Nikon F6 vs Canon EOS-1V

<p>I haven't seen this discussed before, so I'll throw it out there for discussion...</p>

<p>There aren't many 35mm SLRs still for sale, but the last of the best, the Nikon F6 and Canon EOS-1V are both still available brand new (although probably old stock). The price difference is staggering though - the F6 is $2500 while the EOS-1V is a bargain for $1600 or so. Is the F6 that much more of a camera than the EOS-1V? I own a 1V and a Minolta Maxxum 9, both top-end cameras, and wonder what feature(s?) on the F6 you get that you can't get on other top-end bodies?</p>

<p>Look at the release dates. EOS-1V in 2000. F6 in 2004. Most pros still used film in 2000. Most pros had switched to digital by 2004. </p>

<p>I bet there are a few hundred thousand used 1V's out there. KEH has an excellent 1V for $600.</p>

<p>The cheapest F6 on KEH is $1300. I doubt Nikon sold more than 10K F6's and most of those were bought by Nikon enthusiasts and collectors which helps keep the price high.</p>

<p>I chose an F5 2 years ago over the F6....there was a pretty big spread in price, and I saw few germaine differences.</p>

<p>The F6 can still use Nikon CLS.</p>

<p>Back when making my decision between Canon or Nikon my goal was to take winter scenes using slide film and stereoscopic slides. Slide film is not like print, it is what you see is what you get there's no fixing it in processing. I also knew I was going to do some photography in Antarctica where the ground is black covered in white snow taking pictures of penguins which are white & black... using slides. Probably the most difficult for a camera's metering. So that was the reason for me I decided when I'm taking pictures in that hell I just want to be able to take the picture and Nikon had the RGB color sensor which wasn't easily fooled by snow, or black lava, or white & black penguins. Every exposure came out darn near perfect so I was happy I made that choice.</p>

<p>So that was the feature that got me. I don't think it likely applies to too many though unless they too want to take slides of winter/Antarctica. I also prefer Nikons CLS, not enough to switch brands over though.</p>

<p>What Walt said. Canon certainly made back their development investment on the 1V years ago; no idea if Nikon managed to break even on the F6. Feature for feature it's a wash, or close to it, though you could hammer nails with the 1V; I don't think the F6 is quite that robust. I'd sure love to have one or two, though...</p>

<p>The F6 isn't as robust as the F5 nor the 1V because it wasn't designed for tough duty. Photographers who need tough cameras had already switched to digital by 2004. <br>

The F6 in my own opinion is that Nikon at that time knew that they can't no longer sell many film cameras any more. They want a camera that is less expensive to make than the F5 by cutting where it really cost like interchangable viewfinder and using parts that are used in the DSLR. The newer matrix sensor, the AF module are the same as the D2. And yet being the newer camera they could sell it for more than the F5. They introduced a good number of features which are useful but mostly software related which cost little in the production phase. </p>

 

<p>The EOS-1v by FAR has the better heft and build quality, though both are of course wonderful cameras that represent the pinnacle of 35mm SLR technology. The F6 does incorporate a manual rewind knob, which is somewhat of a quaint throwback to the era of finely crafted all-metal manual SLRs of the storied F-series, but given the proven reliability and convenience of auto-rewind over the past thirty years, this doesn't seem to present much of an advantage. The interchangeable prism, a fixity of the earlier F-series, was scrapped in favor of a fixed pentaprism similar to that of the successful F100, of which the F6 appears to be a souped up version, with a flavor of some of the old F-series features and structural qualities.</p>

<p>Personally, if I were looking for a Nikon which rivals or surpasses the redoubtable EOS-1 series in toughness and build quality, I would look no further than a Nikon F5. But then you have the problem of a perpetual brick which will always require no less than eight AA batteries to function. That's not exactly a desirable quality when looking to take a camera out for a mere roll or two of shooting. With that said, I'd take a like new F5 at $500 dollars over a new F6 at $2500, any day.</p>

<p>Frankly, I can't even see much reason to bother with either right now, when virtually unused F100 bodies are still available for less than $200 on eBay and elsewhere. I got mine from a camera shop in NY two years ago for $200, mint & boxed. It is a 2000 model, prior to the rewind shaft upgrade by Nikon, though it looks and functions like a new camera. At around the same time, I was able to pick up an EOS-1v HS (my dream camera) in excellent condition, with only 118 rolls through it, for $175.00--out the door. Hard to believe, but true. People hear through the idiotic rumor mill that film is headed for an imminent demise, and begin dumping their expensive gear for pennies on the dollar.</p>

