And is the F6 10 or 12 year old? I think it's 12 already. So here we don't talk about spanking new cameras and if it's 30 year old it's not that old by APUG standard.
Correct. The point stands. APUG gets more like DPreview with each passing day.
Do you mean the F100 meter is very much more accurate than the F5 meter or is this a comparison between the F100 and F3The F100 meter is very much more accurate.
Do you mean the F100 meter is very much more accurate than the F5 meter or is this a comparison between the F100 and F3
If it is a comparison between the F100 and F5 can you say by how much the F100 is more accurate and is this across all light conditions or are there specific light conditions in which the F100 is a lot better?
Thanks
pentaxuser
Not as capable of measuring flash? I use flash on old folders, through matrix metered Nikons, to modern m*rrorl*ss cameras. It doesn't require a camera body the size of a small dog to balance flash and ambient light. Begging the question is treating a conclusion as a proposition. If people want an F5 (conclusion) they'll find a reason to buy one (proposition). It doesn't have to be a good reason. I'm talking about a reason to carry an F5 that isn't met by other cameras. The F5 was designed to fire frames quickly with a high focus and exposure hit rate. If someone still requires that, the Nikon F5 is their camera. Realistically such people moved over to D-cameras that gave even higher frame rates, better focus tracking and more sophisticated exposure, leaving film for other duties and different cameras.
Aside from auto focus (which I don't use) the Nikon F4 was IMO, the pinnacle of Nikon cameras with its traditional controls.
How do you know that the F100 meter is more accurate than the F3?My F100 is more accurate than my F3. I don't own an f5. Here is my full quote which you for some reason cut out. I was answering a question about how well built or tough the F100 is compared to an f2 F3 etc no mention of the F5 in those two post.
"Definitely not as tough as my F3hp but I never had an issue with them. The F100 meter is very much more accurate."
Its not that the older meters can't do a good job, or aren't equal in their ability to measure raw light, it's that it takes less thought to get a good exposure when shooting with more modern metering systems.How do you know that the F100 meter is more accurate than the F3?
Well that's a slightly more polite contribution than your last, but still comes across as overbearing when I haven't been rude at any point and kept completely on topic. This is a public forum on the merits and disadvantages of cameras, and apart from your own angry responses has been conducted in the spirit of the discussion. Have you considered that you might be investing a 30 year old camera with too much emotion?
You've invested a lot of pejoratives in what I've said, none of which stands up to scrutiny. The point I'm making is very simple, and I'll say it one more time so you don't think I have a dartboard with an F5 pinned to it. The F5 belonged to an era when things like a high shutter rate, autofocus and automated exposure modes were thought to be indispensable for a professional photographer. To enable those things meant a lot of battery power at a time batteries weren't as efficient or compact. That meant a disproportionately large body because unlike previous models the power source could not be detached. That will be a turn off for most amateurs today, but there'll obviously be some people who get off on the bulk alone. The F5 isn't a bad camera, but it is an incredibly large one considering it takes 35mm film. The fact you've "given no consideration whatsoever" to what I've said shines through in every post. You're a fan and fans aren't known for their objectivity.Given that no consideration whatsoever. BTW my F5 is 14 years old. You state that meters/frame rate and other specifications have improved on digital cameras. Have you given any consideration to the fact there are many here who use cameras that are decades-perhaps even a few that approach a century old-yet are very happy with their choices because it's what they want?
You portray the camera in question as if we were lining up to purchase new at the camera counter of a big box store and ignorant of what's available. We are not. We are using vintage cameras of varying ages. Which we enjoy.
It's clear that a substantial proportion if not a majority of posts on apug are gas driven. People want a camera they can now afford and ogled in the shop window 20, 40, 60 years ago. It's an understandable reaction but I work on the assumption someone wants a camera to use, and my observations are based on a practical film camera today. I was recently in conversation with someone whom owned pretty much every cult camera made, Plaubel, Alpa, Reid, Luftwaffe Leicas, you name it, he had one and a few spares. I commended him on them and said they must be great fun to use. "Oh I don't use them", he said, "I'm 100% digital for photography". Perhaps he's the norm and I'm the anachronism.I just think it's really cool that digital has made these top shelf pro cameras available at a fraction of what they sold for originally and at a bargain considering their awesome capabilities. I have some pro level cameras simply because I can afford them, not because I necessarily need their pro level build and performance. I appreciate a high quality tool.
BTW, the title is becoming ever more relevant.
You've invested a lot of pejoratives in what I've said, none of which stands up to scrutiny. The point I'm making is very simple, and I'll say it one more time so you don't think I have a dartboard with an F5 pinned to it. The F5 belonged to an era when things like a high shutter rate, autofocus and automated exposure modes were thought to be indispensable for a professional photographer. To enable those things meant a lot of battery power at a time batteries weren't as efficient or compact. That meant a disproportionately large body because unlike previous models the power source could not be detached. That will be a turn off for most amateurs today, but there'll obviously be some people who get off on the bulk alone. The F5 isn't a bad camera, but it is an incredibly large one considering it takes 35mm film. The fact you've "given no consideration whatsoever" to what I've said shines through in every post. You're a fan and fans aren't known for their objectivity.
Of course people use old cameras. My film models are 1930s designs to early 2000s and each have their merits and all are used. I don't believe most amateurs require what the F5 excelled at, but perhaps its appeal lies elsewhere.
Elvis is dead?No matter how verbose your response it's a vain attempt to further injure a deceased equine. As dead as Elvis.
Dead Link Removed
image public domain
Thanks for the reply, Terry. I had thought that your comparison was between the F3 and the F100 but just wanted to be sure. While I admit never having seen a comment to the effect that the F100 meter was more accurate than the F5 there might have been certain circumstances in which the F100's meter beats the F5's and if this were the case I was interested in it.My F100 is more accurate than my F3. I don't own an f5. Here is my full quote which you for some reason cut out. I was answering a question about how well built or tough the F100 is compared to an f2 F3 etc no mention of the F5 in those two post.
"Definitely not as tough as my F3hp but I never had an issue with them. The F100 meter is very much more accurate."
I bought(and use) for that reason an F5/Rolleiflex SL66SE/Mamiya RZ67ii/Volvo XC70/Contax G2/heavy cotton Carhartt wintershirt and I (and Belle&Sebastian) saw Elvis too.I appreciate a high quality tool.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?