1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What camera?

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by KierFX, Jan 22, 2016.

  1. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Nick,

    Para 1: No, there was lots of competition. It's just that none of the others was as good. Which bit of "competition" don't you understand?

    Para 2: Of course you can disagree, but it would help if you provided reasons why: "It's ghastly because I don't like it" is a restatement of your undefended position, not an argument.

    Para 3: This is a pantomime argument. See also note on para 2 above. You don't like Fs. Who cares?

    Para 4: A childish joke, intellectually on a par with "you smell".

    Para 5: WHY is it not helpful?

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Oh do stop being rude and silly, Roger. None of the rest competed in the same area of the market, pure and simple, as you well know. Your previous statement that Zenit were in some way "competition" shows you're simply being belligerent for the sake of it, and your constantly shifting position on the subject shows you know it.


    I've made it quite clear that I find it horrible to use. Large and heavy, agricultural and coarse build and operation, allied to copying the worst points about their rangefinders - wrong direction of lens mount and focusing, and the removable back that slows operation down operation unnecessarily. Also, mine had a Photomic head that was ugly and didn't work very well. I completely accept your argument that the plain prism version is better, but the plain prisms are pretty expensive. See below.

    It's only a pantomime argument because you are incapable of accepting that anyone else's opinion might also be valid for them. I'm actually allowed not to like the Nikon F, and I'm even allowed not to have a very concrete reason for not liking it - and you know what? I'm also allowed to express it.

    You like Fs, who cares about that, either?

    Well because a plain-prism F like you recommended is rather expensive - £250 on Ebay, starting at about double that at Greys. Especially when it's an unnecessarily large and bulky camera. Double especially if the OP already has a perfectly good film camera that they can share lenses with their DSLR.
    Depending on what the OP wants to shoot, he could easily be better off with a Minox, a Leica, a Hassleblad, a Linhof or even a Box Brownie - what nobody in this thread has done is to qualify his needs. In the absence of that, suggesting he forks out fairly serious money for something that might not be remotely what he needs is obviously not helpful, especially as he already has a camera that will allow him to decide if film really is for him or not and will do everything the Nikon F does - and more besides - for the price of a battery. You're simply trying to thrust your own choice on him. Who knows, the Nikon F might be the camera of his dreams, but we're a long way off being able to even suggest suitable types of camera, never mind a particular model.
     
  3. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    No, I don't - but I actually do like both Spotties and, perhaps bizarrely, Prakticas. There's no accounting for taste. ;) But my comment was driven by that, rather than my antipathy to Fs.

    Absolutely, but there are plenty of other very robust cameras that are likely to be a lot cheaper.

    Indeed.
     
  4. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Nick,

    You start off with plain insults, "rude and silly", and pretty much go down hill from there.

    First, how am I shifting my position?

    Second, of course you are allowed to dislike Nikons. Has anyone ever said you weren't? What you aren't allowed to do is to pretend that there's any objective logic behind this. Well, actually, you are allowed to do that, but you haven't tried. You just keep repeating that you don't like them. They have at least as many good points as bad, and arguably a lot more, or they wouldn't have been the most popular in a wide range of competing cameras. Plenty liked them (and still do) for their reliability, simplicity, ease of use, convenient control layout, and wide range of good lenses. "Wrong direction of lens mount" is just pitiful: who decides what is "right"?

    If they were as bad as you say, why did anyone use them? Quite a few professionals used Pentaxes in the early-to-mid 60s. Some used Leicas, even in the studio, and Voigtlander Prominents and Retinas had their fans because their leaf shutters allowed fast synch speeds. The "Bulls's-Eye" or "Cyclops" Contarex and the Alpa also had their users: their drawback was expense. The Royal Navy issued Pentaxes; the US Navy, Topcons. There's a big difference between "most popular" (which Nikons indisputably were) and "no competition" (which is flat nonsense).

    Third, of course I accept that people can have different opinions than mine. Where have I said otherwise? Indeed, I gave an example of my own "different opinions" -- Rollei TLRs -- but I added the rider that I don't immediately pretend that cameras I don't like are "ghastly". Rather, I accept that people have minority opinions; such as mine concerning TLRs and yours concerning Nikon Fs.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2016
  5. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Well, has any of this helped, Kier? I'm beginning to think you should ignore all the above and get a rangefinder...

    S
     
  6. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    He already has a Canon EOS film body.
     
  7. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Well no, Roger, you were being silly and rude - and for that matter insulting - with what I was replying to.

    As for the rest, I've never pretended that it's anything but my opinion. Like it or lump it. A lot of how one gets on with a camera is subjective. If I think that the lens mounts the wrong way and that that's an issue for me, then how can you tell me it's "pitiful" to think that? I do, and it's always been a significant problem for me when using Nikons. It's extraordinarily insulting of you to think that what matters personally to me might be "pitiful". How dare you? You ask where you said that people can't have the same opinions as you - although you've never stated that overtly, the "pitiful" statement shows that's clearly what you think.

    But I notice that you didn't challenge the main thrust of my post, the standard of advice throughout the thread for the OP, which at least is encouraging.
     
