F5 or F100

[paul_chinn]

<p>Hello all. Firstly I apologize if this is the wrong section to post this in. <br /><br />I've been hunting for a site to post some of my very amateur photos on, and this site struck a cord with me. Particularly because of how helpful this forum seems. <br>

I have a Nikon N90 that has given up the ghost. Refuses to power on at all. So I am looking to upgrade while I'm at it. What has immediately caught my eye are the F5 and F100 models. What I am looking at now is a used decent condition F5 hovers around $280 whereas the F100 sits around $160. I am curious if at this point the F5 has enough additional features to justify the additional cost. Don't get me wrong, at the very base they're light tight boxed meant to expose film, but that doesn't mean some additional farkles aren't nice. </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Their features are surprisingly similar, with a few exceptions. The autofocus system was the same. Do you need mirror lock-up, which the F5 has and the F100, if I remember correctly, does not? After the N90, will you be happy with the weight of the F5?</p>

<p>With either camera, check it out thoroughly before purchase or during the period when you can return it. With the F100, there were early problems, particularly with the rewind mechanism, so make sure everything works well and try to find out when the one you are considering was made.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>AF is the same,<br>

metering F5 is better,<br>

body F5 is better,<br>

F5 shoots up to 8p/s, F100 4p/s<br>

F5 has exchangeable viewfinders,<br>

Go with F5^^</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I prefer the F100 mostly for the size&weight and the viewfinder layout. It also adds "true" AE lock, a feature I like to use.<br>

Others say the F100 is equal if not better in the metering task. I have not noticed a difference. At the F5-F100 times, I remember many pros prefered and used the F100 over the F5. Me too (although I`m not a pro).<br /> But as mentioned, the F100 is not the best tripod camera... lack of mirror lock-up and eyepiece blind. Anyway, I wonder if it is a real drawback, or just a "theoretical" issue because it won`t be noticed in most occassions (I stopped using mirror lock-up in my Mamiyas just because results were indistinguishable when shooting at most apertures on the tripod). Or maybe you simply don`t have a tripod.</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p><em>With the F100, there were early problems, particularly with the rewind mechanism</em></p>

<p>Actually, by today's 'standards on what can do wrong with a DSLR, eg Nikon: problems with AF/F800 (although I have two and never had any issues regarding the AF, or anything else for that matter), dead batteries syndrom/D200, broken motherboard/D2H, or Canon : problems with AF : Eos 1DIII/IV/7D, the F100's 'problems' with the rewind mechanism was really 'much ado about nothing'.</p>

<p>It was the beginning of the sort of hysteria that is so common on the internettoday, and concerned the camera's film rewind fork the prongs of which were made of some kind of plastic.<br /> Just like nowadays someone posted something about it, which was then picked up and then got blown out of proportion on. There were reports (I never saw them, nor had NPS Netherlands seen that kind of damage when I asked them about it at that time) that the prongs could under certain circumstances break of, which lead to Nikon replace them for free as a precautionary measure.<br /> I had it done on my F100 (still have it) as part of the free yearly camera service/cleaning NPS members are entitled to, even if I never had never noticed problems/issues with them. But it was for free, and a plus in case I wanted to sell the camera.</p>

<p>However IMO the Dynamic AF of the F100, which was still in it's infancy back then, was a much bigger problem.<br /> When used with a manually selected AF point it worked great, as a single point, and in conjunction with other AF points for eg focus tracking, much like the single (much bigger) AF point of the F90/F90X.<br /> But if fully relied upon for fast moving subjects (similar to using todays 3D AF) it really wasn't up to it.<br /> Fortunately that has improved very much since in the DSLR's.</p>

<p>Choosing between the F5 and F100 is a bit like the choice between a D3 and D700.<br>

<br /> The F5 has a bigger body, bigger battery, somewhat bigger battery capacity, removable prism, more easily interchangable focusing screens, better data back.<br>

<br /> The F100 has almost as good AF, is smaller, lighter, cheaper.<br>

<br /> Back then I went for the F100 (and kept using F90X's on the side)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If it was my back/shoulder to carry it around - a F100 every day. F5 weighs a lot, so it's worth considering how much that might matter to you.</p>

[HuskyMason1]

<p>I've owned both and still have an F5...I would go for the F5...best Film camera Nikon has produced IMO.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>. . . the F100's 'problems' with the rewind mechanism was really 'much ado about nothing'.</p>

<p>I thought Paul Chinn should know about the reports. The fact that Nikon changed the mechanism "as a precautionary measure" is an indication that the problem existed, and might appear in a body that has the older mechanism. Aside from internet reports of the problem, photographers I trust have experienced it. (This is very unlike a recent photo.net thread by someone who found rewinding film on an Fm2 to be very stiff, but wasn't sure whether she pressed the rewind release button or not.)</p>

