F100 vs. F6

[drj]

So I have an F6 finally. It is sitting here on my desk next to the F100 I was going to sell to

offset the cost of the F6. I'll pick one up, then the other. I haven't had a chance to shoot with

it yet, but I'm not seeing a $1000 difference right now. I don't plan on keeping the MB-40

that I got with it, it will mainly be a second camera to my D200 (and I teach Photo I and II

classes which are film-based, so I need a film body anyway...), and I prefer the smaller profile

of the F100 to say, an F5.

 

...any of you feel the same way? Or tell me why you love YOUR F6...

[ilkka_nissila]

If you don't need the extra features then you don't need them. If you need faster and more accurate autofocus, or mirror lockup, or wireless CLS flash then you need them and the F100 won't do.

 

How could any one of us tell what you need? I don't see what "feel" or "love" have to do with anything here. I would hope those are not what you buy a camera for.

[ShunCheung]

I have said this over and over, people buy F6's because they want one and can afford it. If you try to "justify" the price difference between the F6 and a used F100, which you can easily buy for $400 or so in these days, few would ever buy an F6.

 

Personally, I do not "love" cameras. I am interested in generating great images. The F6 has a couple of fairly major advantages over the F5/F100: better AF, especially in terms of more AF points, and iTTL. However, there are few things the F6 can do while the F5 cannot such that one must get an F6. E.g., TTL flash was quite good on the F5 already.

 

Enjoy your F6, and stop trying to justify your purchase. BTW, again, used F100's are cheap in these days. I am not sure that it is worthwhile to sell your old one.

[eric friedemann]

As I've noted before, in pricey camera equipment, as in other high-end hard goods, as quality increases arithmatically, price increases geometrically. The F6 has some nice attributes the F100 lacks- i.e. 100% viewfinder accuracy. Do these upgrades make the F6 worth over 100% more new than the F100- for most people, no.

 

 

I'm unclear why you'd need a $1,900 body to teach Photo I and II. In fact, in the several Photo I and II classes I've taken over the years, the teacher never took any photographs.

[steve_ql]

I don't have an F6, but would like one just

because I have lots of respect for

the attention to small details that were considered by

the designers of this camera. I would think

this is a kind of passion from the design point

of view.

 

Take a look here:

http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/scene/09/index.htm

 

More cameras are designed with a profit point of view.

Nikon knew that this wasn't a necessary camera.

This one was made as a last tribute to film with

full Nikon pride.

[bob_cook]

I've got to admit that I bought my F6 just because I wanted the last film body to be made by Nikon and I can afford it. It is not in a collection (I do actually use it). But I don't use it much. For example, I'll be going to the Smokey Mountains for two weeks of "water" shooting. I'll use my Hasselblad 6x6, an Xpan, and a 35mm. But not equally. 85% will be 6x6 and Xpan. So no, I sure didn't need it, but I got it anyway.

[les_barstow]

The F100 was a great camera for me for three years until I (mostly) replaced it with a D2X. It's still a great camera, and the only reason I don't use it much is resolution.

 

But if you're looking to justify your F6, look at the features everyone else already mentioned, mirror lock-up and faster autofocus being key in my mind (said as only a nature photographer would...). If you do flash photography, the iTTL flash is a big step up, too. For action, you'll burn through nearly twice as many frames/second with the F6.

 

But if you're not pushing those features, I'm with you - the F100 body is more convenient than the full-sized bulk of the F6 or D2X.

[david_kelly13]

>>This one was made as a last tribute to film with full Nikon pride.<<

Well,....full Nikon pride has always included interchangeable finders before

this. And the F6 does look awfully like a DX camera, so maybe full Nikon

parts sharing and economy of construction also played a role. Not to knock

what is certainly a great camera and I'm glad they made it, but I think a more

fitting "last tribute to film" would have been the continuation of the FM3a.

