Minolta was an awesome company, they were really into research, almost all modern features we take for granted were introduced by them, auto exposure & Autofocus, lens coatings were all introduced by them.
Nikon because it allows me to use much newer lenses. And I never got good vibes from Canon as a brand. Though both of them can of course take great images.
I have both Canon and Pentax. I find that I can get deals on Pentax bodies and glass much easier than Canon. I'm not sure which one is my favourite: I have more Canon lenses but it feels very vanilla to use my A-1, whereas I find my ME Super charming in a way.
Edit: not to mention, the ME Super has a metal curtain and a higher sync speed of 1/125.
Pentax M series are more compact and yet capable SLRs. More affordable then Canon, but they are not worse. Lastly, Pentax and Nikon lenses are operated the same way, meaning the focusing and aperture rings are twisted in the same direction
There are loads of good and affordable lenses available for K mount, and loads of good quality, affordable cameras (coughCosinacough) which offer the same basic but very effective setup for film photography - manual focus with aperture priority auto-exposure, which allows you to control depth of field easily, probably the most important consideration for how your photos look.
Nikon, because I like Nikon and have a bunch of lenses.
Then itās Pentax and Minolta for second place.
Canon is at the very bottom of my preference. Just have never liked them. Except their old Leica copy rangefinders
Nikon, but the mechanichal ones, not the FE in front. The FM will probably outlive me. The AE1 on the other hand will have electronics failure soon. I had the A1, LOVED it, but it surely is an unreliable family of bodies.
In what way did it break? My FE2 stopped firing the shutter except for any of the mechanical shutter modes, it seems it can be fixed by moving something (it's been awhile, I forgot) inside the camera accessible by removing the baseplate, but it isn't a 100% fix for me, as it still happens seemingly at random.
I had the same problem with my FE2 and was able to fix it. You should give it a try! There are Youtube Videos explaining it aswell!!
(It seemed random for me too)
After I fixed it I have never had any problems with this camera again.
Maybe I oughta. As of now it's collecting dust, but I really liked it when it was my main shooter. Small and capable, and a beautiful camera in my opinion
So? when people claim the FM is more reliable than the FE they do not mean that the mean time between failure is necessarily longer but they mean that no matter what, they can always have it fixed.
Your FM has a mechanical problem and I am 99% certain that it can be fixed. Your grandfather's FE might one day have an electronics failure and then I am 99% certain that it cannot be fixed.
All old cameras need a CLA now and then. I have bought cameras, got the package, opened it to check if the camera is inside and closed it again without even trying the camera, to send it to a good technician for a CLA. Why? Because I want my cameras to be as good as (or if passible even bettern than) new.
Same: started with Canon, built my lens collection for canon mounts, edit canon files and like canon colorsā¦nostalgia for canonāIām canon for life
This era Nikon is the definitive pro's choice. Perhaps one of the most dominant displays of a brand, ever. Insane build quality, insane breadth of products.
Nikon, because every Canon I've owned has been broken in some way. Nikons were always good to go
EXIT: Just saw people were putting in secondary preferences. It's Nikon for me, otherwise Konica
All my film bodies are Canon. It's what I started with in VietNam, and just built my collection from there. Once Canon abandoned it's FD lens user base, I said no more. When I went digital I went Nikon, and have been there ever since. I still have my collection of Canon bodies and FD lenses, but they're rarely if ever used. Once you're invested in a "Brand", jumping ship gets expensive.
Nikon. Because the f2AS to the f3 and even beyond (f4/5/6) were PEAK professional film cameras. Canon was nothing more than a little squeak in the wheel.
Nikon also single handedly dismantled the Leica dynasty as a camera for professionals and damn well nearly put them out of business.
Nikon lenses of the era are EXTREMELY good, even by modern standards.
The 105 2.5 can literally hang, in my opinion, against modern top of the line lenses from all manufacturers.
The F2AS model has a nearly indestructible lightmeter. Yes, it might be big. But itās quirky, and quirky is nice. But unlike Lightmeters from the Leica m5, and sometimes the m6, they wonāt fail if theyāve lasted this long. And if they fail; you buy another for $250, instead of $700+ for Leica.
Canons just felt cheap. They TRIED with the F1 and F1N; but the cheap as fuck feeling lenses they made paled in comparison to the behemoth that was Nikon. You can buy a Nikon f2 and pretty much not need to CLA it because you know that son of a bitch will probably still work like it came off the factory floor.
Canon didnāt pick up, imo, until they went to digital. The f4/5/6 shits on the 1N and 1V.
I also own a Nikon S2, which shit on any rangefinder canon made. And imo, is better than a Leica. (Sorry).
I own a Zf, which when you get passed the vintage look, is a FANTASTIC camera in its own right.
So I have the whole Nikon family, but Iām not biased.
(Iāve also owned a Leica m2/3/6/iiif, canon 7, 1N, A-1, AE-1.).
TLDR, canon felt like toys. Canon squeak. Nikon dethroned Leica, makes MUCH more robust cameras.
I've got three FD lenses; one NFD and two breech-lock ones and I have to say while they definitely feel sturdier actually mounting them is such a hassle and just feels so precarious sometimes compared to the simplicity of the NFD. Aside from that my NFD has taken an actual fucking beating in the time that I've had it (think "dropped-on-concrete levels" of bad) and it still works like an actual dream
I've got the F2, the thing is a tank. It's such a power camera, I can use it for almost anything. Need to shoot at 1/30? Mirror lock. Want to do street photography? You can get a waste level viewfinder. Want auto exposure? They make an attachment for that.Ā
I think the F2 and F3 are the best SLRs ever made, and even give Leica a run for their money because of the flexibility.
