Nikon F4?

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."

 

Josh, some of the "old" Nikon lenses might surprise you, the early 105 2.5, 135 f2, pre ED 180 2.8, 24 2.8, the Nikkor 35 f2 (chrome barrel), as well as several others still have tremendous capabilities, even compared to contemporary lenses. My factory AI'd 55 1.2 has a certain "look" shot wide open that is very, very aesthetically appealing.

 

I was referring to the lenses made before 1985, ini comparison to those made after that time. The F4 came out about 1988 I believe. This was in response to the statement about using lenses dating back to 1959.

 

The only crap here is coming from your mouth P-P. Nikon cameras and Nikkor lenses (NO 3rd party lenses) have been used by NASA on every,single space mission since the Apollo program began...Nikon=every single USA space flight.

So, when you went to The Ohio State University, the yearbook there had some old beater Nikons....fair enough...Nikon had established a pro 35mm system reflex, the F, as early as 1959, and Nikkor lenses had been busy putting your beloved Leica out of the PJ business since the Korean war showed people how much better Nikkor lenses were...and when they began making 35mm rangefinders, the Canon company hired cough *NIKON* cough to make ALL LENSES for Canon rangefinders....NIKKOR was the lens of Canon for about a decade....but I digress...

Nikon invented floating lens elements....Nikon invented ED glass...the Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 was one of the finest wide-angles of its era, and is currently a BETTER LENS than the current cheapened 24/2.8 AF-D...and the older MF lens sells for more money...same with the 35mm f/2 AiS--it is a BETTER, 7-element lens than the current 35/2 AF-D...the 85/1.8 HC Nikkor of the 1960's has prettier,rounder bokeh than the current Canon or Nikkor 85/1.8 lenses...the 105mm f/2.5 pre-Ai,Ai,and Ai-S Nikkor is a truly legendary lens--perhaps the SINGLE most-influential lens in establishing the Nikon Mystique of the 1970's...Canon has no similar lenses, nor does Leitz...none. Sorry dude. The entire Vietnam war was shot with mostly those awful Nikons and Nikkors you say were such crap.

NO, sorry Petraio, the statement that pre-1985 Nikkor lenses are "Crap" is flat-out typical of you, and again, the only cfrap is that which you are spewing in this thread about gear you admit you have not even owned...


All of your information is based on your 1971 experiences at Ohio State's college yearbook! Pshaw! Humorous disinformation from a Leicaphile...typical Leicaphile discontentment with an optics innovater and leader...Nikon is **the**company that put Leica almost out of business...oh,wait, your beloved Leica R system has been discontinued since spring of 2009,and Nikon is still---making---cameras--and--still-supplying NASA--and the Russian Space Program....and has made 50 million Nikkor lenses...all of 'em "crap"....

 

True, the 105 f/2.5 was a good lens for its day (it was the only Nikkor lens of the yearbook's that I thought was worth a damn). But I stand by my statement about 'most' of them. We had 20mm f/3.5, 50mm F/1.4, 50-300mm zoom, 43-86mm f/3.5 zoom, 105mm f/2.5, 135mm f/2.8, 200mm f/4, and 300mm f/4.5. The 43-86 was atrocious. The 20mm was not very good at all, the others merely adequate, but all of my Leicaflex lenses bought over the next few years were quite a bit better, sometimes astonishingly so.

 

The 105/2.5 is STILL a good lens....today...it is perhaps the single easiest-to-focus, most perfectly balanced medium telephoto lens ever made, by any company. For people who wish to try a prime telephoto lens, honestly, the pre-Ai, Ai and the Ai-S series 105mm 2.5 Nikkor is one of the lens models and designs that made Nikon's fashion and photojournalism fame in the 1960's and later in the 1970's, helped establish Nikon as the leading photojournalism and sports/news camera among pros all over the world.

The 105mm f/2.5 is small, sharp, and as I said is perhaps one of the easiest-to-focus lenses ever made in the 35mm format size. I actually own two 105/2.5 lenses: one I bought the spring the lens was updated to Close Range Correction (again, floating element design, a Nikon invention of the late 1960's, which Leica struggled to copy,eventually) in the early 1980's, and another made in the early 2000's,which I snagged for a fantastic price of $125. Both are in amazing condition,and still tight, contrasty, and as good as the day they rolled off the line. The focusing helicoid and the ratio it has is virtually perfect, in every way. Exquisite results in the field or studio...

