Nikon f 50 vs f100

[joana_peixoto]

<p>Hello all,<br>

Im new at shooting film. I started last september because im in a photography school and that's the method they use there. But I'm loving it!<br>

I have a nikon f50 and i'm happy with the camera but I have been reading a lot about the f100. Do you think is worthy do buy the f100 as I already have this film camera?</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>If you're shooting film and have a camera that works, any new equipment purchases would likely be best built around lenses and lighting. <br /><br />But it's impossible to say what (if anything) would be most useful because we don't know what you're photographing, or what you think needs to be improved through more purchasing. Did someone at your school recommend you look into better or more equipment? </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Yes and no. The F50 is Nikon's most basic SLR, and it sure misses some of the more advanced features the F100 does have, plus it has simplified controls. The F100 has more dials and buttons, which brings more functionality to your finger tips. The viewfinder will be a huge step up and make manual focus possible (I've got the F65, and frankly that viewfinder is too poor to judge critical focus, I doubt the F50 will be much better).<br>

The F100 is also quite a bit larger, heavier and expensive - you may want to take that into account. I'm not sure where you're located, but where I live (Italy), prices for the F100 are still relatively high; it is quite possibly Nikon's best allround SLR and that makes it desirable. The F80 is a little step down, but priced a lot more interesting; likewise the older F90x (which isn't entirely compatible with all new technologies - depends a bit which lenses you already have).<br>

But if you're happy with how your F50 works, I'd look first into lenses before spending money on a camera. Or look at getting a fully manual camera (i.e. Nikon FM, FM2 and the likes) with some matching primes.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>The F100 was a great camera, up to the point that it was a competitor to the F5... but I don`t know if it is worth it to you.<br /> The film is the same in both cameras, so it may be that you don`t need to spend on another one. Which lenses do you have? Do you like AF? Have you tried a manual focus camera? Does your D50 stand to your needs? What about medium format?<br /> I`m sorry I may be disorienting you, but I think it could be interesting to be aware of other options. <br /> I have a F6 which is something like the F100 update, and I don`t use it so much... my much older F3 is way more busy than any of my AF cameras.<br /> And sometimes I prefer to shoot with a RF model... or with a quality compact camera... the good thing about film is that you can use very different systems with the very same quality media.<br /> But if you want to upgrade your D50, the F100 is maybe the top at an affordable price. The F6 is way more expensive.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>The viewfinder of the F100 (or F90n) are both much better than the F50. I'd say it's worth the relatively low cost to upgrade.</p>

[hapien]

<p>I have shot one frame with fellow fotographer's F100 and seen F50 at salvation army drift store.</p>

<p>There are multiple reasons to get F100. First one is user selectable iso for metering, something You will appreciate as art student. Second is high quality viewfinder. Third one is better handling (unless You have very small hands). Fourth one is numerous custom settings available at F100. Fift one is cheap batteries. Sixth one is PC-sync socket for studio flashes, something that makes F100 very serious camera. Seventh one is 10-pin socket for corded remote control. And the list goes on and on.</p>

<p>All that said, You could wait and see if any reason for upgrade appears in practice. Many have gone digital.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you are learning photography with a film SLR, it is a good idea to get a higher-end one such as the F100 to have access to a better viewfinder and a full set of manual controls. Since film photography is now out of favor, except for a few collector's items such as various Leica and perhaps the Nikon F6, film SLRs are dirt cheap such that a used F100 shouldn't cost you a lot of money. Your cost is going to be film and processing cost, which would be the same for the F50.</p>

<p>Today, personally I would learn photography using digital instead of film, which was what I used some 40 years ago. I find digital far more efficient in many ways, including as a learning vehicle. But that is another topic.</p>

[joana_peixoto]

<p>Thank you all for the answers!<br /> Nobody recommended me anything, I just started to look for myself. I've been doing mostly portraits and street photography. You can see some of my photos here, but these were taken with my digital camera http://olhares.sapo.pt/joana.amilpeixoto/ I haven't scanned the negatives yet, but the work is similar.<br /> I have a 35-80mm, which was the lens my father used on the f50, the 18-55mm which came with my d3100 and the 50mm 1.8g af-s, my favorite. I'm using it almost exclusively because after trying it I don't like the images I get with the other 2 lenses! The downside is that I can´t use the auto-focus when I use it on the f50, and sometimes I misjudge the focus point...<br /> I live in Lisbon and I the prices for the f100, 2nd hand range between 200-250 euros.<br /> In terms of image quality the photos would look the same, right? So maybe I should spend my money on lenses or save it for a better digital camera in the future, do you agree?</p>

<p> </p>

[lwg]

