Advice sought on next film SLR

Hi everyone,

By means of introduction, my photography journey has been as follows:

1. 1990-2000 - Canon AE-1, A1, 35mm film SLRs, which I adored
2. 2005-2015 - Nikon Professional full frame DSLRs with the amazing ‘holy trinity’ of lenses (14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8) which felt so technically perfect that you wondered whether you were controlling the camera or the camera was controlling you
3. 2015-2023 - Leica M3, Leica MP film rangefinders, beautiful in their own way, but never enjoyed them as much as SLRs

All have been eventually sold.

Next I’m looking for a film SLR - and I’m considering either:

1. Canon F-1N (i.e. the third generation of F-1, after the F-1 and F-1n)
2. Nikon FM3a

Both very different cameras, but unique in their own way.

The F1-N, the pinnacle of Canon professional film SLRs, with tank like construction.

The FM3a, the last ever Nikon film SLR.

Both are mechanically quite complex with (different types of) hybrid mechanical/electronic shutters.

Is one going to be more of a problem to own when it comes to longevity, complexity of repair etc.?

Is one much nicer to use than the other?

Has anyone used both regularly who can offer some ideas?

Of course, the answer is to buy both, but in that case, which one should I aim for first?

Thank you, and I appreciate your advice!

Having been down the SLR road many times over the years - I instead of your choices, I'd either get a replacement Nikon F5 (mine was damaged beyond repair in a crash) or a Leica R9 (almost impossible to full repair, but gorgeous - even moreso than my R8). Back to your original question, I'd go for the Nikon, only because there are many more technicians to repair it than the Canon.

Thank you - you raise a really good point about Nikon and repair. The vintage Nikon ecosystem (repair, availability etc) seems way more developed than Canon’s.

Sorry about the crash, I hope the F5 bore more of the brunt of it than you did. It should be an amazing camera - the nearest film equivalent to the awesome Nikon DSLRs I’ve used in the past.

What’s the story with the R9/R8? The shooting experience? The lenses? Shooting at 1/8,000?

The FM3a is a superb camera but quite rare and at least twice the price of a good F1-N, which is why I never got round to adding one to my Nikon collection. Aside from that, lenses for both are about the same price (e.g. 50mm, 28mm, 135mm, 28-70 zooms, etc). If you are completely starting from scratch, you might want to go for the Nikon as the lenses can be used on all the later AF and digital bodies. But the last time I looked, good FM3a bodies were about €700. It suffered from being a collectors, run-out, boutique camera. F1-N construction and mechanism is simpler, actually. In fact, it does not have a hybrid shutter. It is electronic with just one manual speed if the battery fails. Just had a quick look on eBay: reasonable F1N bodies seem to be about £200 - £250 (more for mint, boxed, etc) with some sound ones around £150. Nikon FM3a - sound working models £300, but decent ones more like £400-£500. Some good ones from Japan were £500-£600 but then you'd need to factor in import costs on top of that. Mint, boxed were at least £800 and the quality of the ones I would like to buy were about £600-700.

You might also want to consider the Nikon FM or Nikon FE. They are nice cameras and more reasonably priced than the FM3A.

Robert, yes. Agree. My other thought was this - what about the Nikon FA? It doesn't have the manual shutter option of the FM3a but is very similar and has matrix metering option which if I recall, the FM3a does not. The FA is one of my favourite Nikons in my collection and is incredibly light and compact. And it is heck of lot lighter than the Canon F1N. Gary

I have a question for the OP. How much money did you lose by adding all the money you spent buying all those equipment and subtract the money you got for selling them? I am curious because I know I may buy all the stuff you bought but I really can't sell them for the lost that they incur. 

IMO: Get an FE2 - same great user interface as the FM3a and much cheaper. In fact the brilliant interface of the FM3a dates back to the Nikkormat EL of 1972 and remained relevant and largely unchanged from 1972 up until 2006 through the ELW, EL2, FE, FE2 and finally the FM3a.

