Will you really see the improvements of F6 over F5?

[harvey_edelstein1]

Lets say for the purpose of this discussion that the F6 is supposed

to be better than the F5. Since, we all are familiar with the F5's

results, the question we might ask is, can we see the difference on

the print or slide. While we won't know for sure until the camera is

available for testing we can imagine the outcome from the specs.

 

1. Focus areas F6 11 F5 5 still have to select manually no eye

control or even eye turn on of AF so, will the extra 6 focus areas

make the focussing faster or more accurate for the majority of shots?

I have have not heard complaints about the F5 speed or accuracy,

have you?

 

2. exposure metering F6 updated 1005 pixel color matrix. I have

heard that F5 was occasionally fooled since it can't read your mind

on what your main subject is this is understandable, but how much

more often will the F6 be right?

 

3. i-ttl vs. 3d matrix balanced ttl maybe i-ttl will help set-up by

elimenating wires etc. Many experts still use sb26 and newer flash

units with great results. Buying another flash may actually annoy

nikon followers.

 

4. Use of AI/AIS lenses with matrix metering is a big plus for the

F6.

 

5. No changable finders, 1/250 flash sync; bigger total size with MB-

40 battery grip are all minuses.

 

6. Queiter operation, less vibration of F6 for a few may be important

for most not. The F5 was so massive it couldn't shake that much and

with AFS lenses was ok comparred with other similar products.

 

I have an F100 and I honestly couldn't tell you that if the F6 comes

out with a street price of 2 grand and Nikon offers a $500 rebate on

F5's that I wouldn't wind up preferring the F5 its a tough call.

[scott_eaton]

You're actually asking if a Nikon F6 will yield better quality pictures over an F5 given the same lens?

[NetR]

Scott. The picture with the same lens might be better because of:

 

better focus (point 1 above),

 

better exposure (point 2 above),

 

better flash exposure (point 3 above),

 

better metering with AI or AIS lens (point 4 above),

 

camera shake (point 6 above).

 

There may also be an issue of inability to focus accurately enough manually with macro because the finder cannot be changed (to say a waist level finder) (point 5 above).

 

It is a good question. I would like to know too.

 

There is also an issue of a D2x user getting a shot right because the F6 has very similar controls and the F5 is not very user-friendly with respect to the user options.

 

Regards, Ross

[david_h._hartman]

If your handling of the F6 is smoother, more comfortable and

assured, yes. If not youll just be poorer for having bought

one. There are some features on the F5 and F6 that may give them

an edge. If you're tired from a long hike and don't use the

camera or don't use it well you'd be better off with the F100.

There are so many variables how can this question really be

answered.<br>

<br>

You need craft, control of your equipment and the medium. If you

have this you can get on to expressing yourself. Without control

your images will be haphazard, unpredictable. Some will do better

with a Nikon F than a Nikon F6, others will not. You will have to

answer this question for yourself.<br>

<br>

Beware of the ad mans power to sell.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[john lehman, college alask]

I'm with Scott (for once) -- a camera is only a light-proof box with a shutter. For anyone who doesn't let the camera think for him/her, no camera makes much of a difference on prints or slides so long as it works reliably (which is why I have never seen a reason to upgrade my 20+ year old manual Nikons). IMHO, the last Nikon upgrade which mattered was the introduction of 1/250 synch speed on the FE-2.

[richard_cochran]

In most situations, it would be extremely difficult to tell the

difference between a photo taken with a Nikon F versus one

taken with a Nikon F6. The handling is obviously worlds apart,

and this has an effect on the kinds of things a photographer

needs to learn in order to master the camera, as well as

having an effect on how fast or convenient it is to get

a shot under various conditions.

<p>

But as far as end results go, I'd guess the biggest difference

between the Nikon F and the F6 is found in the shutter. The

F6 has a faster shutter that travels vertically, while the

F has a slower shutter that travels horizontally. Rarely,

when doing certain flash work or photographing rapidly

moving objects, this may make a difference.

<p>

If you look at the F6 versus an FM2n, which has a similar

vertical travel shutter with a 1/250 sync speed, it's going to

be really tough to tell the difference between end results.

I'd guess that in a gallery of 100 photos, half taken with

an FM2n and half taken with an F6, all taken by photographers

who had mastered their camera, the only ones experts would have

a better than average chance of assigning to the correct camera

would be those that contained the camera's reflection in a mirror

or shiny surface.

<p>

That doesn't mean the advantages of the F6 are worthless;

they may be extremely valuable to many photographers, sometimes

worth far more than the purchase price differential. It's

just that the most notable differences between the F6 and

its predecessors will be found in handling and in

what the photographer needs to know and do to operate the camera.

