# Nikon F4?



## slate mike

Hi, I'm new to the forum. I have a Nikon D5000 that I love but would like to get into film as well. Now that I'm retired, i have the time to do this sort of stuff. And I find the idea of having knobs instead of menues a whole lot more to my liking ( I loved turning in my Blackberry and super notebook compter when I retired.) Is an F4 the way to go for about $250 or an N80 or 100? the 80 for $60 t0 $100 and the 100 for the same as the F4?
Thanks for the advice. Mike


----------



## Petraio Prime

slate mike said:


> Hi, I'm new to the forum. I have a Nikon D5000 that I love but would like to get into film as well. Now that I'm retired, i have the time to do this sort of stuff. And I find the idea of having knobs instead of menues a whole lot more to my liking ( I loved turning in my Blackberry and super notebook compter when I retired.) Is an F4 the way to go for about $250 or an N80 or 100? the 80 for $60 t0 $100 and the 100 for the same as the F4?
> Thanks for the advice. Mike



The F4 is a monstrosity, good for a nice paperweight.


----------



## Derrel

F100 review
Nikon F100 Review by Thom Hogan

Nikon Camera Bodies

Hope these links help.


----------



## Mike_E

Why not look into Really classic cameras while you have the time and before you jump?

An old Kodak Retina IIIC or Zeiss Contessa.  Maybe an old medium format folder (great lenses available and a much bigger negative).

I'll let others chime in here but why not something with some panache to go along with your knock-around?  Believe me, it's a lot of fun when somebody asks, "What is *That*??.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> F100 review
> Nikon F100 Review by Thom Hogan
> 
> Nikon Camera Bodies
> 
> Hope these links help.



I read the 'review' of the F4 there and almost lot my breakfast.


----------



## Derrel

Petraio Prime said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> F100 review
> Nikon F100 Review by Thom Hogan
> 
> Nikon Camera Bodies
> 
> Hope these links help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the 'review' of the F4 there and almost lot my breakfast.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's weird how one of North America's foremost Nikon authorities, and the author of something like 19 instructional books on Nikon products has a high opinion of the F4, and yet you proclaim it a paperweight...hmmm....I wonder whose opinion carried more weight with more people??? Hmmm....

Did you fail to spot the OP's desire for a camera that uses a more analog-style interface than today's modal, menu-driven bodies, or what?


----------



## Mike_E

Mike, check out this guy's site..

Certo6 - Vintage Folding Cameras: cameras


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> F100 review
> Nikon F100 Review by Thom Hogan
> 
> Nikon Camera Bodies
> 
> Hope these links help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the 'review' of the F4 there and almost lot my breakfast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's weird how one of North America's foremost Nikon authorities, and the author of something like 19 instructional books on Nikon products has a high opinion of the F4, and yet you proclaim it a paperweight...hmmm....I wonder whose opinion carried more weight with more people??? Hmmm....
> 
> Did you fail to spot the OP's desire for a camera that uses a more analog-style interface than today's modal, menu-driven bodies, or what?
Click to expand...


It was a monstrosity. No comparison to the EOS-1, from the same period.


----------



## Leo4

I havea couple F4's instock at work I have enjoyed playing with them. I do prefer the EOS-1n though. I do agree with the idea that maybe you should consider a true vintage camera. Probbly have alittle more fun.


----------



## djacobox372

Wow, what happened to straight forward info/advice?

I would definitely skip the cheap consumer bodies (n80) and go for a pro body  (f4, f5, f100); it's worth the little extra $$. 

The F4 and F100 are both great cameras, you can't go wrong with either.  Both cost around the same today on the used market, about $175-$250.

Which one depends on what you're looking for, if you want the best technology for the $$, the f100 is the choice.  If you want something that looks more retro the f4 is the choice, as the f100 looks exactly like a modern digital missing the lcd screen on the back.  

The features of both are not staggeringly different.  The F4 only has one autofocus point, whereas the f100 has five--that's about the only "stand-out" difference. I actually think the f4 auto-focuses a little faster then the f100 as it seems to have a stronger motor--but you pay for it with weight--the f4 is noticeably heavier then a f100.  If you like to use old ais lenses, the f4 will give you full matrix metering with them--something no other nikon body will do.

*NOTE:* when buying an f4 make sure that both lcd screens in the viewfinder are not damaged/leaking. This is a VERY common problem (there are probably more bad f4's then good ones).  Buying an F100 sight unseen is far less risky. 

You may also want to consider an F5.  They run about $100 more then the f4/f100, but I suspect they will hold their value better as 35mm film slrs go from users to collectors items.


----------



## j-dogg

I see your Nikon F4 and raise you my Nikkormat FTN with Vivitar 55-135mm f3.5







little girls shoot plastic stuff, real men shoot metal. :mrgreen:


----------



## epatsellis

The F4 is the perfect camera for somebody that wants to utilize both AF (non G) and MF lenses to their maximum advantage. I have all the pro bodies up to the F4, and it, along with my F3's are the ones I use the most for 35mm film work. If you have G lenses, the F100 is a better choice, though.


----------



## Idahophoto

The Nikon F4 has to be one of the greatest cameras ever in my opinion.  Each there own, but yeah, if I had some extra cash I would buy one easy even today and I would shoot with it to.


----------



## Breaux

little girls shoot plastic stuff, real men shoot metal. :mrgreen:[/QUOTE]

:thumbup:


----------



## Breaux

There are a ton of top old film cameras out there for cheap.  I recently got a Nikon FTN for almost $11.00!  It's a great all manual, all metal, old camera.  And every function still works.  I've also used a Contaflex, Nikon FT3, and Canon AE1.  All are good and now very cheap.

I love the old Zeiss cameras, but I would recommend sticking with Nikon because then you have easy access to 60 years' worth (or more?) of quality lenses and accessories that are more or less compatible.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Idahophoto said:


> The Nikon F4 has to be one of the greatest cameras ever in my opinion.  Each there own, but yeah, if I had some extra cash I would buy one easy even today and I would shoot with it to.



:lmao:


----------



## compur

slate mike said:


> I find the idea of having knobs instead of menues a whole lot more to my liking



Though it won't win any popularity contests, I happen to think the Nikon 
N2020 is a very nice little camera with just enough automation to please
most anyone plus manual, knob-type controls and is equally at home with
MF or AF lenses.  It is also fairly rugged (all metal under that composite
exterior) and, though it may not have the quickest AF on the block, it is
plenty fast enough for non-action photography plus some niceties like 
interchangeable focusing screens, TTL flash and others.  It is also cheap as 
dirt and won't easily break like many of the later, plastic N-series Nikons.

Other knob-controlled AF 35mm SLRs include the Maxxum 7 and 9 cameras.
I have never used either one but they are popular and sought after and 
many Maxxum lenses are available at reasonable cost for them.


----------



## Sw1tchFX

i used an f4 once, and is it the prettiest camera in the world? no. It's actually pretty ugly, and IMO uncomfortable, but it is useful, no doubt. a good camera.


----------



## Gaerek

Petraio Prime said:


> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nikon F4 has to be one of the greatest cameras ever in my opinion.  Each there own, but yeah, if I had some extra cash I would buy one easy even today and I would shoot with it to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao:
Click to expand...


Why don't you give actual advice to help him. He asked about specific cameras, and rather than helping him out, you make 4 posts elaborating on why the F4 is a paperweight. It took your third post to actually recommend something other than the F4, but it wasn't a recommendation so much as, "This is better than that!"