The FE2 has the shutter speed and TTL flash features most will need, but if flash is not your thing, a FE can be an even cheaper option.

Besides: The Nikon option is more portable than the Canon and not least; the interesting Nikkor lenses are more easily available and often cheaper than the Canon equivalents - for reasons I don’t comprehend.

50 minutes ago, gwhitegeog said:

The FM3a is a superb camera but quite rare and at least twice the price of a good F1-N, which is why I never got round to adding one to my Nikon collection. Aside from that, lenses for both are about the same price (e.g. 50mm, 28mm, 135mm, 28-70 zooms, etc). If you are completely starting from scratch, you might want to go for the Nikon as the lenses can be used on all the later AF and digital bodies. But the last time I looked, good FM3a bodies were about €700. It suffered from being a collectors, run-out, boutique camera. F1-N construction and mechanism is simpler, actually. In fact, it does not have a hybrid shutter. It is electronic with just one manual speed if the battery fails. Just had a quick look on eBay: reasonable F1N bodies seem to be about £200 - £250 (more for mint, boxed, etc) with some sound ones around £150. Nikon FM3a - sound working models £300, but decent ones more like £400-£500. Some good ones from Japan were £500-£600 but then you'd need to factor in import costs on top of that. Mint, boxed were at least £800 and the quality of the ones I would like to buy were about £600-700.

Back in 2002 I could buy the FM3a for less than $600 new but I bought the F5 instead for $1930. I can't sell my F5 now but if I bought the FM3a I would sell it for the money. The F5 is still worth more to me but I can't sell it for money like I could with an FM3a. 

Hi Niels, the answer to your second point... price of Canon lenses - the superb prime lenses, like the chrome nosed, older SSC early Canon FD (breechlock) lenses like the 35mm f2.0 and the 24mm f2.0 have been snapped up by cinematographers and movie makers as there seems to be a retro movement in using these lenses in digital movies, by attaching them to modern cameras. I think also fewer were made than the Nikon equivalents, hence supply and demand. For example, a FD 35mm F2 from the mid 1970s - a superb lens - was about £200 not so long ago and is now £400.

What’s the story with the R9/R8? The shooting experience? The lenses? Shooting at 1/8,000?

Both of these were "bastards" in the eyes of Leica users due to their radial design, a significant departure from all other Leica bodies - people either strongly liked it or hated it and weren't hesitant to say so. Most, including me, bought these in anticipation of adding a digital back, which did come along, but was shortly dropped by Leica. Today replacement batteries for the digital back are very difficult to find. As a SLR, my R8 was as smooth as a baby's ass, accurate at all speeds, both in metering and exposure. As for the Leica lenses, the latest variation during the production of these cameras, were outstanding. I adapted several for use on my Canon T90 and adapted a Sigma SD14 body to take Leica lenses. Today those lenses are highly sought after by cinematographers, so prices are sky high.

I still suggest going with the Nikon in your case, although the high end Canon "L" lenses are great. I still own and use several, which seem unmatched by anything else. Good luck in your eventual choice.

1 hour ago, BeBu Lamar said:

Back in 2002 I could buy the FM3a for less than $600 new but I bought the F5 instead for $1930. I can't sell my F5 now but if I bought the FM3a I would sell it for the money. The F5 is still worth more to me but I can't sell it for money like I could with an FM3a. 

The FM3a is a combination FM2n and FE2 with some added 'minor' features, I forget which ones ? You can get both the FM2n and the FE2 for less than an FM3a. The FM2n is all mechanical(except for the light meter), the FE2 has aperture prioty so it requires a battery for those functions as well as the light meter, but it can also be set to mechanical by setting the shutter speed to 1/250. I have both cameras and absolutely love them. In my opinion the FM2n has a slightly better exposure meter, but you can't go wrong with either camera.  The FM3a came out right around the time of the Digita Revolution. Not many of them were made which keeps the Prices up. 

