancient two-tone (chrome nose, black focus ring) Nikkor-S pre-AI: this was considered OK but not great (typical of the period). It was replaced in the mid-70s by an all-black "K" version (looks AI but isn't): different barrel, multicoated, and significant optical upgrade: this version performs noticeably better and is an excellent compact 35mm if you can live with f/2.8 as your widest opening. Made from 1974 thru 1979, only way to identify this version is via serial number, which ranges from 77xxx-82xxx (pre-AI) and 85xxx-87xxx (factory AI) - many thanks to Roland Vink for the serial # data! I tried this improved version of the 2.8 as a replacement for my beloved f/2 in situations where the f/2 is prone to severe ghost imaging (nightscapes and street lights): alas the 2.8 aperture was unworkable for me (nailing precise focus is difficult even with split image screen), so I had to move up to the f/1.4 instead. For more generic travel and street work, the "good" 2.8 could be ideal for other photographers. Unfortunately Nikon decided to regress their 35mm f/2.8 to a simpler cheaper optic in 1979, for the third and last iteration. This lens offers multicoating and an overall better performance than the first version, but falls rather short of the excellent second version. It was sold from 1979-1989 under AI and then AIs. It may have also been the basis for the cut-rate budget Series E f/2.5 version, sold alongside it at a lower price. The 35/2 AF Nikkor you chose is a better lens than the first or third f/2.8, but maybe a hair less good than the second version 2.8: I'd rate it a great compromise if you want f/2 speed and decent optics (no ghosting) but also need up-to-date electronic meter coupling (and AF with bodies that support screw drive AF). The 35mm F/2.8 sold for architecture work was a specialty lens marked "PC Nikkor" (Perspective Control). This version is readily identifiable by its large size and industrial Frankenstein appearance: all flanges and scales and wings and knobs. Optically it is widely thought an excellent optic when adjusted for normal photography, and very very good when adjusted to correct perspective. But it is quite large, a bit clumsy to handle, and is not meter coupled: stop down is manual and you must use stopped down meter mode.

Agree: esp like the two additional pics!

Yes, that has been my understanding as well: the Copal Square shutters were an independent "third party" drop-in module that was typically replaced rather than serviced. This seems strange, but worked out well in most cases: the Copal Square was incredibly reliable/durable and rarely failed during the average single decade use life of a 60s or 70s era camera (before it was traded in for a newer model during the AE craze of the late '70s). While not 100% unbreakable, those old Copals are as close as we ever got (in non-pro cameras) to a bulletproof all-mechanical shutter. It was usually the very last component to break down in the cameras that employed it (Nikkormat, Konica AutoReflex, Chinon-GAF-Vivitar, etc). As with anything in life, there were trade offs involved. Early iterations were separate entities not easily customized to specific camera design goals: the camera mfr built the camera around the Copal shutter. This wasn't much of an issue during that era, as almost every 35mm SLR had the same shutter specs anyway (1 - 1/1000th + B), and the Copal module simplified the engineering of cameras that were optimized for it. The Copal S wasn't compatible with professional motor drive applications: strictly a manually wound device. It wasn't until camera mfrs began designing their own Copal-inspired shutters in the late 70s that motor drive became available (with the 3.5 fps Nikon FM). AFAIK, the only "classic" Copal Square camera that ever offered a motor option was the short-lived Nikkormat EL variant the ELW (later EL2): its winder was notoriously noisy, slow and failure prone. Desperate marketing attempt to fill a product gap while the FE was still in development: every mfr was frantically trying to counter surging Canon AE-1 + winder sales. At that point Nikon was primarily a manual exposure company, the only AE camera they had was the EL so they were forced to slap a winder on it and cross their fingers until they could get the FE and EM out the door. Aside from motor incompatibility, other aspects to the Copal made it less desirable for "pro" cameras like the CaNikon F series. It wasn't easily modified to offer the then-groundbreaking "pro" option of 1/2000 top speed. It wasn't customizable much at all, meaning Canon and Nikon could not thoroughly integrate it with their highly specific halo camera engineering. Vertical travel was perceived as being more prone to distortion effects during panning for sports/action coverage. As an "outside" product, it would have caused consternation in the pro market if Nikon suddenly switched the F2 to Copal from their famous horizontal titanium foil designed in-house for the legendary F (nor could Canon have gotten away with it in the original F1). This reluctance to move away from horizontal shutters continued thru the F3 of 1980, the FM/FE were still too new to cite as reliability estimates. Eventually the Copal design was refined to offer the high performance features of the FE2, FM2 and F4 (1/4000 or 1/8000 top speed, flash sync at Hasselblad-competitive 1/200 or 1/250, durable under constant motor drive). But as they became more in-house and proprietary, they lost some of their simplicity and reliability: as you noted, the shutters of the FM2/FE2 are not exactly the favorite of repair techs. While nearly as durable as the original Copals, they can and do fail, and when they break you can't just chuck the camera for another cheap copy (as one can with the the gazillion Nikkormats, Konicas, FM/FE etc flooding the used market). Newer high-value SLRs with ultra high speed vertical shutters will become increasingly difficult to repair as the number of techs with component-level repair skills dwindles (and supplies of replacement shutter modules disappear). If 35mm film availability and popularity continues past that point, the newer more luxurious cameras may get knocked off their prized perch by older, more common, more pedestrian cameras with the humble durable original Copal Square. And of course classic horizontal shuttered cameras, which are usually more repair-friendly.

