Making such blanket statements is absurd, at the very least, and typically disingenuous and misleading as seems to be typical of your responses. Lets examine your assertions: 1.) "Most of them made before '85 or so are crap" Based on what criteria? Lest we forget, the EOS era bodies have their share of maladies as well (shutter foam, dampener issues, etc.). We are talking about a 20 year old camera here. I have found every F4 I have used, or know of being used, to be nothing but 100% reliable. Please provide sources for your statement collaborating them to be crap. 2.) "They were vastly superior to the Nikkor lenses." Define "vastly superior". Perhaps, the very attributes that you find appealing are the very ones that caused me to choose Nikkors over Leitz lenses.(or Mamiya over Hasselblad) Perhaps the better microcontrast in the shadows is the reason my pre-AI lenses still get tremendous use. Please delineate your claim of "vastly superior", along with what specific attributes you found them to be "superior" And to get back on track, the original question was: The OP wants to know which of the above bodies is the better value, so as to leverage his existing lenses, is it really that hard to just answer the f(*king question without stirring up s%#t????? Petraio, you still sound like you're blowing smoke and stirring the pot. (an altogether too frequent exercise, like the person who talks simply to hear themselves talk) Either explain your unsubstantiated claims of superiority or add something of value to the conversation that is of substance and goes beyond "I say so, therefore it is."