Yes, I have a late FM2n, but not the FE or FE2. I can vouch for the excellence of the FM2. Mine was made in 1994. I had a Nikon 35mm specialist technician look at it recently and he said it had never been serviced as far as he could tell and said it didn't need one following a light dismantle - all speeds and functions were still perfect. Many pros had FMs and FM2s as back ups as they still didn't trust fully electronic cameras at the time, especially in wet and cold weather. Mine is a bit scraped and well used but still excellent.

So many replies - thank you. Will reply shortly!

16 hours ago, gwhitegeog said:

F1-N construction and mechanism is simpler, actually. In fact, it does not have a hybrid shutter. It is electronic with just one manual speed if the battery fails.

Maybe hybrid’s not the right term, but I thought the F1-N’s shutter has manually control for 1/125 sec. to 1/2000 sec., as well as flash sync (1/90 sec.), and "B" (bulb) and electronic controlled for all other (slower) speeds.

16 hours ago, BeBu Lamar said:

I have a question for the OP. How much money did you lose by adding all the money you spent buying all those equipment and subtract the money you got for selling them? I am curious because I know I may buy all the stuff you bought but I really can't sell them for the lost that they incur. 

A painful question, but I’m pretty ruthless about culling equipment which I don’t use. And digital is much more painful than film in that respect.

16 hours ago, gwhitegeog said:

Hi Niels, the answer to your second point... price of Canon lenses - the superb prime lenses, like the chrome nosed, older SSC early Canon FD (breechlock) lenses like the 35mm f2.0 and the 24mm f2.0 have been snapped up by cinematographers and movie makers as there seems to be a retro movement in using these lenses in digital movies, by attaching them to modern cameras. I think also fewer were made than the Nikon equivalents, hence supply and demand. For example, a FD 35mm F2 from the mid 1970s - a superb lens - was about £200 not so long ago and is now £400.

There must be something about Canon FDs that make them more convertible? For some lenses there seem to be more converted than non-converted for sale on line!

I think the name is not correct here.

I believe the F1N is the second version of the F1 and all shutter speeds are mechanical only like the F1.

The New F1 is the lastest version with the small grip like that on the A-1 has hybrid shutter. If you want to use the mechanical shutter you have to remove the battery. 

1 hour ago, BeBu Lamar said:

I think the name is not correct here.

I believe the F1N is the second version of the F1 and all shutter speeds are mechanical only like the F1.

The New F1 is the lastest version with the small grip like that on the A-1 has hybrid shutter. If you want to use the mechanical shutter you have to remove the battery. 

Could well be - I’ve see first generation called F1, second generation called F1-n and third generation F1-N and F1-New

2 hours ago, Snowsquare said:

There must be something about Canon FDs that make them more convertible? For some lenses there seem to be more converted than non-converted for sale on line!

There is a difference between adapting for cine usage on mirrorless and actually converting (as in rehousing) for dedicated cine usage. A less invasive conversion is just de-clicking the aperture ring which doesn't seriously affect usage on the original cameras (although annoying if you don't plan to use the lens for video).

I don't think Canon lenses are more easily converted.

Since Canon produces cine cameras, it is possible that Canon cine users want to stay with Canon glass - not that I think the signature of film era FD lenses are especially comparable with modern EF lenses - so that is just a guess.

I imagine that rarity of some lenses also increases the perception of desirability among the type of photographers/cinematographers that appreciate their equipment has a conversation potential.

From experience I can say from experience that a Hexanon AR 57mm f/1.2 is not any better or more characterful than the wonderful Nikkor 55mm f/1.2, yet the former commands twice as much or more, allegedly due to the cine crowd.

