F6

[Christiaan Phleger]

No its just *some* of us use digital alongside film and having an up to date film body that can function with all of the "advancements" of the new Nikons is what is wanted.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

One very good reason for an updated F6 [whether it ever happens or not] would be to make it compatible with Nikon's new electromagnetic diaphragm lenses.

It's a shame that, for example, the just-announced 24-70 f/2.8E VR won't work with the F6.

It seems to me the G lenses and new E lenses just allow Nikon to cut manufacturing costs: no aperture ring for G, no mechanical actuation of the aperture for E. For the photographer, this offers no improvement beyond just being able to buy the latest lenses. Unless the optical design has changed, there is no advantage other than perhaps a slight weight or size advantage.

Reliability may improve over a mechanical linkage: Canon has been doing this since 1986.

But I like my old non-AI, AI, AIS, and AF-D lenses.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

No its just *some* of us use digital alongside film and having an up to date film body that can function with all of the "advancements" of the new Nikons is what is wanted.

Shooting film is different and should stay that way. It's an alternative approach. If it's the same why bother?

 

[Sirius Glass]

It seems to me the G lenses and new E lenses just allow Nikon to cut manufacturing costs: no aperture ring for G, no mechanical actuation of the aperture for E. For the photographer, this offers no improvement beyond just being able to buy the latest lenses. Unless the optical design has changed, there is no advantage other than perhaps a slight weight or size advantage.

Reliability may improve over a mechanical linkage: Canon has been doing this since 1986.

But I like my old non-AI, AI, AIS, and AF-D lenses.

I agree. E lenses bring a different mechanism but the operational result is the same.

 

[f8&bthere]

It seems to me the G lenses and new E lenses just allow Nikon to cut manufacturing costs: no aperture ring for G, no mechanical actuation of the aperture for E. For the photographer, this offers no improvement beyond just being able to buy the latest lenses. Unless the optical design has changed, there is no advantage other than perhaps a slight weight or size advantage.

Well, the current 24-70 f/2.8G is just 'meh' IMO. The new version incorporates fluorine coating, VR, etc. and had better be a pretty significant step up in IQ considering the rumored ~$2500 price.

Regardless, I can and often do use my 14-24 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 on my F6 and F100, though I hate not being able to use the 14-24 on my F2, F3, and FM/FE/FA.

Assuming the new 24-70 has demonstrably better IQ, I would love to be able to use it with the F6 and F100.

 

[mweintraub]

Well, the current 24-70 f/2.8G is just 'meh' IMO. The new version incorporates fluorine coating, VR, etc. and had better be a pretty significant step up in IQ considering the rumored ~$2500 price.

Regardless, I can and often do use my 14-24 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 on my F6 and F100, though I hate not being able to use the 14-24 on my F2, F3, and FM/FE/FA.

Assuming the new 24-70 has demonstrably better IQ, I would love to be able to use it with the F6 and F100.

Let me know if you want to sell your meh 24-70mm for cheap.

 

[f8&bthere]

Let me know if you want to sell your meh 24-70mm for cheap.

Hyperbole aside, the current 24-70 f/2.8 is a good lens but not a great one, a real issue IMO given its $2000 price. Hi-res digital sensors likely emphasize the shortcomings of this lens compared to film but the IQ of the 20-year old 35-70 f/2.8D that I picked up years ago for $250 is every bit as good in the ~35-65 range, perhaps even a tad better wide open.

 

[mweintraub]

Hyperbole aside, the current 24-70 f/2.8 is a good lens but not a great one, a real issue IMO given its $2000 price. Hi-res digital sensors likely emphasize the shortcomings of this lens compared to film but the IQ of the 20-year old 35-70 f/2.8D that I picked up years ago for $250 is every bit as good in the ~35-65 range, perhaps even a tad better wide open.

I think the 24-70mm is a great lens, from the few times I've rented it. I haven't bought one because of the price and I love me some primes that I already own. Not until I need it (do more events), I probably won't need to purchase one. Of course the new Tamron is tempting for the price (even used). If the new VR model helps the old's price drop, then I might be tempted. If it's anything like the 85mm 1.4D, the used price didn't drop, almost, at all.

 

[Tamara]

Shooting film is different and should stay that way. It's an alternative approach. If it's the same why bother?

The whole reason I switched from a Canon to a d*****l Nikon for my work camera is that I enjoyed working with the F5 so much that I bought an old D1X to play with alongside it, and figured that if I was going to start sinking bucks into F-mount lenses for play, I may as well ditch the 20D and replace it with a D200 for work.

 

[analoguey]

Shooting film is different and should stay that way. It's an alternative approach. If it's the same why bother?

