Advice sought on next film SLR

41 minutes ago, gwhitegeog said:

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.

My F3 is very old. LCD is fine. Metering and shutter speed are very accurate. The F3 was of a much simpler design partly because of the Nikon Lenses and because it doesn't support shutter priority mode. The F1 was very complex in order to support both aperture priority and shutter priority. Also due the the coupling of the FD lenses it's complex to provide meter manual mode. You can see the A-1 and AE-1 don't have meter manual mode. When you switch to manual you see the suggested aperture in the viewfinder but not the aperture you set. To provide both the suggested aperture and the aperture you set on the F1 is quite a complex design. 

2 hours ago, BeBu Lamar said:

Also due the the coupling of the FD lenses it's complex to provide meter manual mode

I have no expertise in the design or inner workings of cameras, but the first FD cameras, the original F-1 and FTb, were both simple match needle manual exposure cameras (excluding the complex F-1 servo EE finder).  Not sure why meter manual would have been hard to implement in an A-1.  FYI, I used the original F-1 for over 20 years and inherited an A-1.

3 hours ago, BeBu Lamar said:

My F3 is very old. LCD is fine. Metering and shutter speed are very accurate. The F3 was of a much simpler design partly because of the Nikon Lenses and because it doesn't support shutter priority mode. The F1 was very complex in order to support both aperture priority and shutter priority. Also due the the coupling of the FD lenses it's complex to provide meter manual mode. You can see the A-1 and AE-1 don't have meter manual mode. When you switch to manual you see the suggested aperture in the viewfinder but not the aperture you set. To provide both the suggested aperture and the aperture you set on the F1 is quite a complex design. 

I think you are lucky, my F3 has an unreadable LCD now. It's manufacture date was February 1981. I recently paid €200 for a full service and CLA as the low speeds weren't working (1/30 set on the dial would give an actual 1/8th, etc!) even in manual. I am not sure I agree with you about the simpler design. The F1N system was modular, when you added a motordrive for example, the camera switched to shutter priority. All Canon lenses from 1971 onwards could be used for aperture priority, shutter priority, manual or later program. The system was very simple and hence made things easier - every lens from 1971 onwards could be used with all all cameras. It wasn't that the Canon system was complex, it was that the Nikon system was outdated! The Canon AT-1 had metered manual with the option to move the aperture ring and then used a match needle in the viewfinder (just like the F1N). I think the decision to not have metered manual on the A-1 or AE-1, was not due to the lens 'complexity', it was just that Canon, rightly or wrongly, didn't think the target clientele would need it.

I generally don't get into the Nikon versus Canon debates (it's a bit futile, like do you prefer Claret or Burgundy, Chess v. Bridge, Blues v. Jazz, etc) but sometimes there is a bit of 'the emperor's new clothes' syndrome with Nikon fans (a bit like Apple products). I admire both companies for their superb design engineering and like and use both systems. Having built up a very large collection of Canon and Nikon manual focus lenses from the 1970s- 1990s (about 35 lenses at the last count), I have now taken an informed overview about the two marques.

1. Nikon lenses were slightly better made. Less likely to yellow, or the aperture iris stop working etc. Or fall apart.

2. Canon lenses were better designed. All from 1971 do what it took Nikon another 10 years to get round to - all index automatically, no faffing around with rabbit ear connectors, or not working on some metering heads, etc. I need two metering heads (DP3 and DP-11/12) on my F2 system, to make full use of my Nikon lenses dating from 1969 onwards. All the oldies have been AI converted now.

3. Canon lenses are better in that they all have proper click half stops on the apertures - crucial if you shoot (shot) slide film. Nikon don't. For me, this is the major shortcoming of Nikon lenses of the era. I know in Av or metered manual mode the aperture ring is infinitely adjustable, but it's too easy for it to get knocked off the setting.

4. Possibly, Nikon lenses are slightly optically superior, lens for lens, though there are so many variables, that is a difficult one to call.

