Marko, your question regarding the durability of the Spotmatic compared to the F3 is interesting.
The F3 was designed in the mid to late seventies by a company that was pretty much at the top of the tree in it's field, at that time. The F3 was designed for professional usage day in day out, my personal take on the F3 is that it is the best straight 35mm camera produced by Nikon.
By comparison the Spotmatic was designed in the very early sixties by a company that was at the time, also close to the top of the tree in it's field. If you are referring to the M42 Spotmatic of the early sixties I would sort of agree that it is designed and built reasonably close in comparison to the F3. They certainly have lasted and they work pretty much as they did when new, some forty years later!
With designs of anything it is usually a matter of careful selection of materials and melding of form over function, to produce something that works extremely well for it's intended purpose. This usually means the item works well, sometimes to a degree that is unbelievable.
If it is done well people recognise that and purchase it in numbers that are sometimes stupendous.
The Spotmatic, the Nikon F3, the Volkswagen Beatle, the Ipod.
Well said, Mick. Steel and glass haven't changed much since the sixties, it's just a question of wanting to put in the engineering effort to truly leverage their strengths (pun intended?).
I've always looked at UV filters as just another air-glass interface to cause flare and contrast loss. Not worth it IMHO.
To paraphrase the old maxim, would you rather own a sharp contrasty $80 lens or a flare-prone $90 one? And don't drop either one! ^_^
Well - if you can "plan" your drops - I guess this is a wise thought.
Originally Posted by okto
But, "drops" are "accidents" and, as such, unplanned.
But, more importantly, I see you've just joined us.
Welcome to APUG,
We have a special "Intro" forum set up so new members can introduce themselves.
Oh, and, BTW, if you do a search of this site, you'll find that the Filter v. No-Filter argument has been beaten to death many times.
It really come down to a simple solution: Do whatever you want to do - but you are no more right than you are wrong. Those of us who prefer to use prophylactic filters will continue to do so, not matter what you say - and vice versa.
So, don't worry about it.
Just intro yourself on the Intro thread and welcome to APUG....
Oh, just in case you haven't realized that this is a "geezer site", I too have been shooting since "way back then". My first camera was a Nikkormat FT-2 with a 50/2.0 lens. And, yes, I put a filter on it.
A geezer site? ? But I'm young! I got a 1 year warranty with it, should I still get a filter?
Oops. Forgot to lurk moar.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Well - do you plan to keep it until you become a "geezer"? :o
Originally Posted by Markok765
Until it stops working! I'll probably get one, just in case.
Originally Posted by copake_ham
The Super-Takumar 28/3.5 is a great lens - for many years when I used a Spotmatic it was my favourite. A lot of the Nepal photos here were taken with it.
Originally Posted by Uncle Bill
Deep in the store and to the right? Awesome guy.
There isn't a manual focus lens or body in the store that hasn't been tossed around by him.
He and I have the same philosophy on equipment.
Too bad I didn't listen to him when he was saying that "plastic can be rugged too, but it makes the camera lighter and you can take it anywhere".
Don't get the filter. For 10 bucks it will degrade the quality of your image.
And also, it's almost impossible to really scratch a lens. Scratches only happen to fisheyes when they're dropped on the asphalt. And those scratches don't affect the quality at all - only resale value.
But since you got it for 80 bucks, you're not planning on babying it to keep the resale value.
So just leave it alone and don't use it.