Nikon F6 updates

[miha]

Let me try one more time by tediously quoting your post:

The facts are that
- almost all major camera manufacturers have had offered top-of-line cameras with interchangeable prisms in the 70ies and 80ies
- all of them have abandoned that concept long ago
- they have stopped it because their sales data clearly showed that only a tiny part of their customers had bought additional prisms, and the huge majority of customers wanted a different design concept.

True. As I wrote, the marekt for such prisms was minute, but not non-existent. But you have used this very fact in order to try to prove your (flase) hypotheis. As well as the nonsense you wrote in #13 on collectors vs real photographers.

It was about demand and customer wishes, not about costs. I have talked with manufactuerers about that topic, and all have explained the same: lack of demand, professionals preferring robustness more.

It was very much about the costs involved. If such prism was cheap to make, various makers would keep it as an advantage.

Of course you are free to say that a F6 is not a professional camera because it has a fixed prism.

Never ever said that.

But then you have to be consequent and also call all the other cameras used by professionals which have (had) a fixed prism also not professional, but more amateur-like cameras:
Canon EOS 1 DX Mk. III, Nikon D6, Sony A9 II, Olympus OM-D E M1X, Fujifilm GFX series, Panasonic S1 series and all the other dozens of different forerunner models of them during the last 20-35 years with fixed non-intercheangeable prisms.

I thought there is an obvious reason why digital cameras don't need an interchangable screen in order to perform equally well in situations where only an interchagable VF SLR (like F5) could complete the task?? Think about it.

Tell the hundreds of thousands of professional photographers who have used (and are using) these cameras with fixed prisms were/are not real professional cameras because of a fixed prism. They will laugh at you.

Best regards,
Henning

I'm affraid they have no reason to laugh at me as I've never said anything in those lines.

 

[MattKing]

Having an interchangeable finder available decreases the ruggedness of a camera. It can be a detriment - something that would have caused many professional users to decide against a model.
For certain photographers - those involved in scientific or technical work in a laboratory or studio predominantly - interchangeable finders are a real asset. Those photographers weren't likely to be concerned as much with the weather sealing.
The two sets of diverse needs may well have been an argument for two very different but complementary systems. The reasons that didn't happen are likely heavily rooted in cost concerns.

 

[miha]

Having an interchangeable finder available decreases the ruggedness of a camera. It can be a detriment - something that would have caused many professional users to decide against a model.

But does it? In all practical means it does not. Think of the pro Nikons and Canons of the era. Was there anything similar offered that was more rugged? Maybe Leicaflex but I'm not sure.

 

[MattKing]

Having an interchangeable finder available decreases the ruggedness of a camera. It can be a detriment - something that would have caused many professional users to decide against a model.

But does it? In all practical means it does not.

I live in an area with a high amount of rainfall. I also worked with newspaper photojournalists when they had transitioned from the Nikon F to the Nikon F2.
I can assure you that weather sealing would have been considerably more important to them than having the ability to change finders - which none of them ever did.
In those days, if you were changing finders, you were either doing so because that was what you needed to do to have in-camera metering, or you were using medium format film.
Interchangeable focusing screens met the needs of most who sought viewing flexibility in their 35mm cameras.

 

[miha]

I live in an area with a high amount of rainfall. I also worked with newspaper photojournalists when they had transitioned from the Nikon F to the Nikon F2.
I can assure you that weather sealing would have been considerably more important to them than having the ability to change finders - which none of them ever did.
In those days, if you were changing finders, you were either doing so because that was what you needed to do to have in-camera metering, or you were using medium format film.
Interchangeable focusing screens met the needs of most who sought viewing flexibility in their 35mm cameras.

Weather sealing was not "a feature" in those days as you may recall. However I'm not convinced there were more rugged (or weather sealed) system cameras available than the aforementioned F/F2 regardless of the finder type. However I may be wrong here?

 

[MattKing]

Weather sealing was not "a feature" in those days as you may recall. However I'm not convinced there were more rugged (or weather sealed) system cameras available than the aforementioned F/F2 regardless of the finder type. However I may be wrong here?

