F6

<p>I still contend that using the D3 as a platform Nikon *would make money* with an F7, and that in fact they did with the F6. Despite the undeniable fact that most of the ever growing pool of new shooters are choosing Dgital, there still is a demand for current technology film cameras. Argue it all you like, People Still Use Film. But hey, I remember the argument that the F3 wasn't a Real Nikon since it needed a Battery. Long live the F2!</p>

<p>Oh, and I've actually found that the electronics are some of the most stable and long lasting components, its the cracked plastic that will end a camera's life, that and no spare parts.</p>

<p>It depends. I agree that simple, discrete, electronics is most reliable than expected. LCD panels that were rated for 10 years life are still good after 20+ years. But on the other side increasing complexity means increasing failure risk. The old saying "what is not there doesn't break" holds true and explains why lenses outlast cameras. It takes nothing to destroy an electronic camera. I fried a N70 installing a wrong non-Nikon flash and a friend of mine spent big bucks to fix a D2 because of a defective memory card.</p>

<p>Even if Nikon only guarentees factory repairs for ten years, ten years is a long time. Send it in nine years for CLA and your good to go for another ten. Anyway, most of us dont keep a cam for ten years, unless its a Leica;-)<br>

<br />Here and Now: The F6 is a fabulous platform to shoot some favorite films such as K64, HP5, and Portra 160NC. It doesn't simply "look" like film, it IS film.</p>

<p>I learned "real" photography several years ago using my husband's Ftn from the 1970's. That's the one with the little needle in the finder that estimates the exposure for you. I took out books from the library, read stuff on-line, took many awful pictures - you know, you finally get the pictures back and they are black or all white or out of focus. But I finally got the knack and took some of my very favorite pictures. I loved that camera. Due to illness, I missed a couple of years. When I picked it up again, the finder that shows you the exposure wasn't working. Should I buy a used 30-year-old finder that works? How long would it work? Would I ever understand how to use an exposure meter to use the camera in full manual mode? Probably not. So I let it go.<br>

Last summer I bought a G9 compact. It is fun for sure, but I so miss the Ftn. The Velvia slide film pictures were something special. I think about taking some other film camera up now, thinking...<br>

thanks for the memories</p>

<p>Where does this come from? This is the only place I've seen this. Searches on Google & Ask return nothing about the demise of the F6. A few years back Nikon & Canon both completely discontinued the consumer based film cameras. The pro lines were kept in production. I suspect the start of this thread may be bogus</p>

<p>Rarely does the cds cell die in a camera; the meter is declared "dead" since it didnt work the next time it was tried. What happens is the batteries die; or the contacts get corroded. Another failure is the sliding resistor(s) have been in the same place for a decade and it gets some crud growing on the sliding contact.</p>

<p>In junkers bought from ebay advertised as having bad meters most all can be fixed by a new battery, or cleaning the contacts; or just rotating the shutter speed knobs and f stop rings to clean off the crud on the sliding resistors. The same thing happens with an old TV or radio' the volume control often gets wonky if it sits in one place for along time.<br>

<br /> In self powered meters like the ancient early 1960's meter heads and the Retina IIIc; an owner will often place the unit in a sock drawer for a decade and the meter work a decade later. When the unit is taken apart and the cell touched up with an eraser on its backside; most will all work fine.</p>

<p>In repairs the general peanut gallery has it in their minds that the cells dies off like flys; when its just simple corrosion. Having a tad of corrosion will make the meter read about OK in low light and more "off" in error in sunlight; sicne one has know an added resistor in the circuit; ie the corrosion. In this case too the peanut gallery assumes the "cell is bad" or even the meter. Many self powered cells like my GE 1940's unit work well; they like a flashlight from 1940's do not work as well or at all if there is corrsion; ie one "invests" in a pencil eraser to fix the issue.</p>

<p>There are many nice used Nikon F, F2, F3, F4, F5 and F6's available; and even new Nikon F6's</p>

<p>One could buy a new Nikon F even in the the late 1970's as new old stock.</p>

<p>One will be able to buy a working Nikon F series body after we are all dead and gone; folks are abandoning them; there is a surplus of them.</p>

<p>Here I bought a nice used Nikon F2 with working meter and a 45mm F2.8 GN for 150 bucks on ebay; its looks almost never even used; thus one might say the body with prism was worth 110 and the lens 40 bucks less than a maker could build a new one for.</p>

<p>For those who still shoot film there are zillions of fine 35mm bodies already out there in the used market, most with little usage.</p>

<p>Its really not whether Nikon could build a F7; it whether its an INSANE stupid business move that probably would not pan out; ie the move that wastes money; ie flushes cash down the toilet. In like manner Nikon could build BC-7 bulb flash units too; or build enlarging lenses again; or a 105mm F4 preset lens.</p>

<p>Just because a company can create a new product doesnt mean its a rational sane business project.</p>

