F5 vs. F100: sharpness tests

[kristen_marie_robins]

Time to share my test results...

 

Since it was time to upgrade my older N90 (non-S), especially

considering the problem it has with making accurate exposures on

slide film (the N90 only has full stops), I went down to the

local pro shop and did some testing on the F100 versus the F5.

 

Personally, I like the weight of the F100 much better, as it's

much easier to hand-hold. The F100 + batteries weighs in at

about 2 pounds, while the F5 + batteries is around 3.5 pounds.

This is a fairly significant difference to me, even shooting

with a 80-200f/2.8 AFS, so I was really hoping that the F100

would perform adequately.

 

The tests were conducted using a Nikon 300mm f/2.8D AF-S lens both

with and without a TC-20e (2x) teleconverter, for effective focal

lengths of 300mm and 600mm. An aperature of f/8 was chosen for

300mm, f/16 for the 600mm combo. The lens was locked down on an

Arca Swiss B1 ballhead and Gitzo 1348 tripod aimed at the same

downtown scene, and taken on Velvia at ISO50. Shutter speeds

ranged from 1/15th to 1/60th second.

 

Results:

On the test shots that I conducted, the exposures were fairly

consistent between the F5 and F100, but the SHARPNESS of the

resulting images was not. The F5 (using mirror lock-up) clearly

came out with a much sharper image on both the 300mm and 600mm

trials; my guess, although not precisely verified, is this

difference in sharpness would yield a 2x increase in effective

resolution. I must say also that this was a quite noticeable

difference between the two cameras.

 

Since the F100 (US warranty) is selling for around $1300, and the

F5 (US warranty) is about $1900 (US warranty, after $250 rebate),

the difference between the two bodies is currently only $600.

If you were to put the MB-15 on the bottom of the F100, it

increases the F100 price another $150, making the effective

difference beween the two cameras only $450 (and the weight closer

to the same as well). For me, that extra sharpness is worth every penny; it seems like the difference between day and night.

 

<p>

 

--Kristen

[john_n._wall]

Your results are similar to the results of a similar test

reported in the current issue of Pop Photo (oh no, something of value

in Pop Photo -- what is the world coming to?)

 

<p>

 

They also reflect results Bob Atkins obtained using Canon gear (I

think) a year or so ago.

 

<p>

 

These results confirm the importance of MLU for sharpness when the

camera is used in the shutter speed range 1/30-1/15 and thereabouts.

 

<p>

 

I think the F100 is a beautiful camera, and if I were shooting mainly

hand-held photos, I'd love to have one. But because I shoot mostly

from a tripod, I'm sticking with my F4 (at least until the F6 comes

out).

 

<p>

 

I wonder why Nikon left even pseudo-MLU off the F100. Seems a shame.

 

<p>

 

Enjoy your F5.

[john_oconnell5]

Kristen, your results are similar to my results in January using an

N90 (non-s) and an F3 on the bellows, shooting at ~.9x at an amaryllis

on Tech Pan. MLU gave sharper images, even using the old 105 short

mount lens (not a top performer).

 

<p>

 

Enjoy your F5, particularly the removable finder and MLU.

[jim_meyer]

I was thinking that one reason Nikon left the MLO off the F100 is that if they had included it, they would not be able to sell any more F5's.

[jim_meyer]

When I read my posting, it looks like I might have been trying to slam the F5. Not so -- this is just a thought from a marketing standpoint that Nikon probably considered. I would like to have had MLU on my F100, but to me weight and cost were bigger factors.

[mark_hubbard]

Kirsten, Thank you for sharing these results. I've never seriously

considered mirror shake much of a factor in 35mm before (the mirrors

seem so massless and toy-like compared to those in most medium format

SLR equipment), but your results will cause me to take a second look.

Yikes, is there an F5 in my future?

[julian_young1]

Forgive my ignorance, but surly some one who pays for a 300mm f2.8 is

going to shell out the extra $400 for the f5 and not worie about it.

as to wight well well i can see any one shooting this lens at 1/60

hand held.

 

<p>

 

Julian

[bliorg]

This is somewhat off-topic, as this is a Nikon-related thread, but I'm

curious about the effect that Canon's IS lenses have on mirror-related

vibration. Will they damp this type of noise, or is it moot,

considering that IS is (currently) only a boon for hand-held shooting?

[reh_lin_chen]

I think the difference of sharpness between F100 and F5 depends on the

balance of weights on either side of tripod collar and shutter speeds.

I found it not easy to steer a 500/f4 sitting on Arca-Swiss B1 for

F100 with hands. The mismatch in weight makes it prong to vibration.

Also, some shutter speeds tend to resonate easily than the others. It

will be interesting if someone conducts an experiment by trying

different lenses and shutter speeds on both F100 and F5 and see how it

comes out. I suppose you can always stick an accelerometer to the

filmback and find out. I'll be glad to try that experiment and share

the result if I can find some time. Cheers,

[ralf_grambrock]

Hi Kristin,

thanks for sharing you informations with us. And for doing the work

(for us).

