• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Nikon Film Bodies (Value For Money Details)

Glen Diamond

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
24
Location
UK
Format
35mm
Hi, I've been looking at Affordable Used Nikon Film Bodies and in doing so I've collated some information (attached). Originally I included all of the film bodies but came to the conclusion that the F90x was too similar to the F100 and the F100 is basically a lighter F5. The F6 is too expensive for most amateurs and if you need matrix metering with AI-S lenses then an F4s is affordable. I looked at the original prices and adjusted for 2017 inflation. Therefore the most value for money bodies (since 1980) are listed as follows...

1st - Nikon F4s - 16 times cheaper than original
2nd - Nikon F3 - 11.2 times cheaper than original
3rd - Nikon F100 - 11 times cheaper than original
4th - Nikon FM2 - 7.3 times cheaper than original
5th - Nikon FE2 - 4.9 times cheaper than original
6th - Nikon FA - 3.9 times cheaper than original
 

Attachments

  • Nikon Film Bodies (Cheap).png
    61.9 KB · Views: 205
  • nikon film bodies.xls
    24.5 KB · Views: 175
No original F? I bought my first one new in 1967, and never saw any need to upgrade to a later one.
 
Have you considered the not inconsiderable weight of an F4s, it is as heavy or heavier than a F5!!!

The F3 for manual focus or the F100 for autofocus would be my choice. But non of the ones you suggest would outlast a F2. Or preferably an F2a. You can readily get the metering system overhauled for not a lot of money.
 
You can't evaluate photographic equipment on a "value for money" basis as if you are buying groceries in a market, sometimes the best camera for your needs isn't the best value for money.
 
Last edited:
BMbikerider said:
Have you considered the not inconsiderable weight of an F4s, it is as heavy or heavier than a F5!!!
Click to expand...

The inconsiderable weight of the F4 may have been considered by...

a. the action of the many weight-conscious F4 owners who dumped their heavy F4s on the used market; thus flooding the market and lowering the F4 price to 1/16 of the original.

b. the hoards of potential F4 buyers who decide against purchasing such a heavy camera; thus leaving many F4 units floating in a large pool with its unloved brethren.
 
I bought a F90 body that was described as a bit rough for £!2.00 from the bay a couple of weeks ago,it was in better condition than I expected and works great, reason I bought was for the metering for manual lenses (spot & center) and also a lot cheaper than F100 and the fact it takes AA batteries is a big,big plus, .............It weighs a lot but is nice and easy to use.
 
Last edited:
benjiboy said:
You can't evaluate photographic equipment on a "value for money" basis as if you are buying groceries in a market, sometimes the best camera for your needs isn't the best value for money.
Click to expand...
This is very true. I was told that repeatedly when, as a beginning photographer - 1981 or 1982, I bought a new F3. That F3 has served me well to this day... no doubt one of the most cost effective camera buys I ever made!
 
Welcome to APUG Glen,

All you have really looked at is how market prices have changed, what others are willing to pay for things.

What you might want to do is determine what you need from a camera and weed out the rest.

For example:

I owned and loved an FM2 and FE2. An FM or FE though no longer holds any significant photographic use value to me. If I'm going to spend the time needed to focus manually with an all manual camera I'll bring my RB67. So, 35mm manual focus cameras have no value to me.

The F4 is a really nice camera and N90x/F90x is too. The controls are a bit odd to me though, much prefer the F100/F5 style. It's personal, but the F4 is with $0 to me too.
 
I guess that I am like a lot of folks who started in film in 1969, and went digital in 2016. I started with an Exacta VXIIa - still works fine; got a Nikon FTN from my father for Christmas in 1970 - also still going fine; then over the years have added another Nikon FTN 1971, an F2AS, an F3, and an F4S. All of which I use at one time or another. All of which work fine. the biggest plus is that lenses are interchangeable no multiple mounting schemes a la Canon. After my father's passing I got his Hasselblad 500 and a flock of lenses - that is a different world again. In 2016 I got a Nikon D750 (trying to join the digital age) and it works fine, but it just doesn't seem to satisfy like film does and I am not a computer geek so I don't enjoy manipulating images digitally. Since I got the digital, I am back to film more that I have been for years and trying to relearn and improve on my previous knowledge. So I guess if one is looking for best value, over time I would have to say the Nikon FTN's are about as good a one can get. Being all mechanical, they just keep working. Just like the bunny.
 

I have an F4s - it's in great shape and I don't mind the weight! It makes most other SLR's look like toys!!! - I admire all of the cameras listed in the spreadsheet - just amazed at the prices. They are creeping up slightly but are still amazing value for money. The F4s is very reasonable as it works with a large supply of lenses (Matrix Metering for AI-S MF lenses!!!).
 

Wow! That is a bargain!!! Nothing wrong with the F90 or F90x - just compared with the F100 and the normal prices paid for them, I would opt for the F100 as they are too close in feature set (except one big plus is the F100 works with Vibration Reduction lenses).
 


Ah Yes! the FTN's are legendary. Just when I looked at the prices I thought the better value for money was the FM2 as it is an updated FTN and just as affordable.
 
Jim Jones said:
No original F? I bought my first one new in 1967, and never saw any need to upgrade to a later one.
Click to expand...

Oh.. sorry... only looked at bodies since 1980. Sure the F and FTN were great too... just the lens compatibility is not as fantastic as the later models.
 
Ah thanks... totally missed it. And yes, it is a great camera.
 
Hello Glen, welcome to APUG!

I like your chart and spreadsheet; it summarizes the cameras well.

I don't find the weight of my F4s's or even RB67's to be of any concern. Perhaps it's a consequence of walking 7 miles home from UCLA every day with an armload of textbooks.

Nikon must've been pleased (?) that the F3 lasted so long. I bought a new F3/T in 1988 thinking it was soon going to be discontinued. Hah!
 
I have owned and used the F, F2, F3, and F4. I still own and use the F2 and the F4.

In fact, I prefer heavy cameras and heavy lenses instead of the light weights.

By the way, thanks for your analysis. I found it very enlightening.



Nikon F4 and Nikon F4s by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 
A great chart Glen. I think collectable value should be a consideration alongside affordable. The used camera market tends to favour market leaders that don't look like digital cameras. So anything with a LCD window, too many buttons and plastic body appear to be heavily discounted against their original value despite the fact they are excellent film cameras.

The cameras that are holding their value well is reflective of this. The F3, FM3A, FE2, FA and the older ones are awesome looking, mostly metal body cameras. The FE can be an excellent bargain buy.
 
I don't agree, if you buying film cameras buy them to use not as an investment, in the digital age if you expect your purchases to retain their resale value buy something else.
 
benjiboy said:
I don't agree, if you buying film cameras buy them to use not as an investment, in the digital age if you expect your purchases to retain their resale value buy something else.
Click to expand...

I look upon digital cameras as "Tools"
- Canon 5D - I used this for 3 years as a wedding camera, tremendous moments to cherish, good for low-light high ISO indoor stuff.
- Nikon D50 - converted for Infra-Red - excellent performer but utilitarian and once set up properly it gives better than expected results.
- Nikon D5200 - easy to use, flip out screen for unusual angles, excellent low-light high ISO too (easily as good a performer as the 5D)
Whereas, the film cameras I see as something magical - the look, the feel, everything about them is amazing and they last for decades.
 
[/QUOTE] "Whereas, the film cameras I see as something magical - the look, the feel, everything about them is amazing and they last for decades"

Because they are "magical" Glen you should buy film cameras like Nikons with your heart not by compiling spread sheets.
 

And I thought that I get the best deal if I got the most lbs for the dollar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register