<p>Embarking on insane projects is the hallmark of wreckless business behavior.</p>

<p>Its typically done by folks who are dumb; or have no ties to the projects failure or success. Thus if creating a new F7 was tied to ones own 401k; house and job a sane person may not want to create a product thats just a turd in punchbowl to others. Companys often do NOT create a new product for the fun of it; unless its filled with golden boys whos dad owns the business; ie immune from being fired or laid off.</p>

<p>Companys need products to "pan out" as a success; to provide cash flow to grow; to pay wages; to survive.</p>

<p>If the pipeline of unsold Nikon F6's is full then a rational manager will halt the Nikon F6's line to burn off inventory.</p>

<p>If the pipeline of unsold Nikon F's is full the IRRATIONAL manager will still make them; or embark on a F7 project to further burn cash.</p>

<p>Whether Nikon still makes another F6 depends on sales; ie actual sales.</p>

<p>The "confusion" many of you have here is that optical items are not always made in a "so many widgets per week basis; they are often made in "batches" for slow moving items.<br>

Unless one works for Nikon one really is just "guessing" when the last ever F6 was made or whether the tooling is "on hold" waiting to see if another "batch/run" is required. If the inventory pipe is bloaded then a rational manager doesnt build another batch of F6's.<br>

The same thing is/was done with enlarging lenses; they were made in batches; lens making and coating lines of specialty slow moving items like super telephotos are also batched too; its easier to build and test 2 dozen units at once then spread the build/test over many months.<br>

From a marketing viewpoint its better to ''say the widget is still in production'' to get the peanut gallery to buy the impacted bloaded inventory; even if the last batch was made yesterday; or Aug 2008; or Aug 2005; or whatever.<br>

IN most folks minds the batch process is hard to understand; and thus they seek a black and white answer to a grey concept of what is "production".<br>

In P&S bodies and popular high volume dlsr's and "kit zooms" production is more like the auto industries line folks have stuck in their brains; as to what "production" is.</p>

<p>In many consumer items production could have stopped long ago and the items still are sold new; its just the pipeline is impacted with poop; new-old-stock were a marketing "error" was made.<br>

Thus Eastman Kodak still had NEW slr lenses in the 1976 Kodak Pro Photographic catalog for their 1960's 35mm Retina slr's; and I had a few years ago new slide rule indicators in the box that were made in the 1960's.</p>

<p>Here I have come to the conclusion that most folks on photo.net do NOT understand how an actual business that makes a consumer item have to be run; since the multitude of irrational statements are emitted. The "concept" of making a profit is foreign too; or actually doing work; or doing homework to see if a project makes any sense.</p>

<p>Its really NOT rocket science; its as basic as running a lemonaid stand. One might make more lemonaid in July than today in the cold midwest.<br>

The "concept" of what sells and what doesnt is ancient; its as old as man. Items that are rotten; not needed, do not sell as well as what is fresh and is needed. One "learns" not to buy or make items that do not sell; or one dies off; the bad DNA doesnt get passed on. With government and golden boy's their is no feedback loops so the marketing errors tend to be passed on</p>

<p>Kelly,<br>

Did you see "Behind the scenes" interview with Mr. Ikeno, he is the gentleman behind F6... Have a <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/scene/09/index.htm">look</a> , it's a nice reading....</p>

<p>Thanks for the interview link!<br>

I don't think Nikon gets enough credit for their F series of cameras. I don't currently own an F6, but it's a remarkable camera... everything that Mr. Ikeno talks about regarding feel, vibration-dampening and sound-dampening, is very evident when you press that shutter release for the first time. An all-time great camera, and likely the height of 35mm photography.<br>

I use an F4s regularly and each time I use it, I marvel at the engineering. It feels and looks great and everything is where you expect it to be. I don't think I could ever part with that camera... I enjoy it too much.</p>

<p>Hmm, Kelly perhaps a bit of Insane Nikon history is needed for review. Remember the revived S3 and SP rangefinder? Completely INSANE! Yet, it was still made. And sold. Sure, not very well, but it was done.<br>

With the D3/x as a production base (and cash cow) an F7 as a viable, profit making camera release is totally do-able. Not that insane really. Besides, Nikon is well balanced in other optics/manufacturing areas, and if 75-85% of an F7 is built from the D3 line (with its fully realized profit margin, they've sold 6 million DIgital SLRs in 2007 alone!) then even as a small run, high price (and profit, those F series have always been sold new for $$) the F7 is still viable. Even if they only made 5,000 of them, over 5 years. it would still make a profit, provide an F series film body and allow Nikon to maintain their image/brand.<br>