5. The F mount continuity is admirable with Nikon, though of course they paid the price initially in their poor auto focus design.

6. Owning about 15 Nikon and Canon bodies, and still using them all regularly, I'd say probably that the Nikon F4 was the best 35mm film camera ever made (I don't know much about Leicas!). I'd put the Canon T-90 a close second, though they are far less reliable mechanically than the F4.

7. Nikon shutters generally lasted longer than Canon's, though the Canon F1 would be an exception to that statement.

G

40 minutes ago, Ken Katz said:

I have no expertise in the design or inner workings of cameras, but the first FD cameras, the original F-1 and FTb, were both simple match needle manual exposure cameras (excluding the complex F-1 servo EE finder).  Not sure why meter manual would have been hard to implement in an A-1.  FYI, I used the original F-1 for over 20 years and inherited an A-1.

Yes - see above. All FD lenses from 1971 onwards could give and be used on cameras giving Av, Tv, M or P - or all - the AT-1 was an electronic camera body that gave metered manual with a match needle system. It was a marketing decision by Canon to not have it on the A1 or AE1. Canon also had the AV-1 which was aperture priority only with no true manual control over shutter speeds (apart from 1/60 flash sync). I bought one second hand when I was working as a pro in the late 80s / early 90s. I hated it and got rid of it quickly. On the AV-1, you set the aperture manually on the lens, showing once again that the lens system and bodies did allow for that.

10 hours ago, BeBu Lamar said:

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. 

This is the complexity I was fearing vs the FM3a…

1 hour ago, Snowsquare said:

This is the complexity I was fearing vs the FM3a…

I do meant compared to the FM3a but someone mentioned the F3 and still the F3 is simpler than the New F-1. 

21 hours ago, gwhitegeog said:

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.

Although I think I understand what you mean to say, "fully electronic" is not completely accurate, as the shutter is electronically controlled or governed  - It is otherwise a largely mechanical construction, but you certainly need batteries for normal use.
Nikon believed the 1/60 speed would be sufficient option in case of power failure - after all, LR/SR44 are not hard to come by and they are so small that there really is no excuse for not having a handful in the bag when going out for those critical tasks.  

I doubt the  "most have failed / ..." part is correct. I have had many through my hands in a work related context, and cannot recall having seen one with problems that were not obviously use/abuse related. That is not to say that there are none, but my impression is that they hold up fairly well.
Nikon's own communication about the LC display needing routine replacement every 7 years was either overly conservative or Nikon must have improved that part during the 20 years of production. I have seen variations in intensity of the display but never anything that would effect ordinary usage - but again; that is not to say that it does not happen, but LCD problems is something I associate with the F4 of which I have seen a few.

I don't know if OP even have considered the F3, but it is definitely a camera that is primarily made for aperture priority usage, to me it feels as if it's support for manual usage was an after-thought.

If regularly using the camera manually, the FE2/FM3a will serve you much better. Nikon made a mistake by not using the proven display of the EL/ELW/EL2/FE in the F3 IMO.

Thanks for that. Yes, I agree, I am not mad on the display of the F3. I tend to use my FM2 or F2 more, TBH. The F4 viewfinder is superb and in fact, I am taking an F4 and a couple of lenses and some C41 film this week for a family trip to Porto in northern Portugal. Both my F4s have good but not perfect LCD displays now, being 30 years old. Best GW

31 minutes ago, gwhitegeog said:

Thanks for that. Yes, I agree, I am not mad on the display of the F3. I tend to use my FM2 or F2 more, TBH. The F4 viewfinder is superb and in fact, I am taking an F4 and a couple of lenses and some C41 film this week for a family trip to Porto in northern Portugal. Both my F4s have good but not perfect LCD displays now, being 30 years old. Best GW

The F4 has more display problem than the F3. I saw many F4's with bleeding display. 

