Second hand Nikon F4 or F5 ?

[ty_mickan]

<del>35mm scans on flatbeds are atrocious, particularly trannies.</del><p>

 

(Moderator's note: The OP didn't ask about scanning or film/digital comparisons. Please stick to topic.)

[steve_mareno]

I haven't used an F5, but I had a couple of F4s cameras when I was still shooting Nikon. They are fun to use, but I found the interface frustrating and slow to use. There is no thumb wheel to change apertures or shutter speeds, meaning that if you have to change shutter speeds you either have to take the camera away from your eye to do it or fumble around w/ your right hand on top of the camera while attempting to hold the heavy beast in your left. The viewfinder is 100%, which I liked, but you had to shift your eye around in it to see the readouts. Bear in mind this camera is as big and heavy as a medium format camera, and the F5 is even bigger, so why not just shoot MF?

 

My ownership of an F100 lasted all of 5 minutes. I received mine in like new cond, admired it's looks and layout, then snapped the shutter a few times. KLANG. Man, that thing was FAR too noisy for me. I immediately took some pics of it and put it up for sale. In my eyes Nikon ruined a great camera w/ that ridiculous shutter. I then found an 8008s and used it for many years. Almost the perfect camera. Top shutter speed of 1/8000, much quieter shutter, convenient thumb wheel to change shutter speeds or aperture settings, extremely accurate meter, very petite and light compared to the monster F4s, and it took AA batteries that lasted forever. I loved that camera. You can pick them up for a song now, along w/ the excellent N90s cameras. Those would be my recommendations for someone wanting to shoot film w/ Nikon lenses. Think I saw an 8008s for $30 at KEH recently. How can you go wrong at those prices?

[Landrum Kelly]

I know objectively that the F5 metering and speed of auto-focus are superior to that of the F4, but I never had any problems with the F4s. I liked both of them, and the weight did not bother me. I like the F100, too. If you are still committed to shooting film, then you would probably be happy with any of them--unless you want VR. The F5 is an incredible machine, but I just loved my old F4s. It was a camera for a transitional era, looking backward and forward at once.

 

I gave my girl friend an F100 back in 2002. She still has it and loves it. I only shot it a few times, but it really is a versatile camera. Otherwise, I have had no experience with it.

 

Just be sure that the camera you buy will support modern features, such as VR. It is great to keep at least one of these film cameras. I have a Canon 1-N, and it is just not the same as the old NIkons. I am sorry to say that I sold the F4s, and I gave my F5 to my daughter (which was really too heavy for her), and so I now have no Nikon film cameras.

 

(You wanna buy a 1-N, cheap?)

 

--Lannie

[steve_mareno]

Whoops, I forgot the F100's little brother, the N80. Fine little camera w/ the quietest shutter on any SLR camera I have ever used. The viewfinder isn't as good as the 8008s or N90, but it's a wonderful little shooter w/ tons of features. I used to shoot mine w/ an AF 85 1.8 lens and it was perfect for street candids. The 85 gave you some distance from your subjects, and the thing looked like an everyday DSLR to everyone so they paid you no mind. Just another tourist w/ a camera.

[ned1]

FYI. I don't know what prices are like over there, but here it is possible to get a quite decent F5 from a

reputable dealer for under $450 and an F100 for about $200. Check out KEH. Not sure if they ship overseas.

 

My cameras are an F100 and an F3HP. F5 has a more advanced Matrix Metering system.

 

If you're going to go film, pick up a scanner. The Nikon Coolscan V is a great machine for $500. Coolscan +

F100 + 100 rolls of film comes to less than you paid for your D80, and if used right will give you better images.

And is more fun, IMHO

[hus]

As F4 is older I don't think you can use all the features of new lenses and flashguns. Besides, if you need it, it is not as fast. I'd go for F5 which I might, if I find a bargain in good condition. I'd recommend you have your prints scanned after you have them developed.

[royston]

Wow - It looks like I opened a real can of worms when I asked this one - great input from everybody, again what a fabulous resource photo.net is.