More proof that you are no help to anyone. Good job!


----------



## epatsellis

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nikon F4 has to be one of the greatest cameras ever in my opinion.  Each there own, but yeah, if I had some extra cash I would buy one easy even today and I would shoot with it to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you give actual advice to help him. He asked about specific cameras, and rather than helping him out, you make 4 posts elaborating on why the F4 is a paperweight. It took your third post to actually recommend something other than the F4, but it wasn't a recommendation so much as, "This is better than that!"
> 
> More proof that you are no help to anyone. Good job!
Click to expand...

sounds like delusions of adequacy to me.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nikon F4 has to be one of the greatest cameras ever in my opinion.  Each there own, but yeah, if I had some extra cash I would buy one easy even today and I would shoot with it to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you give actual advice to help him. He asked about specific cameras, and rather than helping him out, you make 4 posts elaborating on why the F4 is a paperweight. It took your third post to actually recommend something other than the F4, but it wasn't a recommendation so much as, "This is better than that!"
> 
> More proof that you are no help to anyone. Good job!
Click to expand...


My advice to anyone contemplating an F4 is not to buy one. A Canon EOS-1-n or V is a far better choice. A Nikon F2 or F3 is a nicer camera if you don't want autofocus.


----------



## slate mike

Thanks for all the replies. What makes the canon EOS - 1 - N a better choice. Forget about "ugly" as I think it's a great classic looking camera. The 100 and F5 are nice but I love the idea of being able to use all the lenens back to '59.


----------



## Petraio Prime

slate mike said:


> Thanks for all the replies. What makes the canon EOS - 1 - N a better choice. Forget about "ugly" as I think it's a great classic looking camera. The 100 and F5 are nice but I love the idea of being able to use all the lenses back to '59.



Why? Most of them made before 1985 or so are crap. I used Nikon cameras and Nikkor lenses in the late 60s to early 70s when I worked at the OSU yearbook, and Nikon was the equipment the yearbook owned. In 1971 I bought a used Leicaflex and a 90mm f/2.8 lens, and gradually added other lenses. They were vastly superior to the Nikkor lenses. How do I know? I used them both and did comparison tests.

Sure, it _sounds_ cool to be able to use those old lenses, but trust me, you don't want to.

The EOS-1 had a far superior autofocus system and lenses compared to Nikon of that era.

The yearbook owned a 300mm f/4.5 and a 200mm f/4, designed and made in the late 1960s. In 1971 I bought a 250mm Leicaflex lens and it easily outclassed both of these lenses.


----------



## Josh66

Can't really speak much about the F4, but I will agree that the 1's are great.  My main camera these days is a 1N RS that I got for just over $200.  Can't beat that.


And I do think that Petraio is probably right - using old lenses sounds cool, but they're still _old_ lenses...


----------



## epatsellis

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:


slate mike said:


> Is an F4 the way to go for about $250 or an  N80 or 100? the 80 for $60 t0 $100 and the 100 for the same as the F4?
> Thanks for the advice. Mike



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."


----------



## epatsellis

O|||||||O said:


> Can't really speak much about the F4, but I will agree that the 1's are great.  My main camera these days is a 1N RS that I got for just over $200.  Can't beat that.
> 
> 
> And I do think that Petraio is probably right - using old lenses sounds cool, but they're still _old_ lenses...


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.


----------



## Petraio Prime

epatsellis said:


> 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:
> 
> 
> slate mike said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is an F4 the way to go for about $250 or an  N80 or 100? the 80 for $60 t0 $100 and the 100 for the same as the F4?
> Thanks for the advice. Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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."
Click to expand...


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.*


----------



## Derrel

Petraio Prime said:


> Why? Most of them made before 1985 or so are crap. I used Nikon cameras and Nikkor lenses in the late 60s to early 70s when I worked at the OSU yearbook, and Nikon was the equipment the yearbook owned. In 1971 I bought a used Leicaflex and a 90mm f/2.8 lens, and gradually added other lenses. They were vastly superior to the Nikkor lenses. How do I know? I used them both and did comparison tests.
> 
> Sure, it _sounds_ cool to be able to use those old lenses, but trust me, you don't want to.
> 
> The EOS-1 had a far superior autofocus system and lenses compared to Nikon of that era.
> 
> The yearbook owned a 300mm f/4.5 and a 200mm f/4, designed and made in the late 1960s. In 1971 I bought a 250mm Leicaflex lens and it easily outclassed both of these lenses.




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"....*


----------



## Petraio Prime

epatsellis said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't really speak much about the F4, but I will agree that the 1's are great.  My main camera these days is a 1N RS that I got for just over $200.  Can't beat that.
> 
> 
> And I do think that Petraio is probably right - using old lenses sounds cool, but they're still _old_ lenses...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Derrel

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.


----------



## JIP

Petraio Prime said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> :lmao:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you give actual advice to help him. He asked about specific cameras, and rather than helping him out, you make 4 posts elaborating on why the F4 is a paperweight. It took your third post to actually recommend something other than the F4, but it wasn't a recommendation so much as, "This is better than that!"
> 
> More proof that you are no help to anyone. Good job!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My advice to anyone contemplating an F4 is not to buy one. A Canon EOS-1-n or V is a far better choice. A Nikon F2 or F3 is a nicer camera if you don't want autofocus.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Most of them made before 1985 or so are crap. I used Nikon cameras and Nikkor lenses in the late 60s to early 70s when I worked at the OSU yearbook, and Nikon was the equipment the yearbook owned. In 1971 I bought a used Leicaflex and a 90mm f/2.8 lens, and gradually added other lenses. They were vastly superior to the Nikkor lenses. How do I know? I used them both and did comparison tests.
> 
> Sure, it _sounds_ cool to be able to use those old lenses, but trust me, you don't want to.
> 
> The EOS-1 had a far superior autofocus system and lenses compared to Nikon of that era.
> 
> The yearbook owned a 300mm f/4.5 and a 200mm f/4, designed and made in the late 1960s. In 1971 I bought a 250mm Leicaflex lens and it easily outclassed both of these lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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"....*
Click to expand...

*

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.*


----------



## Derrel

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]


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Derrel

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.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> 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.


----------



## Flash Harry

NIKON CANON LEICA, who gives, there's lens from every maker which are not the be all and end all in sharpness/handling/performance but none of this answers the OP's ?, his statement about having the ability to use any lens made by Nikon is what has him choosing from the Nikon system, which as it happens is also my reasons for using the brand, not that I want any lens or every lens of that brand.

What I do know, after using F5/4/4S/100/90X, 80 in the form of fuji s1/2 and my 2 latest editions d300 +d700, is they are all really good well built tools, I've dropped them, soaked them and done just about anything to them apart from hitting with hammers and they still work as they are designed to.

My choice would be the F4S or F5 if I wanted another film camera as I found everything about both was the best at the time, failing those two I'd go F100/F90X for the similar build quality and how the cameras really just "fit" when in my hands, all top notch imo. H


----------



## Derrel

Yeah, those 40 people were pretty delirious alright. I see you still are! 

Well, heck yeah they're outperforming anything from Canon or Nikon--Leicaflexes were made by the company that makes cameras and lenses for God. And rich sheiks. And software millionaires. Those people take 4, 5,6,7 dozen pictures a month,some of them.