Probably correct - the manufacturers had to eliminate the interchangeable finders in order to increase the ruggedness.

 

[NB23]

The F6 was designed in a non-pro market. There was no more pro film market, therefore the F6 became a mix of a F100 and a F5.

if the market was still big on film, back in 2003, I’m 100% sure that the F6 would have retained the BRILLIANT and RUGGED interchangeable
Prisms design and we’d also have its semi-pro brother, in the form of a F150. Because back then, every pro had a F4 + F90 and then a F5 + F100.

As it is now, we have a mix of pro + semi-pro body all in one in the F6 without interchangeable prisms.

As for the theory with regard to interchangeable prisms making a camera more fragile, I disagree! If you drop the camera. Most of the time it’s the prism that gets bumped and misaligned. A F5 with a bumped prism is still a working camera. A F6 with a bumped prism/misaligned/broken prism is garbage.

But then again, it is not a Film pro market anymore, therefore it is not as important anymore. But that is the whole point: if it were a film pro marker, The F6 would have had it.

 

[NB23]

Probably correct - the manufacturers had to eliminate the interchangeable finders in order to increase the ruggedness.

increasing the ruggedness was totally not on the engineer’s list when designing the F6. The F5 was so rugged it is unreal. I’ve rarely felt so much raw power, so much refinement, so much sturdiness, so much accuracy from an electric/electronic device in my life. After the F5, no other camera has shown so much ruggedness: definitely not the D1/2/3/4/5/6 line, and not the F6. The F5 is a powerhouse and rugged to the max.

No. The F6 was Dumbed down because the market was already elsewhere. As simple as that.

 

[Chan Tran]

increasing the ruggedness was totally not on the engineer’s list when designing the F6. The F5 was so rugged it is unreal. I’ve rarely felt so much raw power, so much refinement, so much sturdiness, so much accuracy from an electric/electronic device in my life. After the F5, no other camera has shown so much ruggedness: definitely not the D1/2/3/4/5/6 line, and not the F6. The F5 is a powerhouse and rugged to the max.

No. The F6 was Dumbed down because the market was already elsewhere. As simple as that.

I agree with you! Check out this article which was an interview with Nikon's desginer.
https://f6project.com/inspiration/the-value-of-unique-pictures/

 

[miha]

The F6 was Dumbed down because the market was already elsewhere. As simple as that.

Most probably.

 

[Henning Serger]

It was very much about the costs involved. If such prism was cheap to make, various makers would keep it as an advantage.

No, they would not. Because the huge majority of their customers have considered it as a disadvantage. The manufacturers have reacted to the wishes of their professional customers, which prefer the more robust design. That is why interchangeable prisms were abondoned decades ago. As explained above, I have talked to the manufacturers, and they all explained it was a demand topic, not a cost topic. The camera manufacturers have always put the best and most expensive technology at that time in their top-of-the-line cameras. If the professionals would have wanted continued interchangeable options, the manufacturers would have continued it. But the sales of interchangeable prisms have been tiny.
The needs and wishes of professionals and enthusiasts as main customers were decisive. Manufacturers have always had close customer contact and good market research in the area of the top cameras.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

The F6 was designed in a non-pro market. There was no more pro film market, therefore the F6 became a mix of a F100 and a F5.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong. At the time when the F6 was designed and then introduced, the majority of professionals were using film. I know from camera distributors that lots of F6 in the first years were sold to professional photographers, mainly wedding and portrait, nature and travel photographers.
And the F6 is definitely not a "mix" of a F100 and F5. It does not share one single part with the F100.
It is completely an improvement and successor to the F5.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

increasing the ruggedness was totally not on the engineer’s list when designing the F6.