[Richard Williams]

From Steve's link about the F6 designer: 'His favorite cameras are the F100 and F3. "I use the F100 for everyday shooting, and the F3 excites me from the moment I touch it."' :-)

[bernard_frank]

Try matrix-metering with an AI lens on your F100. Or i-TTL. Or using it under a

downpour. Or 11-area autofocus with four focus modes, with sub-modes. Or 8 fps. Fast

film rewind. 41 custom settings... etc...

[lex_jenkins]

If I needed the best autofocusing 35mm SLR available I'd get the F6. Since I don't see as well from my shooting eye as I used to being able to rely on fast and accurate AF is more important than it used to be for certain situations.

 

And the F6 has access to the latest and spiffiest technology, which makes it attractive to some photographers and vital to a handful of dedicated film photographers.

 

It makes as much sense as a Leica MP or the Nikon S3 rangefinder reissue. If you want a fine quality camera that is a little uncommon and can afford it, go for it, or keep it. It isn't necessary to justify a luxury item to other people - well, except for public officials spending taxpayers' money.

 

Me, I'd probably get the F100 because it's closer to my budget, autofocuses quickly enough and would put less strain on my aching neck and back.

[steve_ql]

David,

 

The F6 was in the design stage before the Dx

cameras. It was actually the F6 which influenced

the look and feel of the Dx cameras which ultimately

came out first because of changes in market demand

for digital. Ultimately, shared parts and cost

allowed the F6 to see the light of day.

Still, the care they took to create the F6 is

beyond what any other manufacturer does these days.

I think it's an advancement in a film camera

in feel and operation, and not a retro design like

the FM series or M series rangefinders. The effort

in pushing *forward* the design in a film camera

(i.e. shutter release feel, shutter sound, etc.) in

a market completely shifted to digital is why I call

it a tribute to film cameras.

[constance_cook]

Steve:

 

Use the F6, then you won't have to ask. I didn't buy it because of any vanity considerations. I bought it because it is head and shoulders better than anything out there. I have all these cameras and for years, I was joined with my F5. Not now. I don't intend to give up any of my cameras but if I did, I would be left with my F6 and FM3a. And a lot of unhappiness.

 

A lot of people who are quick to insist that they're not worth the money haven't ever really used one. Look at Ellis Vener's answers about the F6. He says he doesn't have one only because he uses digital professionally. He has nothing but good things to say about the F6.

 

Conni

[david_kelly13]

Steve: I'll gladly stipulate that everything you say is true except that the FM3a

is merely retro. 35mm was conceived as "miniature" photography, a design

goal which Nikon pretty well abandoned when it added the first meter finder to

the 24-ounce plain prisim F and only took up again under pressure from

Olympus.

I use an F100 and plan to follow Shun's advice and buy another while they're

cheap, but its bulk and 28 oz is already too much to carry constantly, like I do

my FM3a . I'll undoubtedly also buy a D200 when used ones become

available, But I think that there will always be certain types of shooting for

which a film camera that weighs no more than 20 ounces and needs no

batteries is the right tool.

[patricks]

All valid points. Personally, I wouldn't get the F6 because I know that it wouldn't get any serious use since I have the D200.

 

The reason to get one will be purely personal. I mean, it won't take 'better' photos than a F100 (personally I think the F100 is the best SLR ever made, at least for my purposes).

 

Now if I was still a film shooter - and there are many reason for people sticking to film, I guess mostly if you don't want/like/able to dabble with computers and complex software applications, and you have the $$$, I can certainly understand the photographers that want to buy the "best" - and final - SLR ever made. I mean, that camera is one heck of piece of engineering and just melts in the hands.

[david_h._hartman]

Sunbeam Tiger v. Cobra Daytona ;-)

[Ray House]

Steve, you mentioned 4 cameras and a monitary amount. Also that you haven't even used the F6. It would seem to me that if you have to ask a question, it might be...where did my passion for photography go?