 

I headed down the road to MVX this morning where they had a number of F100 bodies including ones with the extender battery grip. The controls seemed very logically laid out, given that I've only had the Nikon D90 for a couple of weeks.

 

Alas the boxed F5 they had has been sold, so I've yet to try the F5 on for size, and want to do this before I commit to either body. As always the guys at MVX where keen to assist, even though I made it clear that I would not be purchasing today.

 

The smaller F100 is appealing simply on size grounds, given that I'd go for one with a grip that I could remove when I want to keep weight to the minimum. Also getting this choice saves me some $$$ given that I am also starting from scratch on the lens collection.

 

I shall revisit this post when I've made my final choice.

[rob_shane]

I've used an F4s for 20 years without fail. Thousands of rolls of film over that time frame. The AF was never the F4s's strong point. It's built like a tank. If you are getting familiar with the D80 you may find the F4s's controls odd.

 

-Shane Srogi

[ShunCheung]

Keep in mine that the OP, Roy, current has a D80/D90 (both have been mentioned, could be a typo, but they have

essentially the same body anyway). Therefore, as far as construction quality goes, even the F100 will be a step up

from the D90 so that I don't see what the problem is.

 

The key here is that Roy already has a DSLR, which most likely will be his primary camera.

When I was shooting film, the F4 and then F5 were my main cameras. I for one don't mind a big primary camera. As

far as I can tell, this film SLR will only be a side camera for Roy in this digital era.

IMO, a big and heavy secondary camera will only get in the way and eventually discourage the owner from using it.

 

That was why I suggested the F100 to Roy, but of course your mileage may vary.

[psul_aul]

B&H still lists the F100 as available new. I think, $799.

[joshroot]

For $300 I'd almost buy an F5 just to stick up on my wall. That was my first "badass" pro camera and I ran a lot of film though and had a lot published from that camera.

 

Good times.

[miklosphoto]

I had the same situation, and decided to get the F100. Paid $237 for it last week. I did not want the F5 because of it's size and the F6 is still very expensive.

If you just use film occasionally, F100 will be just fine. But the F4 might be even cheaper.

I got theF100 because I thought it is really not expensive for $237.

[rich_evans]

Hi Roy - this will sound redundant, but probably more is better than less. I've owned and used all of the mentioned

hardware - my favorites of those being discussed would have to be the F5 and the F100. I owned 2 of each, and all were

fantastic. The F4 was an awesome piece of hardware for its time, but all of the above mentioned drawbacks (slow, older

meter technology, heavy) were among the reasons I sold mine off a few months ago. If I could only have one of what is

being discussed, and if the price is indeed as attactive as Josh notes, I'd get the F5 - I liked the balance with my pro

lenses, I liked the fact that you can use AA cells, I liked the ease of finding all the controls - most of all I liked the results. --

Rich

[harvey_edelstein1]

Roy the size of the F5 is about the same as an F100 plus the grip, about the same weight too. The F100 came out later than the F5 and they improved some ergonomics, it doesn't have as many things that require releasing interlocks to enable changing a setting like someone mentioned requiring two hands and taking your camera away from your face to see what you are doing. I think the F100 is tough enough constructed better than prosumer digital cameras I have seen. It can do 5 fps without the grip for me thats a fast film run rate.

[astral]

If you are serious about the 80-200, the F5 is a far better option. The F4's strengths nowadays are largely

overshadowed by later cameras, unless you have manual focus lenses - it's a great manual focus camera. If you are

put off by the weight issue (say, for every day use) the F80.N80 is a good back-up camera and is arguably a good

starter camera too - and is very cheap nowadays. However, I too would recommend a F100 as the best all-rounder. AC

 

Note: Buying a camera from a UK - or EU - dealer by mail order gives you a 10 day, no questions asked, return

option (a stautory right: Distance Selling Reguations) - valuable when buying such cameras unseen.