Snowsquare, its a little unclear what your primary interest would be in considering the various options. So I'm gonna just post a few related thoughts, in hopes it will help you drill down to the best possible choice for your purposes. Your initial post suggests you want a modern-ish SLR with integrated autoexposure, but are also a bit leery of the longevity of electronics, so you're leaning toward the two most popular camera models (Canon New F1 and Nikon FM3a) that have a usable array of backup mechanical shutter speeds. While this makes sense on the surface, things are not always what they seem when it comes to vintage cameras. The Canon New F1 offered mechanical speeds of 1/90th to 1/2000 plus B: a nice emergency feature for the sports/action sector most likely to buy the F1 when new, but the total lack of lower speeds can be limiting for more general photography. Realistically, Canon (like Nikon with its F3) assumed most pro users with battery concerns would be re-assured by the camera's ability to take alternate power from the motor drive, which was almost always going to be attached anyway. AA batteries are available everywhere from major cities to the most remote locales on earth: there was virtually zero chance a Canon F1 or Nikon F3 user would not have access to a handful of fresh AA batteries when necessary. Even without a motor attached, the standard meter/shutter batteries were common and very tiny: as noted earlier, it was/is a simple matter to always keep at least two new spares in the camera bag. So for most practical scenarios, the "hybrid shutter" feature was mostly a marketing gimmick, and transitional handholding for skittish pros who feared migration from their all-mechanical "old" Canon F1 and Nikon F2 to the inevitable new electronic designs. Decades later, irony abounds: many of the "hybrid shutter" cameras developed other nagging problems that make them dysfunctional, unreliable or unusable. The Canon EF, Pentax ESII and Pentax LX etc all touted "electronic convenience with backup failsafe mechanical shutters" only to wind up with an assortment of other issues that render their mechanical backup shutters irrelevant. More often than not, simpler "all-electronic" cameras have stood the test of time rather better. Of the two cameras you've chosen as front runners, I would pick the Canon New F1 over the Nikon FM3a (despite being a lifelong Nikon user). As others have mentioned, the FM3a was a cynical "instant collectors item" when released (and remains so today). Beloved by those who bought it before prices skyrocketed, its an interesting camera that isn't really practical today if your goal is a decently priced, known-reliable camera body that can also be repaired fairly easily. The FM3a is a one-off design in Nikon's stable: similar to the FE2 and FM2 but not nearly as much in common as you'd think. As repair techs slowly age out and retire, few of those left have ever seen an FM3a (much less worked on one). Given the inflated collector value and convoluted mechanics, I would choose almost any other Nikon over the FM3a (unless you can afford the indulgence, of course: in that case all bets are off). Some modern Canon SLRs have recently become slightly more difficult to get serviced than similar Nikon models: i.e. the popular Canon AE-1, A-1 , and T90 are more risky buys than the simpler Nikon FE/FE2 and FM/FM2. Being a pro model of more conservative design, the New F1 is probably the best choice of Canon FD-mount bodies available today. Most have held up much better than the average AE-1/A-1, and should remain in good condition for years. If you prefer Canon's ergonomics, metering philosophy and FD lens line, the New F1 would be a very satisfying choice. OTOH, rugged as it is, the Canon New F1 is technically a more complicated body than most Nikons. Its also less common and less numerous on the second hand market: if your biggest concern (imagined or real) is long term availability of repairs or replacement bodies, you might feel more comfortable with Nikon. There are thousands of clean, fully-functional FE and FE2 bodies available: so common they will never be collectible. They have exactly the same operating feel of the FM3a, lacking only the "full hybrid shutter" gimmick. If found in good working condition, they usually stay that way: an FE/FE2 is either fully operational or obviously defective. They'll run forever on common S76 batteries, and if you're inordinately worried about future electronics failure just add a supplemental all-mechanical manual metering Nikon FM or FM2. If you can live without TTL flash metering, 1/250th flash sync and 1/4000 top shutter speed, you can save quite a bit of money choosing the earlier FE over the FE2 (even more so with the FM over FM2: the FM2 is now a cult item chasing the fumes of the FM3a). Another common-as-air (and almost as cheap) all-mechanical Nikon body would be a Nikkormat FTn or FT2 or FT3: the most reliable shutter you can buy, tho a meter mechanism that can fail with age and isn't practical to get repaired (but remember, the meter would not be operational in the FM3a or Canon F1 