<p>If you are going to shoot a lot of film I think the F100 would be well worth it. But a decent set of lenses is more important. Your 18-55 won't work on either camera. The 35-80 is a slow lens, but will probably work OK to start with. You have the faster 50mm when the light gets dim, but without AF working you do need to change something. I'd go for the F100 which I find works very well with the 50mm f/1.8G, and you can use the 35-80 when you need wider or longer and your feet can't move. The other option is to get the older 50mm AF or AF-D which would focus on your F50. </p>

 

[Jochen_S]

<p>If you like shooting 35mm film, you should get hold of at least a 2nd camera.<br>

I don't know how you are working on what kind of project, but if I go out to shoot something, I spread my various lenses over multiple bodies. If I go on vacation I want basic redundancy / backup; If my zoom breaks, I'll shoot primes or vice versa, but one random failure shouldn't stop me. <br>

If something is important; I try to capture it on 2 different cameras, to make sure I bring <em>something</em> home. - I don't do weddings, I am no professional journalist, but like those folks I have only one reputation to loose. <br>

What about the color vs. BW dilemma? - What about shooting various film speeds? <br>

Tons of reasons to get a 2nd camera. - IDK if you are doing digital on the side but still: a 2nd film body seems like a good idea.<br>

So far I had: Loading errors, broken shutter buttons and curtains, misaligned mirrors, rolls ruined during processing, breaking lenses, empty batteries, defective flash sync, electrically dead cameras, auto exposure death, AF motor failure, bitching motor winders and light leaks. <br>

The nastiest thing is when cameras die silently like Zeniths that only do 1/1000 second, no matter what you dial in, when their batteries are missing or Minox that wind the film although they did not expose, it due to defective solemnoids. - Nikons might be better than these, but still: <strong>I would not rely on just 1 camera.</strong></p>

[hapien]

<p>Any 135 film camera has to be operated with all the tricks available in the books to meet image quality of Nikon D3100 and 50mm AF-G combined. The looks of the image is totally different matter. Often characteristics of the film and errors in use give more to the image than superior image quality. </p>

[SCL]

<p>The F100 is a good film camera, quite a bit lighter than the F5 or F6. The viewfinder is good for a SLR, but there isn't the interchangeability of screens like the F5. It would be a big step up in cameras from what you own...but like others, I am a strong believer in having really good lenses with whatever body I am using, and the price you're seeing IMHO isn't a bargain. If you're committed to film going forward, and like film based SLRs, the F100 could serve you well. If you haven't done the research on the F100, this is a good site :http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/slr9698a.htm#f100. Personally, I much prefer the Nikon F4, because it can use (attach and meter with) some of Nikon's old lenses as well as all modern ones. The F5 weighs a ton, but is one of the best film SLR bodies Nikon built. Shun made a good point though, that you can learn basic photography much faster with a digital camera, as the feedback is instantaneous.</p>

[John Seaman]

<p>As a newcomer to Nikon I recently bought (and later sold) an F100, and bought two F90X's for a fraction of the price. I actually like the F90X better than the F100 - it's much simpler but still has the excellent viewfinder and works off AA batteries. If you want selectable focus points and whatever other gadgets the F100 has, then fine, but the F90X has a nice wide single autofocus area, and I just find it more usable. Just be prepared for a messy half an hour scraping the sticky coating off the back.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>Another vote for the F 100 from a 50 year Nikon user.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Compared to the F90/F90X (N90/N90s), the F100 has two command dials and 5 AF points. Having two command dials means it is fully compatible with modern G lenses (other than DX, which projects a smaller image circle for APS-C format DSLRs) and can work with vibration reduction on VR lenses (all Nikon AF bodies with only one AF point cannot work with VR). Otherwise, both the F90 (all variations) and F100 can drive AF-S lenses to auto focus. Not sure the OP needs to consider various G VR lenses at this point, but the F90 is not fully compatible with that 50mm/f1.8 G AF-S.</p>

<p>I am afraid that camera cost is merely secondary. 10 years ago I paid about $10 per roll of slide film, about $4 for film and $6 for processing, perhaps a little more. The cost can easily be 3 times as much today. Not sure how much that costs in Portugal, but film and processing cost can add up pretty quickly.</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>Since you at this moment intend to use your new camera for your photography course/school why not get a FM, FM2, FE or FE2 rather then a AF film body? (I still have my old F2AS and FE, and F90X and F100 so can make a pretty fair comparison between the old manual and later AF film bodies)</p>

<p>Yes, you'll lose the AF and winder, and the old style dials and exposure metering will slow you down. <br>

But you'll be forced to work much slower, and much more deliberate, then when using all kind of automated stuff.<br>

And that may be more beneficial for your learning process, and your technical knowledge on the long term.</p>

<p>Same goes for buying some old AiS glass.<br>

Yes you'll have to focus yourself, but gain will get much more real photographic experience on the way (no more point and shoot). Also the quality of many of the older manual lenses is far superior to later low end AF glass.<br>

