Nikon F6 updates

[Deleted member 88956]

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:



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

I was not talking about cost efficiency, that I give you all developments with common sense approach would have used that as part of the process, for decades. Which is not the same as being cheap and finding ways to save at every turn. While I'm not going to call F6 as cheap, certainly was and is not, yet when it hit the market it was when products were put together with plastic latches vs. screws like CD/DVD players to name one type. It was beginning of the end of actual quality design and manufacturing for long term use. Shareholders started to call the shots on a larger scale, long term quality started to not matter, eventually becoming a norm with almost non-existent exceptions.

But I do agree that at the time of F6 and in fact quite a few years before, top cameras abandoned choice finders, perhaps making F6 a natural choice in that sense.

Minolta is not a good example, especially in view of what transpired not long after 9000 was dropped, they never actually were a player in professional use anyways, in spite of high quality products. And if they opted to make all of their cameras with interchangeable finders, it would not matter either for this argument.

My main point was that all top quality cameras had interchangeable finders, and in every case for a good reason, they made a lot of sense. Electronics and auto modes changed how people use cameras and how they think. I think it started with Canon T90 on a serious scale and shortly after a choice of finder was an odd unwanted man getting in the way of displays in and out of it. F6 was just one of the many before it that followed that approach.

I'm in no market for new film camera nor would I consider one even there was one with different finders. But I will always disagree when it is suggested they were only useful for a few occasions, and mostly not at all. Having used them for quite a while, it seems to me those who say that either never used them, or gave up on them all too soon.

 

[Huss]

Yeah, the ADR comment is weird. It is perfect in the F6, as you just program/save whatever lens you are using if it is not a chipped lens.
Much brighter and easier to see than any ADR system I have in any of my other cameras.

 

[Henning Serger]

While I'm not going to call F6 as cheap, certainly was and is not, yet when it hit the market it was when products were put together with plastic latches vs. screws like CD/DVD players to name one type. It was beginning of the end of actual quality design and manufacturing for long term use.

That was partly the case with cheaper cameras, but not with the F6, and neither with its direct competitors at that time, the EOS 1V, Minolta Dynax (Maxxum) 9, Leica R9, Contax RTS III. All of these cameras were designed at the highest professional standards their manufacturers were able to at that time. I know these other cameras as well as either family members or photographer friends are using them. All excellent cameras at an extremely high construction level. Their manufactueres put their best quality in it.

Minolta is not a good example, especially in view of what transpired not long after 9000 was dropped, they never actually were a player in professional use anyways, in spite of high quality products.

I think differently about it because Minolta has offered professional top-of-line cameras for a very long time. Even until Sony bought them. They were not as successful in this market as Nikon and Canon, but nevertheless they offered excellent cameras capable of hard professional use. And professional photographers used them. The number was just much lower compared to Canon and Nikon.

My main point was that all top quality cameras had interchangeable finders,

Yes, at a certain time span which is long gone. We may complain that it is long gone. Photographers like you who like or use this feature may certainly complain. That is all very understandable. I absolutely see why some photographers like this design solution.
But if the manufacturers see that 99% of their customers want solution A, and only 1% want solution B, they simply have to choose solution A. Hard for the 1%, but good for the 99% and the manufacturer who needs to satisfy the majority of his customers to stay in business.

We all know this problem very well: Everyone of us like some features in cameras so much that we think it is an absolutely "must have". We think it is so important that the manufacturer has to implement it. But what we think is important, is often not shared by the majority of the market. We all have our own "bubble" in which we feel comfortable. But we have to be realistic and keep open-minded whether our preferences are really relevant enough for the whole market.

And even if I would absolutely need a changeable prism, I would never bash the F6 for not having it. I would understand the reasons why Nikon has choosen the fixed prism, and I would be glad that this outstanding camera is still in production. As currently the only 35mm SLR.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Ai Print]

David, that would be indeed one of the main features in a "F6s" or "F7".
You can use E Nikkor lenses with the F6, but with the following limitations:
1. If you put it directly onto the body, only using open aperture is possible. That is of course a big limitation with the f1.4 E lenses like the outstanding 1.4/105 and 1.4/28. But for example it isn't a big limition e.g. with the unique 5.6/500 PF: F5.6 is already its best aperture ("sweet spot") with highest performance, so you would'nt stop down it anyway in most situations, and control exposure by the shutter speed. I am saving for that lens and using it also with my F6s is a given .
2. There is a trick to use E lenses stopped down: Put them on a newer digital body with E compatibility, then stop down to the wanted aperture, leave the camera power switch on "on" and change the lens and put on the F6. It keeps the stopped down aperture. That isn't of course a practicable way out in the field. But in a studio or a fixed location it can make sense for certain applications.
For example if yo have a portrait shooting using the 1.4/105 and want to use a series of shots stopped down: Stopping down the lens on the digital body and then switching the lens only costs some seconds. And if you then make a series of 20-30 shots after that with the stopped down aperture, this "few seconds effort" is certainly worth it.