in mechanical mode either). The most popular Nikon camera was probably the F3: professional grade, made and sold for nearly 20 years, roughly a million examples scattered around the world. Dead simple design, one of the most reliable electronic shutter cameras ever sold, most techs know how to perform common repairs if/when necessary. Fairly easy to find in good working condition, and a working example usually stays good for years. So many were made that just replacing a failed F3 with another good one is always an option. Only one mechanical 1/60th backup speed, but again in the real world you're unlikely to be stranded with no battery available and its electronic speeds are way more reliable over many years than its legendary predecessors Nikon F and F2. The drawbacks with the F3 are mostly subjective. Very popular, very beloved, a justified legend in its own time, but some otherwise true-blue Nikon photographers (like myself) absolutely hate it. Most of the intense dislike is due to the meter display: some love it, some are indifferent, some can't stand it. You need to use an F3 for a week or so before knowing for sure whether the meter display will be a dealbreaker or not. If you don't give it a second thought, you'll love the camera, but if it bugs you to no end the first time you see it will not grow on you (trust me). The F3 is very much a "love-it-or-leave-it proposition" - chances are you'd love it, and if you don't they're very easy to sell on to another photographer who does love them. Nikon made an uncharacteristic leap of faith with the F3: in metering philosophy its a complete departure from the earlier F and F2 (even the FE and FM). The interface assumes the photographer is a news gatherer who prioritizes a rapid AE exposure above all else: all other concerns are discarded. The brutally simplified finder display shows an approximate numerical shutter speed that the AE has selected, the aperture you set on the lens, and absolutely nothing else: no context, no range of how far off you might be in manual mode. Just the approx automatic shutter speed chosen by the meter (if you can even see it, depending on environmental lighting). On the positive (very positive) side, if this design suits you it works about as well as it possibly can. The meter is very center weighted, more like a broad selective-area reading, which nails exposure pretty reliably even compared to modern matrix meters. Deviations from typical AE are easily handled by the exposure lock button. If your interests lie more in capturing a fleeting scene with speed and accuracy, its hard to beat the F3. But if you're the type who's more process-oriented, who likes more detailed metering info and often sets exposure manually: the F3 can be annoyingly obtuse. Its primarily an action camera that can also shoot portraits and landscapes, not the other way round. If you liked the pro digital Nikons as much as you implied at the beginning, you might be better off jumping ahead to the F5 (or F6 if you can afford it). These have handling and metering much closer to the D2/D3 than earlier film Nikons. The F4 splits the difference between the spartan F3 and more feature-laden modern F5/F6. In many ways, the F4 was the ideal melding of old and new interfaces for use with manual focus Nikon lenses. But it has a few Achilles Heels that affect long-term viability, repairs/parts have become scarce, and you really need to check them thoroughly for display integrity and functionality. The original F is an amazing mechanical beast, but the meter prisms are all dead now. The F2 was perhaps the pinnacle of Nikon's classic pro SLRs, but strictly manual exposure, and the most sophisticated meter prism option gives you the same display as the FM/FM2. The F2 shutter can easily go wonky at higher speeds thru simple negligence (leaving the camera cocked for a few days). Fantastic camera, the F2AS is my ride-or-die -for-life 35mm SLR, but its not for everyone. As far as (manual focus) lenses go, its a wash between Nikon and Canon: both average out excellent overall, tho each has a couple of unexpected dogs and each has a couple of legendary good focal lengths that the other can't quite match. The trendy mirrorless and video driven market has preferred Canon optics over Nikon for quite awhile now, for reasons immaterial to film SLR users. For better and worse, vintage Nikon lenses are widely considered too "common" and "boring" vs a number of Canon alternatives that get enthusiastic writeups and youTube coverage. This is more down to personality cults and the desire to be "interesting" in digital than inherent qualities of the lenses. You'd be hard pressed to detect a difference when shooting film, except in the rare instance either Canon or Nikon did have a dramatically better lens in a given focal length/speed. Related discussions in a couple recent threads have explored the Canon New F1 and various Nikons: https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/550899-canon-new-f1-review-and-how-to-buy-one-well/ https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/550824-nikon-f-assorted-lenses-etc/