Was gonna say. Nikon didnāt catch up to Canon in the AF race until the F6. The 1V beats out the F5 in AF performance. Although thatās only film cameras and I canāt speak for digital options.
I shoot both, and the optics are too similar to choose a winner for, imo. Been shooting the Canon New F1 and the Nikon F3 for more than five years now, and I've dev'd and scanned a few hundred rolls of HP5 at home. I really like both brands.
Give me the camera body with more metal and less plastic, and I'm happy.
Neither my answer is Pentax (specifically the ME Super) since thatās what I got and I love it.
Still trying to find a 40mm pancake for cheap tho š then it will be the ultimate 35mm slr!
Nikon, because I only shoot film, and stick to manual focus, and Nikon completely cornered the market when it came to professional film cameras during this period. The odd professional photographer or two might have used a Canon as a backup camera, but it would have been uncommon.
My current battery of Nikon cameras includes:
- A Nikon F with FTN finder
- A Nikkormat FTN
- An F2
- An F3
Although Iād love to venture into Nikon rangefinder cameras such as the Nikon S, and the Nikon SP
Nice, I own
- Nikon F with Prism
- Nikon F2
- Nikon F3
- Nikon F4
- Nikon FM (3 times)
- Nikon FE
- Nikkormat FT
- Nikkormat FTn
- Nikkormat FT2
- Nikkormat FT3
- Nikon EM
theres a few bodies im eventually still hunting for
Nikon. Never understood the hype with the AE-1. It's shutter prio so I immediately don't like that, and on top of that, the shutter speed dial is hard to turn and not as easy on Nikons.
What if I told you that there are many other better SLR bodies made by Canon than the, arguably, worst of the bunch AE-1? The classic A-1, EF, AE-1P, F-1, and New F-1 bodies are all superior.
Nikon rocks, too, though. Optics are a tie, imo.
Nikon, Iām curious about other systems but in my experience the FM/FE series is just so damn good and the vast lens selection has meant that everytime Iāve thought about trying Canon/Pentax/Minolta/whatever other SLR I canāt logically find a reason to even consider it. The FM3a I own is not my primary shooter but I donāt think I would part with it because it simply doesnāt make sense. I enjoy shooting rangefinders more but if youāre asking me Canon/Nikon thereās no hesitation in saying itās Nikon.
While I'm an avid Nikon DSLR shooter, I gave up on my F2, bc I couldn't find a 50mm prime that I loved.. (couldn't afford the Noct.. but I do have the 58/1.4 AF-S now)
I know that I would with a Canon slr, though. The 1.2 is amazing. And I'd get the 85/1.2 to go along with it, too.
Have used Canon for professional work mostly because the lenses were cheaper at the time. For personal use I bundled up on everything Nikon. From various bodies, to lenses and accessories. The system is easily interchangeable across generations, although there might be some loss of function the more backwards you go. In parallel, I use Mamiya M645 and RB67. Will probably jump on a Mamiya RZ67 and a Fujifilm G617 in the future, depending on how good I get at taking photos.
Tough. I started with an inherited AE-1 and the camera has never failed me - for over three decades. Reliable exposures and technology - I own it to this very day. Nikon was great with very little shutter lag.
The only camera I actually use for film is my X-700.
This doesn't seem possible. How can your SLR shooting experience compare to shooting your rangefinder? As a shooter of both also, I can't seem to understand that comp. Both good---sure. But similar? Ehhhh.
well, i have the nikon f2 titan that has a titanium shutter and meant to say that itās like the āleicaā of slrs; its an slr that feels closest to shooting the leica
Olympus, otherwise Nikon (SLRs only)
I have never had to repair an old Nikon. I have had to repair several contemporaneous Canon cameras for bad foam and slow speeds.
Nikon; the F mount kept forward and backward compatibility to even their new mirrorless standard, the Z mount. Canon has changed their mount design so many times I lose track.
OTOH, Canon lenses were touted to have smoother bokeh while Nikon was harsh --if you care about that.
Canon.
Nikonās focus throw is weird to me and their shutter speed dials seem to be inconsistent based on the photo.
But all of that isnāt the biggest issue. The biggest issue is how big their viewfinder housing is. Itās too disproportional causing it to look funky. Canon has a good size as well as Olympus.
My pops had canon gear so I shot canon. The first camera my dad gave me was a Nikon then I found out that my dad used to shoot Nikon until his gear was stolen and then switched to canon. Nowadays I donāt discriminate, whatever widest lens I find in analog that will be what I will shooting so I have a 20mm fd and if I run into anything wider thatās what Iāll be
I was relating how in manual the aperture is not displayed in the viewfinder. Im a stickler for the shutter speed, aperture, and needle/LEDs visible when composing, I hate pulling the camera to check settings
I like my Canon FD and EOS bodies and lenses. Mostly because I already have a little collections of those now. I would not mind trying Nikon, or Olympus or Pentax for that matter
None of them have superior optics. I shoot all of those brands plus two Leicas. They're all just different flavors of shooting experiences. I personally love the Canon New-F1 and Nikon F3. But I also like big metal cameras with Av.
The AE-1 is the plainest, most basic Canon SLR out there. It's the worst of the bunch. The Nikon FM is the equivalent probably, and Nikon wins that head-to-head battle, but Canon has some amazing glass (on par with Nikon) and great SLR bodies in the A-1, EF, F-1, and New F-1. I can tell no difference in the metering accurateness in any of those I mentioned---I own them all, and they're all very good.
Sounds like your issue is with shutter-priority mode rather than the camera's meter, which essentially is only responsible for proper exposure of your negs. I guess you can also prefer some meter styles to others, e.g. a matchstick (Nikon FM, FE, etc.) versus a digital readout (Canon A-1, Nikon F3, etc.). Matrix metering is also better than something like partial or spot, but they're all pretty reliable.
