The Nikon F5

[blockend]

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.

When it comes to professional film SLRs the discussion follows a familiar course. People say, with good reason, what excellent cameras they were. Then they get on their high horse about how technology has replaced skill. Then they say a good professional photographer never needed technology. And so the debate follows the same arc of ever more outlandish claims for film that are not born out by the facts.

The facts are that the very people who used F5s professionally are now using D5s. They haven't become worse photographers because they use digital cameras. There was always a small number of professional photojournalists who used Leicas, TLRs and other oddities, but they were very much the exception, particularly from 1970 onwards. The best use of an F5 (or EOS1 or whatever) was nailed earlier in the thread - to allow lens interchangeability from digital to film for a particular look their client may have.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

When it comes to professional film SLRs the discussion follows a familiar course. People say, with good reason, what excellent cameras they were. Then they get on their high horse about how technology has replaced skill. Then they say a good professional photographer never needed technology. And so the debate follows the same arc of ever more outlandish claims for film that are not born out by the facts.

A real photographer mixes and coats his own emulsion and builds his camera out of scrap lumber in the yard.

Actually, you've captured the discussion trend accurately. The only thing I will add is that there is a difference between the working pro (journalist, sports photographer, wedding photographer) who relies on getting the shot in order to stay employed (therefore using whatever technology helps) and the slower-paced less time critical nature or art photographer.

This is why I use a D700 or Fuji X-Pro1 for some things and old film cameras for others.

 

[blockend]

The only thing I will add is that there is a difference between the working pro (journalist, sports photographer, wedding photographer) who relies on getting the shot in order to stay employed (therefore using whatever technology helps) and the slower-paced less time critical nature or art photographer.

I completely agree, which is why the debate is whether the F5 is the best camera for those other roles. One of the last photographers using film for professional and personal projects I'm aware of is Trent Parke. He covered sports and documentary/street work with a Canon EOS1 into C21st, and did it brilliantly. However as far as I'm aware his more recent books have been with a Leica film rangefinder camera. I think he still uses film exclusively.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3AELuZYOFs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A5NSHHefgQ

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

Yes Christopher, it has -just ever so slightly In the hope that this question will seem to bring it back into the realm of seeking information at least, can you say how difficult it is to see the black focus dots in various light conditions. I had previously asked this question(post 28) and I got a helpful "work-around" answer from another poster but I am still interested in a direct answer on the ease or otherwise with which you see the dots in various light conditions.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[markbarendt]

Yes Christopher, it has -just ever so slightly In the hope that this question will seem to bring it back into the realm of seeking information at least, can you say how difficult it is to see the black focus dots in various light conditions. I had previously asked this question(post 28) and I got a helpful "work-around" answer from another poster but I am still interested in a direct answer on the ease or otherwise with which you see the dots in various light conditions.

Thanks

pentaxuser

It can be a bit tough in darker areas. That is a point where the F100's red does better.

It is something I have become accustomed too though.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

I am going to weasel out, the F5 is still likely best choice for those of us who shoot film, my wife bought me a Minolta 9 but I have yet to shoot any action with it so I don't know how it will compare with a F5. Saying that, if I was shooting for money it would be digital, for all the reasons you mention, but for my personal use I still shoot film .

 

[blockend]

but for my personal use I still shoot film.

Me too, but the F5 is a helluva big camera for shooting a miniature format for pleasure. Not everyone will need its heft or facilities for their personal use. The original post was a eulogy with a single question about flash - nothing wrong with that - but I thought a little realism was called for. For my money SLRs had grown absurdly big by the late nineties and professional SLRs had grown big and heavy, especially in the battery department only professionals needed. I don't mourn their passing, which is why I'm more likely to be found with a small, manual advance camera than my pro models. We're all different.

 

[markbarendt]

Me too, but the F5 is a helluva big camera for shooting a miniature format for pleasure. Not everyone will need its heft or facilities for their personal use.

I agree that it doesn't fit everybody's needs.

The reason I like my F5 (and F100) so much though is for all the bells and whistles, fancy metering, TTL, and other customizations that can be dialed in. It allows me to work fast and do things my RB can't. That's the comparison that matters for me. I actually use all the fancy flash modes, reprogram buttons, occasionally do 15-minute exposures, and like the locks that keep stupid things from happening.

If I want something light right now, I grab a Holga.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

If enjoying taking photos with my F5 makes me some kind of ignorant no-talent luddite so be it. I don't do this to make anyone else happy. And the SB-28 is still a great unit to use with it.

 

[pentaxuser]

It can be a bit tough in darker areas. That is a point where the F100's red does better.

It is something I have become accustomed too though.

Thanks, Mark. I think you are saying that in a reasonable daylight scene the black dots can be seen without a problem and in darker scenes one can manage with experience? I note that Mr Rockwell mentions the black focus points as a minus in his review but I don't think he sees them as a reason for rejection or tipping the balance completely in favour of the F100. The problem with his style is that sometimes it may lead a reader of his reviews to underestimate a difficulty and on other occasions overestimate it. One needs to be in his "groove" at times to ascertain exactly what his comment might mean for one.

pentaxuser

 

[markbarendt]

Thanks, Mark. I think you are saying that in a reasonable daylight scene the black dots can be seen without a problem and in darker scenes one can manage with experience? I note that Mr Rockwell mentions the black focus points as a minus in his review but I don't think he sees them as a reason for rejection or tipping the balance completely in favour of the F100. The problem with his style is that sometimes it may lead a reader of his reviews to underestimate a difficulty and on other occasions overestimate it. One needs to be in his "groove" at times to ascertain exactly what his comment might mean for one.

pentaxuser

You have my meaning right.

 

[pentaxuser]

You have my meaning right.

Much obliged

pentaxuser