It's Dan but that's ok...

As for this process, I do this with my F100 and it allows me to at least use the 105 wide open. In order for me to buy an F6 I would want the whole range.

 

[Henning Serger]

It's Dan but that's ok...

I am very sorry, yes of course! I had lost my concentration for a moment.

As for this process, I do this with my F100 and it allows me to at least use the 105 wide open. In order for me to buy an F6 I would want the whole range.

A film Nikon on F6 level with unlimited usability of the latest E lenses would of course be wonderful. Because there are some real gems in the E programme. On the other hand there are fortunately also some very attractive alternatives to some of the E lenses from other manufacturers like Zeiss and Sigma. That improves the situation.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Yes, at a certain time span which is long gone. We may complain that it is long gone. Photographers like you who like or use this feature may certainly complain. That is all very understandable. I absolutely see why some photographers like this design solution.
But if the manufacturers see that 99% of their customers want solution A, and only 1% want solution B, they simply have to choose solution A. Hard for the 1%, but good for the 99% and the manufacturer who needs to satisfy the majority of his customers to stay in business.

We all know this problem very well: Everyone of us like some features in cameras so much that we think it is an absolutely "must have". We think it is so important that the manufacturer has to implement it. But what we think is important, is often not shared by the majority of the market. We all have our own "bubble" in which we feel comfortable. But we have to be realistic and keep open-minded whether our preferences are really relevant enough for the whole market.

And even if I would absolutely need a changeable prism, I would never bash the F6 for not having it. I would understand the reasons why Nikon has choosen the fixed prism, and I would be glad that this outstanding camera is still in production. As currently the only 35mm SLR.

Best regards,
Henning

I just want to explain my point of view a bit further detailed:
As a "niche focussed photographer" myself I can absolutely understand that some photographers need and love a niche feature like changeable prisms.
I am
- user of ultra-high resolution BW film, which is "niche in the niche of a niche"
- user of BW reversal film, which is also "niche in the niche"
- user of two F6, which is probably one of the tiniest niches in photography you can imagine
- user of color reversal film, which is a small niche compared to color negative film
- lover of the unsurpassed quality of slide projection in 35mm and 120, again a small niche
- user of lower speed films, also a niche
- make my own silver-halide prints in the darkroom, also a niche today.
And I am active in somer further photography niches, too.
When I consider my photographic work, then about 90% is related to at least one photographic niche in one way or the other. Probably I am "the personified photographic niche" . Therefore other photographers loving their small niches do have all my understanding and sympathy. And that of course includes all those who need a changeable prism for their work for certain applications.
But as an economist and market / technology analyst I understand of course the economic circumstances, necessities and problems of industrial niche production, too.

Well, the good thing is that for Nikon users there isn't really a problem: You can enjoy all the advantages and improvements of the F6 in the 95%, 97%, 99% or whatever percentage when a changeable prism is not needed. And if you are one of the few photographers who definitely need the changeable prism for certain applications, just take a F5 or F4 in addition. Both are currently so extremely cheap on the used market, that the addition of another body to a F6 isn't a problem at all and very affordable, even if you are on a budget.
Not "either - or" but "and". And all is fine .

Best regards,
Henning

 

[miha]

It seems discontinued: https://nikonrumors.com/2020/10/05/...-s-dx-lenses-now-listed-as-discontinued.aspx/

 

[Deleted member 88956]

It seems discontinued: https://nikonrumors.com/2020/10/05/...-s-dx-lenses-now-listed-as-discontinued.aspx/

I can understand some Nikon lovers who would like to have this going on forever. IMO, shooting film with a robot full of highest grade electronics ... isn't really shooting film, It's more like emulating digital capture. Not sure how many grains are in a 35mm frame, perhaps still more than any sensor has pixels at this point, but shooting film with dumb presses of a shutter is just not analog shooting .. IMO of course.

 

[NB23]

I far prefer mechanical but that’s merely because I am a human being, being mechanical myself.
Other than that, the act of photography is one involving the brain, foremost.

In other words, using a Rolleiflex in uncomfortable shoes doesn’t really cancel out shooting a Nikon F6 in comfortable shoes. Both cameras require thought in composition. Both require a magical finger to press the shutter, regardless of wether the shoes you are in are annoying you or tickling you.