<p>If anything, I probably did not provide enough information. <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&msg_id=000zsy"><strong> Look at this photo.net thread</strong></a>, with reports from some users who had trouble with the F100 and others who did not.</p>

<p> </p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>I would hold them both before you buy one. The F5 is a bit of a beast, the size of some medium format cameras and more than 50% heavier than the F100, and takes 8 AA batteries to the F100's 4. I'd still pick the F100 over any other 35mm AF SLR, though of course anyone who needs the F5's unique features (higher fps, interchangeable finders, MLU, better sealing, etc.) would choose differently. It's easy enough to find an F100 with the metal rewind fork, but they never fixed another potential weakness - the back door is secured by a plastic latch and I've seen several reports of this breaking (replacement back doors are becoming hard to find). If you buy an F100, you should check the latch for any sign of damage and always close the back gently. Also check either camera for signs of sticky rubber that has begun to degrade, quite a common problem with Nikons of this vintage.</p>

<p>More comparisons in an old thread:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WSU8</p>

[david_r._edan]

<p>Have you ever held an F5 in your hands? While ergonomically it's pretty sweet, it weighs like a brick, especially with 8 AA Alkaline cells. It really is that heavy.<br>

Unfortunately it is not an easy choice for anyone, as the F5 has some features that other Nikon bodies simply do not (we're not talking about the F6 here).<br>

<br />• The most important would probably be the metering. F5 is much better in this regard.<br>

<br />• Mirror lock-up is very important to me, so in my scenario the F100 would be out.</p>

<p>• Multiple exposures. If I remember correctly, the F100 has a limit on those. It's probably 9 or 10. With the F5, there is no limit whatsoever. There are many, many non-gimmicky shooting techniques that call for multiple exposures, so it boils down to whether you use them at all and if you can keep the number under 10.</p>

<p>• The F100 covers only 96% of the actual frame, while the F5 shows 100%. In my case 96% would be a deal breaker, as I scan my film and use the entire frame. It depends on the film carrier and other factors but some people cannot use the whole area of the frame anyway, so for them a coverage of 96% is actually better.</p>

<p>• With the addition of an optional MF-28 data back, the functionality of the F5 expands even further beyond what is possible with the F100. The question is: do you need those functions?</p>

<p>For a technical shooter, who works around his studio, mostly on a tripod, the F5 is the obvious choice.<br>

For a handheld shooter who is mostly out in the field, the F100 is worth considering because of its lesser size and weight. Although, in those conditions, not having the F5's metering would be a disadvantage. Also the F5 is more rugged and weather-sealed than the F100.</p>

<p>So, yeah... It's not an easy choice. Ideally, one would have an F5 and an F100, maybe a couple of each.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>You asked the question which camera should you buy and that's an impossible question to answer. If you asked which camera I would buy it's the F5. I never considered the F100.</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p><em><a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&msg_id=000zsy" rel="nofollow"><strong> Look at this photo.net thread</strong></a>, with reports from some users who had trouble with the F100 and others who did not.</em><br>

The thread you refer illustrates my point. It was started in august 2000 and essentially bled to death in October of that same year.<em><br /></em><br>

The various 'complaints' filed are all over the place, varying from battery consumption to LCD screens, basically the variety of complaints that are inevitable when an huge number of the same item is sold.<br>

Compare the number of complaints with similar threads on modern DSLR's and it really becomes insignificant, also with on the other hand the fair share of very satisfied users in same thread in mind.<br>

<br />Especially the last reaction is illustrative of the kind hyped up internet indignation which is so common nowadays, but was fortunately rare in those days, as witnessed by the lack of confirmatory reactions since.<br>

Nikon however was sensitive to that kind of internet buzz, and the replacement of the plastic prongs for metal ones was as far as I understood from NPS, and from other F100 users who also didn't have any problems with them, more to as a precaution to silence any further hysteria rather then practical necessity. <br>

<br />I did a search on Paul Chinn, but found no results on a photographer by that name nor photography/F100 related results, so can't comment on your referral to him. Nor have I found the, based on what you claim, deluge of complaints that apparently should be found on the internet. If any complaints can be found, they are from years after the introduction of the F100, mostly made by avid amateurs, not from the users who got the F100 shortly after the introduction in 1999.<br>

I however don't see your comments reflected in the F100 reviews of well respected and proven professional photographers e.g. Bjorn Rosslet or Thom Hogan, nor in the feedback of many F100 users, nor my own experiences with it/having worked with it, rather then statements based on 'I read an obscure thread somewhere on the internet' or ' a photographer I know (but no one else does) says so'.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Thom Hogan seems to have a fairly comprehensive list of the differences between the two cameras:<br>

<a href="http://www.bythom.com/F100.htm">http://www.bythom.com/F100.htm</a></p>

<p>Even if you plan on attaching the MB-15 to the F100; that combo is still lighter than the F5. I certainly liked the feel of the F5 (but not the weight) and would nowadays opt for the much lighter F100 (without the additional battery grip).</p>

[robert_bowring]

Unless you absolutely need AF I would recommend the F3.