It definitely was. Besides the fixed prism for example the improved rubber coating is a clear advantage of the F6. The F5 has the weakness that the rubber coating easily and often gets loose on the body, and has to be fixed / glued again. But that does not last / persist very long, and then it is loosening again. That problem started already very few years after introduction of the F5.
I know from lots of F5 users who have this problem. Nikon service confirmed it. And my F5 has it, too.
The F6 does not have that problem.
In the brochure of the F6 Nikon's focus on durability and ruggedness for professional use is described in detail. If it would not have been a design priority, they would not have put so much emphasis on this in the camera presentation.

The F5 was so rugged it is unreal. I’ve rarely felt so much raw power, so much refinement, so much sturdiness, so much accuracy from an electric/electronic device in my life. After the F5, no other camera has shown so much ruggedness: definitely not the D1/2/3/4/5/6 line, and not the F6.

I have to disagree again from my own experience. My two F6 and my D3s are in lots of ways even more refined and robust than my F5. Nikon has clearly made further advantages and improvements over time in that regard. But the F6 is surpassing even the later (and more expensive) D3s in certain design aspects. For example the shutter and mirror dampening is significantly better in the F6 compared to the D3s (and F5).

No. The F6 was Dumbed down because the market was already elsewhere.

The F6 is not dumbed down at all. Just the opposite: It is significantly improved in more than 20 parameters compared to the F5. All the design flaws of the F5 are eliminated. I am using both, and the F6 gets much more usage because of its superiority.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

I agree with you! Check out this article which was an interview with Nikon's desginer.
https://f6project.com/inspiration/the-value-of-unique-pictures/

This interview is unfortunately often misinterpreted.
Fact is that the majority of professional cameras - 35mm and 120 - have always been sold by enthusiasts. And not by professionals. That has been the case for decades, and it has not changed. It is still valid today. 60-80% of the professional cameras have been - and are - bought by enthusiasts / real photography lovers. And quite a lot also by "gearheads" / technology lovers.
That has also been valid for the F5.
What was expected by Nikon was that in the future of the F6 the percentage of enthusiasts under the customers would be probably a bit higher. Because at that time the trend in press photography was towards digital.
But the clear focus of the F6 design was a camera improved significantly to the F5 with 100% capability of professional usage. The clear ambition was to make the best and most refined 35mm SLR they have ever made. And they succeeded in this goal.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Bikerider]

I have had at least one model of the Nikon Pro range right from the original F, except the F5 simply because it was too heavy for general amateur use. The fixed battery pack is/was for me one step too far. Of them all, it is a toss up between the F2a and a F4 which was my preferred model with a bias towards the F4. Getting hold of one these days in perfect working order can be a bit of a gamble, (and expensive) so when my 'cheap' unmarked and low use F6 came along I paid out for it willingly. It will probably be the only camera I have ever bought that I can sell for more than it cost me.

 

[ic-racer]

Just yesterday I watched my F6 fall on concrete, was painful. I hope all is ok, we’ll see over time.

about the F6 being the most sophisticated, I disagree. It should at least have interchangeable prisms and easily accessible screens.

the F5 is the most impressive by far, with its impressive list of optional accessories. It’s crazy! It’s a whole system unto itself, a world of possibilities.

The F6 was often described as an advanced amateur camera, or a faux-pro camera, and I tend to agree. The F4 and F5 are true workhorses, the F5 is like a Driling machine. The F6 is more luxurious and damped, but lacks the edge and the accessory system.even the fps is seriously lacking, without the accessory grip, and it’s a shame.

My understanding is that your comments hold true to the F6 designers plans, but people should read the interview themselves and decide if the F5 or the F6 is better for them. Personally, I'd like to have a complete set, F2, F3, F4, F5 and F6 some day.
https://f6project.com/inspiration/the-value-of-unique-pictures/

 

[Henning Serger]

In the interview it is very clearly explained that Nikon's goal with the F6 was to significantly surpass the F5, and design an absolutely superior camera. The best 35mm SLR ever made.
Quotes:
"And we want to make the F6 the best camera in every aspect."