[ShunCheung]

It is being naive to suggest that a film camera is a light-tight box with a shutter. That may be true if you only shoot certain still objects such as fine art or landscape. However, if you shoot action photography, AF speed, AF accuracy, motor drive speed/frame rate, etc. etc. are important issues. There is also advanced metering, reliability/durability, etc. 15 years ago people used to say feature by feature, the F4 was not all that different from the N8008, but the F4's main advantage was its durability; it was a camera you can depend on.

 

I can see the 11 AF points on the F6 being a pretty important advantage for action photography. The main problem with the F6 is its timing. Sports, action type photography is pretty much all digital now.

[john lehman, college alask]

Shun Cheung wrote "It is being naive to suggest that a film camera is a light-tight box with a shutter. That may be true if you only shoot certain still objects such as fine art or landscape. However, if you shoot action photography, AF speed, AF accuracy, motor drive speed/frame rate, etc. etc. are important issues...."

 

Shun, with 40+ years of photography experience, I may well be more naive than you, but living in northern Alaska I routinely do wildlife and other nature photography without any sort of auto anything. AF speed, AF accuracy, motor drive speed/frame rate, etc. are important issues only for "photographers" who have no idea what they are doing :-)

[scott_eaton]

Amen,<P>

 

The added features of the F6 are strictly for journalists, SI photographers, etc. I use my FE2 as a hand meter for my RB67 when shooting slide films, and I'm never more than 1/4 of a stop off. Why then do you need the F6, and what problem are you solving? I used to tease my fellow sports shooters when I worked for a paper because they felt the F3 didn't have sufficient FPS for action. Gee, use a movie camera then if you're timing is that bad.<P>

 

While the F6 is an incremental improvement over the F5, it's still doesn't change the basics. Off axis camera flash, preferably several feet above the lens looks better than anything you can mount on the camera regardless of metering mode, and AF will never be quite perfect, which is why I shoot manual most of the time. Asking of an F6 will deliver higher quality pictures is music to the ears of the marketing dept.

[kelly_flanigan1]

When one went to a F2 or Nikkormat; from a F; one could load film while using a tripod.

[david_h._hartman]

John Lehman,<br>

<br>

Out of curiosity which model(s) of light tight box do you use?

Which do you prefer?<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[john lehman, college alask]

David H. Hartman asked: "Out of curiosity which model(s) of light tight box do you use? Which do you prefer?"

 

An FM and an FE-2. I prefer the FE-2 because of the higher synch speed, which allows more flexible (manual) fill flash.

[grant_.]

its a waste of space....it'll be discontinued in a year, probably less...

[chris haake]

It seems that those who adhere to the "light-proof box" idea have never photographed anything faster than an old lady on a Sunday drive. For scenics and formal studio portraits--which is what these people are photographing--then, yes, pretty much any body will do. But for action shots, it is not (as Scott Eaton so says) a matter of "timing," which is why fps is so extremely important and costly. Or maybe Scott is prescient enough to catch that 1/1000 of a second when THE moment presents itself. At any rate, this is why we don't see too many sports photogs lugging around their 501-CM's.

 

I'm not arguing that the F6 is worth the upgrade from an F5 or even an F100. In fact, it appears that unless you need complicated wireless flash systems or matrix metering with MF lenses that it isn't. However, saying that "just any body will do" is, as Shun put it, "naive." Or just narrow minded.

[david_h._hartman]

John, I cant fault you on the FE2. I bought three of

them. Two when they first came out and one when they were

discontinued. I figured it was the end of that type of camera and

if I had three eventually I might need to scavenge parts to keep

two working. I never owned an FM but I have a pair of FM2n(s).<br>

<br>

I hope you will forgive me for buying a F5 and an F3. I find

differences that sometimes make quite a difference. Most of my

lenses are manual focus but I love the ruby red focus assist from

a speedlight when shooting available darkness. I guess the F6

will have a ghastly price but it appears to be a great AF as well

as MF camera body. Chances are extremely low that I will ever buy

one but Id sure be happy with one as a gift. <br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>"When one went to a F2 or Nikkormat; from a F; one could

load film while using a tripod." --Kelly Flanigan<br>

</em><br>

I had forgotten this. In early 1972 (or whenever) the F2 was a

blessing. I always feel like I needed a third hand when changing

film with the F. I usually put the back in my shirt pocket then

worried about lint. I bought a tripod early on and even carried

it back packing to 10,500 feet. It was an original Tiltall. I

shot Kodachrome II and 25 so Im sure I had to remove the

camera from the tripod to change film but I cant remember

this.<br>

<br>

My first F2 was a chrome F2 with DE-1. I called all over Los

Angles trying to find an F2 Photomic but they were sold out. I

was using an F with a LunaPro at the time so when I found an F2

at Franks Highland Park camera I asked them to save it and

drove down immediately.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[loreneidahl]

The F5 is an awesome camera so is the Nikon F2.