The reason Leicaflex died as a system was that there was no "system"...they could never manage to figure out how to out-build Japanese cameras...never could figure out how to do TTL light metering, or focus lenses without cams...never could figure out how to build an autofocus system...never could figure out how to build a motor into a body...never could figure out how to make all sorts of accessories...when Canon and Nikon had 50- and 60-lens systems, Leica had what? Was it nine different lenses, priced from $2,200 to $4995 each?

And so, you're telling a guy who wants a dial-and-button camera to buy a Canon EOS-1, which you never owned, and which is lacking in the very most-critical thing the guy wants--dials and knobs and an "analogue" approach to controls????  And it's of a brand he has no real interest in either. Hmmm....I guess there has to be some reason to bring the name Leicaflex up, since on this board, you are probably the only Leicaflex SL-2 owner here Petraio. I realize that decades ago, like the 1950's, Leica M-series cameras were popular, but by the late 1960's, Nikon has killed Leica off pretty much, and nowadays it's very,very hard to broach the subject of the Leicaflex SL series cameras,even among photo nuts like me...so thread slike this one must seem to you like a logical outlet for desperate Leicaflex segues in threads about old film cameras from the 1980's and 1990's...

Bringing Leicaflex SL series gear into a thread about 1980's-1990's NIkon models F4, F100,and F5....hmmm...it's like going to a birthday party and making a desperate  conversational gambit with some pretty 30-year old single female by discussing one's 1972 wisom tooth impaction and infection, and subsequent emergency oral surgery...loads of people will be interested in that topic. Not!

You do realize that I'm enjoying this back and forth, right P-P??? Please sir, tell us more about the Leicaflex SL-2 and The Lenses of The Round Table, and the Unicorn Farts and Fairy Snot that the lens elements were created from...oh please Petraio, regale us with tales of wondrous triumphs of Leica, such as when they hired Minolta to make lenses for them, and when they had to leave Wetzlar, Germany and move to eastern Canada to dodge the draft....err...wait...they moved to Canada for the better BEER the Canadians had..yeah...that's right...

Oh, Petraio, can't you tell how much I love these heart to heart talks?:hug:: You are indeed, a great sport, and it's been very fun going back and forth with you. Someday I hope you find a charity to donate those old Leicaflex lenses to. Lord knows there are some camera-less and lens-less people around the world who'd be happy to have your kit, so they could pawn it and buy an autofocus Nikon F4, with knobs,and buttons, and 50 million lenses that would fit, instead of those 2,000 Leicaflex lenses tucked away in the cabinets of rich European millionaires and Middle Eastern sheiks...

Oh,Petraio...you do realize this is all in jest right?:hugs:


----------



## molested_cow

I have both the F501(N2020) and the F4S.

F501 is a GREAT starter SLR. It is very easy to use. You can choose to shoot in either A or S modes if you don't want to do everything manually. The view finder is awesome and you WILL NOT have problem manual focusing. The AF is pretty useless imo and I always stick to MF when I am using it. It is also much smaller and lighter than the F4. It doesn't have the metering modes like in F4, so you need to know how to adjust your exposure in high contrast lighting situations.

The F4S is very heavy. I bought a big back pack for it but I am still getting really tired after walking with it for hours (I used to do long walks with the F501 in a single sling bag without any problem). May be i am just getting old.... The F4 has more settings for shutter speed and exposure metering modes. In high light conditions, the F4 offers more options. It has some shutter modes that I still don't know what they are for. The single shot is good enough for me since I don't have a telephoto lens fast enough to do continuous action photos. The F4 is a very solid camera. It is indeed a nice paper weight if you need one, but it definitely is a great camera. Some people say it's uncomfortable to use.... I don't know about that. I am a designer and I deal with human factors every day. The F4S isn't the greatest design human factor wise, but professional camera is one of those equipment that once you get used to it, you can find a operation process that suits yourself. Sure it can be greatly improved, but it's not going to make me hate it.

Price range wise, I am doubtful that you can get one for the $200 range. I bought mine about 1.5 years ago. I did spend about $300 on it, but spent another $200 to have it overhauled at KEH. I should have just bought it at KEH and not have to worry about it. So make your choice carefully when buying used equipment. Get it from a reputable source.

One thing that the F4 has problem is the small LCD screen on the bottom of the view finder. When I bought mine, it has bleeding, meaning parts of it isn't working. I had it replaced. A few days ago, it bled again. It's not affecting my meter reading, but it gets annoying.

I think the F501 is a good intro camera if you are not crazy about having good AF capability. The lens I use are mostly Ai-S and the F501 has trained me well in manual focusing skills. This is something hard to experience on cropped DSLRs. So I will recommend the F501 instead.

There were two reasons why I bought the F4S.
1. I've been shooting with my F501 for 8 years and I feel that I want something a little better, yet I cannot afford full frame DSLR yet, so I went for the F4S.
2. I know I will eventually move on to a DSLR, but since I am going to spend the money now, I want to get my value in it. I see the F4S as a collectible in the future. It's just me, some people trade cameras like cars. I build relationships with things I use.

I hope this helps. Remember, you will enjoy either camera provided that they are faultless.


----------



## epatsellis

_"_
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._"_ 

Once again, in case you missed it, I asked better using what criteria? (see above) I've tested and used hundreds of pieces of equipment, but I'm honest enough to say that my personal prejudices influence those results. Without some semblelence of what criteria you used, your argument is baseless and without factual basis.

In case you missed it during your Leica induced bliss, many of the lenses from the era you are talking about weren't even built by Leitz, lenses such as the 28-70, made my Sigma, the 70-200 f4, the 24 2.8 and the 16mm 2.8 fisheye made by minolta. 

The R3, R4 and R5 (and variants) were designed jointly by Leitz and Minolta, share a great many parts, and Leitz even went so far as to use the same shutter assemblies. 

Leitz makes some great cameras and lenses, I'll agree, but nobody I know that has to rely on an SLR day in and day out would even consider using them. Certainly none of my conteporaries from the early 80's used one, and while I knew a few that used them for personal work, the general response I got was that "it's just not the right camera for day in, day out use". 

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

And my Betterlight scan back makes the S2 look like the rich boy toy that it is. See your above comment about strawman arguments. 
Let's expand the argument to Chevy vs. Ford, Mercedes vs. Audi, Ferrari vs. Maserati. Well, my Mercedes is far better than your Leicaflex, because I've driven it. (makes about as much sense)

Actually Derrell, Leica did figure out how to out do the Japanese camera manufacturers, they simply had Minolta build many of their lenses and bodies.


----------



## Petraio Prime

Derrel said:


> Yeah, those 40 people were pretty delirious alright. I see you still are!
> 
> Well, heck yeah they're outperforming anything from Canon or Nikon--Leicaflexes were made by the company that makes cameras and lenses for God. And rich sheiks. And software millionaires. Those people take 4, 5,6,7 dozen pictures a month,some of them.