Yes, I agree. Mine are not too bad and still work very well with the viewfinder illumination display option. When I was working part time in a camera shop in London in the pre-internet era in 1989-90, we were selling F4s new. They were highly desirable and very well regarded and many of us believed that it was the best mainstream 35mm SLR ever made (I was using Canon F1s and T-90s at the time for my pro work at the time) but the autofocus was so slow and erratic compared to the (then new) EOS system, particularly with USM lenses, that many press and sports pros were buying the EOS1's in droves and leaving Nikon. I have two EOS1's now and both still work very well - they had excellent and strong shutters - but both have dodgy LED (sic) displays now - one shows the flash charge light permanently on and the other has the * exposure lock symbol permanently on! But it doesn't seem to affect operation at all. Repairs are complex and usually not possible. Often it is the 8 bit electronic circuitry driving the display rather than the LEDs themselves that are at fault. My philosophy (see other posts) is not to store the vintage 'electronic' cameras in foam padded cases (except when transporting them). The foam degrades over time and creates acrid gases that attack the circuitry. I always 'air' my cameras and store them in cases with rigid dividers but plenty of air space. Not sure this would save LCD or LED displays though. And of course, dry conditions.

A few comments from someone who has never owned an FM3A(in fact the only Nikon film camera I've never owned) and has used a lot of the ones mentioned in this thread:

1. First of all, I use the term "New F-1" to refer to the last generation, 1980s F-1. F-1N is the common collector shorthand, but the cameras are in fact badged "New F-1" and F-1N invites confusion, especially for someone just learning about these cameras, with the camera commonly called the "F-1n." The latter is basically a revised/massaged version of the original F-1. The changes(all 13 of them) in the F-1 and F-1n, individually, are minor but add up to a nicer package IMO. In particular I find the larger wind lever offset more comfortable as I can easily "hook" my finger behind it.

In any case, the New F-1 is in fact a different beast. The Original F-1 and F-1n are basically Canon's direct competitor to the F2(IMO better in some ways, worse in others, and I think the F2 is an overall better package especially fitted with a DP3 or DP12 finder). The New F-1 has more in common with then F3, and I consider a far superior camera to the F3 in most respects(others may disagree with me) aside from one small touch. The original F-1 and F-1n, to me, feel smoother winding than the F2. The F3 takes this up a notch and is often considered the smoothest, lowest effort winding 35mm SLR ever made(the Minolta X700 is the only one that really even gets included in the discussion) while the New F-1 seems to have been designed for durability and utility with no regard for feel-it's rough(that's not to say the F3 is weak-far from it-and the film wind on the F3 is often considered bulletproof).

BTW, there seems to be a lot of incorrect information that gets passed around about the shutter on the New F-1. The shutter is mechanically timed from 1/90-1/2000, and of course B. If a battery is installed and the camera set to any speed other than B, the shutter button "electronically" releases the shutter when pressed, so there is very little effort required(this is not the case in B). What this means is that if the battery is dead and you attempt to the fire the shutter, it won't do anything. If you look in the battery chamber, however,  you see that the top battery contact is a heavy spring loaded plunger-removing the battery allows this to "drop" and sets up a mechanical connection between the shutter button and the shutter release mechanism. This will allow the shutter to fire at any of the mechanical speeds, although you have to push the button a lot harder! This, to me, is a lot more versatile than the F3 "emergency" 1/80th.