[photographicsafaris]

Hi Roy, I guess everyone picked up quite quickly that the F100 would be a more modern and (probably) better

camera than the F4.

but I going to comprehensively disagree (its a passion thing)

Nikon now only support one film Camera the F6, it is an awesome tool - if you can afford it get it, but it wasnt

in the original question.

 

I would like to point out that you are buying a discontinued camera and both of them professional tools which are

likely to have had a hard life, and this should be easy to spot. Do not be tempted by the cheaper one with a bit

of a scuff here and there, or one where the hand grip is peeling up - sure signs that it has had professional use.

From this point of view get the newer camera, it in theory should last longer

 

I used to own an F4 and loved it to bits it was the most solid camera ever made, however it is a bit lacking in

the auto department.

The F5 is a considerably better camera (other than for stability, where the F4 outshines everything) But using

any lens over 300mm, or for macro work or in low light when you are hand holding, there really isnt much to

compare with the F4, its solidity (lead weight feel) resulted in better pictures than were they taken with any

other camera body. Unfortunately in about 1990 I was considering an upgrade to the F5, but long story short

switched to EOS and am now looking longingly at the D700 - Cant wait till they do it with about 16M pixels, then

I may well switch back to Nikon again

 

There is also another choice, in line with the F4 (kind of) its the Nikon F90x

I feel that this would be a good compromise between the huge bulking body of the F5 (if that diddnt appeal to

you) and auto everything. This was replaced (!!) by the F100. Though a 1990's design, its a great camera and with

the mf26 (i think) date back extremely useful. Though built from plastic it is exceptionally strong. Again I

should point out that everyone will tell you correctly that the F100 is a better camera (I just diddnt get along

with it at all and found it to be without a soul!)

 

As much as I am an F4 fan and have been on the look out for one for posterity's sake and I loathe the F100, my

choice would be the F5 first and I would also get an old FM2 just for those days when the fancy takes you. you

will of course start to seriously question your digital camera with this top spec pro film body

 

Good Luck G

[ShunCheung]

Folks, please keep in mind about some of the limitations in the older film SLRs.

(1) The entire F90/N90 line has no sub-command dial and therefore not fully compatible with the many G lenses today. If you use a G lens on the F90/N90, you will be restricted to either the P or S exposure mode. The F90/N90 has only 1 AF point and is not compatible with the VR feature.

 

(2) The F801/N8008 line has all of the above limitations plus the fact that it cannot drive AF-S lenses to auto focus.

 

Given the fact that even an F5 worths little in the used market, IMO the smaller and lighter F100 is the best choice. You are not going to save much money going the F90 or F801 route and you will miss some important features.

[royston]

I mentioned the 80-200 F2.8, because my day job is in aviation and having a fast telephoto appeals to

me in order to capture photographic opportunities on my door step. I have the use of a hire one in

December and will be taking it on holiday with me to Cyprus where I shall be able devote some time to

evaluating it in a wider context.

 

With MVX being on my doorstep I should be in a position to have hands on prior to purchase, but you

have made a valuable point Alan as I will need to build up my collection of glass as well.

 

Shun has made a good point in that this is very much the secondary camera and perhaps the F5 might

be overkill, because detaching the extended grip and associated batteries to keep the weight down

whilst on the move appeals.

 

Miklos it looks as if I might be going down the same route, the F100 with grip I had a look at this

morning was £209 and a boxed F100 on it's own was £175, amazing when the launch price must easily

been north of £1000

[ujwal]

Definitely F5.

 

Its too fast too good. Used to own that camera before i bought canon and it was awesome. Even in program mode, my slides were perfectly exposed, even in very difficult situations. My DSLRs dont come close.

F4 is too heavy and bulky and not even half as fast or has a meter that comes close to the mighty F5. If it were film era, i wouldn't have sold my F5 till the end. I miss it :-(

[mt4x4]

Just wanted to note on the lens...

 

I have one an older 80-200 f/2.8 ED AF. Its also the "One Touch" version, which has a combined focus/zoom ring. Its a bit different, but I really like it. I picked this lens up used (refurbished) from a local repair shop for $400 with a 1 year guarantee (the guy who owns the shop is the one who refurbished it).