Yes, there is always confusion over the F1 nomenclature. The original F1 made from ca.1971-1980, was all mechanical with just a PX 625 1.35V battery for the meter, very similar in concept as a pro system camera to the Nikon F2 of the same era. In about 1975, they did some updates and improvements and it was unofficially called (but not ever by Canon) the 'F1n'. But it still was essentially an all mechanical camera. In 1980, Canon launched the electronic 'New F1' or sometimes called F1-N confusingly but again never by Canon - it was always just called the F1 still.  This latter camera was made until about 1990 and is the chunky, heavy metal 'tank' that we are referring to.. it had just one mechanical 'emergency' speed and was otherwise electronic and worked off a cylindrical PX28 battery that was also used by the Canon A-series camera.

The EF camera which was also around from about 1973 had a very similar appearance to the original F1, but without the interchangeable viewfinders etc and a top shutter speed of 1/1000 rather than 1/2000. This camera had the hybrid mechanical / electronic shutter working off 2 x PX625 batteries. 2secs to 30secs are electronically controlled and 1/1000 to 1/125 plus B or mechanical.

I have just added here my review of the New F1 that I wrote some time ago, that people may find useful

1 hour ago, Niels - NHSN said:

There is a difference between adapting for cine usage on mirrorless and actually converting (as in rehousing) for dedicated cine usage. A less invasive conversion is just de-clicking the aperture ring which doesn't seriously affect usage on the original cameras (although annoying if you don't plan to use the lens for video).

I don't think Canon lenses are more easily converted.

Since Canon produces cine cameras, it is possible that Canon cine users want to stay with Canon glass - not that I think the signature of film era FD lenses are especially comparable with modern EF lenses - so that is just a guess.

I imagine that rarity of some lenses also increases the perception of desirability among the type of photographers/cinematographers that appreciate their equipment has a conversation potential.

From experience I can say from experience that a Hexanon AR 57mm f/1.2 is not any better or more characterful than the wonderful Nikkor 55mm f/1.2, yet the former commands twice as much or more, allegedly due to the cine crowd.

 

In terms of the lenses, I think a lot of this is to do with fads, social media trends and 'bragging rights'. I know for example, Tarantino made the Hateful Eight using 60 year old Panavision lenses as he was shooting on film stock. But for us more humble folk, if I were a pro or an advanced amateur film maker, I'd use EF lenses of C lenses on my Canon system.

1 hour ago, gwhitegeog said:

Yes, there is always confusion over the F1 nomenclature. The original F1 made from ca.1971-1980, was all mechanical with just a PX 625 1.35V battery for the meter, very similar in concept as a pro system camera to the Nikon F2 of the same era. In about 1975, they did some updates and improvements and it was unofficially called (but not ever by Canon) the 'F1n'. But it still was essentially an all mechanical camera. In 1980, Canon launched the electronic 'New F1' or sometimes called F1-N confusingly but again never by Canon - it was always just called the F1 still.  This latter camera was made until about 1990 and is the chunky, heavy metal 'tank' that we are referring to.. it had just one mechanical 'emergency' speed and was otherwise electronic and worked off a cylindrical PX28 battery that was also used by the Canon A-series camera.

The EF camera which was also around from about 1973 had a very similar appearance to the original F1, but without the interchangeable viewfinders etc and a top shutter speed of 1/1000 rather than 1/2000. This camera had the hybrid mechanical / electronic shutter working off 2 x PX625 batteries. 2secs to 30secs are electronically controlled and 1/1000 to 1/125 plus B or mechanical.

The New F1 did have a hybrid shutter and can operate many shutter speed without battery (many but not all speeds)

https://global.canon/en/c-museum/history/story06.html

The new F1 was an extremely complex in design and thus I wouldn't choose it over the Nikon. 

Yes, thanks, you are right - I'd forgotten that. See my review, where I did remember!

I am not sure it is that complex compared to say the Nikon F3. The latter was fully electronic. Now most have failed / failing viewfinder LCDs and usually give problems at lower shutter speeds. But the film advance is beautiful compared to the F1, I would give you that.