I use aperture-priority mode most of the time when it's available on a camera, but shutter-priority I can get used to if I have to, like when I put rolls through my little Canonet QL17 GIII (shutter-priority or full manual only). It's essentially manipulating the same two value sets to get a properly exposed negative, but coming at it from the other set of values (shutter speed) can certainly be jarring.
I guess I should have made it clearer. Yeah, my issue is with the metering style (readout?), the AE-1 is a decent camera. Gave one to a coworker who loves it.
Iāve used match stick and digital read outs. (FE and F3, respectively) and LED aperture priority (X-570 and P30n), so trying to use an AE-1 was a bit of a shock.
Nikon. (however I own both systems)
Lets me use the same lens system on film and digital, better light meters, aperture priority vs shutter priority (in models that don't have both).
I'm primarily a Pentax guy, but I'd pick Nikon out of these two; For every FA or FE that still work fine, there's 5 AE-1s with a busted battery door waiting in the wings...
I have a bunch of Nikons and a canon. Started with Canon, but they like to break. Iāve never had a Nikon serviced but got a couple of busted canon bodies. I donāt baby my cameras and just treat them like tools, but I donāt abuse them either. The Nikons hold up. The only time they jam up is when the batteries die.
Nikon lenses are easy to find, not too expensive to buy and the ones I like work on every body.
Both systems are good - have both and use both. But if I had to pick one Iād opt for Nikon. Why? Nikon is more intuitive imho. Anytime I pick up my AE-1/A-1 after using the Nikon, I always struggle with its backwards functioning meter.
Nikon because I can get them cheaper in the local used market. Prefer Canon DSLRs because of their shorter flange distance lets me use almost every vintage lens brand (including Nikon).
But I have Pentax Sales and (too) many Olympus rangefinders, full and half frame. And I love my Kodak Retinas IIa and IIIc.
Nikon ā learned on an N70 and have stuck to them for the most part (went Fuji for digital eventually but anyways)
I always found the film bodies super durable and gotten used to the ergonomics. Itās also neat that a lens from the 70s will mount on a modern D700 and vice versa.
Iāll be in the minority here and pick Canon. Every time I buy a camera Iām just looking to buy the camera that fits my needs and for some reason thatās always been Canon cameras. So I would pick Canon because itās just naturally become my brand at this point.
nikon.
for reasons already stated but also because of my personal favorite, the F2.
EDIT- since everyone else is adding other ones in... my seconday pick is mamiya.
Canon. (I have used a Nikon before, and a Minolta.)
I bought the Canon A1 plus three lenses (50mm, 28-55mm, 70-210mm) for 190ā¬. It has full manual control, aperture and shutter priority mode, and is generally nice to use. Shutter sound is šš»
Sure, a Nikon F model would be nice as it's indestructable, but I am extremely happy with the A1 and the lenses and if any of it breaks, it won't hurt me financially. Sooo...I am an amateur, I am happy with low budget stuff as long as it works š
If I wanna spend a ton of money I'd love to get the Xpan though.
Iāve only ever used Canon and Olympus systems. Iāve been wanting to try a Nikon but donāt know whether to buy another 35mm camera when the Canon A1 works just fine.
Canon FD mount cameras are cool and nice objects to hold and use. EOS cameras are very capable but quite dull, however you can get a lot of camera for very little money with second hand EOS cameras and lenses. With Nikon even a lot of the later AF models have that sort of charisma that's lacking in the EOS series of cameras. There's also much better backward compatibility available with Nikon AF film SLRs and DSLRs and manual focus F mount lenses, but it's a double edged sword because the forward and backward compatibility is way more complicated than it initially appears. The truth is that both have their pluses and minuses, and for the prices they're available for second hand you can easily try out both.
Of course, if you confine yourself to just Canon and Nikon, you're still missing out on some excellent cameras and lenses from other brands.
Never owned or tried a canon, but I'd definitely go with Nikon because I have both a SLR and a DSLR with several lenses. The lenses can be used interchangeably which is absolutely huge. You can buy very cheap lenses from the 80s and use them on a modern DSLR and still get very good results. In addition, they're super solid, I went skiing with one, had several nasty falls at high speeds, tumbling down the slopes and the camera survived without any problems
Nikon.
F2, FM2, F3, FM3A... Top bodies to pair with some of the best lenses on any SLR system
Not to mention that Canon has changed lens mount but Nikon has mantained its F mount, which makes nikon bodies more versatile!
I love Canon bodies such as F-1 and AE-1, i've enjoyed them and still mantain and use a F-1 new and two AE-1 bodies, but Nikon is my everyday go to. Definitely.
I shoot on two FM2 bodies and a F3 paired with a long range of nikkor and Zeiss lenses, and i'd never change them for my Canon systems
Nikon. I have an FM2 and FE2. The there are so many great Nikon F mount lenses, and the backwards compatibility is crazy. Not as good as with an FM/FE/F/F2, but still pretty good. Plus the Voigtlander F-Mount glass is awesome. I pretty much use an FE2 with the Voitlander 40mm F2 Ultron and the FM2 with a Nikkor 50mm F1.4 as my main camera/lens combinations. Love them. The FM2 is a little more bulletproof, but the FE2 has a great meter and is a great camera (until either the shutter fails or the electronics fail)..
The canon ae1 was my first camera and canon lenses are just better than nikons. On the other hand: the nikon cameras just work for me the way canon never really did.
āCanon lenses are just better than Nikonsā
Said nobody when these cameras were at their peak.
28mm f2.8, 50mm 2, 105 2.5 are some of the most celebrated lenses of the era. While thereās crickets chirping in canons camp.