[aeiffel]

Steve, you say you don't see a $1.000 difference with your F100 now, but what did you expect actually ? Better pictures out of the box ? Fully automated "best-composition-and-decisive-instant" mode ?<br>

The way I see things is pro bodies offer the latest technologies to help you achieve better pictures, and of course you pay for that. But there are no miracles, these are only refined tools to help you further. They won't do the job for you and increase your keepers ratio without your own investment.<br>

I could make a long list of refinements that are worth the price difference to me. Maybe you should try to define your needs and expectations for a new film body ? It's possible you end up with the conclusion that a F100 is all you need.

[domenicopescosolido]

I never used an F6 but I think that F100 is a great camera in my opinion. Probably if I'ld choice between F6 and F100, I'll go to F100 and I'll save the money for some good lens.

[bruce_fichelson]

Nikon's professional F-series cameras were always designed for the pro market---well-sealed against dust and moisture for the pro who goes everywhere and in all kinds of conditions, the need for the fastest shutter for sports photography as well as to effectively drive the big long telephotos, and to have a shutter that will work at all times. There are many more purposes, but suffice it to say that non-pros and those amateurs who may occasionally sell a photo do not need such features.

 

That doesn't mean I begrudge amateurs from buying the F6. And I take issue with those above who knock the pleasure of handling a Leica or an F6. I personally admire fine engineering and build quality, being sick of constantly encountering crap these days. Among my more modern cameras including the D200 and both a Leica M5 and M6ttl, I have a Leica from 1932, the first 35mm camera to accept interchangeable lenses. It is a pleasure to touch its hand-made components and surfaces as well as to actually shoot with it and still get great images with both vintage and modern Leica lenses. For me, as for others writing above, there is an aesthetic pleasure involved in using the finest machines ever made. That doesn't exclude the excitement of seeing what you just took on the back of a D200.

 

There is a place for all points of view. What I disparage is the practice of buying a camera just to own it. A camera is meant to be used in the process of making better and better images. Those who buy a limited edition Leica and keep it unused on a shelf sealed in plastic are wasting great machines and that practice depresses me. Buy a particular camera because you will in fact use it and enjoy using it. To hell with others' opinions.

Just my personal and humble opinions.

[drj]

So it has been three months now, and I still have the F6, the F100, and my beloved D200.

What I've found is that the D200 shots come so much closer to that elusive film-quality than

any other digital I've shot with. There is a giant leap in tonal depth over the D100 that I sold

when the D200 came out. Back to the film bodies though... I really enjoy the focus speed of

the F6, and the controls are more suited to me now shooting with the D200 most frequently.

I probably don't use it enough to justify the cost of it, but luckily I don't have to justify much

to anyone these days. It is a pleasure to shoot with, and that's why I pick it up.

[t_du_vernet]

The F100 has really plummeted in value. Not sure why. It could be that all the electronics and rubbery feel of the body puts them at risk for long term service vs something simpler. But that would also apply to the F6. Maybe its more like watch jewellery, both tell time, but one is considered stylish and the other merely an appliance. BTW, for the guy mentioning an F6 for photo classes, really one of the best cameras for that is a Minolta SRT 102. Simple as simple can be.

[erichsande]

I love a good zombie thread!

I handled an F6 in a shop in 2004 when I'd already had an F100 since 2000.  I had money to burn at that time and I think the F6 was ~US$2,400.  As nice as that camera was, the tech inside it wasn't going to make me a better photographer.

Eric Sande

[ShunCheung]

Values for film SLRs have plummeted a long time ago. It is getting difficult to buy film and get it developed, unless you do black and white yourself. Perhaps the F6 is an exception as it is also a collector's item. In fact, the values for most Nikon F-mount DSLR and lenses are dropping fast as well.

[Mary Doo]

Just checked eBay, the functioning F100 price varies from $125 to $1599 and F6 ranges from $850 and upwards.  Not bad actually.  However, I am glad I sold my F100s and F6 years ago.