Upgrading from D40 to F4 / F5 / F100 ?

 

<p >Hi!</p>

<p >Maybe my tap water is poisoned and I can’t think straight anymore, but lately I’m thinking more and more about switching to film, and I would greatly appreciate your advice on doing so. I never really got into shooting RAW/NEF, photoshopping my images or even posting online, so that’s one thing less to worry about.</p>

<p >I currently have a D40 and would like to go full frame, but the price of digital FX is senseless to me. Meanwhile, I see fine used film cameras like F100’s and F4’s selling for little money. And then there’s the F5 for a little more…</p>

<p >The lenses that I own that can cover FX are a 50mm and a 300mm f4 + TCs. I understand this will seem very limiting to many, but not to me for the time being.</p>

<p >So here it is: how much more fun is it to be shooting film?</p>

<p >And then, would you suggest a F100, a F4 or a F5? Or even a mechanical SLR? I feel silly having to ask these questions, but there's simply no way for me to try one of these with my own hands.</p>

<p >Thank you very much in advance!</p>

<p >jm</p>

 

<p>F4 is getting a little too old now<br>

F100 is a legend of a camera, very fast and does everything you will ever really need from a film SLR<br>

F5 like an F100 on steroids. Very heavy but faster. If your doing sport etc maybe the F5 would be better for what you need. Only thing to watch for is the F5 is a pro camera, so a lot of them on the second hand market will be very well used. An F100 on the other hand is more likely to be used as a back-up for an F5 or used by an amateur.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I found that adding the battery pack to the F100 made it noticably faster. I'd prefer that over an F5.</p>

<p>I still have all of those film SLRs. I'd suggest giving the F100 a try. Get the F5 only if you like big and heavy cameras (as I did).</p>

<p>How much more fun is film?</p>

<p>For some, a lot less, for some, a lot more. I wouldn't "switch", but shooting both sounds like the most fun.</p>

<p>I´ll say, go for a F100. Great camera! :)</p>

<p>F100 would be the best choice IMHO. F4 only if you plan on using MF lenses - since you loose matrix metering on both the F100 and F5. I like big and heavy cameras - so I went for an F5 - but an F100 can do almost everything an F5 can and weighs a lot less.</p>

<p>Good choice, i got an F4 instead of my D70 and i have never been happier. To answer your question depends what you want to do and how you like to use the camera but here are a few things about each that you might want to know.Google "Nikon F4 mir" for more info. Im sure you can navigate through and find F5 and F100 too.</p>

<p>The F4 is my favorite. Tough and powerful, it accepts all nikon lenses ever made (except for the 21mm Nikkor Q) and can be made smaller with the MB20 or larger with the MB21 and a vertical shutter (i suggest buy smaller and get the larger second). It saves me a lot of money to buy AIS lenses and thats why I love this camera.There are no LCD panels on this camera, just dials and switches, no menus etc, making it clean and easy to use.</p>

<p>The F5 is another beast, but cannot be reduced in size. It takes all of the newest lenses but has more electronics on the outside, which make me confused, so I stay away from this one.</p>

<p>The F100 is known as the F5-lite and is probably the one that I would get if i had t choose between the two. Its the F5, just no vertical shutter, and its smaller.</p>

<p>I've gone back to 80% film and absolutely love it again. I found digital made me a MUCH better printer because I can manipulate a scanned image and see what effects I want to do with the silver gelatin print. I've got a bunch of beat up old Nikon film cameras and have considered jumping into a lightly used F4,5,6 or 100 myself. Plan for a film scanner and have a ball.</p>

<p>I used my F5 for FX and my D300 for my DX camera and I still used 4x5 67 camera </p>

<p>I love my F100. Some of my clients prefer the look and feel of film. It AF's fast and is durable and stupid-cheap right now.</p>

<p>One thing to note is that if you use MF Nikkor lenses, you can only expose correctly using the little bar thing in the viewfinder as you get the "F-EE" message on top.</p>