Derrel said:


> The reason Leicaflex died as a system was that there was no "system"...they could never manage to figure out how to out-build Japanese cameras...never could figure out how to do TTL light metering, or focus lenses without cams...never could figure out how to build an autofocus system...never could figure out how to build a motor into a body...never could figure out how to make all sorts of accessories...when Canon and Nikon had 50- and 60-lens systems, Leica had what? Was it nine different lenses, priced from $2,200 to $4995 each?
> 
> And so, you're telling a guy who wants a dial-and-button camera to buy a Canon EOS-1, which you never owned, and which is lacking in the very most-critical thing the guy wants--dials and knobs and an "analogue" approach to controls????  And it's of a brand he has no real interest in either. Hmmm....I guess there has to be some reason to bring the name Leicaflex up, since on this board, you are probably the only Leicaflex SL-2 owner here Petraio. I realize that decades ago, like the 1950's, Leica M-series cameras were popular, but by the late 1960's, Nikon has killed Leica off pretty much, and nowadays it's very,very hard to broach the subject of the Leicaflex SL series cameras,even among photo nuts like me...so thread slike this one must seem to you like a logical outlet for desperate Leicaflex segues in threads about old film cameras from the 1980's and 1990's...
> 
> Bringing Leicaflex SL series gear into a thread about 1980's-1990's NIkon models F4, F100,and F5....hmmm...it's like going to a birthday party and making a desperate  conversational gambit with some pretty 30-year old single female by discussing one's 1972 wisom tooth impaction and infection, and subsequent emergency oral surgery...loads of people will be interested in that topic. Not!
> 
> You do realize that I'm enjoying this back and forth, right P-P??? Please sir, tell us more about the Leicaflex SL-2 and The Lenses of The Round Table, and the Unicorn Farts and Fairy Snot that the lens elements were created from...oh please Petraio, regale us with tales of wondrous triumphs of Leica, such as when they hired Minolta to make lenses for them, and when they had to leave Wetzlar, Germany and move to eastern Canada to dodge the draft....err...wait...they moved to Canada for the better BEER the Canadians had..yeah...that's right...
> 
> Oh, Petraio, can't you tell how much I love these heart to heart talks?:hug:: You are indeed, a great sport, and it's been very fun going back and forth with you. Someday I hope you find a charity to donate those old Leicaflex lenses to. Lord knows there are some camera-less and lens-less people around the world who'd be happy to have your kit, so they could pawn it and buy an autofocus Nikon F4, with knobs,and buttons, and 50 million lenses that would fit, instead of those 2,000 Leicaflex lenses tucked away in the cabinets of rich European millionaires and Middle Eastern sheiks...
> 
> Oh,Petraio...you do realize this is all in jest right?:hugs:




You have an extraordinary knack for missing the point. Those really old Nikon lenses (pre-1975 or so) simply aren't worth using. 

Why? And why  _are_ old Leicaflex lenses worth using?

These old Nikkor lenses, unlike old Leicaflex lenses that*are* worth using, were not as robust. They were not as well designed optically or mechanically. I recently sold a 180mm Elmarit-R (first generation) that has seen a lot of use (I owned it for 20 years and used it a lot). I sold it to get the 2nd generation lens, which is much smaller and lighter. The first generation lens was made  from 1966-1979. That makes it between 31 and 44 years old. It was optically very good and mechanically like new. I had it serviced a few years ago (CLA) as the focussing had gotten a little stiff.

A equivalent Nikkor lens from the same period would be: 

1) optically inferior to it (lower-contrast images, astigmatism, coma, proneness to flare, etc.)
2) falling apart from use

Also, many older designs (from *all* of the companies) were quite bulky. 

The yearbook owned a 50-300 zoom Nikkor: 

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/50300mm.htm 

http://www.destoutz.ch/lens_50-300mm_f4.5_740202.html
 
Optically it was crap. It was also heavy and hard to use. 

We also owned a 43-86. It was horrible optically. 

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=keyalbum.KeywordAlbum&g2_keyword=N&g2_itemId=11661
  
 According to Bjørn Rørslett:

 Zoom-Nikkor 43-86 mm f/3.5 [non-AI, AI]
 1-1.5 (early version)
        3 (last version)
 This beautifully built         43-86 mm zoom lens was immensely popular in the early         Nikon years, although image quality admittedly was poor.         Thus it served to give zooms a reputation of bad quality         that tenaciously survives even to this time. However,         many people are unaware that Nikon replaced the first         9-element version with a markedly improved new 11-element         design in 1976. The         last optical version had serial numbers starting at 774         071 and continued into the AI epoch. I have used it         extensively with or without a close-up lens and it really         gives good results stopped down to f/8 or so. Even with         the newest design, pincushion distortion is a bit on the         high side compared with modern lenses so the 43-86 shouldn't be         used for architectural photography. Moreover, its bokeh         isn't great. In fact, it is terrible! Easily the worst of         all Nikkors in this aspect.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html 

We (the yearbook) also had a 200mm f/4 of this design:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/200f4Q.htm

Optically it was OK, nothing special. My 250mm Telyt-R was better though. 

We   (the yearbook) also owned the 300mm f/4.5:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/2746840165_58a85b4373_o.jpg 

 My 250mm Telyt-R  

(shown here:  http://www.greiner-photo.de/catalog/images/LCR250k.jpg )

was far better than this lens. 

  "I was never very          thrilled with this lens optically. For $50 you can get the old and very          good 200mm f/4 Nikkor-Q instead and just enlarge from the center with          about the same quality, since the 200mm is sharper. The 200mm is also          very easy to find used. Heck, the performance of many of the cheesy 70-300mm          lenses out there may be just as good, but about an important stop slower."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/30045P.htm
 
 If someone is contemplating buying an F4 because he can use old Nikkor lenses dating back to 1959 he needs to realize that's not a great idea because the older Nikkor lenses  (1959-1980 or so) are vastly inferior to the Nikkor lenses of later generations.  

If one wants to use old lenses, the Leicaflex system made lenses that are more robust and optically superior to the Nikkor lenses of the same period. 

So, *even if *the old Nikkor lens isn't broken down (which many from that period are), it's not likely to be optically up to modern standards.

Leica made several 180mm lenses but no 200mm (the first 180mm Elmarit-R was a stop faster in any case). The 180mm lenses were all superb for their time. Some were faster, some slower (f/2 to f/4 maximum apertures). Leica made 250mm, 280mm, and 350mm lenses, but no 300. All were superb. Several APO 280mm versions exist, including 2.8  and f/4 models. These lenses absolutely annihilate anything Nikon could make around 200-300mm.

I had a chance to use the f/4 lens at the Leica factory when I visited there as their guest in 1995. It is a superb lens!

http://www.all-photo.net/index/do/review/type/lenses/id/426/model/Leica-APO-TELYT-R-280-mm-f-4/
  
*In conclusion, wanting to buy an F4 so that one can use the old Nikkor lenses just doesn't make sense.*



PS:

The yearbook owned the following equipment:

Nikon Ftn body (1 or 2, I cant remember)
Nikkormat Ftn body
20mm f/3.5 (my rating: 4/10)
43-86mm zoom  (my rating: 1.5/10)
50mm f/1.4  (my rating: 5/10)
50mm f/2  (my rating: 6/10)
105mm f/2.5  (my rating: 8/10)
200mm f/4  (my rating: 6.5/10)
300mm f/4.5  (my rating: 5/10)
50-300mm zoom   (my rating: 4/10)

Leicaflex lenses that I have owned:

19mm f/2.8 (my rating: 8/10)
21mm f/4 (my rating: 8/10)
 50mm f/1.4  (my rating: 8/10)
 50mm f/2  (my rating: 9/10)
 90mm f/2.8  (my rating: 9/10)
 90mm f/2.0  (my rating: 8/10)
180mm f/3.4 APO (my rating: 7/10)
 180mm f/4  (my rating:8/10)
 180mm f/2.8 first gen  (my rating:7/10)
 180mm f/2,8 second gen  (my rating:8.5/10)
 250mm f/4 first gen  (my rating: 8/10)
 350mm f/4.8 (my rating: 8/10)
400mm f/6.8 (my rating: 8.5/10)
560mm f/6.8 (my rating: 8.5/10)


----------



## Mike_E

Pete-boy, You seem to be missing the point.

