Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,565   Posts: 1,545,338   Online: 995
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    826
    The F3 is surprisingly not much bigger then Nikon's smaller SLRs. However, it definitely has more substance - weight.



    As far as balance is considered, I tilted all three forward (without lenses) and they all would fall forward past the 2 o'clock position so they all have the same balance.

    With the MD4 the F3 stands taller than it's contemporaries but is actually quite svelte compared to the modern design like the 1V.


  2. #42
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by okto View Post
    I didn't mean the F3 was huge, I mean it handles badly. The balance is just awful. Real top-heavy. It's pretty clear that it was designed with the motor drive in mind.

    That said, the F3 is not a small camera. A Leica is a small camera. An OM is a small camera.
    If you say so...


    Nikon F3HP + Leica M4 by kediwah, on Flickr

    I'd agree with you if you were comparing an F5 or an F6 to an M - but the F3 is actually a fairly small body (it's not petite, but it's not large). I don't have issues with it's balance personally.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  3. #43
    John_Nikon_F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Duvall, WA, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,449
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Sarile View Post
    I would suggest that an extensive overhaul is in order for your F3 if it's film advance has deteriorated to the level of those trio! The FG is as sophisticated as any camera of that time but nobody is mistaking it's cheap feel with any of the manual F's.

    The F3's film advance is smooth but if buttery smooth film advance across the whole range is the criteria, then my vote goes to the Minolta XE-7. Try it at your own risk as it may leave you wondering if there is something wrong with your other camera's film advance . . .
    Every single F3 I've used has had the same feel to it. Even like new condition F3/T cameras. It makes sense, since Nikon did, after all, use the same mechanism in the EM, FG, and FG-20 that they did in the F3. It's that way by design.

    Try an FG with your F3 next to it. You'll see that it is the same.



    -J
    APUG: F4, F2AS, F, Nikomat FTn
    DPUG: D200
    Nikkors: 18-70/3.5-4.5G AF-S DX (f/D200), 24/2.8 AI, 50/1.4 AI, 85/1.8 K, 180/2.8 ED AIS, 300/4.5 ED AI

    My FB - My flickr stream
    My SmugMug

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    826
    Quote Originally Posted by John_Nikon_F View Post
    Every single F3 I've used has had the same feel to it. Even like new condition F3/T cameras. It makes sense, since Nikon did, after all, use the same mechanism in the EM, FG, and FG-20 that they did in the F3. It's that way by design.

    Try an FG with your F3 next to it. You'll see that it is the same.



    -J
    See the picture I posted of the FG and F3, I couldn't believe someone could make such an obvious mistake so I tried it again just to be sure. Unless something is very broken, there can be no mistaking the difference between advancing the the FG and the F3. Both of my FG's and F3's are in KEH EX+ condition . . .

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    826
    Quote Originally Posted by John_Nikon_F View Post
    It makes sense, since Nikon did, after all, use the same mechanism in the EM, FG, and FG-20 that they did in the F3.
    I have the F3 service manual which shows the film advance mechanism and reference the EM's film advance on Nikon's history site and there is not mistaking they are not the same mechanism.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    210
    clayne: They may be similar in 2D size looking at them from the front, but the F3 occupies a lot more volume. I don't just mean in the sense of how much water it displaces; I mean real-world, how-much-space-does-it-take-in-a-bag-or-a-pocket. I can fit my M3 with a collapsible lens in my front pocket. I couldn't fit an F3 in there even without a lens mounted.
    The camera is the most incidental element of photography.

  7. #47
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by okto View Post
    clayne: They may be similar in 2D size looking at them from the front, but the F3 occupies a lot more volume. I don't just mean in the sense of how much water it displaces; I mean real-world, how-much-space-does-it-take-in-a-bag-or-a-pocket. I can fit my M3 with a collapsible lens in my front pocket. I couldn't fit an F3 in there even without a lens mounted.
    You know what else you couldn't fit in your front pocket? Your M3 with any other normal Leica lens that doesn't collapse. Try doing that trick with a 50 'cron which would be a much realistic comparison.

    The only real difference in size is the prism and that's a given seeing that its an SLR. As someone who owns both an F3 and an M4 and used them together countless times I'm simply stating F3 size is a non-issue and on the smaller end of the scale.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    34
    Your photo shows the Nikon F3 with the same width as the Nikon FM3a (142mm). According to the Instruction Manual for my Nikon F3HP camera, the width of the F3 camera is 148.5mm.

    I agree that the Nikon F3/F3HP isn't an especially large camera when considering just the camera body, without an MD-4 motordrive attached. Recently, I took the MD-4 motordrive off my Nikon F3HP just to have a camera that's much lighter and more easily carried. I may mount the MD-4 drive again, but it's nice to try the camera by itself again. The silky smoothness of the film advance lever is a pleasure.

    Jim

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    826
    Quote Originally Posted by JimCee View Post
    Your photo shows the Nikon F3 with the same width as the Nikon FM3a (142mm). According to the Instruction Manual for my Nikon F3HP camera, the width of the F3 camera is 148.5mm.
    Jim
    Thanks for pointing that out. Corrected text info as shown below.


  10. #50
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by JimCee View Post
    The silky smoothness of the film advance lever is a pleasure.
    I only with the F3 had the exact same throw as the F2 - which is shorter and firmer.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin