Wink or no wink, you've got that exactly backwards.
The F6 is an efficient, integrated photographic tool. The F was tough enough to hammer nails and didn't need a battery. However, anyone using an F to make pictures rather than as a carpentry implement would be thrilled to have an F6 instead.
Well, to each their own but efficient and analog don't go together in my opinion. If I wanted a camera with all the bells and whistles of an F6, I'd shoot digital. Besides that, my #1 criterion for cameras is some kind of manual fallback mode when the batteries go flat - the F6 doesn't have that.
Anyway...................if you had to choose just one iteration that represented the biggest change or most advancement from one model to the next, which two models would that be.?
I suppose the F3 offering AE was a big change from the F2 to the F3. Maybe that was it.?
- reliance on electronics for everything
- somehow, Nikon thought leaving the camera design to a car design studio was a good idea
- we don't care about the viewfinder quality and info, we'll give you an inferior metering display and inferior viewfinder because OOOH AUTOMATION and WOW LOOK AT OUR TTL SYSTEM.
- corollary: the AUTO mode was going to be more important than the manual modes from now on.
When a working PJ I started with an F, upgraded to F2 then F3P, I used the F3P for almost 20 years, other than a yearly service (CLA) it worked in all weather, from the Artic to the Tropics. My preference was the F2, liked the somewhat larger body better, in terms of function the F3 was much improved.
When a working PJ I started with an F, upgraded to F2 then F3P, I used the F3P for almost 20 years, other than a yearly service (CLA) it worked in all weather, from the Artic to the Tropics. My preference was the F2, liked the somewhat larger body better, in terms of function the F3 was much improved.