Interestingly enough, with respect to the Nikon F2AS cameras, all of the bodies I've owned have been around $250 or less. They're not perfect looking cameras, having brassing, and a couple had some dings, but they all worked well. Still have two black F2AS bodies. One that I paid $225 for in September 2011, and one that I paid $165 for last month.
FM2T looks cool, but, it doesn't have any more functionality over a regular FM2n that goes for 1/4 the price. Unless you're looking for a collector's item, stick with a regular FM2n. With respect to the FM3a, nice camera, but a collector's item even when well-used, it's still one. An FE2, while requiring batteries for full functionality, is pretty much the same camera. The good thing is that, unless the camera has a short-circuit, the batteries will last 1-3 years. I usually replace my camera batteries once a year, whether the camera needs it or not.
APUG: F5, F4, F3P, F2ASx2, F, Nikomat FTn - all blk bodies; F2A, Nikomat FT2 chrome
Nikkors: 18-70/3.5-4.5G AF-S DX (for DPUG), 28/3.5 H, 35/2 O, 50/2 H, 50/1.4 S, 55/2.8 Micro AIS, 85/1.8 K, 10.5cm/2.5 P, 200/4 AI, 300/4.5 EDIF AIS
- My flickr stream
I guess there is no bad camera. I use Contax cameras. The main reasons were very bright viewfinders (I wear glasses. That's why I didn't go for nikon!), shortest lag time button-film exposure, excellent lenses (they are not so expensive as always assumed). I use my equipment since over 20 years with no problems at all. The RTS III is very heavy, but has the unique feature of perfectly flat film, because the film is sucked onto a ceramic plate. You may consider the Contax RX, which is cheaper and lighter and can do everything one needs. Lenses: 50 or 85 mm and 1.4 plus 35 mm 2.8 or even shorter. The 135 mm 2.8 is also a very, very excellent option. Lighter and cheaper than the 85 mm. The G2 is a much lighter rangefinder camera with autofocus option. I found the viewfinder to be too small for me, but it always shows the full-frame of the lens mounted. Lenses are excellent too. I finally got a Zeiss Ikon ZM instead. I wish you a lot of fun with your choice, Peter
If you look at the releases of both Canon and Nikon, Canon matched Nikon's releases body for body including the interchangeable viewfinder pro body types.
Originally Posted by Andrey
- 1959 Canonflex <-> Nikon F
- 1971 Canon F-1 <-> Nikon F2
- 1980-81 Canon New F-1 <-> Nikon F3
This is a convenient link that shows the timeline for both, as well as Minolta and Pentax -> http://minolta.eazypix.de/slrtable/
After checking and reading I found out that a 35mm body and at least one or two prime would cost me as much as a Mamiya 645.
However the quality and the size in bigger, the price is almost the same.
Do you think worth to jump right to Medium format or work a little bit more on 35mm?
Take the jump now you will not regret it.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)