Other people are just fine with living their own lives playing with the toys that make THEM happy.  Perfection isn't even a consideration so why bother arguing over a few lines per mm?

If you would like to run your own life be my guest.  But no matter how well you run your own you have no right or reason to run anyone else's life, much less belittling the things they choose to gather about themselves.

Now, to the OP, the F4/s is a fine model but If you'll read Thom Hogan's review of the N90s you'll see (if you can still access it) that he decided to carry an N90s instead.  I have one and can attest that it is a fine camera as well.  If you get one, get one with a grip as it's not economical to buy the grip separately.





Here it is.. http://www.bythom.com/n90.htm


----------



## epatsellis

Petraio Prime said:


> I recently sold a 180mm Elmarit-R (first generation) that has seen a lot of use. It was made  from 1966-1979. That makes it between 31 and 44 years old. It was optically very good and mechanically like new. I had it serviced a few years ago (CLA) as the focussing had gotten a little stiff.
> 
> A equivalent Nikkor lens from the same period would be:
> 
> 1) optically inferior to it (low-contrast images, astigmatism, coma, proneness to flare, etc.)
> 2) falling apart from use



Oddly enough, my pre ED 180 2.8 still works just fine (and the focusing isn't the least bit stiff)








Petraio Prime said:


> Also, many older designs (from all of the companies) were quite bulky.
> 
> The yearbook owned a 50-300 zoom Nikkor:
> 
> Zoom-Nikkor 50-300mm f/4.5 Lenses
> 
> Zoom-NIKKOR Auto 1:4.5 f=50 ~ f=300mm No.740202
> 
> Optically it was crap. It was also heavy and hard to use.
> 
> We also owned a 43-86. It was horrible optically.
> 
> MFlemses.com - Nikon Nikkor 43-86mm f/3.5 zoom
> 
> According to Bjørn Rørslett:
> 
> Zoom-Nikkor 43-86 mm f/3.5 [non-AI, AI]
> 1-1.5 (early version)
> 3
> (last version)
> This beautifully built         43-86 mm zoom lens was immensely popular in the early         Nikon years, although image quality admittedly was poor.         Thus it served to give zooms a reputation of bad quality         that tenaciously survives even to this time. However,         many people are unaware that Nikon replaced the first         9-element version with a markedly improved new 11-element         design in 1976. The         last optical version had serial numbers starting at 774         071 and continued into the AI epoch. I have used it         extensively with or without a close-up lens and it really         gives good results stopped down to f/8 or so. Even with         the newest design, pincushion distortion is a bit on the         high side compared with modern lenses so the 43-86 shouldn't be         used for architectural photography. Moreover, its bokeh         isn't great. In fact, it is terrible! Easily the worst of         all Nikkors in this aspect.
> Zoom Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount: Normal Range




so your assessment agrees with Bjorn's, as well as most of us that have had that lens, in it's day it was reasonable, today, not so much.





Petraio Prime said:


> We also had a 200mm f/4 of this design:
> 
> Nikon 200mm f/4 Nikkor-Q
> 
> Optically it was OK, nothing special. My 250mm Telyt-R was better though.



Better in what way? Contrast, coma, flare, as stated above, or just an amorphous (and frequent from you) better because I say so?



Petraio Prime said:


> We also owned the 300mm f/4.5:
> 
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/2746840165_58a85b4373_o.jpg
> 
> My 250mm Telyt-R
> 
> (shown here: http://www.greiner-photo.de/catalog/images/LCR250k.jpg )
> 
> was far better than this lens.
> 
> "[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]I was never very          thrilled with this lens optically. For $50 you can get the old and very          good 200mm f/4 Nikkor-Q instead and just enlarge from the center with          about the same quality, since the 200mm is sharper. The 200mm is also          very easy to find used. Heck, the performance of many of the cheesy 70-300mm          lenses out there may be just as good, but about an important stop slower."
> 
> [/FONT]Nikon 300mm f/4.5 Nikkor-P test Review © 2004 KenRockwell.com
> 
> If one wants to use old lenses, the Leicaflex system made lenses that are more robust and optically superior to the Nikkor lenses of the same period.
> 
> So, if the old Nikkor lens isn't broken down (which many from that period are), it's not likely to be optically up to modern standards.




I call BULL****, plain and simple. I use both the 300 f4.5 and 200 f4 on a full frame camera, as well as film. You sir, are plain and simple, full of ****. I don't buy into the it's more expensive, therefore it must be better nonsense. Higher contrast means little, and frequently comes at the expense of microcontrast in the darker areas. I have not experienced any semblance of coma or CA in either copy of these two I have, either on film, or using a FF digital camera, and if you'd get you head out of your ass, you might admit that they work well and are cost effective.  





Petraio Prime said:


> Leica made several 180mm lenses but no 200mm (the first 180mm Elmarit-R was a stop faster in any case). The 180mm lenses were all superb for their time. Some were faster, some slower. Leica made 250mm, 280mm, and 350mm lenses, but no 300. All were superb. Several APO 280mm versions exist, including 2.8  and f/4 models.
> 
> I had a chance to use the f/4 lens at the Leica factory when I visited there as their guest in 1995. It is a superb lens!
> 
> all-photo.net :: review :: Leica APO-TELYT-R 280 mm f/4
> 
> *In conclusion, wanting to buy an F4 so that one can use the old Nikkor lenses just doesn't make sense.*


And quite likely, more expensive than my Mercedes cost me. I don't buy the Leica bull****, if overall image quality is that important, shoot with a negative bigger than a postage stamp for chrissakes.


I've encountered more than my share of elitist snobs like you, and quite frankly, they're all full of self righteous **** (and by extension, you are). From flying (where my lowly Cessna 172M was not a "real" plane compared to a Bonanza) to the Porsche Club of America (where I was told that I wasn't really a "real" Porsche owner because I bought a used 928 and rebuilt it from the ground up (and improved a lot of the little finicky things in the process)), even in LF photography, where the prevailing attitude of having to have the newest (and by extension, the most expensive) is the only way to shoot. 

Lest I remind you, some of the most engaging, artistically significant images from the 20th centuty by Weston were shot using a no name $5 lens that he bought at a Mexican flea market. 