Your results are the same I had when my F3 was tested. Even at slow

shutterspeeds.

But also, I'm thinking Reh-Lin is right as well. If the mass isn't

sitting exactly at the middle of the tripod head, we will get

vibrations.

If, at the very low moments, where a high shutterspeed comes together

with a small aperture, both movements will cancel each other, because

they are "walking" the opposite way, I do not know. But for the

physical rules, it must be in this way.

Good luck, Ralf.

Please, excause my bad english.

[noppadol_p.]

The differences between F5 and the F100 is when you droped them! I

droped my F5 with a AF-I 500mm mounted on. It dented my viewfinder

pretty good, but my F5 survived...and never had problem with it

since. It is a great camera to hold, and the weight is about right. I

sold my last summer when I decided to make a switch to the EOS 1V

system. I had used Nikon for 15 years(I still do with my company

D1H), and to be honest the only thing I missed about Nikon is the

F5!!!!! I wish I could keep it. The function is friendly to use, and

the camera feel much more precisive then the F100. I don't own the

F100, but a few of co-workers own, and they wish they have bought the

F5 instead...Take my advise...if you are a Nikon user....go for the

F5 and you won't be dissapointed.

[paul_k1664875007]

At the risk of getting of topic, but why do you need a topmodel high

speed AF camera to photograph subjects that allow shutterspeeds

between 1/15th and 1/60th of a second?

 

<p>

 

The reason why I started using AF camera's seriously and upgraded

form a F801 years ago to a F100 nowadays, is that modern AF allows me

to shoot moving subjects with long lenses under sometimes not ideal

circumstances (I do a lot of fashion location shooting and catwalk

photography).

 

<p>

 

When I want to shoot the kind of static subject that allows such slow

shutterspeeds that I have to use a tripod, I readily fall back on my

FE with mock MLU or F2 with real MLU, both camera's take very little

space in my camera back. For metering I can still use my more modern

camera's, although those aren't 100% failsafe either, as everybody

knows.

 

<p>

 

A 600mm AF combo to me seems ideal for shooting things like sports,

but when shooting landscapes or static nature shots, an oldfashioned

manual camera IMHO would do the trick just as good for a fraction of

the money.

 

<p>

 

My two cents,

 

<p>

 

Paul K

[john_owlett1]

You have a good point there, Paul, but I'd like to present the

viewpoint of a flower and fungus photographer ... which is that the

FE2 won't do, and that the F2 will do, but that an F5 can be better

than either.

<p>

The advantages of the F5 are nothing to do with its advanced AF system

or its very advanced colour metering system, let alone an 8 fps motor

drive: they are the advantages of the interchangeable-everything

professional camera.

<p>

When I started flower photography (with an F3) I quickly found how

useful it was to be able to change viewfinders. My standard example

is that in May every year I go out into the woods to try to capture

the essence of the Hampshire bluebell; but that I don't want to lie

face down in the Hampshire nettles to do so. OK, maybe part of my

goal is capture the memory of being taken for walks in bluebell woods

by my Mum and Dad half a century ago, but bluebell woods are beautiful

even when they aren't full of memories.

<p>

If you want to replace the standard eye-level/nettle-level prism by a

magnifying finder, then you are restricted to only about half-a-dozen

35mm cameras that are still readily usable: the Pentax LX and the

single-digit F cameras -- the F-1, the F2, the F3, the F4, and the F5.

All of these also have two of the other features that matter: a plain

ground-glass screen with grid lines and mirror lock-up.

<p>

When you get close to a flower, a focusing aid (such as a split-image

rangefinder or a microprism patch) gets in the way, but fortunately

depth of field is such that you can easily focus on the ground glass.

And, as you imply, Paul, autofocus really doesn't matter at all when

you're close-up. The value of mirror lock-up is at its greatest, or

so I'm told, for exposures between 1/4 and 1/30 of a second -- which

flower photographers often use. Pseudo lock-up, such as on the FE2,

where the aperture stops down and the mirror rises at the beginning of

the self-timer countdown, is frustrating in a blustery breeze: all too

often the dead calm when you start the self-timer gives way to a

gentle wind rippling through the flowers by the time the shutter is

released.

<p>

The only useful feature that is <b>not</b> shared by all these six

cameras is a spot meter. I carry a Weston Master V hand-held meter

and can take an incident light reading which copes with most

conditions, but, with a back-lit flower, nothing beats a spot metering

off a leaf.

<p>

Both the F4 and the F5 have TTL spot meters, so why should one buy an

F5 rather than a much-cheaper secondhand F4? Well, that one I can't

answer.

<p>

Later

<p>

Dr Owl

[jimmy_rhyne]

I own BOTH cameras and I love them dearly. I use mine for photojournalism mainly and my needs are for speed and accuracy. I have never noticed any difference in exposure with the two cameras. I love the F100 for lots of stuff, but when it is sports moving fast, there is no comparison: the F5 rocks! Both cameras are a dream and I use them both, but if it has to be right and action is involved, the F5 is the clear winner.