2. I'd like an FM3a just for the last mechanical(ish) film SLR, but IMO it's an awfully pricey camera for what it is. I'm sure it's every bit as tank-like of a camera as the FM2n and FE2, but either of those is a fraction of the price of the FM3a. For manual exposure, I much prefer the 3-LED read-out of the FM2n to the needle set-up used on the FM3a

3. Someone mentioned the FA as a possibility. I'm a bit gun-shy around them after my first one. which would randomly fire blank frames. It also uses the tiny little LCD readout, which is my major annoyance with the F3 too. The FA sounds great on paper, but it seems a lottery these days as to whether or not you get a good one. Worst of all, if my experience is any indication, there's no way to tell other than just shooting a roll of film through one. In my effort to give my first a chance, I shot 3 rolls of film. The first had 5 random dropped frames mid-roll, the second was fine, and the 3rd dropped 4 frames in a row out of the first 10, was fine for the rest of the roll, then dropped the last 2. I don't know any static/bench testing that would have shown that issue, or even if a single roll film test would have. Everything about the camera SEEMED fine until I actually ran film through it. It's a shame, though, as the meter in particular is wonderful when it does work.

4. The Nikon EL-2 is a very much under-rated(IMO) camera in this category. It has the tank-like metal Nikkormat-derived body, not the somewhat lighter constructed(although still very durable) build of the FM/FE series cameras, and is aperture priority AE. I consider it functionally equivalent to the FE(except for maybe TTL flash? I forget if that was in the FE or if it didn't come along until the FE2) and is overall a great camera.

In late 2023, I'd not spend a pantload of cash on any film camera I couldn't reliably get repaired. Newer is usually better but doorstop duty can still be in the cards. A clean FE/FM variant might be the best you can do. They're tough, reliable cameras. Probably cheaper to replace rather than repair if they conk out. An FM3a is not worth the premium relative to its ancestors. Still a mystery why Nikon pushed them into the market so late.

Hi Ben, thanks for the useful contribution. Taking your points (briefly) in order:

1. I agree. I always thought (again others would disagree) that the Canon New F1 was superior in many ways to the Nikon F3. In the previous generation, I agree with you that the F2 was a beautiful camera and my Nikon F2 with DP-3 is probably my favourite camera to use at the moment. It was probably the best camera around in the era 1970-80.

2. I have never been tempted by the FM3a, a bit of a boutique camera really. I have a FM2n which is fully mechanical of course.

3. I picked up an FA body from Japan on eBay earlier this year. I took a chance from a good seller with a good rep. Luckily, it turned out to be just perfect in near mint condition for $130. One roll of E6 and one of C41 shot and no problems. I like its compactness more than anything else.

4. I have never owned or used a Nikkormat or an FE or FE2. I have just used and FM and FM2 and just loved their simplicity and mechanical design and a 1/4000 top shutter speed and 1/250 flash sync on the FM2.

My first real camera was a 1965 Nikon F, in 1974, when I was ten years old (third hand from my Dad). Nikon was too expensive for me as a teenager and student, so I had second hand Canon and Contax and built up a big collection of Canon. I did buy a brand new New F1 in 1982 as I was doing wedding and portrait work then to earn extra money when I was studying. I made enough money to buy a second hand F2 and F3 so I could use some of my Nikon lenses too.

Happy Christmas

Gary

4 minutes ago, c_watson1 said:

In late 2023, I'd not spend a pantload of cash on any film camera I couldn't reliably get repaired. Newer is usually better but doorstop duty can still be in the cards. A clean FE/FM variant might be the best you can do. They're tough, reliable cameras. Probably cheaper to replace rather than repair if they conk out. An FM3a is not worth the premium relative to its ancestors.

Yes, I agree in summary, the best bet for S might be a clean FE2 or FM2. Reliable, compact, versatile, fair prices secondhand and can still be serviced (but with luck, won't need it). They need AI lenses to mount (let alone work) but any non-AI ones you have or might acquire can be easily converted.

Did you already sell all your equipment ? I would have kept the three Nikon lenses and bought a modern Nikon film body for them. Maybe, I would have kept also the Nikon digital body, in case some day in the future, you wanted to snap some digital again ?  

3 hours ago, polka said:

Did you already sell all your equipment ? I would have kept the three Nikon lenses and bought a modern Nikon film body for them. Maybe, I would have kept also the Nikon digital body, in case some day in the future, you wanted to snap some digital again ?  

