And this "the F6 is not a professional camera because it has no interchangeable viewfinders" is just internet talk of amateurs, camera collectors and gear-heads.
But not at all talk of professionals, because they have abandoned interchangeable viewfinders decades ago. The demand for interchangeable viewfinders had been tiny and negligible, and because of that the manufacturers stopped them decades ago: Minolta was first in the 80ies, a bit later Canon followed in 1989 with their EOS 1, Pentax then a bit later and Nikon were the last in 1999 with the D1. And the others like Leica and Contax choosed the more robust fixed prism viewfinders right from the start.
Fact is that professionals are using cameras with fixed prism viewfinders successfully for several decades. Tell them that they are using "amateur" or "non-system" cameras because the viewfinder is not interchangeable.....if you have luck they will only laughing.
Best regards,
Henning
Having owned and used both cameras, I will say the one outstanding feature of the F6 is its metering. It just nails exposure. Now the F4s was no slouch in this area, but the F6 is just better at nailing exposure every time. The F6 probably focuses a bit faster than the F4s. And the F6 can use all my AF-S Nikkor glass. Not sure they all work on the F4s (no longer own the F4s).
But I liked holding and shooting with the F4s better than the F6. I had the larger of the two battery grips on my F4s, and use the MB-40 on the F6. Again the F4s just fit my hands and was more comfortable for me to shoot. YMMV.
Best,
-Tim
Getting the F6 will not make me forget about the F4.
Lenses then..? Id like a midrange zoom to go with it. I suspect the 35-70mm 2.8 afd is a bit big. But what about the 35-105mm 3.5-4.5 afd? Or the 35-70mm 3.3-4.5 af?
In over 60 years of using 35mm slr cameras I have never felt a the need to change the view finder. The cost versus benefit just does not pay off for most photographers, amateur or professional. In MF the there is a payoff for changing view finders because the stock view finder is a Waist Level Finder and for the Mamiya C330f the PorroFlex was the viewfinder of choice and the Hasselblad one of the 45° or 90° view finders are the view finders of choice with the advantage of built in light meter while eliminating the annoying left right reversal.
No, that was not what they said.
They said they wanted to design a real upgrade to the F5, and therefore the best film SLR they have ever built. That is the reason why the F6 is improved so much and in so many regards in comparison to the F5. Nikon wanted to make an even better camera, and they succeeded. I know for sure, because in contrast to you I am using both cameras, also for professional jobs.
People with no market knowledge have misinterpreted one statement in one interview with the F6 engineers: That Nikon expected a change in customer market share, because the market of especially press photographers had begun to switch to digital during the R&D phase.
But that is a different topic, and is not related to the fact that Nikon's R&D target / aim was to design their best film SLR ever, and a significantly improved camera compared to the F5.
Because what people who are doing this misinterpretation don't know is that all so-called "professional" cameras from all manufacturers, 35mm and medium format cameras, were mainly bought by non-professionals:
60-80% (depending on camera type and regional market) of all these professional cameras were bought by non-professionals, so by (enthusiast) amateurs.
That is the reason why these cameras could be designed and introduced to the market: The amateurs financed the R&D. The pure professional market has never been big enough for that. I am working in this industry, including market research. I have the numbers in my analysing tools.
No matter whether nikon F2, F5, Canon F1 or EOS 1V, Hasselblad 500 series, Rolleiflex TLR series or Mamiya RB / RZ 67: The biggest customer / buyer group has always been the amateurs, not the professionals. Example: I visited the orginal Franke&Heidecke / Rollei factory two times,and talked there also to the distribution and marketing experts. They told me that constantly over all the decades about 80% of their cameras were bought by non-professionals. Hasselblad confirmed that for their sales, too. Leica as well. With Nikon and Canon there has been a bit more regional differentiation, but the overall picture has been and is the same.
I know that after the introduction of the F6 lots of professional portrait and wedding, nature and travel photographers bought the F6. And Nikon of course have known that demand. That the F6 was only bought by "rich amateurs" is simply wrong. One of the numerous internet myths.
That was not their intention. Their intention was to offer the best possible film SLR to those who wanted or needed one. No matter whether for professional or amateur use. And at that time still lots of professionals were using film (when Nikon started the design phase film sales were on a global record level).
So Nikon had exactly the same intention with the F6 as they had earlier with the F, F2, F3, F4 and F5: At all time points they intended the best design they can do for all potential customers with their top F-line model.
Same did Canon with their top-line cameras.
No "system" camera? Sorry, you definitely don't know the F6. It is offering lots of system functions none of the other F cameras can offer.
And this "the F6 is not a professional camera because it has no interchangeable viewfinders" is just internet talk of amateurs, camera collectors and gear-heads.
But not at all talk of professionals, because they have abandoned interchangeable viewfinders decades ago. The demand for interchangeable viewfinders had been tiny and negligible, and because of that the manufacturers stopped them decades ago: Minolta was first in the 80ies, a bit later Canon followed in 1989 with their EOS 1, Pentax then a bit later and Nikon were the last in 1999 with the D1. And the others like Leica and Contax choosed the more robust fixed prism viewfinders right from the start.