Of course you can later still use them Nikon DSLR's for photography, but also video (for which they have in particular been rediscovered lately http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/content/nikons-manual-focus-lenses).</p>

<p>And with an adapter on many types of mirrorless camera's which if you believe the internet hype are the future.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I've been looking at a Nikon F3HP. Or, an M6! :-)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>@Kent Excellent choices:)</p>

[5711]

<p>my first dsrl was a canon eos 300.<br>

my first really good dslr was a nikon f100.</p>

<p>i still use it, i love it and i would highly recomment it.<br>

the photographic options it gives you are sheer endless, <br>

the build quailty is great and the sound it makes when pressing the shutter is priceless.<br>

also the feeling of that event is super too!<br>

i love this camera. so this is not quite objective ;)</p>

<p>the only thing with the f100 though is the rubber ring around the batteryslot.<br>

it does get lose.</p>

<p>its the rubber ring that is placed where you connect the grip, if you want.</p>

<p>if you get a used f100 make sure that this ring isnt lose.<br>

open the battery apartment and check if it comes lose too.</p>

<p>also check the rubber. leather, whatever thing it is that they put around the camera.<br>

near the shutter, where the plasitc comes back to the film back, it tends to get lose too.</p>

<p>check the viewfinder, if its dirty, scratched or whatever.<br>

open the the back of the camera, set it to m and bulbb, hit the shutter and look for obvious, dirt, fungus or whatever.</p>

<p>a used f100 comes for around 200-300 euros in good condition and is worth every cent.</p>

<p>some people like it to be fully manual, in that case, there are the older f models, f2,f3 and f4 to consider.<br>

if you want to have a more rugged body than the nikon f100, look for a f5.</p>

<p>my f5 got stolen, but when i stop playing pingpong with lenses, i will buy one back.<br>

just because i miss it and am very nostalgic about it.</p>

<p>the f6 though has the same metering system as the nikon d3 and therefor is an even better camera.<br>

it is still in production as far as i know and therefore more expensive.</p>

<p>all this in consideration, you cannot go wrong with a nikon f100!</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p><em>In terms of image quality the photos would look the same, right? So maybe I should spend my money on lenses or save it for a better digital camera in the future, do you agree?</em><br /> Right, the quality of the image will be the same. A F100 will let you to make things a bit easier (faster rate, faster AF, better viewfinder, ergonomics, etc), maybe more enjoyable, but in most cases the final product will be exactly the same.<br /> <br /> Should you spend your money on better lenses? I don`t know.<br /> If you want to improve, a 50/1.8AF/AFD lens will AF with your camera and it`s amongst the sharpest Nikkors. It is also one of the cheapest.<br />But personally and <em>sincerely</em>, film is about darkroom traditional work, -including wet printing-. Shooting film to be scanned, have the -only- appeal of using a film camera, all the rest is somewhat meaningless... so I think sooner or later the discovery will die. A better lens will catch sharper images, but it will not change the concept.<br /> Would you buy a top quality turntable and some vinyls to digitize and hear them on your cellular phone or tablet? Is it worth it to buy a better needle for it? After all, <em>does it makes sense?</em> <br />Let`s be honest; if money is not an issue, the camera enjoyment is well worth it the expense, it is obvious that is more pleasant to use top quality items (cameras, bikes, surfboards ... :). If not, it could be more reasonable to spend thinking on a future.</p>

[5711]

<p>alright alright.<br /> i am not going to drag this towards the digital vs film debate deliberately but i kind of have to.sorry</p>

<p>there is not much difference between the two cameras besides shutterspeed of 1/2000max of the f50 vs the 1/8000max of the f100 and the better build quality of the nikon f100. the f 100, does have more points it meteres with and also comes with a larger field of view in the viewfinder (96%-f100 vs 92%-f50). <br /> the f100 also offeres spotmetering which can be very helpful when starting with photography to take notes, write stuff down, also to experiement with it, as it is important to LEARN STUFF ! (really? ,...hell yeah, i just said that!)<br /> the f100 allows you to change viewfinder plates, allowing you to switch to splitscreens for the manual focus lenses, the f50 does not.<br /> also the autofocus on the f100 is better than the one in the f50.<br /> compared to todays standard the autofocus is not that great but i never really had an issue with it.<br /> the f100 allows you to do mulitple exposures. the f50 does not.<br /> if you wear glasses, you can adjust the f100, not so the f50.<br /> the f100 does come with a field of view preview, the f50 does not.</p>

<p>should i go on?</p>

<p>the f100 is a better camera.<br /> where the f50 is going to limit you quite soon, the f100 will not.<br /> i have my f100 for...hmm..i dnt know...13 years?<br /> does not really look like this, it is build like a tank.<br /> the f50 is not.</p>