<p>What a great camera.</p>

<p>I've had an F100 for several years and recently picked up an F5 because it was so cheap I couldn't resist. (I was actually looking for an F4 at the time.) I think the F100 is a great camera, one of the best. I've got great results with it and always enjoyed shooting. I still do. But for reasons I can't exactly explain, I like shooting the F5 even more. The only technical difference that I've found so far is the availability of mirror lock-up on the F5. Depending upon how you intend to use your camera, that may be significant. You absolutely won't go wrong with either.</p>

<p>Tony has hit an important point- the F4 and F5 have MLU, the F100 does not. I have heard many owners rave about their F4 cameras. Extremely well built. If you can find one in fine shape, and not overused, it should last forever, and is a great camera. I think the F5 is a bigger camera, and also has MLU.</p>

<p>I own a lot of 35mm film cameras including several Nikons. I also have a D40X, a D80 and a D300. <br>

Film is fun to play with, but at the 35mm size of negative there are just so many advantages to digital that to me this is clearly a black and white issue. 35mm film is an absolute anachronism.</p>

<p>You cannot go wrong with the Nikon F- line of cameras. The good thing about the cameras you listed are that they are all rock solid and have their own merits.</p>

<p>As much as I love my F5 when I had them, I find the number of functions a little much an overkill for an non-professional like myself. The amount of custom function it has and is capable of really makes you marvel at it. The metering system and auto focus speed of the F5 is stunningly fast too and at 8fps, that is one heck fast of a camera.</p>

<p>Since the F100 is pretty much a scaled down version of the F5 so you should be able to expect about 80-90% of the F5 capablity in it. The ability to shoot without a grip can be a pro as it allows you to travel lighter.</p>

<p>The F4 is a whole different beast. Its auto focus capablity is not as good as the F5 and F100 but its strength lies in its ability to matrix metering of manual focus lenses. If auto focus is important you and you do not intend to get manual focus lenses, you may want to give the F4 a miss.</p>

<p>Is it much more fun shooting film? I think a number of us who started from the film era still do enjoy shooting film. Digital has its advantages but film holds a special place in our hearts.</p>

<p>Anyway, with the low price of film cameras these days, you can always grab one of them to try to see if you like it. Our opinion is unlikely to be the same as yours. Good luck!</p>

<p><i>"Or even a mechanical SLR?"</p></i>

<p>FM2. Conveniently small, built like a tank and fun to use!<p>

<p>An F5 in EX condition is $400. Un-freaking-believable.</p>

<p>One thing not mentioned - an F5 or F100 can use VR, an F4 can't (the lens works but VR doesn't operate). Also, for casual use - I mention this because you have a D40 and might be a casual user for all I know - an N75/F75 on N80/F80 is an excellent choice. No metering with non-AF lenses, which might be important to you, but you can get an F75 new in box for about $70 and it's not as drop-resistant or fast as the other models you mentioned but it weighs nothing and goes with the 50/1.8D like Tom Brady goes with Randy Moss. I've been getting back into manual Minoltas for film use lately but my F75 is what I think of when I think of "fun" and "film" together.</p>

<p>(A manual Minolta is also an excellent choice - the SRT series is classic - but getting a used one in great condition without spending too much is a bit of a black art. If you can get the body, the lenses can be had for almost nothing.)</p>

<p>And film IS fun, or at least I think so. There is a certain satisfaction in getting back a developed roll of film that seeing your stuff on the monitor can't compete with.</p>

<p>I've been shooting with a Nikon FE2 system for years. I also have a Pentax 6x7 for more serious work when I want primo prints. After doing a tremendous amount of research on this site and others I've decided to switch my 35mm to the new Zeiss Ikon camera and Zeiss lenses. Yes, expensive but not nearly as expensive as Leica and the reports about the Zeiss Ikon are glowing. After all the rangefinder is what 35mm was all about for years until the SLR came along. And the rangefinder camera is much better for street and travel photography. The German glass can't be beat.<br>