  8. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Nick,

    It's pitiful because it's meaningless. There can't be a "wrong way" unless you are totally unwilling to distinguish between opinion and fact. To a Nikon user, Canons go the "wrong way". Now do you see how ridiculous the "wrong way" assertion is?

    But never mind. I'm not sure what you think I'm not challenging, but I'm past caring, and I can't be bothered to argue any further.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  9. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    No. That Nikon owner would be quite right for them. That's the point. I wouldn't be so incredibly stupid as to say that was wrong for them. Don't be absurd, I'm saying it's the wrong way FOR ME, no more, no less. What really IS pitiful is that you can't see that I'm stating opinion, and it's only fact insofar as it is my opinion, and does apply to me - I've never said it's an absolute. You asked me why I didn't like it, that's one reason for me.

    That it's a poor recommendation, and that nobody in the thread has actually asked the OP what he wants to shoot with film .

    Hooray! ;)
     
  10. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    er, landscapes he said in the first post.

    S
     
  11. filmlover

    filmlover Well-Known Member

    I've used most of the Nikon bodies in my time. The Nikon F is a superb camera, particularly on its own without the motor drive or the metering head fitted. It fits the hand beautifully. However it may not be the right Nikon for someone just learning about film.
    I'd suggest the Nikon FM, more compact, has TTL metering, making it more user friendly. It's built to last a (photographic) lifetime, with a metal bladed shutter. Despite being a rugged camera it's not heavy. One in good condition should cost you around £120-£150 secondhand.
    It gives you access to a vast range of Nikon lenses, or if on a limited budget a wide range of independent makes are available such as Tokina, Tamron etc.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2016
  12. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Seem to recall that the 620 was THE one to have from all the 600s but memory could be defective on that.

    The 28-90 I had on the EOS300V was amazing. Vast amounts of barrel & pincushion - sometimes at the same time(!) - very much a digital lens & needing software correction. But sharp! Even wide open, no doubt in part due to the modest maximum aperture. Batteries seem to go up & down in price - bit like some s/h cameras. When I had the 300V someone tried to get £8-95 from me for just one! Boots had them at two for £15.

    Bought two for £4.something recently for a film compact in a supermarket.


    Very sensible. I do wish designers would think long & hard about batteries for cameras (and other consumer goods) but often do not. There are some really good EOSs; seem to recall the EOS100 had some great features (silent release & wind-on) & tends to be undervalued s/h.

    The EOS 3 and the EOS 5, I think were THE ones also.

    To be avoided.

    :eek: Come what may.

    My pro friend 'Canon Chris' regrets getting rid of his T90s!

    Could indeed do so. I had a quick mosey on fleaBay last night & found a Praktica with a bust meter for £3! The temporary boom in s/h Praktica prices from a year or two ago appears to be over. Loads available, some starting at 0.99 and selling for not much more.

    Kier could use his Canon 1100D as a meter and learn the principles of contrast control.That's quite important for a new photographer of any age, especially when using film and B&W where a measure of adjustment can be made with exposure & development, let alone choice of developer & method.
     
  13. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Even FMs are pricey, filmlover. There is a distinct swing of interest toward film and some of the good metal body SLRs are getting snapped up for silly money. Trouble is, you could end up buying a £60 FM and then find you have a repair bill for £50 to £70 on top. Fashion for some cameras seems to ebb & flow. OM1s (not OM1ns) were the thing a few years back. Now their prices seem to be declining & OM2s & 2ns are more popular. I think cheapo Praktica or Canon EOS 300 is the way to go.

    Remember, we have a student here with not a lot of cash!
     
  14. filmlover

    filmlover Well-Known Member

    If money is a problem, I saw recently a Nikon F301 s/h for £35, a very neat usable camera that wasn't generally used by pros so didn't get "hammered". I recall having a Praktica, an L model I think it was many years ago as a back up for my Pentax outfit when I started on a local paper. It was basic, a bit "cluncky" but seemed quite well made.
    I'm not sure I'd recommend an OM1, they didn't take a lot of hammering in their day. I tried one for a while, but from the pro point of view they just weren't rugged enough.
     
  15. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    No, you're wrong...

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  16. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    It is - age, I guess. ;). The 620 is better than the 650, but not as good as the 600.


    My first EOS, and definitely decent.

    The 5 had some issues with the mode dial, but is otherwise rather good. The 3 is absolutely superb; only possible complaint is a noisy shutter. Outstanding camera. The best performing 35mm SLR I've ever used - although I prefer the feel of it's smaller big brother, the 1V.

    Another noisy shutter camera, and one with sometimes troublesome electronics. A good one is pretty nice, though.

    Indeed, they're cheap as chips.
     
  17. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

  18. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Being sold as "untested", Ebay euphemism for does not work.
     
  19. anewman

    anewman New Member

    I'd tend to share the cynicism, but I've taken the plunge a couple of times and got lucky. Equally I've bought a lens described as "good condition" that came with a big scratch on the front, the focus was bound, and aperture blades stuck.
     
  20. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Yes, some Ebay sellers are rather optimistic in their descriptions of items, a few are downright dishonest and probably hope that the buyer won't bother to do anything. I have a had a few bargains and a few dogs, in all but one case the seller dealt with the matter to my satisfaction.
     

Share This Page