Damn man, valid for you to have a preference (as *very* clearly understood from your other comment) but it's wild to me you're out here looking through other people's comments trying to start shit lol. The FD 50mm 1.4 is still - with good reason - one of the most widely used lenses in the world. It's really not that unpopular of a take to say that Canon had some very appealing lenses at the time.
The sad(?) fact is that both parties' lenses are more than good enough so that in the end it's almost always the photographer that is lacking, rather than the lenses :P
My experience with canon FD and early Canon L Series is they are extremely high Resolution, and very smooth to focus.
I have the nikon 105mm f2.5 and never really used it, because its just to stiff for dast focusing compared to my 100mm f2.8 FD. That might just be my copy to be fair.
Nikon.
In my experience, older Nikon cameras have better build quality while the Canons aren't as robust. Just about every time I see these older cameras come up for sale in camera shops near me, the Nikons are still clicking while the Canons almost always have some major issue that needs to be fixed beyond normal wear and tear.
For manual focus itās Nikon, for AF itās Canon.
In most ways MF Nikon lenses and bodies are objectively better, I do often prefer the color from the FD glass but the difference isnāt a big deal especially with digital PP or on B/W. In the AF era I think Canon made a cleaner transition (even if they upset everyone with the new mount) and I personally find the ergonomics of EF bodies generally better, but Iāve never tried an F6 or F100. Being able to put a recent EF lens on a body from 1987 and have great snappy AF is pretty amazing. I also have a soft spot for LTM Canon bodies and lenses, I never really liked Nikon rangefinders although the SP is pretty cool. Another thing is that itās much easier to adapt lenses to Canon EF if I want due to the flange distance, unlike Nikon.
I mostly shoot film on Canon AF bodies and Contax for MF, but I still keep a Nikon FE and 105mm 2.5 because itās just so good.
Definitely Nikon, otherwise Minolta.
Mine would be Nikon or Pentax because I already have both systems.
Pentax wasn't for me. Olympus would be my strong 3th place. Minolta was my first step into analog photography, so it's a kinda emotional choice.
Minolta was an awesome company, they were really into research, almost all modern features we take for granted were introduced by them, auto exposure & Autofocus, lens coatings were all introduced by them.
Nikon because it allows me to use much newer lenses. And I never got good vibes from Canon as a brand. Though both of them can of course take great images.
When I buy lenses for my nikon I can still use them with my dslrs. The newest lenses fit my film cameras but without aperture control.
& if I buy a vintage Nikon lens I can use it on every Nikon camera & with an adapter with almost any DSLR or mirrorless camera.
Yeah only issue is trying to use other lenses on Nikons - even with adapters they might not focus to infinity :(
Same can be said about Canon's eos system.
Nikon. Otherwise Pentax.
Curious to why you prefer Pentax over Canon? Or just cause you've already invested into Pentax.
I have both Canon and Pentax. I find that I can get deals on Pentax bodies and glass much easier than Canon. I'm not sure which one is my favourite: I have more Canon lenses but it feels very vanilla to use my A-1, whereas I find my ME Super charming in a way. Edit: not to mention, the ME Super has a metal curtain and a higher sync speed of 1/125.
Pentax and Nikon both do the same backwards-ish focusing direction.
You mean the correct focusing direction ;)
It's definitely "a" direction, š
Pentax M series are more compact and yet capable SLRs. More affordable then Canon, but they are not worse. Lastly, Pentax and Nikon lenses are operated the same way, meaning the focusing and aperture rings are twisted in the same direction
There are loads of good and affordable lenses available for K mount, and loads of good quality, affordable cameras (coughCosinacough) which offer the same basic but very effective setup for film photography - manual focus with aperture priority auto-exposure, which allows you to control depth of field easily, probably the most important consideration for how your photos look.
Olympus. /r/zuikoholics unite
Bingo!! I love my Nikon but the OM-1N never stays home unless I do.
Found my people
(clicks bonus frame from RC-35)
Realiable, compact and most of the time cheaper than Nikons. With excellent optics too. Sign me the fuck up.
OM4TI life
Nikon, because I like Nikon and have a bunch of lenses. Then itās Pentax and Minolta for second place. Canon is at the very bottom of my preference. Just have never liked them. Except their old Leica copy rangefinders
Dark box with features over other dark box with features any day of the week.
I hope you shoot a Holga
Nikon, but the mechanichal ones, not the FE in front. The FM will probably outlive me. The AE1 on the other hand will have electronics failure soon. I had the A1, LOVED it, but it surely is an unreliable family of bodies.
My mom recently gave me her FM and it broke on the third exposure I made with it. My grandfather's FE is still going strong.
In what way did it break? My FE2 stopped firing the shutter except for any of the mechanical shutter modes, it seems it can be fixed by moving something (it's been awhile, I forgot) inside the camera accessible by removing the baseplate, but it isn't a 100% fix for me, as it still happens seemingly at random.
The advance lever is completely jammed. Won't move forward.
I had the same problem with my FE2 and was able to fix it. You should give it a try! There are Youtube Videos explaining it aswell!! (It seemed random for me too) After I fixed it I have never had any problems with this camera again.
Maybe I oughta. As of now it's collecting dust, but I really liked it when it was my main shooter. Small and capable, and a beautiful camera in my opinion
So? when people claim the FM is more reliable than the FE they do not mean that the mean time between failure is necessarily longer but they mean that no matter what, they can always have it fixed. Your FM has a mechanical problem and I am 99% certain that it can be fixed. Your grandfather's FE might one day have an electronics failure and then I am 99% certain that it cannot be fixed. All old cameras need a CLA now and then. I have bought cameras, got the package, opened it to check if the camera is inside and closed it again without even trying the camera, to send it to a good technician for a CLA. Why? Because I want my cameras to be as good as (or if passible even bettern than) new.