The Mamiya CdS and PD metered chimney and/or prism finders work similarly in concept, the manipulation of nested dial scales is just slightly different. I think the older CdS operation is a bit simpler, because the knob sets all the scales directly (pull out entire knob to set lens max aperture, pull out just the outer ring to set ISO film speed, knob in normal position turns in toto for readings). The newer PD prisms have much improved silicon blue meter cells but a more fiddly control setup requiring the two miniscule unmarked scale release catches described earlier. The arrangement of ISO vs Max Lens Aperture vs Metered Lens Aperture/Shutter scales is similar to the CdS layout, the added latches increase settings security but also complicate operation. Mamiya during the PD era was fond of cutesy hide-in-plain-sight control "upgrades": try figuring out how to open the film door of the (wonderful) C220F TLR without reference to the instruction manual.

The PD chimney finder appears to have the same multi-function knob as the PD prism finder, so its likely they work exactly the same. If thats the case, you should be able to see two small press latches on the periphery of the knob, close to the housing surface. The smaller latch on the bottom (6 o'clock position) releases the ISO dial so you can adjust film speed: letting go of the catch will lock in the ISO. The slightly larger catch a bit further up (8 o'clock position) allows you to set the maximum lens aperture on the secondary (smaller) aperture scale (at roughly 10 o'clock position). Once you set the lens max aperture on that scale and release the catch, the meter is ready to take readings. A meter reading is obtained by pressing the white button to activate power, then turning the main knob section (with shutter speed scale) until you get the center green LED to light in the finder display. The correct available aperture and shutter speed combinations can then be read from the adjoining aperture scale and shutter speed scale visible at the top of the knob as you look down at the chimney. Transfer the matched aperture/shutter combo you prefer to the lens barrel control rings.