<p>Whatever any of you do, buy now while the time is ripe! These deals won't last forever. Once the supply of really high quality 35mm SLR bodies in nice condition dries up, the prices will go up, way up! So buy your dream camera today!</p>

<p>I say cheat, steal, lie to your wife if you have to! After all, the dream only comes once.</p>

<p>In addition to considering the no doubt very fine F100, another candidate would be to get the Canon EOS 3 film camera. Just as there are fans for some of the Nikons, there are some who think that the EOS 3 is the best film camera Canon ever made. ( http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00WyuM )</p>

<p>I agree that the EOS-3 is a great camera. I own one myself, purchased in EX condition on eBay for less than the price of a cheap kit lens during the recent mad rush to digital. It is, however, also notably missing the more substantial feel of the Eos-1 and the F5/6, has no built-in viewfinder blind, and the flash sync speed tops out at 1/200 instead of the typical 1/250 pro-level standard. For those who find these specific features relevant to their style of photography, it may thus fall just the tiniest bit short of ideal.</p>

<p>From a purely subjective point of view, I have found nothing in the 35mm world to ever compare with the superior ergonomics, build, speed, simplicity, and elegantly fierce shutter clap of the original Eos-1/1n. But hey, that's just me!</p>

<p>Its a personal opinion but I think that the EOS1V and EOS3 are two of the most awesome looking cameras ever made. The EOS1V pentaprism hump and muscular shoulder line are pure art.</p>

<p>I have to agree with Chuk; I think the 1v is beautiful, <em>and</em> it feels superb in the hand. Not to mention it's an awesome performer as well.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>just to give some facts in contrary to the rumors given here in the above posts:</p>

<p>1. The Nikon F6 is still manufactured on a permanently basis, it is built in Nikons factory in Sendai:<br>

http://asia.cnet.com/crave/what-goes-on-inside-nikons-sendai-factory-62213402.htm</p>

<p>2. Someone said that only 10,000 F6 has been produced. That is also completely wrong. A friend of mine recently bought a brand new F6 with a serial number above 34,140. So more than 34 thousand F6 has been built so far.</p>

<p>3. Most of the comments here are from people who have never used the F6 by themselves. Therefore such nonsense comments that the F6 is less robust than the F5, or that is has not been used by professionals.<br>

I am using an F6 for years, have used the F5 and F100 before. The F6 is more robust and has much better ergonomics than both F5 and F100. It is by far the best 35mm SLR Nikon has ever built. And there are lots of professionals who still use it.</p>

<p>Here's another way to think of it, if you haven't handled the F5, F6 etc. The F6 was designed contemporaneously with the D2 and shares most of the same body. Take a D2, remove the digital guts and insert film guts, and make the vertical grip an accessory. The D2 was the new flagship camera for pros at the time. So the F6 build quality is basically pro line minus the vertical grip.</p>

<p>I doubt that most people are going to find the F6 lacking in build quality.</p>

<p>But also consider an F100. Keh will sell you one in LN-, which is usually indistinguishable from new without a magnifying glass, for $339. The F6 is a bit newer tech, a notch up in build, and works with the SB700 and SB900, but it's not really that different. The build quality on the F100 is similar to the D700 but the body is a bit less bulky and to me it feels very, very good in the hand.</p>

<p>Going to have to chime in here, lots of misinformation being bandied about...</p>

<p>I have the F6 and the F5 and have used the F100 and 1V.</p>

<p>I don't agree that the F6 is any less well built than the F5. They are pretty similar, and actually the F6 feels a bit denser (not an advantage), even if the F5 is heavier.</p>

<p>Advantages of the F6 over the 1V<br>

1. Build and ergonomics - the F6 fits my hand much better, and feels more solid. (One downside is the F6 is heavier) 2. Multi-segment metering is pretty good, if you need it. 3. Autofocus that is comparable to D3 (I haven't used the D4) - The F100/1V/F5 have autofocus firmly rooted in the last decade. 4. Creative flash.</p>

