I can't leave well enough alone: Nikon F5

[Chan Tran]

Correct. The point stands. APUG gets more like DPreview with each passing day.

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.

 

[frank]

One day, this thread and its fallout will become known as the APUG F5 Incident.

Chill. The F5 is another great camera by Nikon and it's not everyone's cup of tea.

 

[pentaxuser]

The 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

 

[Terry Breedlove]

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

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."

 

[frank]

Unless one of the camera's meters is miscalibrated or defective, one meter can not be more accurate than another. It depends on how the photographer takes a meter reading and what the photographer does with the information provided. One camera may give better/more consistent exposures while on automatic exposure and/or with matrix metering with no (or faulty) interpretation by the photographer. In this case, a matrix meter will be "more accurate" than a centre weighted meter, and a later matrix meter over an earlier version of matrix metering.

 

[John Koehrer]

^^^See, there's an assumption in your last paragraph.
It's just as likely the cameras were used by hundreds of doctors or lawyers
because they WANTED ONE, no other reason. Maybe it looked cool when they
went to the submarine races.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

So in a real world example in ever changing lighting shooting on the street my F100 will nail exposer better than my F3hp. It just does, now my F3 does damn good and I know where to quickly aim it (at the ground maybe in backlight situations for example) to get a good exposure in fast moving fast changing situations but the F100 most often will just make it happen with less fuss.

 

[fstop]

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.

Someone gets it, thank you.

 

[sepiareverb]

Aside from auto focus (which I don't use) the Nikon F4 was IMO, the pinnacle of Nikon cameras with its traditional controls.

I have to agree with you Frank. The BEST 35mm SLR for tripod use hands down. And comfortable in the hand when off the legs.

 

[Chan Tran]

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."

How do you know that the F100 meter is more accurate than the F3?

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Because I have shot hundreds of rolls through both in the same places and situations even at the same time. Yes I pack two cameras sometimes three if you include my Hasselblad.

 

[markbarendt]

How do you know that the F100 meter is more accurate than the F3?

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.

 

[BMbikerider]

Further to my statement that it was shear size that puts me off an F5 and not the weight. I also use a Bronica ETRSi and even with a chunky lens attached it is easier and more comfortable to use than even my F6 so comparing it to the F5 would make the F5 a bit of a pig to handle.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

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?

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.

 

[blockend]

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.

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.

 

[frank]

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.

 

[blockend]

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.

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.

 

[frank]

Yes, you're special. People collect lots of things; don't worry about it. We're here to have fun and not be serious and practical all the time.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

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.

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
​

 

[frank]

Something tells me we can't leave well enough alone. This is about a camera, not religion or politics!

 

[blockend]

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
​

Elvis is dead?

 

[pentaxuser]

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."

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.

I have long looked at both F5 and F100 but own neither. I am still trying to gather information so I try to be sure that what I think I have read is what the poster has said. It might have been better if I had expanded on this but I thought it better if I kept it short. There was no other motive in shortening your quote.

If we were all in a room together verbally discussing this thread face to face then few if any of the sour notes struck in this thread as a whole so far might have arisen.

pentaxuser

 

[fstop]

I saw Elvis in the deli this morning!

I stop short of auto focus film cameras, if I'm going to introduce that much automation I'll use the dreaded d word. I use film for my hobby,if I were to buy an autofocus Nikon film camera it would be an F5 over the F100. and it has nothing to do with the F100 being a pick up truck.

 

[k.hendrik]

I appreciate a high quality tool.

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.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

That's not Elvis. It's Jim Morrison in disguise.