thank you so much! sounds like the Nikon would be a wise choice to add to my kit.

 

Either SLR or rangefinder. Each has their place. If you find you shoot wide, choose the rangefinder. If you find yourself shooting tele, choose the SLR.

I myself almost always shoot 50mm, and my preference is for rangefinder. That's just me, a personal choice, easier for me to focus.

 

Any of the older manual focus Nikon’s will take fine pics- it’s the glass that maters and Nikon was universal in the lens fitment back to 1964- although there is the AI vs non-ai lenses that were an issue- but that’s digging down into the weeds. Even the cheapest EM models were fine although limited for their features. The reason I say the FM2 is it was the only “modern” Nikon that still had a fully mechanical shutter. The batteries only control the metering system. I had an FE2 for a while and it was a wonderful camera, but it developed an electronic shuttter issue that plagues them and is too expensive to fix.
Nikon prime lenses were excellent, some better than others. Most Nikon zooms sucked, although there were a few stand-outs from the mid-late 80’s that were very good. Like watches, lots of web reading is your best tool.

 

I do like tele I find that's more my style however for my use case I would like to only carry around one lens with me. ive flirted with getting a fuji x100v for that purpose but its too expensive for what I need it for and can't justify it. plus I really want the true film experience. i wa looking at a Nikon f3 for awhile before this as well

 

Try the Kodak Signet 35. Need a light meter.

 

Cabinet 35 or 28 rangefinder. Compact and easy to use

 

F3 was a sensational camera, I still own my F3HP-Pro which was the last gasp of the F3 line in the 90’s. On the motor drive it’s a beast and can burn through a roll of film in about 6 seconds and rewind it about as fast. I used the F3’s for fast action wedding work until 2007. I had gone to an F5 for 2 seasons but ended up going back to the F3 as the automation of the F5’s didn’t work for my style of shooting and disabling the auto features, matrix metering etc just slowed me down.

 

as a modern photographer with an a74 would you recommend I go for a Nikon f2 or f3 ? looking for a one and done camera to buy a prime lens or two for and that's it. document some life and travel with friends

 

I own both. The F3 was a huge jump over the F2 in terms of performance but make sure it has the HP (high point) finder- which allows you to see the entire finder without your eye being slammed against the diopter. The Pro model was weatherized with more gaskets and rubber fittings for extreme conditions- for me that was champagne, fruit punch and wedding cake being dumped on me and my camera during events- yes- that happened many times. In reality- the F3 HP Pro can take being in a light rain or humid conditions better- although all that rubber is 40 years old now,

 

The FM2 (and last gasp was the FM2n- which I own) was a slightly smaller form factor and on the MD12 motor drive is ergonomically one of the nicest cameras to handle- far nicer than the F3 on drive ever was (it’s bulky, heavy, angular and loud). The FM2/MD12 combo is also the “sound” you hear when you hear a motor driven camera in movies or music (think Duran Duran Girls on Film )

 

Also, the older manual focus Nikon Tele
Lenses are a steal for what they are. The 180 2.8 for example was a sensational lens.

 

I have lots of love for old photo equipment and will share some. For now, only my go to, simple Minolta SRT 101. I love the simple metering system and mechanics. The Rokkor lenses are amazing as well and I don't get why they don't get more recognition.

This is from this years summer vacation.

 

I have the SRT 201 and it's a fantastic camera. Only have the Rokkor 50 (or 55?)and it's a great lens. The Minolta was my dad's and he gifted it to me recently. It was the camera I used in college for my photo courses, the first SLR I ever used.

 

Had one, loved it, flipped it for something else, regretted it.

 

The three goats of the beginning of the 80s and arguably the peak of 35mm SLR. I love each for a different reason. The Nikon for being my fathers camera, the Olympus for its size and metering system and the Minolta for its incredibly smooth operation. The Minolta has the 50mm Rokkors going for it, the Olympus the wide Zuikos.

 

FA on MD12 or MD15 is THE sounds of a motor driven camera for everything you think of when you hear motor driven cameras in film or media (think the intro to Girls on Film by Duran Duran). One would think the FM2 is that’s sound but it’s a distinctly electronically controlled shutter sound and not fully mechanical like the FM.
They had very complicated electronics for their day and tended to fry out- I lost 2 that way. I still have one FA that’s going strong, and of course my FM2n and F3HP-Pro which is probably the best film SLR ever made IMO (yes I have 2 Leica R’s that I love and the F3 wipes the floor with them for event photography- gotta love that auto rewind when you are mid isle with a bride coming and you need to reload fast!)

 

Indeed. I grew up with the this specific Nikon and its sounds and looks have left a lasting impression. In general, I agree this line of cameras have affected a whole generation. Now, that we mostly use film cameras as an artist tool in contrast to a workhorse, I feel that its strengths have turned into weaknesses. The then sophisticated matrix system does not give me as much control as a spot or multi spot meter.
But the main reason for my preference is that I am afraid of it breaking on me. It has been for around 35 years in the family, so I keep it locked away.
The Minolta XD should share much of the internals with the R4 and its shutter and advance lever operation is a treat.

 

Yup, I have an R4 and an R5 and both cameras are wonderful to use. If I were doing more deliberate work or stationary press work (like sports) the Leica’s would have been my preference. But for fast moving events where I and the subjects were on the go the Nikon’s were spectacular (8 years of wedding receptions with the above F3 and FM with Metz 45CT-4’s on them).

I know it’s heresy to say, but the current Leica SL2/S mirrorless is truly the rebirth of the R series as we knew it up to the R7. Working with it is more deliberate than a Nikon or Sony, but if you really work that way (as I do- not spray & pray but single shot and composition aware in fast action), it handles like an R. I even got a leather hand strap for the grip so it has the same feel as the R with their leather hand straps.

 

I've never used the Nikon F3 but have an F2 which is excellent. If you're in the UK a camera tech Sover Wong has a website dedicated to them and services them to a good as new condition.

 

I believe that the R models don't have such a fantastic following as the M models, so we don't have to be too careful. I've never considered a mirrorless, as I have almost exclusively manual focus lenses and I'm afraid that it would be a hassle without a real viewfinder.
In this regard, the Leica SL2 would be a great candidate, but then, given its size, there's not saving compared to a DSLR.
The Leica bodies are all great and even though they are expensive, this have never been the main issue. It's the lenses that would put a too big of a hole in my bank account to justify.

Digital is more of a substitute for me, so I have been using an A900 Sony (great viewfinder) for the last 12 years and a friend offers me a A7 iii to try it out. Maybe I will give the Sony a go, despite its subpar viewfinder screen.