I agree. That's why I am not so happy with using an f100 shooting film. I'd rather use a near -completely mechanical camera.

The whole reason I switched from a Canon to a d*****l Nikon for my work camera is that I enjoyed working with the F5 so much that I bought an old D1X to play with alongside it, and figured that if I was going to start sinking bucks into F-mount lenses for play, I may as well ditch the 20D and replace it with a D200 for work.

One of the reasons I like Nikon is their lens and body compatibility. But I prefer the primes and the Ai-s lenses to the modern ones.

Are you saying you need cameras to have the same ergonomics whether you shoot film or digital? Does that help make your approach in both similar? (do you shoot similarly?)

 

[Tamara]

One of the reasons I like Nikon is their lens and body compatibility. But I prefer the primes and the Ai-s lenses to the modern ones.

Are you saying you need cameras to have the same ergonomics whether you shoot film or digital? Does that help make your approach in both similar? (do you shoot similarly?)

Not so much that, but there are two factors that I have a hard time untangling from each other:

One is that I just love the feel and heft of the F5. Maybe it's that it was newest new hotness last time I was into cameras and when I handle it I feel like I'm alongside a runway in Milan or shooting pictures in base camp on Everest for NatGeo or something.

The other is that I think the Nikon control layout established by the F5 and continued into the higher-end D cameras has it all over Canon's. Between the EOS-1N and the F5, I'll hardly ever use the former as anything but a jumbo-sized P&S, while I'm not afraid to take the latter manual.

If I'm going out to enjoy the process of using the camera, I'll take the FM2 any day of the week, but I think the F5/F6 managed to introduce a ton of various very usable electronic aids without burying them in button driven menus. I found I could even change the motor drive setting or metering mode on the F5 without taking my eye away from the viewfinder; I don't think that's possible for me to do on the EOS-1N.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Hey well for me I can and do shoot everything from M42 Pentax, early Minoltas, Nikon F, 2-5 and Leica M in 35 just in 35mm alone as well as MF and LF. So, yeah, *of course* film is different. That shouldn't mean that I shouldn't have the opportunity to shoot film alongside digital using the latest lenses.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I'm not so sure I want a magnetic aperture control. Just that whole Murphy thing. And it's not like there's many lenses you're denied access to.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Does magnetic aperture control bring anything or any advantage to the party?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Well at least not now. Just wait until you need to use the new 18mm tilt shift with black and white film. wink. I know I'd like to use the new 800mm f/5.6 for black and white film photos of the big winter waves in Hawaii.

 

[analoguey]

Not so much that, but there are two factors that I have a hard time untangling from each other:

One is that I just love the feel and heft of the F5. Maybe it's that it was newest new hotness last time I was into cameras and when I handle it I feel like I'm alongside a runway in Milan or shooting pictures in base camp on Everest for NatGeo or something.

The other is that I think the Nikon control layout established by the F5 and continued into the higher-end D cameras has it all over Canon's. Between the EOS-1N and the F5, I'll hardly ever use the former as anything but a jumbo-sized P&S, while I'm not afraid to take the latter manual.

If I'm going out to enjoy the process of using the camera, I'll take the FM2 any day of the week, but I think the F5/F6 managed to introduce a ton of various very usable electronic aids without burying them in button driven menus. I found I could even change the motor drive setting or metering mode on the F5 without taking my eye away from the viewfinder; I don't think that's possible for me to do on the EOS-1N.

Agreed, 100%!
You described the ergonomics bit in more detail! [emoji1]

Like you, I also love how the film camera Design from Giorgio gurigetto(don't think I spelt it right) developed from the f4/5 into the digital series - even the prosumer ones.

Regarding my shooting question - I have found that if using my f100(with battery grip, ofc) I tend to shoot through a lot of film quickly - and sometimes don't always shoot with the considered method I would employ if shooting a fully manual camera.
I was wondering if that's something you experience as well.

 

[k.hendrik]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Russ - SVP]

Agreed, 100%!
You described the ergonomics bit in more detail! [emoji1]

Like you, I also love how the film camera Design from Giorgio gurigetto(don't think I spelt it right) developed from the f4/5 into the digital series - even the prosumer ones.

Regarding my shooting question - I have found that if using my f100(with battery grip, ofc) I tend to shoot through a lot of film quickly - and sometimes don't always shoot with the considered method I would employ if shooting a fully manual camera.
I was wondering if that's something you experience as well.

No, I have not experienced that. I just prefer the grip as added support and ergonomics. I have MD-12 motor drives on my FE and FE-2, but I never turn them on. They are just for added stability and handholding support.