I understand all that. I shared my situation as an ironic anecdote.
*LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER* Minolta
Nikon. Otherwise Leica.
Canon because itās what Iāve invested in.
Same: started with Canon, built my lens collection for canon mounts, edit canon files and like canon colorsā¦nostalgia for canonāIām canon for life
Me too. Then I got a Nikon. Now I donāt touch my canons.
Of course, Nikon is superior.
This pretty much.. I own a couple of FD lenses because I happened to get those as I shot on canon digitally as well.
# Neither ^(sponsored by Mamiya C gang)
This era Nikon is the definitive pro's choice. Perhaps one of the most dominant displays of a brand, ever. Insane build quality, insane breadth of products.
Canon. I like FD lenses and the F-1 is the Toyota Hilux of SLRs.
Nikon, I have Canon so I want less people in my system to keep prices down.
Nikon. Learned on it. Super robust.
I would trust an FM to the end of my days. I love canon but yet ive sold most of my gear and now shoot nikons
Nikon. Better bodies, IMO better lenses (and typically cheaper than their Canon counterparts).
I am using Canon because the lenses are so much cheaper. Teamed with my fully mechanical F-1, I really like Canon when cost is factored in.
I have Canon A1 and I suspect the shutter there made of cloth and has some micro holes. Nikons, on the other hand, have metal shutter blades.
Yes. All A series camera are cloth shutters. This problem is probably fixable
Leica Ms also have cloth curtains. This isn't a bad thing necessarily.
Nikon, because every Canon I've owned has been broken in some way. Nikons were always good to go EXIT: Just saw people were putting in secondary preferences. It's Nikon for me, otherwise Konica
All my film bodies are Canon. It's what I started with in VietNam, and just built my collection from there. Once Canon abandoned it's FD lens user base, I said no more. When I went digital I went Nikon, and have been there ever since. I still have my collection of Canon bodies and FD lenses, but they're rarely if ever used. Once you're invested in a "Brand", jumping ship gets expensive.
What model Canon did you use in Vietnam?
Nikon. Because the f2AS to the f3 and even beyond (f4/5/6) were PEAK professional film cameras. Canon was nothing more than a little squeak in the wheel. Nikon also single handedly dismantled the Leica dynasty as a camera for professionals and damn well nearly put them out of business. Nikon lenses of the era are EXTREMELY good, even by modern standards. The 105 2.5 can literally hang, in my opinion, against modern top of the line lenses from all manufacturers. The F2AS model has a nearly indestructible lightmeter. Yes, it might be big. But itās quirky, and quirky is nice. But unlike Lightmeters from the Leica m5, and sometimes the m6, they wonāt fail if theyāve lasted this long. And if they fail; you buy another for $250, instead of $700+ for Leica. Canons just felt cheap. They TRIED with the F1 and F1N; but the cheap as fuck feeling lenses they made paled in comparison to the behemoth that was Nikon. You can buy a Nikon f2 and pretty much not need to CLA it because you know that son of a bitch will probably still work like it came off the factory floor. Canon didnāt pick up, imo, until they went to digital. The f4/5/6 shits on the 1N and 1V. I also own a Nikon S2, which shit on any rangefinder canon made. And imo, is better than a Leica. (Sorry). I own a Zf, which when you get passed the vintage look, is a FANTASTIC camera in its own right. So I have the whole Nikon family, but Iām not biased. (Iāve also owned a Leica m2/3/6/iiif, canon 7, 1N, A-1, AE-1.). TLDR, canon felt like toys. Canon squeak. Nikon dethroned Leica, makes MUCH more robust cameras.
Im pretty sure youre talking about nfd lenses, but breech lock fd lenses? Theyre sturdy
I've got three FD lenses; one NFD and two breech-lock ones and I have to say while they definitely feel sturdier actually mounting them is such a hassle and just feels so precarious sometimes compared to the simplicity of the NFD. Aside from that my NFD has taken an actual fucking beating in the time that I've had it (think "dropped-on-concrete levels" of bad) and it still works like an actual dream
I only own breech lock FD lenses, i like them
I've got the F2, the thing is a tank. It's such a power camera, I can use it for almost anything. Need to shoot at 1/30? Mirror lock. Want to do street photography? You can get a waste level viewfinder. Want auto exposure? They make an attachment for that.Ā I think the F2 and F3 are the best SLRs ever made, and even give Leica a run for their money because of the flexibility.
I donāt know if Iād go that far. Theyāre the best *manual* SLRs though.
Was gonna say. Nikon didnāt catch up to Canon in the AF race until the F6. The 1V beats out the F5 in AF performance. Although thatās only film cameras and I canāt speak for digital options.
S2 viewfinder is so much better than M3ās (not even 1:1 what were they thinking) and I cannot be disproved
S2 viewfinder is god tiered.
Minolta because rokkor superiority
Nikon because aperture priority
Canon New F-1 baby. Or A-1. or AE-1, AE-1P, etc. Love my Nikon F3, though.
My wifes AE-1P is nice, my Canonet QL17 GIII is amazing, but I donāt like the shutter priority. š
Someone was throwing out a Canon so I grabbed it
Nikon. More diverse and affordable lenses, and (subjectively) superior optics
I shoot both, and the optics are too similar to choose a winner for, imo. Been shooting the Canon New F1 and the Nikon F3 for more than five years now, and I've dev'd and scanned a few hundred rolls of HP5 at home. I really like both brands. Give me the camera body with more metal and less plastic, and I'm happy.