<p>technically speaking, the f100 is a way better camera and therefore will be with you for a really long time.</p>

<p>as far as film goes...i shoot portra 400 alongside digital.<br /> digital just does not look like it.<br /> i scan those photos, and i do not mind, as the look of film justifies the use of it. period.</p>

<p>besides that, i enjoy it very much as it slows me down,..well not really, i know my stuff, but i do take the finger off the shutter<br /> more often.</p>

<p>and that is a good thing.</p>

<p>people say film does makes you think.<br /> which is a really stupid statement as far as i am concerned.<br /> if you are only thinking about what youre doing when shooting film, youre a ... curses.</p>

<p>to shoot film and develop it yourself is simply more time consuming and therefore..do you want to waste your own time?<br /> and yeah..there is a difference between half an hour of developing c40 including all steps to 2 minutes of fast browsing through digital photos.<br /> <br />and chemicals can be expensive too (e6...pheww...60 euros, 9 roll of 120film...)<br /> still..shooting 600 rolls of black and white film on a nikon f100 with..lets say three fixed focal length lenses, still is cheaper than a new d4s.<br /> do the math yourself..</p>

<p>so..it is about wasting your own life and your money and not about "thinking"<br /> whoever writes this from here on, ows me a beer for every time this is written!<br /> starting now!!</p>

<p>i could go on for hours.</p>

<p>check the technical aspects of those two cameras.<br /> i would recomment the f100 over the f50, points listed.<br /> in the long term, it is the better choice.</p>

<p>if you however are completely satisfied with the f50, and not want to invest more time and money in photography, i would agree with jose.<br /> stick to the 50.</p>

<p>there will always be one more fance gadged you fancy, but actually do not need.<br /> safe the money, buy some scotch instead.</p>

<p>cheers</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

If you enjoy shooting film and will use the F100, I say get it. It's a fairly inexpensive way to get the experience of shooting

a higher grade camera. It's fast, has a big viewfinder, feels solid and has a great grip - basically it's the camera the D700

was based on. And it will work with AF on your 50mm.

[Richard Williams]

<blockquote>

<p>So maybe I should spend my money on lenses or save it for a better digital camera in the future, do you agree?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> You can argue it either way, depending on your priorities. Lenses are always a good investment if you're going to stick with Nikon for digital. On the other hand, all recent Nikon lenses are AF-S, which won't autofocus on the F50 as you've found, so you'll either be restricting yourself to older lenses or doing without autofocus. The F100 has a very decent autofocus system even by modern standards, fully compatible with AF-S and VR, and you may see the benefit in your street work (F50 era AF can struggle with moving subjects). It's also a very nice camera to use (I'd pick it over anything except perhaps the much more expensive F6) with an excellent viewfinder and the same dual command dial layout as the dSLRs, making it easy to switch between film and digital. It's compatible with nearly all current Nikon technology except iTTL flash and of course DX lenses (which are designed only for the digital models with smaller sensors - they aren't suitable for film SLRs or FX dSLRs).</p>

<p>A few things to check when buying a used F100 have already been mentioned. Also make sure the grip surface isn't 'sticky', that there's no damage to the door latch (a potential weak point), that the focus points respond properly to the multi-selector on the back in every direction, and that you have the standard AA battery holder (there was also an optional holder for CR123A batteries).</p>

[Two23]

<p>I've returned to film, somewhat. I just like the look of it for certain subjects. It's something that sets my photos apart. More than that, I like the historical connection it gives me to photographers of the past. I had an F100 and it is an excellent camera. However, I have zero interest in buying another one at this point. I'm wanting the look and feel of the considerably older gear. If I was after extreme sharpness and saturation, why wouldn't I just shoot the D800E I paid $1,500 for, and the state of art lenses I paid many times more than that for? I'm not after a modern look when I shoot film. I'm after a more classic/vintage look. I only shoot b&w film, something I rarely did back when I owned the F100. The old gear is a lot of fun! And that's what my photography is mostly about. Most of the cameras I own were made before WW2, and I have a "thing" for the box cameras (e.g. Kodak Brownie) made in the 1920s and 1930s. These give a very soft, low contrast look to the world and that's why I use them. Otherwise, why wouldn't I just use a digital camera? Probably the easiest of the vintage cameras to use would be something like a Nikon FM2n or an F3HP. These have built in meters and use multicoated lenses. That makes them a little too modern me, but I'll admit I've long lusted after an F3HP because it's so excellent. Meanwhile, my latest purchase, a Rolleiflex made in 1930, is satisfying my whims. The great thing about these cameras is that what was once state of the art and extravagantly expensive stuff is now easily affordable!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p><div></div>

[5711]

<p>congrats..that is one sexy camera :p</p>