Now that was a sexy camera!


Tri-X Lightroom Preset

Since I talked about film in my last post, I might as well talk about my fantasy camera in this post! That camera was the Nikon F3. It was the Cadillac of cameras back in the day. I worked in the camera department of a store similar to Best Buy. The store, Jewel Mart, had a camera department and I was fortunate enough to work in it. At the time, I was shooting a Minolta XD-11, which took me a long time to save for. At that time, I was making only $3.10/hour and working about 15 hours/week. The XD-11 cost nearly $300 if memory serves me correctly.

One day, we got a new camera in, the Nikon F3. This tank sold for about $750 at the time. According to an online calculator that I found, that puts the value of the camera at about $1,960 in 2009 dollars! Well, this girl was certainly out of my league. A guy making about $45/week just cannot afford a woman like this! But, each time that I got to work, I took her out of the case and fantasied about going out on an assignment, or just out to the parking lot with a pocket full film and a lot of time on my hands!

Ah, what good days those were! :-) Every once in a while I’m tempted. It’s amazing what you can get now if you are willing to shoot film. You can get Nikon’s flagship film camera, the F5 for about $200! What a steal!

If you were around in the film era, did you have any fantasy camera?

About Paul

Comments

12 Responses to “Now that was a sexy camera!”
  1. Rakesh Malik says:

    Nikon’s flagship film camera is actually the F6, which is essentially a film version of a D200.

  2. Paul says:

    @Rekesh: Thanks. I’m behind the times in film cameras. :-)

  3. Rakesh Malik says:

    Yeah, get get with the program, dude!

  4. Rakesh Malik says:

    Oops… I hosed my smiley… that was supposed to be silly. :-/

    (It’s Friday and I’m stuck in an office digging through a pile of bad code. I need some silliness.)

  5. Ove says:

    Yup, I would loved to have a rangefinder, a Leica or a Leitz comes to my mind… I had a Nikon F2 during the eighties and nineties, and I loved it in many ways. It was solid as a tank, too. And heavy… I sleek, high quality rangefinder, on the other hand, is light and equally solid. And the viewfinder is bright and big, perfect for my older and older eyes that has a pair of glasses in front of them…

    That picture, btw, is really, really good! Looks almost as here, in wintertime. Solarized?

  6. Rob Terry says:

    Paul, as you might recall, I had a Pentax MX but my dream was the Nikon F2. I later got one, and the FE, but alas sold them both. For me the dream is fulfilled in my D300. Oh if I could travel back in time and show my 16 year old self the D300!!

    By the way I remember you working at Jewel Mart and your Minolta. I used to love to stop by and we’d take the cameras out of the glass case and talk photo for probably too long.

    Great times my friend, great times.

  7. Paul says:

    @Rob: Yes, I remember those times fondly! I never did get that F3, but I must say that I am quite happy with my Nikon equipment. I never did own a Nikon until I started shooting digital. Oddly enough, I jumped right to the top with a D2x, then took a step ‘back’ and got the D300, which was better technology for a much smaller price.

  8. Chris Klug says:

    My dream camera at the time was a Canon F1. But really, what I yearned for even more than a particular camera were lenses. I never had the money to get the, say, f/2.0 version of a lens, I always settled for the slower version (which usually was not quite as good as the faster version of the lens. So, since I shot a number of actor’s head shots, I’d shoot with the f/1.8 version of the 85mm portrait lens instead of the f/1.2 version. I didn’t shoot Nikon because they were more expensive than Canons. I’ve always wanted to shoot a Nikon just to see what the deal is. Even today, sine I still shoot Canon, I’ve wanted to rent a D300 or D700 for a weekend with a nice 35mm fixed lens and see what I get and how it feels.

  9. Mark says:

    You don’t know the horror I just experienced reading that an F5 can be had for $200. Even better reason to hang on to mine – I just couldn’t bear to part with it for that – even though it is still $200 in my pocket vs. being a dust collector.

  10. Paul says:

    @Mark: Yeah, they have certainly depreciated, just like the digital cameras! I guess that you could hang on to the F5 until it becomes completely worthless then use it as weight to keep your tripod a little steadier. :-) Or, as you put in your April Fool’s post, you could go back to the simplicity of film! :-)

  11. Laurie says:

    Gorgeous! The sky is pretty amazing. I’d say that is a pretty effective pre-set.

Trackbacks

Check out what others are saying about this post...