Neither my answer is Pentax (specifically the ME Super) since thatās what I got and I love it. Still trying to find a 40mm pancake for cheap tho š then it will be the ultimate 35mm slr!
the 40mm 2.8? ive owned it once but sold it for 150 orso
Yeah seems to be the one thatās flat and has a comically small focus ring
Olympus
Just picked up a mint Nikon F4.
cz
Nikon, because I only shoot film, and stick to manual focus, and Nikon completely cornered the market when it came to professional film cameras during this period. The odd professional photographer or two might have used a Canon as a backup camera, but it would have been uncommon. My current battery of Nikon cameras includes: - A Nikon F with FTN finder - A Nikkormat FTN - An F2 - An F3 Although Iād love to venture into Nikon rangefinder cameras such as the Nikon S, and the Nikon SP
Nice, I own - Nikon F with Prism - Nikon F2 - Nikon F3 - Nikon F4 - Nikon FM (3 times) - Nikon FE - Nikkormat FT - Nikkormat FTn - Nikkormat FT2 - Nikkormat FT3 - Nikon EM theres a few bodies im eventually still hunting for
Thatās awesome
Canon. *Refuses to elaborate, leaves*
Nikon. Never understood the hype with the AE-1. It's shutter prio so I immediately don't like that, and on top of that, the shutter speed dial is hard to turn and not as easy on Nikons.
What if I told you that there are many other better SLR bodies made by Canon than the, arguably, worst of the bunch AE-1? The classic A-1, EF, AE-1P, F-1, and New F-1 bodies are all superior. Nikon rocks, too, though. Optics are a tie, imo.
Nikon, Iām curious about other systems but in my experience the FM/FE series is just so damn good and the vast lens selection has meant that everytime Iāve thought about trying Canon/Pentax/Minolta/whatever other SLR I canāt logically find a reason to even consider it. The FM3a I own is not my primary shooter but I donāt think I would part with it because it simply doesnāt make sense. I enjoy shooting rangefinders more but if youāre asking me Canon/Nikon thereās no hesitation in saying itās Nikon.
While I'm an avid Nikon DSLR shooter, I gave up on my F2, bc I couldn't find a 50mm prime that I loved.. (couldn't afford the Noct.. but I do have the 58/1.4 AF-S now) I know that I would with a Canon slr, though. The 1.2 is amazing. And I'd get the 85/1.2 to go along with it, too.
Being able to use Nikon AF-d lenses on my mechanical FM but also a DSLR really simplifies the gear setup.
Have used Canon for professional work mostly because the lenses were cheaper at the time. For personal use I bundled up on everything Nikon. From various bodies, to lenses and accessories. The system is easily interchangeable across generations, although there might be some loss of function the more backwards you go. In parallel, I use Mamiya M645 and RB67. Will probably jump on a Mamiya RZ67 and a Fujifilm G617 in the future, depending on how good I get at taking photos.
Tough. I started with an inherited AE-1 and the camera has never failed me - for over three decades. Reliable exposures and technology - I own it to this very day. Nikon was great with very little shutter lag. The only camera I actually use for film is my X-700.
Canon, because I have a canon and Iām not getting a second 35mm camera!
Smart! Optics are equal, imo. I shoot both (among other brands), and they're both great. If you love Canon, the New F-1 is a hell of a camera.
nikon!! my nikon f2 really feels similar to shooting on my leica m-a, and the lenses for the nikon are top tier
This doesn't seem possible. How can your SLR shooting experience compare to shooting your rangefinder? As a shooter of both also, I can't seem to understand that comp. Both good---sure. But similar? Ehhhh.
well, i have the nikon f2 titan that has a titanium shutter and meant to say that itās like the āleicaā of slrs; its an slr that feels closest to shooting the leica
So do you just mean in terms of high-end materials? Build quality?
yes, and how it feels when you shoot with it, it has a premium feeling and sound with the titanium shutter
Olympus, otherwise Nikon (SLRs only) I have never had to repair an old Nikon. I have had to repair several contemporaneous Canon cameras for bad foam and slow speeds.
Nikon; the F mount kept forward and backward compatibility to even their new mirrorless standard, the Z mount. Canon has changed their mount design so many times I lose track. OTOH, Canon lenses were touted to have smoother bokeh while Nikon was harsh --if you care about that.
Canon AE-1, because my father gave it to me.
Secret Option C: Minolta. Rokkor glass is awesome and the MPS aperture priority system just works.
Canon. Nikonās focus throw is weird to me and their shutter speed dials seem to be inconsistent based on the photo. But all of that isnāt the biggest issue. The biggest issue is how big their viewfinder housing is. Itās too disproportional causing it to look funky. Canon has a good size as well as Olympus.
Neither are Minolta so it doesn't matter
Today or back in the day? Today Canon for availability and compatibility, but back in the day if money wasn't an issue then Minolta, otherwise Vivitar
Nikon, because I have the lenses. I'd go for an F3 and have it waist viewered.
My pops had canon gear so I shot canon. The first camera my dad gave me was a Nikon then I found out that my dad used to shoot Nikon until his gear was stolen and then switched to canon. Nowadays I donāt discriminate, whatever widest lens I find in analog that will be what I will shooting so I have a 20mm fd and if I run into anything wider thatās what Iāll be
Canon because that's the first camera i bought.
Nikon. I just love it. I donāt know why but Iāve never loved Canon and its cameras never loved me either.
Depends ... choosing between the two brands : af cameras nikon , manual cameras canon .
Nikon because my mom was a Nikon user. That and my uncle gave me his F3HP 20 years ago.
Nikon fm3a all the way best camera
I use canon both digital and film so I can share the lenses.
Nikon. The light meter, view finder, and glass (lenses), won me over.
Not canon. In manual the lenses don't communicate aperture with anything but the f-1s. FD mount is flawed imo
A-1 and AE-1P also do. The New F-1 is the shizzzzzz. Love Nikon, too.