I can understand some Nikon lovers who would like to have this going on forever. IMO, shooting film with a robot full of highest grade electronics ... isn't really shooting film, It's more like emulating digital capture. Not sure how many grains are in a 35mm frame, perhaps still more than any sensor has pixels at this point, but shooting film with dumb presses of a shutter is just not analog shooting .. IMO of course.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I far prefer mechanical but that’s merely because I am a human being, being mechanical myself.
Other than that, the act of photography is one involving the brain, foremost.

In other words, using a Rolleiflex in uncomfortable shoes doesn’t really cancel out shooting a Nikon F6 in comfortable shoes. Both cameras require thought in composition. Both require a magical finger to press the shutter, regardless of wether the shoes you are in are annoying you or tickling you.

Mindless shutter press is shooting by chance, and electronics of F6 degree promote that kind of shooting. It can of course be used judiciously as one choses, so does not prevent thought process. All I said was IMO. I reach level of acceptance at electronically timed shutters. Once dots starts flying across the screen it becomes a not-so-interesting experience. IMO of course.

 

[Billy Axeman]

It is really sad how some people always try to look professional and expertly, thinking they gain prestige with convoluted procedures and methods, and now dismissing a camera with superficial comments others might find very useful. I have all sorts of cameras from Spotmatic to F6. I can tell you, if you don't want to be distracted by the hardware and when only the result counts, the F6 gives you nearly 100% correctly exposed images, far more than any film camera I have. The F6 is the ultimate film camera, the result of a permanent evolution, until no further improvement was possible.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

... until no further improvement was possible.

Since when does development stop on any subject matter? There is no market for new film camera, especially at that price point, so Nikon finally figured it's a futile product to be worth further production, not lack of possibilities to "improve" it. You can have your "perfect" exposures with F6 any day you want, apparently suggesting most others are not capable of same ?

And "convoluted procedures" ??? What is that?

 

[pentaxuser]

I far prefer mechanical but that’s merely because I am a human being, being mechanical myself.

I think we humans are mainly chemical actually and therein lies both our strengths and weaknesses

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

It’s safe to say that with regards to evolution, there have been more masterpieces shot with digital cameras than film cameras. Olympics, sports, fashion, weddings... the jump in quality has been Exponential.

In this photrio haven we are old farts prefering good old clunky cameras to the latest and greatest. But I cannot say that a F6 or Sony GX-2020–IntergalacticPro (yes I made that up) is a lesser instrument than a simple Leica M4. It’s just a matter of personal preference. We all know that.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

It’s safe to say that with regards to evolution, there have been more masterpieces shot with digital cameras than film cameras. Olympics, sports, fashion, weddings... the jump in quality has been Exponential.

In this photrio haven we are old farts prefering good old clunky cameras to the latest and greatest. But I cannot say that a F6 or Sony GX-2020–IntergalacticPro (yes I made that up) is a lesser instrument than a simple Leica M4. It’s just a matter of personal preference. We all know that.

Except masterpieces can quickly turn into "masterpieces". It' subjective and relative to set criteria.

There is a ton of electronically stuffed film cameras, from Canon T90 to Leica R8/9 and on, that could easily deliver what F6 ever could in metering department. And if that is what one fancies, that's all fine.

 

[NB23]

I think we humans are mainly chemical actually and therein lies both our strengths and weaknesses

pentaxuser

We are mostly water, my dear.

Plain old water.

How depressing.

 

[Billy Axeman]

It seems discontinued: https://nikonrumors.com/2020/10/05/...-s-dx-lenses-now-listed-as-discontinued.aspx/

Until now the Nikon F6 is not officially discontinued:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/discontinue/

 

[miha]

Until now the Nikon F6 is not officially discontinued:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/discontinue/

Nikon Australia already confirmed the fact.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

We are mostly water, my dear.

Plain old water...

Yup, H2O, a chemical.

 

[wyofilm]

Are there any vendors in the US who have F6s for sale, in stock?

 

[NB23]

Yup. Nikon F6: 100% chemical. Nothing new.

Yup, H2O, a chemical.

 

[David Lindquist]

Are there any vendors in the US who have F6s for sale, in stock?

B&H says "More on the way: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Nikon F6&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma

David

 

[wyofilm]

B&H says "More on the way: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Nikon F6&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma

David

Thanks! B&H updated "Back-ordered" to "More on the way" since yesterday, when I last looked.

 

[flavio81]

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".

Well said!

Even if I don't feel any emotion regarding the discontinuation of the F6, considering there are so many used cameras in great shape in the open market, Nikon or Canon or Pentax or whatever great camera you want to choose.

 

[Arthurwg]

Speaking of rumors. it's said that Nikon may be in financial difficulty....