 

I can take a picture from both of mine and you wont be able to tell the difference.

 

However if I was told to shoot a low light action photo with limited DOF and fast film using MF lenses I would choose my F3.

 

If I had to do the same shot in digital I would choose my D2h.

 

Shooting landscapes I would choose my F2.

[marco_p1]

Good morning. I have been caught by this phrase from Mr. Hartman: "Most of my lenses are manual focus but I love the ruby red focus assist from a speedlight when shooting available darkness".

Is there a way to use the focus assist from the speedlight and the focus assist (electronic telemeter?) in the finder to shoot in "available darkness". I was using my F90 with SB25, in an artificially lit room, I was unsure focussing 75-150 f3.5 E, switched to 85 F1.8 (manual focus) and both me and the electronic telemeter of the camera were working better. So the question: can I benefit from the SB's focus assist if I am using a MF lens?

Thank you,

Marco

[david_h._hartman]

<em>Is there a way to use the focus assist from the

speedlight and the focus assist (electronic telemeter?) in the

finder to shoot in "available darkness". --Marco

P<br>

</em><br>

Not that I know off, I think my sloppy writing misled you.

[vivek iyer]

I am going to get an F6 for reasons no #4, #5, and #6.

 

I am thrilled that Nikon came up with a light box that will allow the use of any lens and make use of the full metering. (for not being able to meter, with everything fully, I use an F2). More reason for Nikon users to stick with a Nikon system.

 

Fixed prism, better! No drain on resources with those X number of accessories!

 

Quieter shutter: Yes, finally the light box comes with an useful built in accesory!

 

My vote is for the new F6.

 

Vivek.

[eugenio.demmenie]

In a blind test, I cannot tell a photo has been taken with an Nikon F5, F4, F3, F2, FM, Fe or even a Canon :-).

 

The best camera is the camera one is most happy to work with and hence one will make the best pictures with that camera. Here the specs come in, but how to weigh them is rather personal. This how I look at it.

 

In my view, a camera test is a subjective reflection of a tester's experience with the tested camera. I read them with a pinch of salt.

[rw]

Technology does help to improve the chance of taking 'better picture', In order to take a "Great picture", it depend much on what is between the ears. One need to understand the subject intimately, this take years of experience & practice. ( I hate to say this, but sometime even practice only help to some degree, you need to be gifted, sadly, i am not one....)

 

This applied also to action/sport photography, if you have not the ability or the instinct to anticipate the "decisive moment" to begin with, No amount of techonogy will help, not an F5, F6...F7 or whatsoever.

 

My point, the difference in technology between the F6 & F5 play a far lesser role in obtaining a great shot than what's between one's ears. It would probably allow one to take a better shot, but a great shot !!? Don't count on it.

 

-Robert

[claudio_coltro_coltro]

Tend to partially agree with the light tight box approach, the magic of an image comes mostly from the eye and a bit from the lens.

Nevertheless the box has to be a pleasure to use. My minimum requirements on the box are purely mechanical and practical, AA batteries, vertical grip, DOF button and reticular view finder.

On top of that, no coffees and no coca cola, to steady the hand.

 

Regards

 

Claudio

[ShunCheung]

To me, there is a big difference between the F4 and F5 because the AF on the F5 is actually usable. Moreover, when I shoot action with AF, those cameras with only 1 AF point will force you to place the subject in the certer under the only AF point, and you frequently have no time to recompose. Therefore, having only 1 AF point frequently leads to "dead center" type poor composition. Those 5 AF points on the F5 was a major improvement and having 11 on them on the F6 and D2 is ideal.

 

When you see action shots with dead center type poor composition, often it is from the F4/N90 type SLRs.

[jim_gifford]

The F6 is a nice incremental change from the F5, but it is not a radical improvement. Neither will the F6's successor, the F7, be a landmark in the Nikon history books. But the one after THAT, hold on to your hats! What a wonderful camera it will be.

 

We'll all have to buy several of THAT one and then of course each of us will live up to the slogan:

 

F8 and be there.

 

Be there,

[vivek iyer]

Thanks for that illuminating post, Jim!

 

I am an F2 shooter!

 

Vivek.