Chris</p>

 

<p>Well this is an ongoing discussion, whether film is still worth consideration at all. But once again, for me both do have their own advantages! Not needing to reiterate the advantages of digital, and there are many, with film there is no need to mess with a computer. For prints, I use a local dropoff service that provides sets of 5x7 print size, and especially for multiple sets of prints to share with others, it is at a much cheaper price than digital processing. With slide film, you get exactly the exposure and sharpness properties you have shot. What you've shot is what you've got. It is not the result of post-shot electronic manipulation, either in-camera or by post-process. Slide film is still the standard for accuracy. I shoot both film and digital, and enjoy both. </p>

<p>VR can be a factor, so if that is so with you, with the F5 you get VR and MLU. It will still meter with manual lenses, but apparently center weighted or spot only, no matrix. For some like myself, that would pose no issue. </p>

<p>please start drinking bottled water :-)</p>

<p>F100 definately. F5 can be too heavy eventually, though fun in the beginning.<br>

You won't get to preview in camera anymore, so you'll be shooting "into the dark", but if you're ok with that, then it's ok.<br>

The biggest issue is having a good place to develop and print your photos, it can get expensive, and if your place doesn't do a good job, you might not get to see the quality you should be seeing. That's one thing I love about digital, there is no middle man to make my photos duller or take-away from the quality with quick or cheap process.<br>

For something like sunsets, I took a picture with Velvia-50 in 2003, and in 2008 I was in the same spot with D300 and tried to take the same shot, and I just don't get the same richness with D300 as in this picture with Velvia. <img src="http://www.robertbody.com/arizona00/images/2000-08-supersti-sunset.jpg" alt="" width="768" height="461" /><br>

It's a brave move to go from digital to film, i hope it works for you :-). I would be losing a lot to do that [variety wise], plus the per-picture cost is discouraging since i am trigger-happy with cameras, i don't like limitations like that when the opportunities arise, that's why i have 100,000 shutter clicks in the past 10 months.</p>

<p>If you never have used film, however, there is a possibility of dissapointment because digital takes away a few layers of issues, so it's easier to do a good job with digital...<br>

In any case, F4S is way slow to focus, F100 would be the cheapest of the 3 autofocus choices... until you realize you NEED digital, then go for D200 and in 2 years full-frame Nikon DSLRs might be affordable at a bit over $1000 used... hopefully in a year they will be under $2000 used. With Canon, a new 5D (not 5D Mark II) is around $1900 but i have seen used ones for just over $1000, like $1050 or $1100.</p>

<p>"I never really got into shooting RAW/NEF, photoshopping my images or even posting online, so that’s one thing less to worry about."</p>

<p>So, you had the digital equipment, but you never really got into digital. Are you sure that you will get into film? Perhaps you already know a lot about film photography. Perhaps not. That is what makes your question impossible to answer.</p>

<p>I would go back and assess the entire projected workflow with film based on what you expect to accomplish. I suspect that you do not do your own film processing, but send it out. That's alright (and welcome to the club), but, assuming that that is correct, then the next question that comes to mind is what have you been doing with the negatives or transparencies that you have been getting back? Have you been scanning them and printing them? If you never "got into shooting RAW/NEF, photoshopping. . . images," that does not seem likely. If not, then you are going to have to think about the costs of having someone else print them. If you plan to print them yourself without going the wet darkroom route, then you will have to digitize them (think "scanning") and then buy and learn how to use a good ink jet printer. Ask yourself whether your existing computer will support which ever option you decide upon. Ask yourself whether you can avoid upgrading your computer skills indefinitely. If Photoshop is too expensive, then think PS Elemtents or Paint Shop Pro. If you stay in photography in this day and age, you are almost certainly going to need those skills--unless you simply want to shoot the film and let the lab do the rest. (That is an option, but it is limiting as we move more and more into the digital age of photography.)</p>

