Again another reason that the best film camera that Nikon ever made was the F100.
Sorry to pour cold water on the thread, but an F5 doesn't make any sense in the 2016 market, except as a historical talking point. Who shoots film at 4 fps? Who needs massive battery power? The Nikon F5 is like a Canon EOS1 and similar pro models of the era, a cutting edge professional sports and journalism camera for the 1990s man who doesn't mind a groove in his shoulder, but does little for a contemporary film shooter that something half the weight wouldn't do as well.
Every camera with professional aspirations from the T90 suffered from the same steroid abuse. An F3 is a Mini, an F5 is a BMW Mini.
Nah not such a good deal. I used my F5 very little as I am quite disappointed with its metering system both ambient and flash. My is in like new condition.
My F3HP bought in 82 still working fine at $460 that's a lot cheaper and it's the camera I use today rather than the F5. The F5 is in its original box and in the closet.
Sorry to pour cold water on the thread, but an F5 doesn't make any sense in the 2016 market, except as a historical talking point. Who shoots film at 4 fps? Who needs massive battery power? The Nikon F5 is like a Canon EOS1 and similar pro models of the era, a cutting edge professional sports and journalism camera for the 1990s man who doesn't mind a groove in his shoulder, but does little for a contemporary film shooter that something half the weight wouldn't do as well.
Every camera with professional aspirations from the T90 suffered from the same steroid abuse. An F3 is a Mini, an F5 is a BMW Mini.
Sorry to pour cold water on the thread, but an F5 doesn't make any sense in the 2016 market, except as a historical talking point. Who shoots film at 4 fps? Who needs massive battery power? ...
I do, I shoot sports and wildlife with film, current camera are the Minolta 9000 and 9.
Because I assumed digital photography had killed that niche stone dead. A thirty six exposure film would need to be reloaded every 8 and a half seconds. It takes longer to reload and unload than finish the film. One of the few areas where digital excels is fast multiple frame rate work. I'm prepared to bet every professional photographer who bought the Nikon F5 for what it excelled at traded in for a DSLR.Why would you assume someone with an F5 wouldn't use high frame rates when there was a good reason?
Because I assumed digital photography had killed that niche stone dead. A thirty six exposure film would need to be reloaded every 8 and a half seconds. It takes longer to reload and unload than finish the film. One of the few areas where digital excels is fast multiple frame rate work. I'm prepared to bet every professional photographer who bought the Nikon F5 for what it excelled at traded in for a DSLR.
I'm not saying it isn't a good camera, and I can imagine some aspects of contemporary photography requiring fast motorised advance. What's harder to understand is a battery powered film behemoth as the best answer to a portable multi-frame capture.
I like the f6, but can't afford it. I want the pro build, the split prism screen for mf lenses, the meter for slides, the vertical grip ... Makes more sense to me than those who carry an f2/f3 with motor drive
Because I assumed digital photography had killed that niche stone dead. A thirty six exposure film would need to be reloaded every 8 and a half seconds. It takes longer to reload and unload than finish the film. One of the few areas where digital excels is fast multiple frame rate work. I'm prepared to bet every professional photographer who bought the Nikon F5 for what it excelled at traded in for a DSLR.
I'm not saying it isn't a good camera, and I can imagine some aspects of contemporary photography requiring fast motorised advance. What's harder to understand is a battery powered film behemoth as the best answer to a portable multi-frame capture.
I like the f6, but can't afford it. I want the pro build, the split prism screen for mf lenses, the meter for slides, the vertical grip ... Makes more sense to me than those who carry an f2/f3 with motor drive
My F2s/F3s/and F5 have each proven to be a great deal more durable and dependable than my F6! Four years old and the thing has already crapped out: it needs a new circuit board - command dial (operating the shutter speeds) is malfunctioning; shutter speeds either lag (delay in changing speeds), jump (don't change to consecutive speeds (up or down) or do not change at all). Yes, there will always be a couple of mechanical bodies in my arsenal.
In the day of film we learned to pick our shoots, we did not or could not machine gun an event, like you said cant load or unload a roll 4 or 5 times a minute, even with a bulk back you would run out of film, but ever once in a while you need to shoot a sequence and the high rate is needed. Why film rather than a DSLR? The look is different. Although I usually use Tmax for sports sometimes I want a grainer look and will use Kentmyer or Foma 400.
I don't want this to turn into a film vs digital thread, but as the F5 was contemporary with the first commonly available digital cameras, comparisons are inevitable. It's an acknowledged truism that images which rely on a split second occurrence are best dealt with by blanket coverage, and the faster the image the better.
Photographers who must get the split second the punch connects in the boxing ring, or the tyre bursts on a motor racing circuit, are better served by the hundreds or thousands of frames they now shoot to snag that one moment. DSLR users have high ISOs, so can shoot at 1/1000 of a second or more, and at apertures to cover the required DOF. Aesthetics are secondary to the money shot.
Decisive moment photographers have never needed motorised film advance. Their skill is anticipation and composition. Inevitably there will be a few users who believe only a fast frame film body with a battery pack to power the speed is a necessity in 2016, and they may be correct. I still believe the overwhelming majority of F5 users from 1996 to 2004 were over-gunned in weight and speed and those who were not are better served by a DSLR.
It's an acknowledged truism that images which rely on a split second occurrence are best dealt with by blanket coverage, and the faster the image the better.
Just another example of technology making up for poor skills.
Yes, if one has to shoot off a burst of shots then
- they are probably going to miss the decisive moment
- they are no photographer and should be called by the proper technical term: Id10ts
Yes, if one has to shoot off a burst of shots then
- they are probably going to miss the decisive moment
- they are not photographer and should be called by the proper technical term: Id10ts
This thread has gone to hell.
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?