F3 and F5's still in demand by photgraphers?

[mark_stephan2]

<p>KEH was in town last week and I got rid of a lot of gear. While selling to them I asked which cameras were good sellers and they told me that the F5 and F3HP were still in demand by photographers and KEH was buying good working samples of each. I was surprised to hear this because I thought film photography was virtually extinct.</p>

[SCL]

<p>You've been misinformed - film photography is far from extinct, in fact some colleges are beginning to offer courses introducing students to film photography. Also, there have been some new films introduced in the last year, and Polaroid and Holga photography still seems to be attracting new followers. Although I;\'ve never regretted selling my F3HP, F4 or F5...if I was coming around to learning film photography, any of these workhorses would be on my list of candidates for consideration.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Film photography really is not dead. Yes, there are relatively few film shooters in relation to digital, but there are a reasonable number of working pros who use some or all film. The film groups on Flickr are sizable, APUG.org has quite a few members, etc. Depending on which statistics you quote, film sales are either declining very slowly, rising or stable over the last couple of years. There <em>is</em> a trend among so-called "hipsters" to use film, and the Lomography company is riding this trend with some degree of financial success.</p>

<p>The F3HP and the F5, along with the F4 and FM/FM2/FM3a are considered by some to be the finest cameras Nikon ever made, film or digital. My F3HP was USD 150 on eBay, and my F4 cost me two lenses I wasn't using. I wanted these cameras when they were new, but they were far out of my budget. Now? They cost the same as three batteries for my DSLR and "mirrorless" cameras. And they will <em>definitely</em> outlast the batteries.</p>

[andylynn]

This is relative. An F3 in good condition is about $200 from a reliable vendor and an F5 about $400. When film shooting

was still big those were worth well over $1000. Now that demand for film gear is much lower, nobody's bothering with

cheaper stuff and a larger percentage of film camera buyers than before are buying high end film cameras. That's why

flagship models are still sellable.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'd rather have my F3HP than an F5. The F4 and F5 are too heavy, bulky, and I don't shoot film quickly enough anymore to need autofocus or sophisticated autoexposure. The F3 finders are bright and crisp enough for manual focusing even in dim lighting, although some focus screens are better than others for that. I prefer the F3HP's DE3 viewfinder for the longer eye relief (even though I don't need glasses to focus), but some folks prefer the higher magnification of the standard finder.</p>

<p>If the F3 seems inexpensive now it's probably because it's always had a few quirks: it needs batteries to be fully functional (there's a single manual shutter speed and the shutter can be tripped only via an awkwardly placed lever on the front); and the tiny gray LCD meter readout has always been mediocre.</p>

<p>The F, F2, some Nikkormats and the FM-series seem to have retained their value reasonably well, with the FM3A often fetching the highest prices due to the relative youth of those bodies and the nifty feature set.</p>

[mark_stephan2]

<p>Hey guys, I was just kidding when I said I thought film photography was virtually extinct. LoL. I still manage 1 or 2 rolls each month. I was surprised when I was told Pro bodies were still in demand. I'm still using my F3HP and FM3A with no plans of getting rid of either.</p>

[pics]

<p>The demand for the F5 makes sense to me. For those who have only shot digital but want to experiment or shoot an occasional roll of film, the F5 will allow them to use all of their modern Nikon lenses with a pro body without spending a ton of money. (F6's are still relatively expensive used)</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>A lot of people including me still use a good bit of film each month. I think the F2 is the best thing Nikon ever made with the F4s a very close second. The F4 autofocus keeps getting knocked these days but on the few occasions I use this feature it works just fine. I've noticed the last year or so that I enjoy working in film more and have a nice if modest collection of film bodies. I like the F3 for other reasons but all three of the above mentioned cameras have one thing in common. They don't get in my way when I'm shooting. I can't find a digital camera anywhere that doesn't aggravate the sh!t out of me at least once during a shoot and that's been true for more than a decade. It ain't always progress.....</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Last year I bought a F3 from the big auction site, pretty heavily used but a good price; lately I've been checking to add a FM/FM2 (seeing how much I like the F3), and noticed that prices have gone up considerably. The F3 seems doubled in price. Or I really got a great deal last year, but the price I bought it for looked normal at the time. Same for some (Ai) lenses I've been checking. So, it seems a quite healthy market at the moment.</p>