All long gone - I prefer to focus on one system at a time, I get too confused flipping around!

Snowsquare, its a little unclear what your primary interest would be in considering the various options. So I'm gonna just post a few related thoughts, in hopes it will help you drill down to the best possible choice for your purposes.

Your initial post suggests you want a modern-ish SLR with integrated autoexposure, but are also a bit leery of the longevity of electronics, so you're leaning toward the two most popular camera models (Canon New F1 and Nikon FM3a) that have a usable array of backup mechanical shutter speeds. While this makes sense on the surface, things are not always what they seem when it comes to vintage cameras.

The Canon New F1 offered mechanical speeds of 1/90th to 1/2000 plus B: a nice emergency feature for the sports/action sector most likely to buy the F1 when new, but the total lack of lower speeds can be limiting for more general photography. Realistically, Canon (like Nikon with its F3) assumed most pro users with battery concerns would be re-assured by the camera's ability to take alternate power from the motor drive, which was almost always going to be attached anyway.

AA batteries are available everywhere from major cities to the most remote locales on earth: there was virtually zero chance a Canon F1 or Nikon F3 user would not have access to a handful of fresh AA batteries when necessary. Even without a motor attached, the standard meter/shutter batteries were common and very tiny: as noted earlier, it was/is a simple matter to always keep at least two new spares in the camera bag.

So for most practical scenarios, the "hybrid shutter" feature was mostly a marketing gimmick, and transitional handholding for skittish pros who feared migration from their all-mechanical  "old" Canon F1 and Nikon F2 to the inevitable new electronic designs. Decades later, irony abounds: many of the "hybrid shutter" cameras developed other nagging problems that make them dysfunctional, unreliable or unusable. The Canon EF, Pentax ESII and Pentax LX etc all touted "electronic convenience with backup failsafe mechanical shutters" only to wind up with an assortment of other issues that render their mechanical backup shutters irrelevant. More often than not, simpler "all-electronic" cameras have stood the test of time rather better.

Of the two cameras you've chosen as front runners, I would pick the Canon New F1 over the Nikon FM3a (despite being a lifelong Nikon user). As others have mentioned, the FM3a was a cynical "instant collectors item" when released (and remains so today). Beloved by those who bought it before prices skyrocketed, its an interesting camera that isn't really practical today if your goal is a decently priced, known-reliable camera body that can also be repaired fairly easily. The FM3a is a one-off design in Nikon's stable: similar to the FE2 and FM2 but not nearly as much in common as you'd think. As repair techs slowly age out and retire, few of those left have ever seen an FM3a (much less worked on one). Given the inflated collector value and convoluted mechanics, I would choose almost any other Nikon over the FM3a (unless you can afford the indulgence, of course: in that case all bets are off).

Some modern Canon SLRs have recently become slightly more difficult to get serviced than similar Nikon models: i.e. the popular Canon AE-1, A-1 , and T90 are more risky buys than the simpler Nikon FE/FE2 and FM/FM2. Being a pro model of more conservative design, the New F1 is probably the best choice of Canon FD-mount bodies available today. Most have held up much better than the average AE-1/A-1, and should remain in good condition for years. If you prefer Canon's ergonomics, metering philosophy and FD lens line, the New F1 would be a very satisfying choice.

OTOH, rugged as it is, the Canon New F1 is technically a more complicated body than most Nikons. Its also less common and less numerous on the second hand market: if your biggest concern (imagined or real) is long term availability of repairs or replacement bodies, you might feel more comfortable with Nikon. There are thousands of clean, fully-functional FE and FE2 bodies available: so common they will never be collectible. They have exactly the same operating feel of the FM3a, lacking only the "full hybrid shutter" gimmick. If found in good working condition, they usually stay that way: an FE/FE2 is either fully operational or obviously defective.