"We already had a high-speed, high-performance camera, the F5, in our lineup. In developing the F6, we intended to create a camera giving users even more of what they want than the F5 does. The development concept for the F5 was “high speed and high performance.” With the F6, we aimed to offer the functions of the F5, and also enhance the advantages of “finesse and practicality.”

"Even the sounds of shutter-release and other operations provide a special sensation of quality. So what I mean by “finesse” is the comfortable, reassuring feel of flawless operation transmitted through these three senses."

"In developing the F6, we were very attentive to maximizing operating comfort, even when the camera is subjected to use under very tough conditions."

"I must say that we reexamined all materials, although they had been used successfully in our existing cameras. Every single part was inspected from every aspect. We were not simply content with the current state of the art. Our attitude was to look for something better in order to create the best camera."

"I know that we achieved this because we were afforded a longer period than usual to develop the best camera that we could create."

"Does the F6 have larger buttons?
Yes, we decided to do that for the sake of easier operations. Operations can be performed using gloved hands, as we assumed that the F6 would be used in cold places, given the camera’s supreme environment-proof performance.
We put the priority on ease of operation, and made the buttons large and lockless."

"How have mechanics been improved?
The F5 successfully minimized shutter lag. We carried this superior characteristic over to the F6, and also tried to maximize the finesse of the shutter. Specifically, we succeeded in our efforts to reduce vibration and improve the quality of mechanical sounds, especially from the moment the shutter is pressed to the moment it is released. This was achieved by changing the way the shutter is fixed to the camera body. Normally, the shutter is fixed to the body using screws. But with the F6, we use a floating mechanism, in which the shutter is hung with rubber. This rubber absorbs vibration when the shutter is released."

"Not only did we minimize vibration, we spared no effort to keep operation quiet. To let users concentrate on shooting, we wanted to eradicate any unnecessary sounds as much as possible, as well as minimize vibration. We were determined to follow a principle of keeping operating sound, even those heard only by the photographer, to an absolute minimum."

"Materials used for the F6 shutter-release button have been newly developed. The shutter film material has also been changed for enhanced durability. The strictest Nikon standards have been applied to make the F6 a most reliable and durable camera."

"The design of F6 looks as if it is a definitive “standard,” compared with the F5.
I am confident that we have developed it carefully and conscientiously, making practicality the first priority, while maintaining and even improving upon the high performance of the F5."

"Would you like to offer a closing comment?
I ask customers to try holding the F6, look into the viewfinder, and release the shutter. I am confident that the F6 has achieved a new peak in its mechanics. But you cannot fully appreciate what the F6 can actually do, or how you can use it to greatest advantage, just by looking at its specifications table."

As someone who is using the F6 for more than a decade now, including professional use (wedding, portrait, advertizing shots), and as someone who is also using the F100, F4s, F5, I can conpletely confirm what is said by the Nikon designer about the superior performance.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Probably correct - the manufacturers had to eliminate the interchangeable finders in order to increase the ruggedness.

I'm playing with Canon F1, first two bodies. How finders are matched to the body, how they move in and out, none of this is affecting overall ruggedness of the camera. Unlike in many other interchangeable finder cameras, in F-1 once finder is on, it appears and feels like if it were indeed a fixed one. This feeling is same with all F-1 finders. Whether Canon changed this on the New F-1 I don't know, never had one.

Secondly, I don't agree with different finders not being needed in the field, street, sports etc. Each has its unique characteristics and best-for application. Especially the Speed Finder on Canon I find plain awesome for its twisted design and view it provides. It's not for precision work, but it is for fast work.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

No, they would not. Because the huge majority of their customers have considered it as a disadvantage. The manufacturers have reacted to the wishes of their professional customers, which prefer the more robust design. That is why interchangeable prisms were abondoned decades ago. As explained above, I have talked to the manufacturers, and they all explained it was a demand topic, not a cost topic. The camera manufacturers have always put the best and most expensive technology at that time in their top-of-the-line cameras. If the professionals would have wanted continued interchangeable options, the manufacturers would have continued it. But the sales of interchangeable prisms have been tiny.
The needs and wishes of professionals and enthusiasts as main customers were decisive. Manufacturers have always had close customer contact and good market research in the area of the top cameras.