Fantastic: sometimes we get lucky! Hope it will continue on its merry way now that you've revived it. I would still be extra careful with this lens: when these symptoms arise, they often reoccur without warning. My biggest concern would be the cocking spring regressing while the lens is being removed from the body: if this happens you'll suffer the ultimate in Hasselblad jams (shutter fired, mirror up, lens welded to the body, advance knob frozen), the kind that is not easily remedied by the "screwdriver down the throat" trick. To avoid this, remove or attach the lens with a quick smooth movement (as quickly as possible, given the size and awkwardness of the barrel). Any hesitation or slowness can trigger a sync conflict between the body and lens mechanics. I've been burned by that several times with a particularly eccentric 250mm Sonnar: recovering from it requires a partial disassembly of the cocking geartrain behind the body lens mount, to release the spring tension on the body key and allow the lens to dismount. Not something I recommend as DIY unless you're stuck in the field far from any technicians.

You may not be able to solve this easily: the huge 500mm lens suffers inordinately from the depressingly boilerplate answer to every single 'Hasselblad not working right" question. Lets all chant it together: "the Hasselblad system was marketed as a professional tool with the clear understanding/assumption it would be used daily and serviced every couple of months: not a problem during its heyday when every town had at least two skilled techs (and you didn't own a Hassy unless you were a working pro or wealthy amateur with the income to pay the upkeep)". For those of us using the system more casually and sporadically today, that "1963 Ferrari" ethos can be a headache and a half. An unusually large percentage of 500mm teles are afflicted with shutter issues, which can in turn lead to the mount/dismount issue you're experiencing. The "gotcha" with the 500mm is its very limited purpose: even those who paid full price when new didn't need it as a daily driver lens. But that "occasional use" profile locks horns with the shutter mechanics, which are the same as in all the other Hasselblad lenses (use it or lose it: left sitting it will gum up and require a CLA service). This is complicated further by the 500mm uniquely long flange-to-shutter distance: the extra long cocking rod requires the lens be in perfect limber condition to function properly. If the shutter is dragging or the cocking spring has weakened, you may experience mount/dismount and cock/release snafus. Due to these deeply buried mechanics, the 500mm is one of the most difficult lenses to find service for today. The old C version with Compur shutter is virtually impossible to get serviced now, which is why most used examples are DOA. Your CF Prontor version may still be repairable by either Hasselblad itself or a handful of long-term independent techs who still have the special tools. Curing this problem with a CLA is likely your only option, assuming you can locate a capable tech and feel you'll use the lens enough to offset the probable $400 repair fee. Short of that, the only thing I can suggest is finding a secondary body that it will fully lock onto and then leave it permanently on that body. It should still be possible to find a relatively cheap 500c or 500EL body that might be able to lock on to your 500mm lens. Going thru eBay or web dealers might be a hit-or-miss proposition: better if you can drive to a dealer with the lens in tow and try out their second hand stock til one "clicks". If none click, either service the lens or get an adapter to use it as a super tele on a non-Hassy-V digital platform. Good luck!