They'll run forever on common S76 batteries, and if you're inordinately worried about future electronics failure just add a supplemental all-mechanical manual metering Nikon FM or FM2. If you can live without TTL flash metering, 1/250th flash sync and 1/4000 top shutter speed, you can save quite a bit of money choosing the earlier FE over the FE2 (even more so with the FM over FM2: the FM2 is now a cult item chasing the fumes of the FM3a). Another common-as-air (and almost as cheap) all-mechanical Nikon body would be a Nikkormat FTn or FT2 or FT3: the most reliable shutter you can buy, tho a meter mechanism that can fail with age and isn't practical to get repaired (but remember, the meter would not be operational in the FM3a or Canon F1 in mechanical mode either).

The most popular Nikon camera was probably the F3: professional grade, made and sold for nearly 20 years, roughly a million examples scattered around the world. Dead simple design, one of the most reliable electronic shutter cameras ever sold, most techs know how to perform common repairs if/when necessary. Fairly easy to find in good working condition, and a working example usually stays good for years. So many were made that just replacing a failed F3 with another good one is always an option. Only one mechanical 1/60th backup speed, but again in the real world you're unlikely to be stranded with no battery available and its electronic speeds are way more reliable over many years than its legendary predecessors Nikon F and F2.

The drawbacks with the F3 are mostly subjective.  Very popular, very beloved, a justified legend in its own time, but some otherwise true-blue Nikon photographers (like myself) absolutely hate it. Most of the intense dislike is due to the meter display: some love it, some are indifferent, some can't stand it. You need to use an F3 for a week or so before knowing for sure whether the meter display will be a dealbreaker or not. If you don't give it a second thought, you'll love the camera, but if it bugs you to no end the first time you see it will not grow on you (trust me). The F3 is very much a "love-it-or-leave-it proposition" - chances are you'd love it, and if you don't they're very easy to sell on to another photographer who does love them.

Nikon made an uncharacteristic leap of faith with the F3: in metering philosophy its a complete departure from the earlier F and F2 (even the FE and FM). The interface assumes the photographer is a news gatherer who prioritizes a rapid AE exposure above all else: all other concerns are discarded. The brutally simplified finder display shows an approximate numerical shutter speed that the AE has selected, the aperture you set on the lens, and absolutely nothing else: no context, no range of how far off you might be in manual mode. Just the approx automatic shutter speed chosen by the meter (if you can even see it, depending on environmental lighting).

On the positive (very positive) side, if this design suits you it works about as well as it possibly can. The meter is very center weighted, more like a broad selective-area reading, which nails exposure pretty reliably even compared to modern matrix meters. Deviations from typical AE are easily handled by the exposure lock button. If your interests lie more in capturing a fleeting scene with speed and accuracy, its hard to beat the F3. But if you're the type who's more process-oriented, who likes more detailed metering info and often sets exposure manually: the F3 can be annoyingly obtuse. Its primarily an action camera that can also shoot portraits and landscapes, not the other way round.

If you liked the pro digital Nikons as much as you implied at the beginning, you might be better off jumping ahead to the F5 (or F6 if you can afford it). These have handling and metering much closer to the D2/D3 than earlier film Nikons. The F4 splits the difference between the spartan F3 and more feature-laden modern F5/F6. In many ways, the F4 was the ideal melding of old and new interfaces for use with manual focus Nikon lenses. But it has a few Achilles Heels that affect long-term viability, repairs/parts have become scarce, and you really need to check them thoroughly for display integrity and functionality.

The original F is an amazing mechanical beast, but the meter prisms are all dead now. The F2 was perhaps the pinnacle of Nikon's classic pro SLRs, but strictly manual exposure, and the most sophisticated meter prism option gives you the same display as the FM/FM2. The F2 shutter can easily go wonky at higher speeds thru simple negligence (leaving the camera cocked for a few days). Fantastic camera, the F2AS is my ride-or-die -for-life 35mm SLR, but its not for everyone.