In regards to the question originally asked regarding an F4, get one, it's quite likely the best MF camera Nikon made, with the added bonus of being able to use AF lenses


----------



## Petraio Prime

epatsellis said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recently sold a 180mm Elmarit-R (first generation) that has seen a lot of use. It was made  from 1966-1979. That makes it between 31 and 44 years old. It was optically very good and mechanically like new. I had it serviced a few years ago (CLA) as the focussing had gotten a little stiff.
> 
> A equivalent Nikkor lens from the same period would be:
> 
> 1) optically inferior to it (low-contrast images, astigmatism, coma, proneness to flare, etc.)
> 2) falling apart from use
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, my pre ED 180 2.8 still works just fine (and the focusing isn't the least bit stiff)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, many older designs (from all of the companies) were quite bulky.
> 
> The yearbook owned a 50-300 zoom Nikkor:
> 
> Zoom-Nikkor 50-300mm f/4.5 Lenses
> 
> Zoom-NIKKOR Auto 1:4.5 f=50 ~ f=300mm No.740202
> 
> Optically it was crap. It was also heavy and hard to use.
> 
> We also owned a 43-86. It was horrible optically.
> 
> MFlemses.com - Nikon Nikkor 43-86mm f/3.5 zoom
> 
> According to Bjørn Rørslett:
> 
> Zoom-Nikkor 43-86 mm f/3.5 [non-AI, AI]
> 1-1.5 (early version)
> 3
> (last version)
> This beautifully built         43-86 mm zoom lens was immensely popular in the early         Nikon years, although image quality admittedly was poor.         Thus it served to give zooms a reputation of bad quality         that tenaciously survives even to this time. However,         many people are unaware that Nikon replaced the first         9-element version with a markedly improved new 11-element         design in 1976. The         last optical version had serial numbers starting at 774         071 and continued into the AI epoch. I have used it         extensively with or without a close-up lens and it really         gives good results stopped down to f/8 or so. Even with         the newest design, pincushion distortion is a bit on the         high side compared with modern lenses so the 43-86 shouldn't be         used for architectural photography. Moreover, its bokeh         isn't great. In fact, it is terrible! Easily the worst of         all Nikkors in this aspect.
> Zoom Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount: Normal Range
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so your assessment agrees with Bjorn's, as well as most of us that have had that lens, in it's day it was reasonable, today, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better in what way? Contrast, coma, flare, as stated above, or just an amorphous (and frequent from you) better because I say so?
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also owned the 300mm f/4.5:
> 
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/2746840165_58a85b4373_o.jpg
> 
> My 250mm Telyt-R
> 
> (shown here: http://www.greiner-photo.de/catalog/images/LCR250k.jpg )
> 
> was far better than this lens.
> 
> "[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]I was never very          thrilled with this lens optically. For $50 you can get the old and very          good 200mm f/4 Nikkor-Q instead and just enlarge from the center with          about the same quality, since the 200mm is sharper. The 200mm is also          very easy to find used. Heck, the performance of many of the cheesy 70-300mm          lenses out there may be just as good, but about an important stop slower."
> 
> [/FONT]Nikon 300mm f/4.5 Nikkor-P test Review © 2004 KenRockwell.com
> 
> If one wants to use old lenses, the Leicaflex system made lenses that are more robust and optically superior to the Nikkor lenses of the same period.
> 
> So, if the old Nikkor lens isn't broken down (which many from that period are), it's not likely to be optically up to modern standards.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I call BULL****, plain and simple. I use both the 300 f4.5 and 200 f4 on a full frame camera, as well as film. You sir, are plain and simple, full of ****. I don't buy into the it's more expensive, therefore it must be better nonsense. Higher contrast means little, and frequently comes at the expense of microcontrast in the darker areas. I have not experienced any semblance of coma or CA in either copy of these two I have, either on film, or using a FF digital camera, and if you'd get you head out of your ass, you might admit that they work well and are cost effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leica made several 180mm lenses but no 200mm (the first 180mm Elmarit-R was a stop faster in any case). The 180mm lenses were all superb for their time. Some were faster, some slower. Leica made 250mm, 280mm, and 350mm lenses, but no 300. All were superb. Several APO 280mm versions exist, including 2.8  and f/4 models.
> 
> I had a chance to use the f/4 lens at the Leica factory when I visited there as their guest in 1995. It is a superb lens!
> 
> all-photo.net :: review :: Leica APO-TELYT-R 280 mm f/4
> 
> *In conclusion, wanting to buy an F4 so that one can use the old Nikkor lenses just doesn't make sense.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And quite likely, more expensive than my Mercedes cost me. I don't buy the Leica bull****, if overall image quality is that important, shoot with a negative bigger than a postage stamp for chrissakes.
> 
> 
> I've encountered more than my share of elitist snobs like you, and quite frankly, they're all full of self righteous **** (and by extension, you are). From flying (where my lowly Cessna 172M was not a "real" plane compared to a Bonanza) to the Porsche Club of America (where I was told that I wasn't really a "real" Porsche owner because I bought a used 928 and rebuilt it from the ground up (and improved a lot of the little finicky things in the process)), even in LF photography, where the prevailing attitude of having to have the newest (and by extension, the most expensive) is the only way to shoot.
> 
> Lest I remind you, some of the most engaging, artistically significant images from the 20th centuty by Weston were shot using a no name $5 lens that he bought at a Mexican flea market.
> 
> In regards to the question originally asked regarding an F4, get one, it's quite likely the best MF camera Nikon made, with the added bonus of being able to use AF lenses
Click to expand...



Why is it that high-end audio equipment is appreciated, but not high-end camera equipment? Are you just envious? 

I am not a snob, not at all.

The truth is Leica lenses are better, optically and mechanically. If I want to devote my money to that it's my business. Having used all of the major brands at one time or another, I know what I am talking about.

If you can't afford it, that's no sin. Just don't try to deny the facts of lens design and production.
I tested and compared Nikon and Leicaflex lenses. No contest. Not even close.

And by the way, I acquired my copy of the first gen 180mm Elmarit-R *used*, and it was a little stiff when I got it. Who knows what the previous owner had done to it. It was easily fixed though. Just a re-greasing job.


----------



## Oldschool92'

Can somebody just answer the OP's question and then lock this thread? 
That is all


----------



## Derrel

But,but,but...I am still waiting to hear about the 1972 wisom tooth impaction and infection, and subsequent emergency oral surgery...loads of people will be interested in that topic as well...I just know they will.

To anybody who wants a knob and dial interface, the Nikon F4 was about the last truly "new" design from Nikon that allowed shutter speed adjustment on a top-deck mounted shutter speed dial, which is something that goes back to the late 1920's in 35mm cameras. Many people with decades of 35mm experience like the shutter speed selector to be a top-deck mounted, rotating dial...it's always "there", it is always visible, and there is never any guessing or remembering where the shutter speed control ALWAYS-ALWAYS-ALWAYS is located, which is something a newbie shooter might not understand as an ergonomic advantage, or as a logical advantage.

The OP would be able to use basically all lenses with the F4, since it is what I call a "bridge" design from Nikon...the F4 was designed to be capable of spanning different eras of Nikon lenses, both from the manual focus era,and the then-emerging AF era. it is a veritable tank of a body, with two main differing battery options.

I dunno...cameras are like fine,mechanical watches to some people, who like 'em, even though they might not keep as accurate a time as a $39 modern, soul-less digital from Casio or Seiko. The Original Poster's question about the F4 versus the F100 or F5...depends largely on what the exact criteria for ownership and use actually are,and or how those criteria are weighted...the F100 is nice, and light...the F5 is a monstrous battery-carrying monstrosity...I passed on the F4, F5,and F100 entirely, and preferred the FM, FE-2,and F3 High Eyepoint bodies to the early Nikon AF bodies...I was happy with FM-FE-2-F3-HP equipment for 15 years in a row...to me the F4 and F5 were just sooooo bulky, and kinda' overkill AND over-priced.

In today's depressed market though, used F4,F5,and F100 bodies are selling for a pittance. Might as well buy all three, one of each, for less than the price of any one individual model even 8 years ago...