The Rollei 35 both benefits and suffers from the era in which it was first designed and built: benefits from the very clever, all-metal Bauhaus packaging in marvelously small form factor, suffers because the whole concept would have made so much more sense in carbon fiber plastic (i.e. the endless array of Minox 35 and its knockoffs). The camera is a beautiful and unique mechanical gem, mostly because its designer only had those materials available to work with: if he could have made the Minox 35 instead, he probably would have. So its nice that we got this last little gift of opto-mechanical ingenuity from the wizards of Europe. Unfortunately it isn't especially practical as a P/S pocket camera, something Rollei was careful to lampshade in its marketing. Yeah, you can set it to f/8 and 15ft and 1/125th, and pretend its an Instamatic, but thats a bit like driving your tractor mower to the grocery store (doable but not the best approach). To get the best out of the Rollei 35 you have to operate it as if it were a tinier Leica IIc: patiently work the fiddly controls for each shot. Back in the mid-70s when I was finishing high school and had owned an Olympus OM-1 for about a year, I got stupidly tempted by the LED & gallium meter tech of Oly's new rival the Pentax MX. Regretted that trade from the day I made it: most disappointing 35mm SLR I've ever owned. After struggling to like it for six months, I got disgusted enough to trade it in for a black Rollei 35S and a bunch of film. I still have the receipt somewhere: the 35S sold new for $119 in '77. Despite having the ergonomics of a Houdini finger trap, I bonded instantly with the little Rollei and its stellar 40mm f/.2.8 Sonnar. Some of the sharpest snappiest Kodachromes I ever shot came from that camera: used carefully within its design envelope, its capable of amazing performance. The catch is that envelope is a bit small: the Rollei 35 excels at outdoor sunny afternoon travel and street work, but balks in many other situations. Eventually I drifted back to the Olympus OM-1, then a Nikon FM, and finally settled on my forever partner Nikon F2AS. I'd break out the Rollei for occasional travel and event use, but those occasions got fewer and fewer over time. Several persistent issues killed it for me. First was the infuriatingly cranky Compur shutter (anything with a Compur is guaranteed to torture you: why I later opted for a Hasselblad for 6x6 I'll never quite understand). Second, It would unpredictably tear a roll apart when it reached the two-thirds done point. Third, the wind feel and shutter release action were not good for the low light work I found myself drawn to. Last but not least, the sharp metal rewind release lever (stupidly located right on the eyepiece frame) destroyed one pair of eyeglasses after another. So during the first eBay craze for the Rollei 35S in 2008, I sold off my minty black example with orig box and papers for close to $300. I replaced it with a nice old Voigtlander Vito B. Huge viewfinder with butter smooth eyeglass-friendly eyepiece, Color Skopar lens easily as good as the Rollei Sonnar at a fraction of the price, more ergonomic, and not much bigger when you consider the collapsible lens on the Rollei is usually open anyway. Loved the results and mystique of the Rollei 35S, but it became too much of a chore to use. If it hadn't become so valuable to collectors, I would like to have kept mine as a display piece after retiring it. Ah, well: the proceeds went toward a lovely Mamiya C220F TLR, which became my primary medium format system (my Hasselblad kit may follow the Rollei 35S out the door if the resale values keep going up).

If you can possibly afford to keep the whole kit without feeling too guilty about the parked money, hold onto it! The original F1 accessories were never plentiful to begin with. Today they're pretty scarce, ever more collectible and increasingly hard to track down in full working order (esp the Servo EE Finder: good luck replacing it if you change your mind after selling). Of all the '70s-era heyday pro 35mm SLR systems, I always thought Canon was the only mfr who got the motor drive just about right. It looks great, is balanced, and has a nice chunky grip. By contrast, the motors for the Nikon F were prehistoric claptrap, the F2 motor was poorly matched physically to the body (chrome motor finish, skinny grip, too tall and prone to tipping with battery pack at bottom). Motors for also-rans like Olympus, Pentax and Contax RTS were visually off or had ergonomic flaws similar to the F2 motor. The uncommon Minolta XK Motor camera might be the only one to equal Canon's original F1 setup. Only Nikon and Canon had the add-on electro-mechanical shutter priority AE option: competitors relied on dedicated electronic bodies with built in aperture priority AE. Canon's F1 servo finder was arguably the more practical, better integrated, more functional design. But decades later as purely toys, the Nikon arrangement of separate meter prism and servo motor is much more Rube Goldberg fun. The servo looks less ungainly hanging off the side of the F2 vs the Canon having the entire shebang on top. With Nikon's external approach, you also get to see the motor spin the actual aperture ring on the lens. And its internal mini battery makes it more versatile: you can run it without a motor drive or external battery pack. In the end, Canon's approach made a lot more sense at the time (of course, they had the advantage of a new lens lineup with built-in AE mechanics, while Nikon was stuck working around their legacy lenses).