As far as (manual focus) lenses go, its a wash between Nikon and Canon: both average out excellent overall, tho each has a couple of unexpected dogs and each has a couple of legendary good focal lengths that the other can't quite match. The trendy mirrorless and video driven market has preferred Canon optics over Nikon for quite awhile now, for reasons immaterial to film SLR users. For better and worse, vintage Nikon lenses are widely considered too "common" and "boring" vs a number of Canon alternatives that get enthusiastic writeups and youTube coverage. This is more down to personality cults and the desire to be "interesting" in digital than inherent qualities of the lenses. You'd be hard pressed to detect a difference when shooting film, except in the rare instance either Canon or Nikon did have a dramatically better lens in a given focal length/speed.

Related discussions in a couple recent threads have explored the Canon New F1 and various Nikons:

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/550899-canon-new-f1-review-and-how-to-buy-one-well/

https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/550824-nikon-f-assorted-lenses-etc/

Hi Orsetto,

Thanks for an excellent summary. I think I agree that going back to the original query, the Canon New F1 may be best.

Couple of quick observations:

1. I agree about the 'mechanical back up' gimmick. For over 50 years, I never recall being 'dead in the water' due to a dead battery (more likely to be an issue on a modern digital camera if you ask me!). It's a bit of a Hollywood fantasy - your battery failing as you are in the deepest Amazon or about to complete your once-in-a-liftetime ascent of the North Face of the Eiger.  Hardly a real world concern for 99.99% of people who were likely to use those cameras. I always carried spare batteries for the F and A series Canons. Generally, they would give a lot of warning of their failure anyway.

2. I love Nikons too but also hate the viewfinder of the F3. I much prefer the F4, though it is a far bulkier camera.

3. The issue of the aged camera technicians 'shedding off this mortal coil' or retiring is a concern. So, cameras that might need less servicing are an important consideration. My company in Lisbon is run by two 'youthful' 60-somethings and they can do anything classic Nikon, less so Canon. They recently resurrected a Nikon F FTb meter / finder. Dealt with historical battery leakage (I bought it on spec from Japan), calibrated it and even converted it to run in modern 1.5V silver oxide PX625-type cells. Brilliant work and not many people that can do it these days.

4. In 50 years' time, I doubt if our children or our grandchildren who might be photography enthusiasts will be able to get current DSLRs and mirrorless cameras serviced with all their complex electronics and chips - even now after spare parts are no longer available after 10 years or so, it can be very difficult.

Gary

5 hours ago, orsetto said:

Another common-as-air (and almost as cheap) all-mechanical Nikon body would be a Nikkormat FTn or FT2 or FT3: the most reliable shutter you can buy…

@orsetto do you happen to know if it would it be correct to assume the Nikkormat Copal Square shutter is more easily repaired than the FM etc. Copal CCS shutters?

I was told by a Nikon rep. back in the day, that a FM/FE shutter “repair” at Nikon was always replacement because it these shutters were not designed to be easily repaired.

Much later, an independent repair tech told me that when FM/FM replacement shutters were available from Nikon, he would always just replace and now (~15years ago), with no new parts available, he would still prefer a swap from a dead donor body over actual repair, I assumed because it would be more economical for the customer.

I didn’t inquire if the shutter was difficult to work on, or just time consuming, and never got to ask if earlier Copal Square shutters were made with repair rather than replacement in mind.

It is my impression that the larger horizontally traveling shutters in the F, F2 and F3 are more straightforward to work on, a bit like the oversized Leica stutters, but I don’t have personal experiences with that, so don’t know for certain if that is an accurate assumption.
 

5 hours ago, Niels - NHSN said:

@orsetto do you happen to know if it would it be correct to assume the Nikkormat Copal Square shutter is more easily repaired than the FM etc. Copal CCS shutters?

I was told by a Nikon rep. back in the day, that a FM/FE shutter “repair” at Nikon was always replacement because it these shutters were not designed to be easily repaired.