Best regards,
Henning

Sorry to disagree, F6 was already introduced in times when money were counted at every stage from design to manufacturing to distribution. To make finders as precise as Canon had it in F-1, it takes serious tooling and quality control, it is nothing but money to make and money uncounted when this feature is removed. Once you remove a well know feature from your top offering you have to make an argument as to why and telling buyers because we're ... cheap is not a good advertising.

As for demand part, all I will say is that once electronics got into shooting routine, ever more complex, ever "better" etc. the crowd using these cameras had changed perception of what is helpful in different situations. And all of it from the idea of automated shooting, where changing finders would not be, well ... automatic. Wrong to think it is was wise demand change, but perhaps. However, I would say this demand change came well after F6 was in production, or at least took hold for good. Hence it was NOT playing into what Nikon decided to do in the first place.

 

[Chan Tran]

Sorry to disagree, F6 was already introduced in times when money were counted at every stage from design to manufacturing to distribution. To make finders as precise as Canon had it in F-1, it takes serious tooling and quality control, it is nothing but money to make and money uncounted when this feature is removed. Once you remove a well know feature from your top offering you have to make an argument as to why and telling buyers because we're ... cheap is not a good advertising.

As for demand part, all I will say is that once electronics got into shooting routine, ever more complex, ever "better" etc. the crowd using these cameras had changed perception of what is helpful in different situations. And all of it from the idea of automated shooting, where changing finders would not be, well ... automatic. Wrong to think it is was wise demand change, but perhaps. However, I would say this demand change came well after F6 was in production, or at least took hold for good. Hence it was NOT playing into what Nikon decided to do in the first place.

You know what I think?
I think that Nikon introduced the F6 so that they can discontinue the F5. They can sell the F6 for more money as it has more software related features which is cheap to make. It can share parts with the D2 series at the time. They can sell it for more yet cost them less than making the F5. The interchangeable viewfinder is an expensive item. The true mirror lockup is also expensive and the ADR which is simply optical device is also expensive.

 

[Henning Serger]

Sorry to disagree, F6 was already introduced in times when money were counted at every stage from design to manufacturing to distribution.

That has also been the case decades before. Costs have always been considered in a design process. But as I have already explained above, manufacturers have never left features out when there is demand for it. Especially not in their top-of-the line models, where customers are willing to pay the price for this features.
This is definitely not a specific Nikon F6 topic. Because all other manufacturers have had abandoned interchangeable prisms long before. Please see my explainations above and below:

However, I would say this demand change came well after F6 was in production, or at least took hold for good.

Completely wrong. It was long before, even up to almost 20 years before:
- Minolta had abandoned it first in their professional camera line in 1985 with the Minolta 9000
- Canon some years later in 1989 with their EOS 1
- Pentax a little bit later with their Z1 (intruduced in 1990, if I remember right)
- Nikon has abandoned it with their D1 in 1999 (five years before the F6 was introduced).
And Leica and Contax have even never ever offered changeable prisms with their professional cameras.

So it isn't at all a Nikon F6 specific topic. The whole camera industry has had abondened this design concept long before. And yes, the main reason has been demand. I have also talked to camera distributors about it, and they also explained the demand for additional prisms was tiny.
The other reason is that you can indeed make a more robust design with a fixed prism. Not only concerning weather sealing. But also concerning the whole structure of the body. It has more strength when the prism housing is integral part of the body. It is similar to cabriolets in cars: The autobody in a cabriolet is principally less strong than a car with fixed roof. Therefore cabriolets need extra reinforcements in the autobody to get stability.

And the F6 has an extremely sophisticated, very expensive viewfinder. No cost reduction here! Nikon used expensive high-refractive glass for the prism. It's not only perfect for AF use, but also for manual focussing. I often use my manual focus Nikkors on my two F6, and it is a joy to do. I can focus very precisely. The F6 has the best viewfinder for manual focussing I have ever used in an AF camera. And it is the best viewfinder of all my Nikons, and I have quite a lot.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Huss]

Just yesterday I watched my F6 fall on concrete, was painful. I hope all is ok, we’ll see over time.