Oops, I goofed a little in my post re mechanical backup shutter speeds! The corrected info is: The Canon New F1, like similar designs Pentax ES, Pentax LX, and Fujica 901, has mechanical backup shutter speeds ranging from top speed down to whatever X flash sync speed is marked on the shutter knob + B. So I was wrong to say 1/60th is the slowest available New F1 mechanical speed: it is actually the X sync speed of 1/90th. Probably makes no difference in actual exposure, but if you set the knob to 1/60th or lower be aware it will fire at X 1/90th. Every time this topic comes up I also forget the amazing Canon EF was an outlier among early hybrid electromechanical shutter cameras: being primarily a manual shutter camera with shutter priority AE lenses, the EF shutter did not require electronic control so wasn't made fully electronic (so for such discussion purposes isn't in the same hybrid shutter grouping). The Canon EF shutter is a 95% mechanical Copal Square module (as in Nikon's Nikkormat FT series and Konica T3), needing no battery from 1/2 sec thru 1/1000th. The EF shutter only uses battery power for its (unique in 1973) extended slow speeds of 1 sec thru 30 full secs. Bit of add'l camera lore: Canon equipped the EF with these extended electronic-timed slow speeds to take advantage of its (then-uncommon) super low light metering range. At the time of EF introduction, the only other cameras with TTL meter range down to EV -2 were the Nikon F2S, Leicaflex SL2, and Leica M5 rangefinder. The Canon EF bettered those competitors by using cutting-edge, more reliable/consistent silicon blue cells vs their old-school CdS. The Leicas went off market fairly quickly, and Nikon did not update the F2S with silicon blue cells until 1976 (F2SB) and 1977 (F2AS). So Canon had a near exclusive in silicon blue for a few years with their EF: I think the only other early-'70s silicon blue cameras were the niche Fuji M42 screw mount range (ST701, 801, 901).

You may be giving too much credit to long-ago knockoff accessory mfrs? 😉 The camera mfr may have used a locking notch, but third-party mfrs might not feel obliged to comply if they could modify their generic extension ring mechanics just enough to be compatible. Those of us who replied we think its "Minolta SR" should perhaps have been more specific and said "'70s era Minolta manual focus mount": sometimes we forget there are antique buffs on P-net still using models older than SRT-101. 😊 One can't be sure without a hands-on check, but for comparison's sake the tube set you inquired about seems very similar (if not identical) to this one currently listed on ye olde auction site. The goofy "fingers" may simply be an across-the-board bolt-on system Accura employed on all their meter-coupled tubes, customizing only rear flange surface to mate with the brand of camera (the little black tabs seem meant to key into the Minolta SRT/XE/MD/XG body coupling, but could easily be repositioned/repurposed by Accura factory as Nikon AI or other similar systems). My only Accura brand tubes look similar but do not have any mechanical coupling arms or bits: they're plain stripped basic M42 and Exakta mount (so I can't directly compare my tubes to those pictured in OP). The bayonet in your photo does not seem to match my Konica T3, Fuji AX or Mamiya ZE. It looks somewhat like Rolleiflex SL, but while similar the odds of a third party tube set randomly popping up in that obscure mount is practically zero. Its not Nikon or Canon or Pentax K, so I'll let my chips ride on Minolta until we hear otherwise (you know you're gonna buy them and tell us).

FWIW, those interested in sturdy, classic-era Canon FD bodies might also check out: Canon EF (almost as beautifully constructed as the original F=1, but trades fixed prism and no motor drive for built-in AE with ahead-of-its-time silicon cells). Canon TX (one of the best budget models ever marketed, basically the Pentax K1000 but six years earlier and better made). Canon FTBn (Canon's answer to the Nikkormat and Minolta SRT series: not one of my personal favorites but was very popular in its day).

gwhitegeog, it sounds like your Canon New F1 is working perfectly, so no cause to worry. It is normal for the shutter release to feel firmer when the mechanical speeds and mechanical release take over from a dead or missing battery. It is also normal for the slow speeds below 1/60th to become unavailable with a dead or missing battery: like other similar hybrid shutter cameras of the '70s-'80s (Canon EF, Pentax ES, Fujica 901, etc) the New F1 backup mechanical speed governor can only operate at 1/60th and higher. It lacks the additional complex geartrain required for slower speeds below 1/60th, so when the electronics are unpowered slow speeds are limited to whatever you can manage via "B". As with fully mechanical cameras, New F1 fast speeds are achieved by simply varying the slit width between curtains while the shutter travels at a fixed rate.