----------



## Flash Harry

Oldschool92' said:


> Can somebody just answer the OP's question and then lock this thread?
> That is all



I did F4S, F100, F90X, Which over there the first two are the same models and the F90X is n90s I think, and one other poster mentioned the grip for the 90, I agree to his points and also think it balances the model a lot better than without. Real cheap too, over this end, and, I still have a pristine model, possibly no more than 5000 actuations. H


----------



## Petraio Prime

Oldschool92' said:


> Can somebody just answer the OP's question and then lock this thread?
> That is all



The F4 is the last camera I would advise for a Nikon user or anyone who wants a fine film camera..


----------



## Oldschool92'

What's interesting is the OP has only replied once since the OP :er:
The rest has been a bunch of back and forth bickering 
I think some people need to hug it out :hug::


----------



## Petraio Prime

Oldschool92' said:


> What's interesting is the OP has only replied once since the OP :er:
> The rest has been a bunch of back and forth bickering
> I think some people need to hug it out :hug::




It's difficult reasoning with Nikon owners.


----------



## epatsellis

Petraio Prime said:


> Why is it that high-end audio equipment is appreciated, but not high-end camera equipment? Are you just envious?
> 
> I am not a snob, not at all.
> 
> The truth is Leica lenses are better, optically and mechanically. If I want to devote my money to that it's my business. Having used all of the major brands at one time or another, I know what I am talking about.
> 
> If you can't afford it, that's no sin. Just don't try to deny the facts of lens design and production.
> I tested and compared Nikon and Leicaflex lenses. No contest. Not even close.
> 
> And by the way, I acquired my copy of the first gen 180mm Elmarit-R *used*, and it was a little stiff when I got it. Who knows what the previous owner had done to it. It was easily fixed though. Just a re-greasing job.



Quite the opposite, I tend, however, to place value over cost. Same thing when I owned a high end audio store, we could of had any product line, out highest end products were state of the art at the time (Krell, C-J), yet for every Krell preamp I sold, I sold an awful lot of Acurus, Aragon and Audible Illusions. They represented better overall value. I still listen to vinyl, on tube electronics, and electrostatic speakers. I am quite conversant and knowledgeable about high end audio/video reproduction, yet fail to see how this applies to the discussion at hand? We are (were???) talking about which* NIKON body *would best leverage the OP's existing lenses for film use. 


There's no denying the Leitz designs emphasize contrast and sharpness, however as to mechanical and optical superiority, I'd question your assertion. I've owned all the major brands as well, from Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Contax and Leicas. I personally find that the Japanese lenses, on the whole, do a much better job when it comes to subtleties of tonality. 

My Leica experience is primarily from the R4 era and going back to my M4, M3 and a screwmount IIIF. When they work, they work well. And that is the crux of my issues with the R series. Spending a fortune in bodies and lenses only to have to ship them off to be repaired within 3 months of purchase is absurd. I can see maybe one or two in a few years, but out of 6 bodies, 5 had to be repaired (3 of them several times until things got "sorted out"). Mechanically, if they were cars, I'd of gotten a refund under the lemon laws. Optically, it's not my cup of tea, as I prefer a more "honest" rendering of tonality. My commercial clients felt the same way, the chromes were too "over the top" on the light table, and difficult to separate for repro. I went back to the Nikon lenses and bodies and gave up on the entire Leitz mystique nonsense. 
Since you somehow feel that you are a better photographer based on what you spent on equipment, great, I'm glad you find something to bring you happiness. If you feel that you have to have the most expensive (to offset your "lackings" in other areas), then by all means. If you prefer contrast at the expense of microcontrast in the lower zones, that's your choice, I prefer to have more information on the negative and choose what I'm going to print (or not). Personally for smaller formats, the earlier Japanese lenses give a more honest rendering of the tonality. Interestingly, Bronica, Hasselblad (1000/1600 series) and Canon (in their rangefinder days) held the same opinion, it seems, as well. 


You demonstrate the very elitism I mentioned earlier, and you are a perfect example of why in my later years, I've put the pursuit of money and possessions far down on my list and prefer to share my knowledge, free of the secret handshake, platinum card bull****.


----------



## Petraio Prime

epatsellis said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that high-end audio equipment is appreciated, but not high-end camera equipment? Are you just envious?
> 
> I am not a snob, not at all.
> 
> The truth is Leica lenses are better, optically and mechanically. If I want to devote my money to that it's my business. Having used all of the major brands at one time or another, I know what I am talking about.
> 
> If you can't afford it, that's no sin. Just don't try to deny the facts of lens design and production.
> I tested and compared Nikon and Leicaflex lenses. No contest. Not even close.
> 
> And by the way, I acquired my copy of the first gen 180mm Elmarit-R *used*, and it was a little stiff when I got it. Who knows what the previous owner had done to it. It was easily fixed though. Just a re-greasing job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite, I tend, however, to place value over cost. Same thing when I owned a high end audio store, we could of had any product line, out highest end products were state of the art at the time (Krell, C-J), yet for every Krell preamp I sold, I sold an awful lot of Acurus, Aragon and Audible Illusions. They represented better overall value. I still listen to vinyl, on tube electronics, and electrostatic speakers. I am quite conversant and knowledgeable about high end audio/video reproduction, yet fail to see how this applies to the discussion at hand? We are (were???) talking about which* NIKON body *would best leverage the OP's existing lenses for film use.
> 
> 
> There's no denying the Leitz designs emphasize contrast and sharpness, however as to mechanical and optical superiority, I'd question your assertion. I've owned all the major brands as well, from Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Contax and Leicas. I personally find that the Japanese lenses, on the whole, do a much better job when it comes to subtleties of tonality.
> 
> My Leica experience is primarily from the R4 era and going back to my M4, M3 and a screwmount IIIF. When they work, they work well. And that is the crux of my issues with the R series. Spending a fortune in bodies and lenses only to have to ship them off to be repaired within 3 months of purchase is absurd. I can see maybe one or two in a few years, but out of 6 bodies, 5 had to be repaired (3 of them several times until things got "sorted out"). Mechanically, if they were cars, I'd of gotten a refund under the lemon laws. Optically, it's not my cup of tea, as I prefer a more "honest" rendering of tonality. My commercial clients felt the same way, the chromes were too "over the top" on the light table, and difficult to separate for repro. I went back to the Nikon lenses and bodies and gave up on the entire Leitz mystique nonsense.
> Since you somehow feel that you are a better photographer based on what you spent on equipment, great, I'm glad you find something to bring you happiness. If you feel that you have to have the most expensive (to offset your "lackings" in other areas), then by all means. If you prefer contrast at the expense of microcontrast in the lower zones, that's your choice, I prefer to have more information on the negative and choose what I'm going to print (or not). Personally for smaller formats, the earlier Japanese lenses give a more honest rendering of the tonality. Interestingly, Bronica, Hasselblad (1000/1600 series) and Canon (in their rangefinder days) held the same opinion, it seems, as well.
> 
> 
> You demonstrate the very elitism I mentioned earlier, and you are a perfect example of why in my later years, I've put the pursuit of money and possessions far down on my list and prefer to share my knowledge, free of the secret handshake, platinum card bull****.
Click to expand...


Your comments on lens contrast and tonality are all wrong, but I have no time to go into that now. If you like lots of flare in the shadows, fine. You're used to it. Leica lenses have lower overall flare and produce fantastic contrast from highlight to shadow.