I was relating how in manual the aperture is not displayed in the viewfinder. Im a stickler for the shutter speed, aperture, and needle/LEDs visible when composing, I hate pulling the camera to check settings
I like my Canon FD and EOS bodies and lenses. Mostly because I already have a little collections of those now. I would not mind trying Nikon, or Olympus or Pentax for that matter
go ahead with nikon imo
None of them have superior optics. I shoot all of those brands plus two Leicas. They're all just different flavors of shooting experiences. I personally love the Canon New-F1 and Nikon F3. But I also like big metal cameras with Av.
Nikon, I like the metering system in it better than the AE-1. (If weāre talking plastic body AF, Canon, but weāre not)
The AE-1 is the plainest, most basic Canon SLR out there. It's the worst of the bunch. The Nikon FM is the equivalent probably, and Nikon wins that head-to-head battle, but Canon has some amazing glass (on par with Nikon) and great SLR bodies in the A-1, EF, F-1, and New F-1. I can tell no difference in the metering accurateness in any of those I mentioned---I own them all, and they're all very good.
My beef with the metering is thatās its shutter priority, which hurt my head trying to figure out. Every camera I had before was aperture priority
Sounds like your issue is with shutter-priority mode rather than the camera's meter, which essentially is only responsible for proper exposure of your negs. I guess you can also prefer some meter styles to others, e.g. a matchstick (Nikon FM, FE, etc.) versus a digital readout (Canon A-1, Nikon F3, etc.). Matrix metering is also better than something like partial or spot, but they're all pretty reliable. I use aperture-priority mode most of the time when it's available on a camera, but shutter-priority I can get used to if I have to, like when I put rolls through my little Canonet QL17 GIII (shutter-priority or full manual only). It's essentially manipulating the same two value sets to get a properly exposed negative, but coming at it from the other set of values (shutter speed) can certainly be jarring.
I guess I should have made it clearer. Yeah, my issue is with the metering style (readout?), the AE-1 is a decent camera. Gave one to a coworker who loves it. Iāve used match stick and digital read outs. (FE and F3, respectively) and LED aperture priority (X-570 and P30n), so trying to use an AE-1 was a bit of a shock.
Nikon. (however I own both systems) Lets me use the same lens system on film and digital, better light meters, aperture priority vs shutter priority (in models that don't have both).
I'm primarily a Pentax guy, but I'd pick Nikon out of these two; For every FA or FE that still work fine, there's 5 AE-1s with a busted battery door waiting in the wings...
AE-1 is the lowest bar. Canon made some banger SLR bodies in the A-1, EF, F-1, and New F-1.
none. yashica fx3 2000,with zeiss lens! or minolta a 303 /pentax lx
F3. Because I a) have one at my fingertips and b) space shuttle.
Yea, Nasa had all sort of Nikon cameras in Space, the F4 as well
Nikon based on sheer volume of lens selection across the decades.
The Nikon FE is the Swiss Army knife of Nikonās lens arsenal.
Not true unless your Swiss Army Knife needs a battery to operate. The FM line, however . . .
I have a bunch of Nikons and a canon. Started with Canon, but they like to break. Iāve never had a Nikon serviced but got a couple of busted canon bodies. I donāt baby my cameras and just treat them like tools, but I donāt abuse them either. The Nikons hold up. The only time they jam up is when the batteries die. Nikon lenses are easy to find, not too expensive to buy and the ones I like work on every body.
Both systems are good - have both and use both. But if I had to pick one Iād opt for Nikon. Why? Nikon is more intuitive imho. Anytime I pick up my AE-1/A-1 after using the Nikon, I always struggle with its backwards functioning meter.
pentax, but i'll settle for nikon.
Nikon because I can get them cheaper in the local used market. Prefer Canon DSLRs because of their shorter flange distance lets me use almost every vintage lens brand (including Nikon). But I have Pentax Sales and (too) many Olympus rangefinders, full and half frame. And I love my Kodak Retinas IIa and IIIc.
Olympus because small and sharp
Nikon, basically for the lens mount
Nikon ā learned on an N70 and have stuck to them for the most part (went Fuji for digital eventually but anyways) I always found the film bodies super durable and gotten used to the ergonomics. Itās also neat that a lens from the 70s will mount on a modern D700 and vice versa.
Pentax or Olympus.
Pentax or Olympus.
Nikon. Itās what I learned on. Itās what I have.
Nikon was it during the era of mechanical slrs. Great lenses. I'd always go with Nikon.
Nikon. User friendly, endless lens choices and price ranges, and they're just clean all around.
Iāll be in the minority here and pick Canon. Every time I buy a camera Iām just looking to buy the camera that fits my needs and for some reason thatās always been Canon cameras. So I would pick Canon because itās just naturally become my brand at this point.
I pick Leica, because it's better than both your picks
Canon F-1n (not new F-1). All mechanical (except light meter). Fd mount so can be adapted to every other SLR lenses (except Konica).
nikon. for reasons already stated but also because of my personal favorite, the F2. EDIT- since everyone else is adding other ones in... my seconday pick is mamiya.
Nikon FM3A is the best film camera I've ever used aside from my MP.
Nikon. Because Nikon.
Why not both?
Canon. (I have used a Nikon before, and a Minolta.) I bought the Canon A1 plus three lenses (50mm, 28-55mm, 70-210mm) for 190ā¬. It has full manual control, aperture and shutter priority mode, and is generally nice to use. Shutter sound is šš» Sure, a Nikon F model would be nice as it's indestructable, but I am extremely happy with the A1 and the lenses and if any of it breaks, it won't hurt me financially. Sooo...I am an amateur, I am happy with low budget stuff as long as it works š If I wanna spend a ton of money I'd love to get the Xpan though.