I have no 'confusion' nor 'illusions'. The 'top of the line' exists, most often percieved as merely a image maker/ brand supporter, the Joke is that they have the largest profit margins. Ferrari and Fiat! BMW and the M5 with a V10. BMW spend like 100 million in F1 in creating their highpowered V10 engine, then dropped it into the M5 (and M6), added 50,000 to the base price of the 5 series, and then sold 20,000 of them in the first 3 years, and are still making them. They've made back their initial racing investment (well over!) and have the image supporting 'top of the line'. <br>

Even if they shouldn't, they can and I think they will. Everyone was surprised at the F6, I won't be with an F7.</p>

<p>Thanks for the link, Bogdan. Reading all these threads only serves to make me appreciate my F6 even more. Recently, SilverFast now provides IT targets for Kodachrome. I think I'll order some Kodachrome and shoot with my F6. How retro!</p>

<p>Christiaan; the "revived S3 and SP rangefinder" a few years was aimed at the collectors market; when rangefinders had an uptick in sales; a retro resurgence;</p>

<p>the Nikon F series has always been marketed as a pro camera.</p>

<p>The S3 and SP are of course a pro camera too; but the revived versions are basically for collectors more than a real pro using them day to day.</p>

<p>Leica also made Leica Thread mount lenses a few years back with insane prices; I bought a 50mm F2 Summicron in LTM for filming in 16mm and also for some Bessa R usage; and Zorki usage too. Mine will not fetch a collectors pricing today; mine has be used and has some wear marks.</p>

<p>Here I got a used Nikon F in 1962 and have owned them plus Nikon F2's; I have used a F3 sometimes too; once a F4 too.</p>

<p>Nikon would have to ask what is really a F7 going to do; that a F thru F6 doesnt; ie will then make custom stuff that only a F7 can use and folks will freely buy a lens lens variant; focus screen; eyecup; bra, never ready case; do dad that just fits a F7.</p>

<p>Here I still use a 8.5cm F2; a 13.5cm F3.5; a 10.5 cm F2.5; a 5cm F2 Nikkors in LTM on a Epson RD-1/s digital; the 8.5cm is about 60 years old. The filter of the 10.5cm F2.5 LTM is 52mm; its the same as my several Nikon 105mm lens; except my 105mm F4 Preset-T lens. The reason many of us bought Nikon F's in the early 1960's was we used Exakta; we like a big system of lenses; we liked the BIG Nikon F bayonet of 1959; we liked the N-F adapters to use RF lenses on the Nikon F; the microscope adapters; the commitment to the F mount.</p>

<p><br /> The real issue of course is whether one could magically say your 5000 units over 5 years for a Nikon F7 would be saleable at a profit in a declining film arena. A reconditioned Nikon F6 goes for 1159 on Ebay as a buy it now; often the few sales that complete are just above a grand; for a camera with a 90 day warranty.</p>

<p><br /> Most pros with a schedule have long gone to digital; thus would the Walmart C41/ Dwanyes Kodachromers/ or home tri-xers really buy 5000 F7 units? Thats the HUGE unknown; its like General Motors estimating if they drop a F6 truck that get 8 MPG and release a new COMPELETELY NEW F7 truck in 2009 to replace the old F6.</p>

<p>The Nikon F was made from 1959 to about 1973; thats 14 years<br>

<br /> The Nikon F5 was made from 1996 to 2004; ie about 8 years<br>

<br /> If the Nikon F6 was such a success; why are rumors abit its death after only FOUR years of being released. .' it doesnt even have a removeable prism anymore.<br>

Back in 2006 a rumor spread that that F6 was going to be discontinued too</p>

<p>Well, here we are, BH got one last F6 piece, I bet won't be there tomorrow...</p>

 

<p>At the end of the story, we come to the basic point for a company. How many of the people who say "I wish that ACME Inc. would make product XYZ" actually say "If company ACME Inc. will make product XYZ I shall buy two of them". I wish Nikon will make a F7 as a sign of commitment to film. But I'm never going to spend 2000 dollars on a new film camera, no matter how good it might be. I will for sure be going to spend 500$ for a new replacement of my old FM2 (which has many miles on her shoulder) and if they make a new F100 for less than 1000$, I will be trading in my F100 and buy one of them.</p>

<p>Bogdan<br>

Yes. And the one before that's on the way to me in the UK - all gone here.<br>

Good old B&H.</p>

<p>Folks, I am afraid that this thread has outlived its usefulness. Unfortunately, this type of threads tend to drift into the all-too-common film vs. digital debates. At least in my opinion, there are simply way too many of those totally useless threads here in photo.net as well as other forums elsewhere.</p>

<p>To those who have bought F6 cameras, congratulations on having arguably one of the very best 35mm SLR every made.</p>

<p>May I suggest that you spend your time taking more pictures and improving your photo skills, using whatever medium you prefer (film or digital), whatever format you prefer (4x5, 6x6, 35mm film, FX, DX ...) and whatever brand of camera you like. To me, it sure beats wasting our time on those threads.</p>