 

I only have 2 minor complaints about this lens.

 

1) Because it has a bit of a strange combination zoom/focus ring things going on, you really can't put a tripod collar on it. There are custom tripod collars that you can get for this lens, but they are really cumbersome.

 

2) With my D50 the autofocus is really slow. This has caused me to miss quite a few shots. I like to shoot rodeo, and the 80-200 is great for it, but when I have something like a barrel racer running towards me, the AF just can't keep up.

 

Overall, for $400 dollars, this has been an amazing lens. Although I am really drooling over the 70-200 2.8 VR.

[Landrum Kelly]

"I am hiring a 80 - 200 mm F2.8 in December. . . ."

 

As Keith said, the one-touch version requires a separate custom-built collar. I have one from Kirk that fits the

lens. It's a bit of a pain. I no longer have my somewhat newer 80-200 f/2.8 ED with separate controls for focus

and zoom--and a built in collar. It was easier to use, in my opinion. Don't even begin to ask why I got rid of

it. (Okay, so I went Canon.) The guy I sold the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 ED to in Washington State gives me a weekly

update on its condition by sending me all the great shots he is getting with it. (His name is Danny Lauve with

TLD Photography.)

 

Have you thought about hiring the 70-200 f/2.8 VR? I have never used it, although I have the same focal length in

a Canon with IS. I use it a lot when I want to shoot hand-held, and I presume the Nikon 70-200 VR is likewise

very versatile and would be ideal for the kinds of shots you are talking about making.

 

I have to say, though, that I really, really did like the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 ED. It is one crisp lens, and I

don't know how it compares in that regard (crispness, that is) with the 70-200--but that is another thread. Just

something to think about, since you did mention lenses. . . .

 

--Lannie

[philip_maus]

Roy - I'll will give you my vote the for the F100 too. It's a consummate pro body. Not only does it perform, feel, stand up to abuse and just plain *look* like a professional camera (ergo: walks like a duck, talks like a duck, must be a duck); claims of it's "advanced amateur" status could be taken with a little salt. This was very much a top flight camera in it's day (not too long ago). The F5 was a showcase for all of Nikon's most state of the art, up to the minute technology, but other than a faster frame rate, I would be highly suspicious of claims that it really "takes better pictures" then the F100, or anything like that. Maybe dust and water exclusion sealing was better on the F5, but my F100 went through all kinds of adverse conditions - I went through a phase of shooting in the rain and during storms - and the F100 never flinched in the slightest at getting downright wet. Ditto for dust and sand, as long as your extra careful and don't go changing lenses in the sandbox!

 

As I can see from your post this afternoon, you've had a chance to 'meet' this excellent camera and I can't help but think that was enough to convince you. Good luck in whatever your choice and best of pictures to you! Cheers.

[lex1]

I was just offered £40 by London Camera Exchange for my good condition F4 + MB23! I didn't realise prices had plummeted so much. I couldn't possibly sell it for that price (2 rounds at the pub!) so it's going to stay gathering dust. Today I can't justify the costs of taking slide film and scanning as nearly everything I shoot is for the web, but it took beautiful pics in its day.

[c_o1]

If you take pictures of things that do not move: F4. It has mirror lock up, you can use a cheap mechanical cable release, the

viewfinder has a neat little shutter, it can meter with all sorts of lens and the shutter speed and aperture dials etc. are all easy

to use. If you want autofocus: F4 isn't terrible outside in bright light or with a SB-26 to help it in darker conditions. But the F5

autofocus will blow it away.

 

I have a F4 with the smaller battery pack and a F100.

[bob_cook]

I own an F4, F5, F6 and F100. One thing I have always liked about the F4 is that it has "knobs and wheels" instead of

"buttons and read-outs." That said, I only use mine for landscape work, where autofocus is turned off, I meter with a

handheld spot meter quite a bit, and there is no issue with speed. The F6, of course, is a spectacular machine, but I use it

so infrequently that I can't always remember all of the settings.