<p>I suspect that you are going to have to bite the digital bullet at some point, even if you stay with film--unless you plan to develop and print your own film. "Biting the digital bullet" means learning how to use the computer and Photoshop (or at least PS Elements or Paint Shop Pro, etc.), learning how to use the digitized files created, learning how to print, etc.</p>

<p>I would think about the entire workflow from buying the film, shooting the pictures, processing the pictures, and printing the pictures. With lab costs higher and with limited availability to labs, will you follow through? No one else can possibly answer that question. Perhaps you cannot even answer it. I would not want to discourage you, but I would ask you to ask yourself whether you are prepared to pay the time and dollar costs of whatever decision you make.</p>

<p>My guess (and it is only that) is that you are going to need to learn how to handle digital/digitized files at some point--even if you stay with film. Would you enjoy scanning and printing your own lab-developed negatives or trannies? Are you prepared for the time costs of doing so? Are you prepared for the financial costs of doing do?</p>

<p>If you want to buy a single good film SLR body to use with your existing lenses, then you are not talking about an enormous outlay of cash. I would buy the F100 for now. They are low on eBay or at KEH.com right now. (I would go KEH.) I would NOT finance that move by selling your existing digital gear. If you go ahead and buy that single film SLR and keep your existing digital gear, then you keep your options open. Selling the D40 is NOT going to raise a lot of money for the transition, and so you might as well keep it. It also might look more and more attractive to you as time goes on.</p>

<p>To be blunt, unless you really do not want to face ANY kind of digital file (or process) and thus go entirely with film (and pay someone else to do the developing and printing), I would face the digital age head-on and learn how to process and print digital files.</p>

<p>Most people who are "going back" to film are already accomplished digital users. They are not likely to sell their DSLRs and computers, software, printer, etc. If they are not accomplished digital users, then the whole idea of "switching to film" or "going back to film" makes no sense. If they are accomplished digital users, then they are not likely going to give up that side of their photography. Digital is too darned convenient and takes the film-buying and film-processing steps out of the work-flow. If you are serious about photography, you are almost certainly going to want to use a DSLR at least now and then, regardless of what you decide by way of buying a film SLR.</p>

<p>I hate to sound presumptuous, but, if you are really convinced that doing more film work is what you want to do, then I would still recommend going forward on both fronts. Buy the F-100 AND improve your digital skills as well. I think that you will need them, even if you stay with film. That is, even film shooters are typically (not always) going to need digital files somewhere in the work flow.</p>

<p>If all this sounds time-consuming and expensive, it is. To avoid total disillusionment, I would proceed slowly, with a view toward the long-range objectives that you want to accomplish--and above all not go overboard with a lot of purchases at this point. Otherwise you will wind up buying and selling more than shooting pictures. (Remember the old maxim: "Getting and selling we lay waste our powers.") Take a tentative first step toward using film by buying the F-100, that is, but keep your digital options open for the future.</p>

<p>A lot of us have wrestled with these issues, and the solutions are unique to the individual. I have bungled it pretty badly and have tended to overbuy. I have film bodies that I have never used. Others have done much better and bought more responsibly. There really is no blanket answer to your question, since it is not about the general merits of "switching to film" but about <em>your</em> decision to do so. </p>

<p>I am simply saying that, with film and processing costs escalating, I would keep my digital options open, whether you buy that film SLR or not.</p>

<p>Good luck in whatever choice you make--and keep us posted. A lot of us do have a glimmer of what you are going through.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>After doing a tremendous amount of research on this site and others I've decided to switch my 35mm to the new Zeiss Ikon camera and Zeiss lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That interests me as well, because - to the original poster's point - I don't see a whole lot of sense moving to another larger and heavier SLR body just to use 35mm film.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jan-Michel, I also bungled the quote from Wordsworth: "Getting and spending we lay waste our powers." The poem is worth Googling and reading in its enirety, and never more relevant than in this day and age of rampant materialism--and its painful consequences.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>