I(...) t is my impression that the larger horizontally traveling shutters in the F, F2 and F3 are more straightforward to work on, a bit like the oversized Leica stutters, but I don’t have personal experiences with that, so don’t know for certain if that is an accurate assumption.
 

Yes, that has been my understanding as well: the Copal Square shutters were an independent "third party" drop-in module that was typically replaced rather than serviced. This seems strange, but worked out well in most cases: the Copal Square was incredibly reliable/durable and rarely failed during the average single decade use life of a 60s or 70s era camera (before it was traded in for a newer model during the AE craze of the late '70s). While not 100% unbreakable, those old Copals are as close as we ever got (in non-pro cameras) to a bulletproof all-mechanical shutter. It was usually the very last component to break down in the cameras that employed it (Nikkormat, Konica AutoReflex, Chinon-GAF-Vivitar, etc).

As with anything in life, there were trade offs involved. Early iterations were separate entities not easily customized to specific camera design goals: the camera mfr built the camera around the Copal shutter. This wasn't much of an issue during that era, as almost every 35mm SLR had the same shutter specs anyway (1 - 1/1000th + B), and the Copal module simplified the engineering of cameras that were optimized for it.

The Copal S wasn't compatible with professional motor drive applications: strictly a manually wound device. It wasn't until camera mfrs began designing their own Copal-inspired shutters in the late 70s that motor drive became available (with the 3.5 fps Nikon FM). AFAIK, the only "classic" Copal Square camera that ever offered a motor option was the short-lived Nikkormat EL variant the ELW (later EL2): its winder was notoriously noisy, slow and failure prone. Desperate marketing attempt to fill a product gap while the FE was still in development: every mfr was frantically trying to counter surging Canon AE-1 + winder sales. At that point Nikon was primarily a manual exposure company, the only AE camera they had was the EL so they were forced to slap a winder on it and cross their fingers until they could get the FE and EM out the door.

Aside from motor incompatibility, other aspects to the Copal made it less desirable for "pro" cameras like the CaNikon F series. It wasn't easily modified to offer the then-groundbreaking "pro" option of 1/2000 top speed. It wasn't customizable much at all, meaning Canon and Nikon could not thoroughly integrate it with their highly specific halo camera engineering. Vertical travel was perceived as being more prone to distortion effects during panning for sports/action coverage. As an "outside" product, it would have caused consternation in the pro market if Nikon suddenly switched the F2 to Copal from their famous horizontal titanium foil designed in-house for the legendary F (nor could Canon have gotten away with it in the original F1). This reluctance to move away from horizontal shutters continued thru the F3 of 1980, the FM/FE were still too new to cite as reliability estimates.

Eventually the Copal design was refined to offer the high performance features of the FE2, FM2 and F4 (1/4000 or 1/8000 top speed, flash sync at Hasselblad-competitive 1/200 or 1/250, durable under constant motor drive). But as they became more in-house and proprietary, they lost some of their simplicity and reliability: as you noted, the shutters of the FM2/FE2 are not exactly the favorite of repair techs. While nearly as durable as the original Copals, they can and do fail, and when they break you can't just chuck the camera for another cheap copy (as one can with the the gazillion Nikkormats, Konicas, FM/FE etc flooding the used market).

Newer high-value SLRs with ultra high speed vertical shutters will become increasingly difficult to repair as the number of techs with component-level repair skills dwindles (and supplies of replacement shutter modules disappear). If 35mm film availability and popularity continues past that point, the newer more luxurious cameras may get knocked off their prized perch by older, more common, more pedestrian cameras with the humble durable original Copal Square. And of course classic horizontal shuttered cameras, which are usually more repair-friendly.

When I started out collecting (initially) old Zeiss Jena equipment, I said that I was aware that in the future, they would be worth just as little as I was paying for them.

Nowadays, that's pretty much true of all old cameras, even the digital ones.

🤪