There's been a few comments touching this before, but here goes again. The F100 is a very fast camera, especially compared to any medium format camera. (This was the reason for me selling my F100. It was too fast for me.
I.e. I like to comptemplate a little on how to expose etc. but with this camera it was too easy to just point and press the button. The exposure and focus point was always spot on. Good for sports, but photography is my way of relaxing...)
To my point: I recon that you still have your MF camera. In that case, don't try to compare the two. Give the small 35mm format a chance to excel in it's own properties. Let there be some grain or even, let there be lots of grain. It's part of shooting small format. For me a fast 35mm camera gives me the opportunity to grab shots that I simply cannot get with my Hasselblad, let alone my Sinar. But there's a different feel and smell to these "fasts shots" and in my mind these shots from the hip so to say only becomes better with a bit of grain.
Also, an important part of the equation is what lens you are using. My first choice was the AF 35-70 f/2.8 D, which was rather big and small range but in some regards almost as good as prime lenses. Optical quality really makes a difference when the film format is smaller. You can get away with a rather mediocre lens on a LF camera, while a similar lens on a 35mm camera will look like an instamatic shot.
When I used this camera (6-8 years ago) I was reviving my photograhy interest and I tried to make the best out of standard material first, only this time around I would be really careful with film developing procedures etc. In b/w I mostly shot Tri-X souped in D76 1:1. I really liked the results and often printed 11x14" prints which were really pleasing to my eye. Also, I often were very positively surprised as I didn't expect that good results from plain ol' Tri-X. I did shoot a number of TMX rolls too and some of the 12x16" prints from them are really outstanding (at least from the technical viewpoint, e.g. grain, sharpness etc).
What also really does make a difference is the way you print the negatives. In larger sizes the type of light is less noticeable, but I really do prefer a good condenser enlarger for 35mm. I use a Leitz Focomat IIc, but a good Durst is nice too.
Last, and for the record: While most of my photography is done in MF and LF, I did get me a cheap N80 with a beaten but still good 35-70 lens. It has similar capabilities as the F100, so if I want that it's there. What's lacking is top speed and ruggedness, but I'm getting older and more careful nowadays.
I recon that the last sign of me being somewhat "jurassic" is the fact that what's bulging in my pocket isn't a pack of Camels (or should that be "a roll of quarters") but a Rollei 35S.
//Björn