Fact is that professionals are using cameras with fixed prism viewfinders successfully for several decades. Tell them that they are using "amateur" or "non-system" cameras because the viewfinder is not interchangeable.....if you have luck they will only laughing.
Best regards,
Henning
That is a fabulous shot of the Alfa mechanics.I use the 28-105D lens as my zoom, and a 50 1.4D as a compact, fast, low light option. Because, film.
I used to use the 28-70 3.5/4.5 which also is great on film, but sold it because I also had the 28-105..
(I also use the 24 2.8D, 35 2.0D but would pick the zoom and the 50 if I could only have 2 lenses. Only 1 lens? Then the 50 1.4 cuz again film and you need the speed).
Nikon F4 w/ 28-70D and TriX:
Nikon F4 w/ 35 2.0D and Lomo Babylon 13:
Nikon F4 w/ 28-105D and TriX:
Nikon F4 w/ 50 1.4D and Fuji Superia 400:
Nikon F4 w/ 50 1.4D and TriX:
I know nothing about the Science/Longevity of LCD Screens.The elephant in the room is the propensity for the F3's, F4's & F5's LCD's to bleed. Why has no one addressed that? It's a show stopper.
Marc
The elephant in the room is the propensity for the F3's, F4's & F5's LCD's to bleed. Why has no one addressed that? It's a show stopper.
Marc
In over 60 years of using 35mm slr cameras I have never felt a the need to change the view finder. The cost versus benefit just does not pay off for most photographers, amateur or professional. In MF the there is a payoff for changing view finders because the stock view finder is a Waist Level Finder and for the Mamiya C330f the PorroFlex was the viewfinder of choice and the Hasselblad one of the 45° or 90° view finders are the view finders of choice with the advantage of built in light meter while eliminating the annoying left right reversal.
Henning, I see you still haven't gathered enough flat spots on your head. Trying to counter nonsense with facts. Ha! Good luck.
@Henning Serger thank for your factual posts! Many of us here appreciate your contributions.
Thanks, Sal and Chris!
@OP:
If you are going for an F4, you should look for a later produced one, with a serial number above 400,000. Lots of internal improvements (it is said a 3-digit number) and "bug-fixing" were implemented in the F4 over the production years. And that was finished after 400,000 units were produced, no more refinements after that.
I have also such a late unit and so far - knock on wood - it works flawlessly.
Best regards,
Henning
That is incorrect. There is no Nikon F4 with a serial number above 261xxxx. There are no known F4 cameras with a serial number starting with 262xxxx.
All of the revisions, about 10 known ones, were done by about serial number 2500765, but just to be certain, stick with about 2501000 and up just to be safe.
Well, I was of course referring to the real production numbers: You have to "delete" the first code number (2), and then you have the real production number.
Stop making excuses. You wrote, and I quote "serial number above 400,000". You said nothing about "real production number". You are also wrong about subtracting the first code number to get the real production number. The F4 numbers start at 2100000, so you'd be out by 100 000 if you did that. Also, how is someone buying their first F4, with no real knowledge, supposed to know what you mean? They will go looking for "serial numbers" that don't exist.
My sources say otherwise, including the Nikon literature (Peterson; Stafford/Hillebrand/Hauschild). Both concerning the number of modifications / improvements, and the serial numbers.
I have several F4 bodies starting at 25048xx going through 26123xx, and all have the modifications. Show me where there are serial numbers above the 261xxxx, or unmodified bodies earlier than 250xxxx with all the upgrades. Peterson lists some early upgrades, while Pietsch lists some later ones, as does Ang. There are no other updates seen after serial number 2500764.
Best regards,
Henning
"Stop making excuses."
It isn't an excuse at all, as the coded number does not give you the real number of units produced in case of the F4 (it is e.g. different with the F6, as the F6 numbers are not coded).
I am interested in the real produced numbers, and it is also the critical point here concerning the modifications.
"The F4 numbers start at 2100000, so you'd be out by 100 000 if you did that."
No, due to the Nikon Compendium by Stafford, Hillebrand and Hauschild the serial numbers started with 2000201. And it is confirmed by Peterson in his book that the numbers definitely started lower / under 2100000, as he wrotes that implementing of the first modifications started with 2100000 onwards.
"I have several F4 bodies starting at 25048xx going through 26123xx, and all have the modifications. Show me where there are serial numbers above the 261xxxx, or unmodified bodies earlier than 250xxxx with all the upgrades."
???
Of course your F4s with these numbers have all the upgrades, that is what I have written. Implementation of modifications was finished most probably after 2400000 or latest at 4500000 (due to one source).
Best regards,
Henning
Also, according to the latest information (from the actual owner, I believe) F4 with SERIAL NUMBER 2500764 does not have all the modifications, so SERIAL NUMBERS below that probably don't either.
I doubt that, as my industry sources have been absolutely reliable so far. More likely that the owner isn't aware of all modifications, of which lots were internal and cannot be seen from the outside.
Best regards,
Henning
Op was probably innocently thinking - just get a 35mm slr to complement my baller rangefinder and medium format cameras. Just a nice nikon slr.. that won't be like the the hellish vortex of going leica shopping... just a nice nikon slr to take restful photos of animals and the occasional game of handball..
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?