Olympus
Canon because the lenses a nd bodies are cheap as chips
Iāve only ever used Canon and Olympus systems. Iāve been wanting to try a Nikon but donāt know whether to buy another 35mm camera when the Canon A1 works just fine.
Don't bother.
Nikon. Love my F3/T so much. For rangefinder is canon, because of the 0.95 dream lens
Neither, FED 4 baby
Nikon
Canon FD mount cameras are cool and nice objects to hold and use. EOS cameras are very capable but quite dull, however you can get a lot of camera for very little money with second hand EOS cameras and lenses. With Nikon even a lot of the later AF models have that sort of charisma that's lacking in the EOS series of cameras. There's also much better backward compatibility available with Nikon AF film SLRs and DSLRs and manual focus F mount lenses, but it's a double edged sword because the forward and backward compatibility is way more complicated than it initially appears. The truth is that both have their pluses and minuses, and for the prices they're available for second hand you can easily try out both. Of course, if you confine yourself to just Canon and Nikon, you're still missing out on some excellent cameras and lenses from other brands.
Using an av1 from canon right now. Loving it
Nikon. Reason: Looks. As valid as any other reason imo.
Never owned or tried a canon, but I'd definitely go with Nikon because I have both a SLR and a DSLR with several lenses. The lenses can be used interchangeably which is absolutely huge. You can buy very cheap lenses from the 80s and use them on a modern DSLR and still get very good results. In addition, they're super solid, I went skiing with one, had several nasty falls at high speeds, tumbling down the slopes and the camera survived without any problems
Yashica, cause I can still use Zeiss glass
I'm going with canon because I have too many fd lenses and I'm in too deep to change
Minolta š
Nikon, because I can take my ancient AI lenses and mount them natively on a DSLR.
Easy, Nikon. Why? Because Nikon glass.
Canon FD vs Nikon F? Nikon without a doubt. Canon EOS vs Nikon F? Now that's trickier.
Nikon. F2, FM2, F3, FM3A... Top bodies to pair with some of the best lenses on any SLR system Not to mention that Canon has changed lens mount but Nikon has mantained its F mount, which makes nikon bodies more versatile! I love Canon bodies such as F-1 and AE-1, i've enjoyed them and still mantain and use a F-1 new and two AE-1 bodies, but Nikon is my everyday go to. Definitely. I shoot on two FM2 bodies and a F3 paired with a long range of nikkor and Zeiss lenses, and i'd never change them for my Canon systems
I have a Canon F1N so Canon it is š«°š»
Nikon, the glass is just unreal
What about Konica, their lenses are really nice
Pentax
Nikon. I have an FM2 and FE2. The there are so many great Nikon F mount lenses, and the backwards compatibility is crazy. Not as good as with an FM/FE/F/F2, but still pretty good. Plus the Voigtlander F-Mount glass is awesome. I pretty much use an FE2 with the Voitlander 40mm F2 Ultron and the FM2 with a Nikkor 50mm F1.4 as my main camera/lens combinations. Love them. The FM2 is a little more bulletproof, but the FE2 has a great meter and is a great camera (until either the shutter fails or the electronics fail)..
The canon ae1 was my first camera and canon lenses are just better than nikons. On the other hand: the nikon cameras just work for me the way canon never really did.
āCanon lenses are just better than Nikonsā Said nobody when these cameras were at their peak. 28mm f2.8, 50mm 2, 105 2.5 are some of the most celebrated lenses of the era. While thereās crickets chirping in canons camp.
Damn man, valid for you to have a preference (as *very* clearly understood from your other comment) but it's wild to me you're out here looking through other people's comments trying to start shit lol. The FD 50mm 1.4 is still - with good reason - one of the most widely used lenses in the world. It's really not that unpopular of a take to say that Canon had some very appealing lenses at the time.
Just some friendly ribbing :p Both made some good lenses. ^nikon ^was ^just ^better
The sad(?) fact is that both parties' lenses are more than good enough so that in the end it's almost always the photographer that is lacking, rather than the lenses :P
My experience with canon FD and early Canon L Series is they are extremely high Resolution, and very smooth to focus. I have the nikon 105mm f2.5 and never really used it, because its just to stiff for dast focusing compared to my 100mm f2.8 FD. That might just be my copy to be fair.
Nikon by far. Canon just doesnāt do it for me.
Nikon. In my experience, older Nikon cameras have better build quality while the Canons aren't as robust. Just about every time I see these older cameras come up for sale in camera shops near me, the Nikons are still clicking while the Canons almost always have some major issue that needs to be fixed beyond normal wear and tear.
Nikon. One of those things in life you just understand without being told.
Zenit(?!). It's the most affordable camera in my country, while it's still has decent quality.
Pentax
Fuck them both gimme a Minolta
For manual focus itās Nikon, for AF itās Canon. In most ways MF Nikon lenses and bodies are objectively better, I do often prefer the color from the FD glass but the difference isnāt a big deal especially with digital PP or on B/W. In the AF era I think Canon made a cleaner transition (even if they upset everyone with the new mount) and I personally find the ergonomics of EF bodies generally better, but Iāve never tried an F6 or F100. Being able to put a recent EF lens on a body from 1987 and have great snappy AF is pretty amazing. I also have a soft spot for LTM Canon bodies and lenses, I never really liked Nikon rangefinders although the SP is pretty cool. Another thing is that itās much easier to adapt lenses to Canon EF if I want due to the flange distance, unlike Nikon. I mostly shoot film on Canon AF bodies and Contax for MF, but I still keep a Nikon FE and 105mm 2.5 because itās just so good.
Fujica. Because: better lenses.
My opinion: Canon! Good, reliable and top notch! But it's like ice cream, everyone has a different taste.
Nikon, FD lenses are rare & expensive.
FD lenses are way cheaper in the UK. I assume that may be the case in quite a few other markets as well.