It is a great camera, for sure a much better buy today than the AE-1 or A-1 for film shooting with the excellent FD lenses. As gwhitegeog noted, while more popular and more available, the "A" series has not held up as well thru the decades: many are afflicted with common issues. Since some of the top Canon technicians in North America have recently retired or passed away, its a good idea to avoid models known to need tricky or specialist repairs/part sources. The New F1 (usually) survives without such issues. However, just like its competitor the Nikon F3, Canon's New F1 does not lack for questionable design choices. Both companies should really have known better by the time they got around to their electronic pro bodies, yet somehow both managed to blow right past common sense into the weeds of sheer "WTH?" in a few key respects. The Nikon F3 was nearly perfect for most Nikon users, except for having the all-time, hands down, absolute worst meter display ever put into a camera (there are some that equal it for lack of context and usability, but none can touch it for poor visibility and insultingly poor manual mode). The F3 TTL flash metering was half baked compared to the Minolta/Olympus concept it borrowed from, as well as all followup Nikon AE cameras. The otherwise remarkably rugged F3 has an unexpected Achilles Heel hidden in its rewind knob/flash shoe/ISO/Exposure Comp assembly: if a pro wore two F3s around their neck, and they banged against each other hard enough in that spot, the camera could be rendered toast until repaired. The Canon New F1 avoids several of the Nikon F3 goofs: far better finder display, more rugged meter mechanics, more mechanical backup shutter speeds, potential for easy addition of sports-oriented shutter priority AE feature by simply mounting a winder/motor. OTOH, you have the mystifying decision to not include the aperture-priority AE finder as standard: instead Canon offered both a manual meter prism/body combo and a AE prism/body combo. This was confusing enough when sold new, today you have to be extra careful shopping the second hand market if you want to use aperture-priority AE mode. While aperture priority AE mode is built into every New F1 body, the ability to display the AE shutter readings is limited to the AE-spec prism. You can set the camera to AE shutter mode with the manual prism mounted and it will work properly for AE exposure, but you won't see the shutter speed the camera is setting (the AE finder includes additional scales for aperture priority AE). IOW, the only practical AE mode (with full meter display) you can get from a "plain prism" New F1 is shutter priority, and then only by attaching a winder or motor. So if you want the most compact lightweight F1 AE configuration, look for the flatter-top AE prism with telltale frosted illumination strip along the top front edge, and coupling arm for the shutter knob on the left side. The smaller non-AE prism has a standard pointy prism roof when viewed head on. Another "gotcha" to keep in mind: the nifty choice of metering patterns was a clumsy, extra-cost option when new, and remains so decades later on the second hand market. The meter pattern is dependent on the focus screen you put in the camera: it isn't built into the body controls, so changing patterns on the fly while shooting uninterrupted isn't possible. If you want a New F1 with spot, selective, or center-average pattern you'll need to check with the seller for what screen is in the body. If it isn't what you want, you'll need to scour eBay for an optional screen with the combination of meter pattern and focusing aids you prefer. As a rule of thumb, New F1 bodies with the non-AE prism typically came with the selective-area meter pattern (comparable to the Nikon F3 but narrower and more definite). Bodies sold new with the AE prism often (but not always) came with the averaging pattern installed. All these years later, theres no telling what may be installed in any random New F1: more than likely its selective, but ask the seller to be sure. BTW, while shopping for New F1, consider splurging to pick up the original "old" F1 (or F1n) as a companion for it. The original F1 was a masterpiece of mechanical design, meant to blow the Nikon F out of the water. The fit/finish/feel is incredible, and it may have the most perfectly engineered meter mechanics ever created for a manual exposure camera (selective pattern only, needs a battery adapter to use modern batteries). Just as every Nikon fan should handle an F or F2 at some point to experience the brand's peak build quality, every Canon FD enthusiast should absolutely audition an original F1.

Minolta SR mount?