Seriously--if anybody wants to try a manual focus Nikkor telephoto lens, the 105mm f/2.5 models are fantastic in ergonomics, handling, carrying, and results.

 

Why exactly would you recommend a Canon camera to someone who is already invested in Nikon. I would really like a clearer explanation of why you are trashing the F4 as when I was in school it was the D3 of it's time. I would definitely recommend it to someone looking for a good film camera to use especially if you can get it for $250 like you say.

 

See my response, below. I was there. You were not. I was referring to using old Nikkor lenses: "t I love the idea of being able to use all the lenses back to '59", if you care to remember. I used old Nikkor lenses and I know how bad they were compared to more modern Nikkor lenses and to contemporary Leicaflex lenses (i.e., of the same era), You didn't. You weren't there. Those lenses were mediocre at best.

Please confine your responses to what I write about and quit making strawman arguments. Your reading comprehension is atrocious. The question is: how good are old Nikkor lenses? Answer, by today's standards, the lenses of the 60s were crap.

I shot the yearrbook's equipment for a couple of years before I got my own. There were several of us who shared the equipment and we all knew what the good equipment was. I shot hundreds of rolls with that equipment.

 

Yeah, I know a lot about old Nikkor lenses...I grew up USING THEM, and OWNING them...I have been using Nikons since 1981...gee...almost 30 years....hmmm...I own over 50 of their lenses....hmmm....and have owned about 20 other different models...

Anyway Petraio, your blanket statement about pre-1985 Nikkor lenses being "crap" is ridiculous. I know you're a Leicaphile...an R-Leica dinosaur lover who uses a 31 year old camera from a line that died out last year...it is sad that unlike me, or epatsellis, who has also owned danged near every Nikkor model released since the Ai period, you keep spreading misinformation.

Anyway, I do find you amusing Petraio,and you are a fun opponent and web comrade to spar with and to trade back and forth with. I understand a lot about where you are in your life,and where you have come from,photographically speaking. Last night, I did a quick Google search on your name,and came up with the link to this video, which I offer as a friendly "web gift". I do like my sparring partners here on TPF.

Howeverm, the fact is that, like it or not, the OP stated that he wants a camera with KNOBS and DIALS--the F4 has that in spades...the EOS-1 was Canon's attempt to design a totally new, non-analogue interface...a massive failure, ergonomically, and the absolute polar opposite of what the OP wants: he WANTS a knob-and-dial camera to play around with!!! Not an early EOS monstrosity!

Anyway, P-P, here's my gift video for you. It is posted simply as "petraio", with no other title. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv4Wzbbf6Rs&feature=related[/ame]

 

The point that escapes you:

It's not how many you have, it's how good they are.

And my old equipment still out-performs much newer equipment in important ways.

Question:

Which is the better lens:

90mm Elmarit-R from 1965 or the 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor of the same era?

Answer: The Leicaflex lens.

Question:

Which is the better lens:

20mm Nikkor f/3.5 from the late 1960s or the 21mmLeica Super-Angulon-R of the same era?

Answer: The Leicaflex lens.

Question:

Which is the better lens:

50mm f/1.4 Nikkor from the late 1960s or the 50mm Summilux-R 1of the same era?

Answer: The Leicaflex lens.

How do I know? I tested them and used them.

The differences were so great that the photo editor could see the differences on the contact sheets. It was mentioned that they could tell my stuff from the contact sheets without looking to see whose rolls they were.

 

Yup. Nothing says performance like a 31 year old camera from a dead-ended system that's been out of production since early 2009,and which has been irrelevant since, well, since it was introduced.

 

It was not irrelevant to those who bought and used it and were deliriously happy with their results.

And my lenses still amaze me with their quality, still outperforming anything from Canon or Nikon.

Besides, the new S2 blows away all of the Nikon and Canon DSLRs.