The Nikon F5

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Again another reason that the best film camera that Nikon ever made was the F100.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

Your right, the F3 has cost $15.33 a year. Surprised by the f5 metering, most give it a rave review.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

I do, I shoot sports and wildlife with film, current camera are the Minolta 9000 and 9.

 

[markbarendt]

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? ...

It does make sense if what you are shooting is film and you want "the shot". I shoot at fast frame rates for special stuff like tossing a bouquet, a bride and groom smearing a bit of cake on each others faces, or pictures of kids activities that are coming to the big moment, and sports stuff, it can even be nice with portraits and street shooting.

Why would you assume someone with an F5 wouldn't use high frame rates when there was a good reason?

Also, that big bump on the bottom isn't all about the battery, though that's handy; it's also about holding the camera comfortably in portrait orientation.

 

[Chan Tran]

I do, I shoot sports and wildlife with film, current camera are the Minolta 9000 and 9.

You got a much better deal with the Maxxum 9 than I with the Nikon F5. I believed the normal price for new one in 2002 (don't know when you bought it) was around $1200- $1300 and today you can sell your Maxxum 9 for more money than I can with my F5.

 

[blockend]

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.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

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 didn't buy it for any of your assumptions. I bought it because I can use G lenses interchangeably with whatever DSLR I buy.

And I don't mind the bulk. I like a solid feeling camera. I've owned an F100, but even it didn't feel as solid as this F5 *FOR ME*. It may be different for others.

 

[GarageBoy]

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

 

[ChristopherCoy]

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

The F6 would have been ideal for me since it can do TTL and works with the Nikon CLS. But it's still out of my price range.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

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.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I have some digital cameras that shoot high frame rates. Found that my keeper rate is usually the same no matter how many I can bang off in a second so it's nice to have but used infrequently. What's nice about the F5 is I can easily go back and forth between analogue and digital easily 'cause they're so similar.

 

[BradleyK]

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.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

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.

Wow. That's disappointing to hear!

 

[blockend]

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.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

Just another example of technology making up for poor skills.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

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.

You're painting with a very broad brush, and I don't think that truism is in fact true at all. When composing shots, anticipating that shot is as much an art, as making the actual photograph is. And when you can anticipate that shot, the need for "spray & pray" vanishes.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I have in fact found a very big downfall on the F5 however...

There's no thumb wheel on the vertical grip, as there is on the MB-15 for the F100.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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 not photographer and should be called by the proper technical term: Id10ts

 

[markbarendt]

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

Sometimes a decisive moment lasts a few seconds, for example it may be that one is shooting for a series of prints of something like the first few seconds of a drag race.

 

[CropDusterMan]

This thread has gone to hell.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You just noticed?

 

[CropDusterMan]

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

Nonsense.
I assisted regularly for one of Sports Illustrated's (and the world's) finest sports photographers...he is a legend in sports photography, (was also SI Director of photography during the 90's) and he, like all sports photographers, uses a motor drive as a tool to achieve a choice when it comes to edits. What you guys aren't factoring in here, is that to be ready for the "decisive" moment in sports, you must first be there, be aware and anticipate the play or action. In sport, actions often happen faster than the eye can see. American football for instance...you need to understand the game to get truly good images...and I'm not talking armchair quarterbacking....I mean understanding how to shoot it as a photographer. He would be shooting with a 300 or 400 2.8 and tracking and shooting guys as they ran towards him, then as the mass of players was about to be tackled in front of him, would quickly switch to a 50mm hanging around his neck and get off another burst. He'd then dive out of the way as the tackle happened in front of him! To assume. that motor drive is going to be the key to success is laughable.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

This thread has gone to hell.

"All threads lead to Hell" -- Theophilus Maximus, MMXVI

 

[blockend]

The difference now is everyone gets the money shot, not just the guys with great anticipation and good fortune. For those who think an F5 is the best tool for the job in 2016, good luck. Spray and pray is the name of the game, as a look at any press pack or sports photojournalist gantry will illustrate.

In those arenas I can't think of a single photographer who still uses a film camera professionally. For other forms of photography, absolutely, film can be the preferred option. Whether the F5 best answers that problem is a matter of opinion.

It may be instructive to compare the Nikon F5 with the current Pro Nikon the D5, in vital statistics:

D5 Native ISO 100-102,400 (extendable to 50-3,280,000)
14 fps
153 autofocus points, 99 cross-type
AF detection range, -4 to +20 EV
Battery Life, 3,780 shots

None of those developments are specifically digital, with the possible exception of ISO range, and an argument could be made for film technology replacing some of the shortfall if there was any film technology research, which there hasn't been since digital photography. The professional SLR/DSLR developed to answer precisely these kinds of work camera questions. Wide aperture zooms, less need to change lenses. Fast follow focus, less chance for user error. High ISO performance, clear advantage in low light, etc.

The F5 was the state of the art salary payer of its era. Nostalgia and tribal film loyalties should not blind us to the fact time has moved on, nor that the F5 was a tool for a job. If someone has found a money-maker still doing the same job, they are not the industry norm and no manufacturer is going to answer their needs with a new pro film camera. Even the F6 had moved away from the F to F5 format towards a kind of hyper-tech niche. There are no signs of an F7 on the horizon.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I think the conversation shifted from my original intent a few pages back. I never meant for this thread to portray the F5 as a contemporary money maker. And I certainly didn't intend for it to be a comparison of todays available cameras.