<p>The F5 (I've used one a few times) is a camera I sure wouldn't get at this point. Too heavy, too many batteries in it, and nicer alternatives are there. The F100 is a lot more attractive in my view if one wants a thoroughly modern film body, or even the F80.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I agree the F5 weighs a ton, but what a magnificently versatile camera. The F100 is a good camera for a lot of things, but the viewfinder isn't really great if you prefer to use manual focus lenses, as I do.</p>

[wogears]

<p><strong>Stephen:</strong> That's odd. I like my F100's screen/finder setup. I was 'testing' it (actually my eyes) the other day, and found that my focus on the screen agreed with the 'green dot thingie' every time. I do prefer a microprism, but I was surprised how accurate my aging vision was. YMMV of course.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Les - your vision is probably quantum leaps better than mine. These days I try to go with a split image rangefinder/microprism screen whenever I can....seems to work better for me.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>KEH buyers at shows tend to go for EXC+ or better quality but will pay a reasonable price for gear above beater condition. Mint- F3s with DE-2 or DE-3 finders are getting scarce, so demand seeems split between collectors and shooters. The cameras effectively went out of production in the late '90s with some residual stock still in channels beyond the official discontinuation date. I see more F5s but, again, many are high-rollage. The F100 still seems to me to hit the sweet spot for a late model prosumer Nikon film camera in terms of features/price.</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>IMHO the F3hp is the highlight of SLR w/o motor drive. It is a fantastic instrument; not only does it take Nikon lenses but there are Zeiss lenses made for it. Nikon F4/F5 prices are unbeatable, they take the same lenses and are unquestionable much less expensive that comparable digital (for the amateur/proam) for many personal uses. Though I have never used the Nikon motor drive series for long range animal photography I have used it for action photos for my son's sports. I could grab 2.3 shots on the motor drive auto focus w/o problems. On a roll of 36 I could have 10-12 distinct images. I can't see spending 7k on a Nikon D series for a kid's soccer game. Again, just my opinion on cameras v. money.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>This is relative. An F3 in good condition is about $200 from a <a id="itxthook2" href="/modern-film-cameras-forum/00cc9F" rel="nofollow">reliable<img id="itxthook2icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> vendor and an F5 about $400. When film shooting was still big those were worth well over $1000. Now that demand for film gear is much lower, nobody's bothering with cheaper stuff and a larger percentage of film camera buyers than before are buying high end film cameras. That's why flagship models are still sellable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the late 90's the F3 was about $1000 but when I bought my F3HP in 1983 it was only $460. I paid $2000 for my F5 in 2002 and now I am lucky to get $500 for it although it's in like new condition and has seen very little use.</p>

[donbright]

<p>F3HP, FM3a...Awesome camera's. Still use them, love them. 30 years for the F3 now. </p>

[Brad Cloven]

<p>My $150 F3HP sits on the shelf because my $10.00 FE does 99.9% of the same thing with a better needle meter and less weight. I love them both dearly, but the FE is on my shoulder.<br>

And my $25.00 Nikkor 24mm F2.8 N.C. AI-ed or 50mm f.1.8 is on the front. Or maybe the 105 today...... Gosh, I love good glass and Velvia! :-)</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>Who on earth ever told you film photography is extinct? Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have neer owned an F3HP or F5, but have a Nikkormat FT3, Nikon F2S and F2A, F4S and Nikonos V and will never part with them, even after film becomes extinct, which I doubt will happen in my lifetime (I am 56).</p>

<p>I can see why the F5 would still be popular, because in many ways it operates like modern digital cameras though I would not own one because honestly I can't stand menus; I am a ring and dial photographer. The F5 is also a good bit less than an F6 with some features that are actually better than it's more expensive sibling.</p>

[damon_fernandes]

<p>I only shoot film. This summer I shot a 100 foot roll of Velvia as well as several C41 (mostly Portra 160 NC), and myriad B/W. I think in 2 months I shot about 80 rolls of film and developed them all in my kitchen. Film is far from dead and what makes me angry (and happy) is that a roll of Rollei 80S was about $45 three years ago and now it's like $90. Sounds like supply and demand to me. And have you checked the price of TriX lately? Hardly bargain basement. And did you know that Breaking Bad was shot entirely on film? Go film. I want cheaper prices though. And I'm sad that EFKE 25 is gone...sniff.</p>