What is your experience with the Nikon F3? This topic will be indexed on our CAMERAS page.

I'm not sure why, maybe it was the lack of manual mechanical speeds, or lightness, but this one seemed to just barely sneek into pro level for me -  yes, my personal opinion, but compared to an F2 or F4, it just didn't seem in the same arena....least liked of all The " F " family, although a great consumer model..... again, just my comparisons.... the only one I like was the F3AF, odd as it was...

I used the F3HP many years and really loved it. The camera was a true workhorse, I'd bet you could drive nails with it. I sold the F3HP after buying an F100 and have always regretted doing so.

I shot F3's for about 17 years or so.  I bought one not long after they came out.  Still one of the best cameras I ever used.  I would own four of them eventually, and when I finally went digital at the beginning of this year, and started selling off all my film cameras, I was still shooting the very first F3 I bought.  It was beat all to pieces but it was still shooting.  I shot F's and F2's but I still liked the F3 the best.

I still have a late model F3HP in excellent condition, along with all the alternative finders. I used to thoroughly enjoy taking street shots with the sports finder and the 28F2.0 AI on.

I find the F3 the nicest looking of all the F's and the F4 the sexiest.

I find the F3 to be a materpiece.

I guess I just like the hangman's noose, the firing line, etc.  I actually looked at the f3 before I bought my first pro film camera.  I had a pentax ME Super, and after a LONG hard look at both, I went with the Pentax LX.  It certainly held its own against the f3 and in a couple ways, bested it (IMHO, of course).  Smaller and lighter, still built like a tank.

I've been unable to find out all the specs about the f3 metering, so if I misspeak, feel free to correct me.  The LX in auto was capable of metering at least an 8 hour exposure, and because it metered off the film plane (I believe the F3 did that too) it would constantly re-adjust as needed.  I used it often for 3 min + exposures using K64 at dusk.  I totally loved that feature.

Another first (and only?) was the ability to rewind an entire roll back past the first frame, advance the frames to that first frame and would be in register (+/- 2mm) another feature I used a few times.  Made multi exposure brackets so much easier to keep track of - that's a brain bender at any level, but that feature made it manageable.

The thing I loved most though - pure genius if you ask me - was the FB-1/FC-1 finder combo - gave you not just a great eye level sports finder, but would rotate 90° and become a sport waist level finder.  What a pure joy it was to use that cam on a tripod because of that feature.  Modern day solutions to the short tripod use are clunky to say the least.  I rarely use my waist level "finder" if that's what they want to call it on my D2x because it's SO hard to set up and use.  I guess I'm spoiled from my LX experience.  That is IMHO the ONE thing sorely missing from pro digital... interchangeable finders.

One would argue that the glass choices weren't all that with pentax, but I did own the 15mm which was simply a joy and masterpiece of a lens, and the 50mm f/1.2 - wow... what a hunk of glass that was.

Anyhow... I didn't post this to start some kind of a spanish inquisition   :tongue: - just wanted to point out that at least in the 80s, Nikon wasn't the only game in town, and so it is today!  I'm just really happy that Nikon continues to shine with the great decisions they have made with digital bodies - especially starting with the D2x which has always been just a pure joy to own.  I LOVE my D200, but especially when it comes to low light focus, they are not in the same class at all.

Anyhow, thanks for the opportunity to reminisce!

Steve

Ahhh, the LX! I had completely forgotten about that one.

I used to work at a camera store way, way back when. People used to ask me to shoot their weddings and I'd always say, "no." I was an *artist* after all! ha ha  Anyway, a very good friend (he was low on cash) was getting married, I said "no," so he found this other guy who claimed to know what he was doing. Outdoor, summer wedding. The guy comes in and wants 1000 ASA film. "What's this for," I say. He says he needs it because it going to be very bright.

So the next day I grab the best thing we had on our used shelf--an LX system, and show up shooting at the wedding, surprising my friend. The other guy's photos sucked, I was the hero of the day (the day the photos came back), in a small way.

Anyway, the LX was a pleasure.

Another great one from the F3 era was the Minolta XD-11, which I  owned, once upon a time.

--Darin (running a fever and rambling a bit, I know)

I nearly bought an LX once, but it was in pretty bad condition and the owner wanted a ridiculous amount for it. How does the Canon F-1 series stack up to the LX? I had an F-1 for a while and really liked it, but getting good FD glass is like impossible here, so I sold it.

I don't have much of a frame of reference for the canon F1.  My LXs functioned fine to the extent they needed to, BUT, to the shame of pentax, they had a problem with the seal material for the mirror dampener which got sticky eventually.  If you EVER look at an LX, make sure it's been serviced for sticky mirror.  Other than that, it would totally impress you for an old school aperture priority body.  The glass can be quite expensive though.  I sold my 15mm MF on ebay for $750 - $300 more than I paid for it in 1985 - but that is one heck of a lens.  Interesting that pentax still makes MF lenses.

Steve

I my memory does not betray me, on night scenes the F3 set on A was able to expose for more than 10 minutes.