I am not rich. Nor am I an elitist. What gets me is the "reverse elitism" so many photographers display.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo[/ame]

I happen to value good equipment, as I started out with a Yashica J-5 screw thread camera and bought Vivitar and Soligor lenses for it. 

When I did go to college and used the Nikon stuff at the yearbook, I also worked in a camera store. We sold Nikon, Pentax, Alpa, Minolta, Canon, and later Olympus, etc.

My Yashica outfit was stolen in 1971 and it was insured. With the settlement I was able to get a used Leicaflex body for $325. I saved up and got a 90mm Elmarit-R for $159 on dealer special (40% off list). At that time I could have bought a new Nikon and a couple of lenses with that same $325.

Why didn't I?

Having used the Nikon stuff that was the yearbook's equipment, and comparing the Leicaflex cameras and lenses that I had access to at the store, it was not even close.

My point in this thread was that many of those old 1960s Nikon lenses were not very good by today's standards, and some were awful even then. Of the 7 or 8 lenses we had, only the 105 f/2.5 was any good.

It has taken me a long time to acquire my current outfit, and I have made sacrifices to get it.

For what it's worth I never cared for the R cameras, and have used Leicaflexes since 1971. I think Leica stumbled with the R4 in particular.


----------



## slate mike

Hi, Gang! It's me - the OP. So everyone quit skirting the issues and tell us what you REALLY think!:lmao:


----------



## Petraio Prime

slate mike said:


> Hi, Gang! It's me - the OP. So everyone quit skirting the issues and tell us what you REALLY think!:lmao:



What are _you _doing here? Now then, what was I saying?


----------



## Mike_E

Ummm, not much.

Slate, everybody with an opinion agrees that an F4/s would be great.

Those of us who only have an ego think you should go with a Leica.


----------



## cooltouch

I bought a Nikon FE with 50mm f/1.8 AI Nikkor off Goodwill's auction site last week for $52 and I feel like it's Christmas.  It arrived a couple of days ago and is actually in very nice condition.   No, it doesn't AF and so what.  Great little camera and has one of the nicest viewfinders Nikon has ever produced for manual exposure control with its match-needle metering system.


----------



## slate mike

Is the fight over? Who won?  One thing for sure, I learned a whole lot about Leica. Which is a system WAY above my budget. decent F4's on Ebay are going for $200 to whatever and the F100's are a little less. A nice one just sold for $158.


----------



## Boneez

I found this thread funnily enough because I was wondering why my F4 was acting up. Would seem to work fine, and then just shut down completely - only to spring back to life, autofocus and do all the regular jazz for a few seconds, and then just die again. I knew it had been a while since I changed batteries but it seemed quite short so I didn't even think low battery life at first. I'd push the test button on the MB-21 and it would sometimes flicker both LED's for alkalines, and sometimes just the one. Never happened before! Opened it up and remembered I was in a pinch a while back and threw some dollar store AA's into it. D'oh! Put 6 Duracell's into it and works like a charm again. Phew!

Anyway, this thread is hilarious. The OP has probably made his decision seeing as it's 2 years old now - I hope he made the right one and bought an F4 or some persuasion thereof. The MB-20 might be a nice option although I have never used one, but it seems like a good alternative to the MB-21 I have used for years now for day-to-day walking around, although I can't see how much lighter it can actually make that tank of a camera. Regardless of grip, however, the F4 is a SWEET camera:

-it meters in all modes on ANY Nikon lens ever made, period

-it AUTOFOCUSES with any Nikon lens that has autofocus capabilities built into it, with *no* restrictions - even new G lenses will autofocus with it, and if you are really hard up on getting a new G lens for your old F4, it will work great with P or Ph settings, and you can have some semblance of aperture control via the shutter priority setting and the over/under exposure dial

What a lot of people don't realize though, is that as mentioned above, the F4's ability to meter in any metering mode on any lens transcends just old lenses - do you like macro photography? Got a bellows? Guess what! The F4 will meter PERFECTLY through a bellows unit with stop-down metering. Or extension rings or reversed lenses or any combination of the above. It DOES IT ALL. And unlike newer Nikons (or any Canon of late), if macro is your thing, you can slap a 6x mag finder on it to help you pursue this end. Why Nikon dropped interchangeable finders is beyond me, although I suppose with the advent of digital screens on DSRL's I can see why there isn't much call for action finders anymore. Anyway, the F4 is one of the chosen bodies that NASA brought into space, and unfortunately Canon and Leica just weren't chosen for some reason. Hm.

I got to play with a lot of stuff in my dad's camera shop back in the good old days. Some of the slides we took with outrageously priced Leica gear, rangefinder and SLR, are stunning to look at today. But to be fair, some of the slides we took with the old Nikkor's will hold a candle to those taken with the Leica gear. Now, for someone going for a legacy system, I'll give Leica a gut punch even though I love the look of some of their lenses:

-if you have several thousand dollars lying around, get a Noct-Nikkor and compare it to a Noctilux. For shooting people in any lighting they look great. For shooting at night outside, maybe from a balcony or from a mountain overlooking a city, there is NO COMPARISON. The Nikkor will demolish the Noctilux.

-as I recall, if you have a Leica system, kiss ultrawide lenses goodbye. Leica 6mm lens? 220 degree view? No, they never made that. Leica fans talk about their 15+K Hologon lenses (made by Zeiss, hmm), but even there, compare it to Nikon's 13mm ultrawide they made on a custom basis - there is *no comparison*. An F4 has convenient mirror lock to enable these lenses too, sadly lacking on most more modern bodies.

-Telephoto lenses? Yes, Leica made a 1600mm f/5.6... and never put it into production. Their APO-Telyt lenses were great... but you could usually buy a (new) automobile for the cost of one of these lenses. Comparable Nikkors were (relatively) more reasonably priced, had autofocus capabilities, and are still not only being made, but also serviced. Which brings me to the last point...

The OP doesn't have an arsenal of Leica glass to worry about. He has some Nikon glass and wants a camera to build within that system. An F4 would be a great camera for him, especially considering his criteria: maybe he wants some new glass? An F4 will do nicely with any AF-D lens Nikon currently makes (or even any internal motor lenses they make that have an aperture ring). Got old glass? The F4 will handle that with ease and grace too. It is one of the most versatile camera bodies ever made, by any manufacturer.

Leica made great optics, and continues to do so. If the OP had a Leicaflex certain people's suggestions on this page would make sense. But he doesn't, so those suggestions miss the point. If someone had a heavy investment into Olympus or Pentax glass, nobody would suggest dumping it for another brand - it wouldn't make sense. All the major brands have made great equipment over the years, and (with possible exception of Canon and Minolta), all are worthwhile supporting. I only say those two brands because they *did* dump their mount over the years and system compatibility suffered as a result. But hey, who am I to say? Canon lenses will often autofocus better than those by Nikon. But Nikon got chosen to go to space (repeatedly). Minolta built most of Leica's stuff in the latter years. Olympus lenses shot a lot of NASA's earthbound stuff. It's all good. If you have an investment in something go with it. They all made great gear. If you *really* want to upgrade and see a vast difference... buy a Hasselblad! Or a Mamiya, or a Bronica, or a Rollei. Or... a Linhof @_@

(or Sinar, or Toyo, or Graflex, or whatever...  )


----------



## BrianV

I use Nikon lenses on my Leica.

There is no point in reviving an old argument carried on by many members that are no longer active on the forum.


----------



## epatsellis

Not AS active, but still checking in from time to time...


----------