<p>F5 versus F6. I find I can't configure the F5 into a way I like to use cameras (mainly because the AE-L button only holds while it is pressed). The AF is not really comparable to the F6 (although in broad daylight it does feel slightly faster), it is slower in moderate to dark light, and limited to single point autofocus. Otherwise I prefer the F5's handgrip, and I think the viewfinder is slightly superior, with a touch more eye relief. The F100 improves on the F5's configurability (more like the F6), but doesn't have the 1005 multisegment metering.</p>

<p>Also I dont understand where this idea that the F6 is made from left-over D2's with film innards. If you handle them you'll see that the body shape is completely different, the F6 is considerably thinner from back to front. The F6 has a full-frame 100% pentaprism (so may be more comparable to the D3?) requiring a full frame mirror box. So what is left to be similar across the cameras? Ok the AF, metering and external controls are similar, and that's about it...</p>

<p>Thanks for all the replies, very interesting reading! I'd love to own an F6 but it's simply not in my price range. So I settled for next best, a Nikon F3. :)</p>

<p>No one has mentioned how the active focus sensor on the F6 also lights up in the same way that it does on the F100, albeit with eleven versus five sensors. I have only looked through an F5's viewfinder (and have not owned one like I do an F6 and an F100) and the active focus sensor seems to be indicated in a much clumsier way. I love how customisable the F6 is in ways that are practically useful.<br>

I have no regrets buying an F6 with the extra battery pack, mainly for the vertical release, but I like the extra weight on heavier lenses too.</p>

<p>Brendan - I agree. I have my F6 set up with focus only on the AF-ON button, and aperture on the rear dial. The hold on the AE-L allows me to lock exposure and then spend as much time as I like focusing and composing. The F5 allows for focus only on the AF-ON, but there's no hold on the AE-L, which means you must focus prior to setting the exposure or else you lose the exposure. The AF points on the F5 don't light-up, but the LCD gets a tad dimmer, and there are indicators above and to the side - it's not ideal.</p>

<p>I do miss Pentax's green button, though. Pentax's hyper-manual system is terrific, giving you all the control of manual, with the instant advantages of auto-exposure. Maybe Nikon could license it?</p>

<p>I have owned them all and would rank in preference... Nikon F6 edges out the Canon 1V, followed by Nikon F100, Nikon F5</p>

<p>I just love the layout of the controls of Nikon. Never had any issues metering with any of the models mentioned. That danged wheel for on Canon's was always a mystery when I was in a rush... no matter how many tens of thousands of images I took at weddings and sporting events.</p>

<p>The Nikon F5 is a beast, and if I were to ever come out of retirement to shoot a film wedding or go on assignment in a war zone, it might be my first choice. The dark AF points will become a PITA.</p>

<p>The F100 (the EOS 3 wouldn't be a bad choice here as well)for all of its advantages just felt consumer quality to me.</p>

<p>The F6 is the star of the party IMHO.</p>

<p>No complaints from the Canon except the control layout. If cost were an issue, go with the canon 1V</p>

<p> </p>

Nikon took a different philosophy with the F6. It is essentially unique as it is the only example of a digital camera design

that was developed for film. At the time the F6 was developed Nikon was building professional digital bodies so the F6

used these developments to build a film camera. While there are many digital cameras that were evolutions of film

technology the F6 has a unique place ( this is not just my opinion but many reviews of the time had interviews and notes

from Nikon to this effect)

<p>Practically, I think the F100 might be a more sensible idea but you may desire a F6. With today's film prices and lab costs are you going to use the better AF system and fire rapidly and I think it allows 3D metering with manual focus lenses over the older film bodies. Any other film bodes can do very well in AF and if you have the time you can employ other modes to meter and do you have manual focus lenses? As the 1V was released in 2000, it's been 12 yrs and it's been 8yrs for the F6. I doubt if we will see anymore film bodies. Another option is maybe get into medium format. $400US can get a body kit (without lens) be it a Pentax 67 or a Hasselblad even lesser for 645 gears or the Bronicas which has been discontinued (the brand). </p>

<p>I'd vote for an 'excellent' FM3a from Keh. Just my opinion, but I think it is the best camera Nikon ever made, film or digital. Last of the FM line, they were made from 2001 to 2006.</p>

<p>Just as a note</p>

<blockquote>

<p>new F6 with a serial number above 34,140. So more than 34 thousand F6 has been built so far</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think this follows at all. Do any of these cameras actually start off at #000001?</p>

<p>For example, the Nikon F started off with 640001 in MAR 1959 and the F2 started with 7100001 in 1971</p>