Hi--

>Careful perusal of your reply suggests to me that perhaps
>you are somewhat less than one hundred percent in agreement
>with my assessment of the (now venerable but to me, "johnny-come-
>lately) Nikon F3. I mean that a tad mischieviously of course.

Um, yes, and yes...;-)

>I have spent a while mulling this over. I have no desire
>to sound strident or defensive . . . this thing is just
>a camera after all, but I STILL DON'T LIKE THE %$##^&&^
>THING! There! I got that off my chest without sounding
>strident.

Ummm, well.....! ;-)
It sounds like a thoroughly bad early, than later
experience with it may have understandably colored your
view of this camera...;-) It does sound like it has
problems - a bad sample, rather than a bad design...
BTW, I favor lithium batteries for it, for storage ability,
and, as you probably know, the low-battery indicator is a blink
in the display after the blink that happens during exposure...
I've never seen one fail to open the shutter, though...
Ugh! A bad sample, not a bad camera, I think (and I HATE
plastic...! ;-)

>> 1) The Nikon F3 need never be turned off, thus saving
>> fingernails.

> True I suppose BUT . . . why have the "lever" at all
> in that case. It still seems poorly designed to me,
> bordering on the retarded.

Consider it a "shutter-release lock"..., though both it
and the self timer levers are very poor - I don't use them.

> I don't especially care for "auto-off" at any rate
> and find it a bit of an irritation, it is always shutting
> off before I have determined the exposure I want. I still
> prefer the off-on switch built into the F2's film advance
> lever. Some complain of being "poked in the eye" by this
> but I never found it so. And rarely have I forgotten to
> turn it off but I suppose it has happened from time to time.

I'm left-eyed, so it pokes me - and I find the 15 seconds "on"
time OK, and easy to restart...

>> 2) The F3 seems to go forever on its batteries (though
>> maybe not in the horrendously cold climes o' th' North...;-)
>> (One can use the external "cold battery pack", or power
>> the camera from the MD-4...)

> This is NOT my experience. My F3 sees relatively little
> use . . . because I just don't care much for it and don't
> "trust" it either for reasons alluded to earlier. I find I
> have to replace the batteries every year to feel confident with
> it despite its seeing only rare usage. Replacing batteries
> every year hardly seems "excessive" but seems unreasonable to
> me considering how rarely I actually use the thing. Now the F2
> . . . it does indeed go forever on a set, even when used heavily.
> The F3 just is undependable with batteries that are not fresh. I
> never know if it is going to function properly or not.

Again, I suspect it is this particular F3...

>> 3) Flimsy????!! The F3 makes a brick feel relatively flimsy! ;-)
>> (Have you felt what the new cameras [like the N90...;-] are like?
>> The F3 is MIGHTY "unflimsy" by comparison...)

> Yes I have an F90X (N90s). I find it "fits the hand" much
> better than the F3 and I much prefer to use it over the F3.
> It SEEMS more substantial to me but certainly its reliability
> over the long term is yet to be established. I am suspicious
> about all those "electronic" features but perhaps they will
> prove durable. They are nice while they last in any event. Yes,
> I stand by my assertion. The F3 seems flimsy and insubstantial to
> me. Compared to what? Compared to my original F (which I also did
> not care much for) and my cherished F2.

I still prefer the F with standard prism over all (with the F3
second) - I liked its parallel-angularism, didn't like the
larger F2 with "slip-off" sides (grip not as good for me).
Plastic feels like plastic to me - very insubstantial...

>> 4) The F2 finders are too much like the "peep-holes" of other
>> cameras - the F3 finder is a joy to use, and is much sharper
>> than most newer cameras.

> Ah. Well my F3 is an early model and does not have the high
> eyepoint finder so perhaps the difference you mention here
> is not evident to me. I find no fault with the F2 DP finder
> in any event and I do wear glasses.

I couldn't deal with not seeing the whole frame at once easily.
Even the non-HP F3 finder seems better to me (and it has a rubber
edge to protect glasses).

> I tried bidding on an HP
> finder at ebay a while back but was not prepared to pay the
> price and was very quickly outbid. My dissatisfaction with
> the F3 has nothing to do with the finder so I was not willing
> to spend much. I can't say I notice the F90X finder to be
> any less sharp than my F2 or F3 though. Of course it is more
> a 92% job than a full 100%...I am aware of that.
danksta@ns.sympatico.ca

The N90 finder is unuseable for me - not sharp enough for MF, whereas
the F3 (and even 8008, in the center) is quite sharp - I can focus
anywhere on the screen, which I can't with the newer finders (soft
on the edges with short lenses, sharp-looking with long, but there
is a focus error at the edges). The F3 is about the peak for me
in good finders (no distortion, easy focus everywhere, 100%, even
illumination, not filled with junk [B-screen...], easy to clean,
easy to see the whole rectangle in a black field).
Too bad you may have gotten a "lemon" F3...