Was it drunk?

 

[Huss]

So much as I like the F100, I've found myself looking lately at the F4 to address the flimsy back door / latch issue and was hoping to pick up some lens compatibility - backwards (Nikkor 135 F/2.8 is a favorite B&W walk-a-round lens but I'm walking it on an FM2n). Interesting that folks want to go forward, and I get that. Forward for me has been to simply make most of my Nikon lenses AF-D's. Question becomes whether to look into a F6 instead of an F4 (or F5 which seems bulky to this small guy), a backup F100 body, or go with the F4 and save the balance to help sub my D750 out for a Z7 (or it's successor). F6 is an expensive film solution, but for now not a compelling one... yet. Thanks for the discussion, folks. Glad to see Nikon still acknowledges film cameras exist and film shooters didn't go extinct.

I had the F100, and didn't like it because I felt the grip was just bulky, it would not hold exposure lock for more than one shot, and the plastic latch issue.

I have the F4 and the F6, and frankly prefer the F4. Just convenient knobs and dials, no menus, easy to find batteries, I prefer its matrix meter balanced for negative film vs the F6 colour slide film balance, and just like the design. I hate menus on film cameras..
Downside of the F4 is many have lcd bleed in the VF, so make sure to get one that doesn't. I have no issues with AF - for my use it is just as good as the F6. Static shots, portraits etc. Don't do sports on film.
Insane value for money - can get a really nice F4 for $200.

 

[NB23]

Shock absorption of a removable prism is far greater than a whole camera with integrated prism.

Not only that one part is saved in favor of the other, but the shock stops at only one of both parts (body or prism), as opposed to a one-piece camera. That’s basic stuff, imo.

 

[Henning Serger]

You know what I think?
I think that Nikon introduced the F6 so that they can discontinue the F5. They can sell the F6 for more money as it has more software related features which is cheap to make.

With all respect, but that is complete nonsense.
1. The F6 was introduced 8 years after the F5. The F5 was introduced 8 years after the F4. The F4 was introduced 8 years after the F3. It was just the normal upgrade cycle for Nikon's F-line at that time.
2. The F6 offered much more features and capabilities than the F5. It even has an integrated data back, which you had to pay extra for with the F5. Nevertheless Nikon offered the comparable package (F6 with MB-40 compared to F5 with extra databack) at a bit more attractive price. So you've got much better value with the F6.
3. Nikon introduced this camera at autumn 2004. At a time when most other manufacturers were leaving the film camera market completely. A brave move. But here people are hating Nikon for it and bashing the camera. Not understandable at all, especially as the same people are complaining that "there are no new film cameras anymore".

It can share parts with the D2 series at the time.

Only the autofocus system. Because it was Nikon's best AF technology at that time, state of the art. They simply put the best they had in it. That is what you expect for their top-of-the line film camera.

They can sell it for more yet cost them less than making the F5.

Again completely wrong. See above. They have sold it for a bit less than the F5. Better value for the customer.

The true mirror lockup is also expensive

The F6 has a true mirror lock-up. I am using it regularly, it works fine.

and the ADR which is simply optical device is also expensive.

Again wrong. The ADR is cheap. Lots of cheaper Nikons have it. But the F6 doesn't need it, because it has a much, much better solution: The aperture is shown in the viewfinder in perfect quality. Much much better visible compared to the former ADR solution. And that even including AI and AI-S lenses!
Your comments here in this thread, and in former threads about the F6 clearly demonstrate that you have never used a F6. You don't know what you are talking about.
If you don't like the F6, fine. I would never say anything against it. But spreading just misinformation and prejudices is not o.k. Because it is counterproductive for those readers who are really interested in that camera and want facts and real user experiences.

Regards,
Henning