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Unless you absolutely need AF I would recommend the F3.<br>

Yeah I have since packed up my F5 in box. I continue to use the F3. It works so well.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Having owned and used both, how is how I would boil it down. The F100 is essentially a consumer version of a professional F5. The F5 is built like a tank and weighs about as much, but boy does it deliver, and the screens and viewfinder options are really great for specialized work; the F100 has a couple of screens. If you're a casual photogapher, not counting on your camera to earn money, the F100 will probably do fine for you. If you have to rely on your camera to earn a living, go with the F5. As an aside, I see several others have suggested and F3, which I also owned - so I'll chime in. The F3 is also incredibly flexible, lighter and slightly smaller than the F100 or F5, especially if you don't need the motor drive, definitely worth consideration, especially as it (as can the F4 & F5) can use Nikon pre Ai lenses. I prefer the slightly larger and newer F4 (which is where I finally settled down). A lot of choices here, and all of them good. If you use manual focus lenses a lot (as I do), I think you would be better off with the F5, F4 or F3 than the F100. Like others, I encourage you to get your hands on whatever you're considering to get a feel for the ergonomics, as they differ among the bodies. Good luck and enjoy your "new" Nikon, whichever you choose.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Both are excellent cameras. At the end of the day, after all the "objective" comparisons of all the features - durability, MLU, FPS and all, it comes down to which camera you like to use more. I have had three F100s (really did not need that many) and ended using an F6 most before going digital. There was nothing wrong with any of them. Looking back now, I noticed how well the F100 worked, some captured slide images were just so very good (in combination with the Fuji Velvia that I liked to use), be it landscape or macro. Because everyone said it was so great, I did buy a used mint-condition F5 when the prices went down. Again there was nothing wrong with it, just that I continued to use the F100 much much more.</p>

[mark_miranda2]

<p>Having owned both for many years, each have their merits, but ultimately, for me at least, it came down to weight. I belive somone above mentioned that combined weight of an F100 with the battery grip, still weighs less than the F5, absolutely the case. There were troubles with the fork in the film chamber that winds/rewinds the film, and that's true also. Should you decide to chase down an F100, look for one that has the square fork, it seems to the less troublesome of the two. Both are more than capable of excellent images. My eyes aren't what they used to be, so I'm using my F100 more and more, mostly for the AF. Remember, you can just as good an image with using a F2 or a F3, as you can with a F5 or F100, after all, it's more about what you "see" than anything else.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>F5 can use Nikon pre Ai lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only if the F5 has been retrofit with the coupling ring that allows the Ai follower tab to be flipped up - this was not standard with the F5 as it was with the F3 and F4.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I have both, but used the F100 far more than the F5, which was a late purchase before the digital revolution. Given the choice, it would recommend the F5, hands-down.</p>

<p>The F5 is all metal, including the back, which is plastic on the F100. It also has a built-in vertical grip, not a sloppy bolt on like the F100. The F100 has a single motor for wind, rewind and focus, whereas the F5 has a separate motor for each. The F5 advances the film using the sprocket, whereas the F100 pulls the film with the takeup spool, only using the sprocket to measure the advance. This means the spacing in the F5 is rock solid 2 mm, whereas it is variable in the F100. It also requires an extra step to unlock the sprocket before rewinding, like all previous SLRs.</p>

<p>The biggest difference is in the viewfinder. The focusing spots are illuminated in red in the F100, but a nearly invisible grey/dark gray LCDs in the F5. There are only two "official" screens for either camera - with or without grids. Other screens for the F5 do not have "animated" focusing spots.</p>

<p>The F5 uses 8 AA batteries, the F100 has 4. Early rechargeables only got 4-6 rolls on a charge, the F5 over twice that number. They would die in three weeks of disuse. Modern high-capacity Eneloop batteries would mostly overcome these issues - twice the capacity and practically zero self-discharge. (Early chargers would stop once the first battery reached capacity. Eventually only half of your batteries would ever get fully charged. A Powerex/Maha charger treats each battery separately, and is worth every nickel of its cost.)</p>

<p>My F100 has turned sticky, whereas the D5 is like new after nearly 15 years.</p>

<p>The F3 is my all-time favorite, except for the screwy flash attachment. It's a vast improvement over the F2, and nearly as compact and smooth operating as a Leica. It is noisy, like a loose rail at a train crossing ;).</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>Correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you were perfectly happy with the N90 until it died. Given that, the F100 might a more reasonable upgrade. The F5 might be a big leap, especially with its bulk and weight.</p>

<p> </p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>I bought my F5 and F100 roughly according to the order they were introduced: F5 at the end of 1997, a bit over a year after Nikon started shipping them. Soon after that, I realized that I by far prefer its new style of controls at that time with two command dials, to the extend that I didn't want to use my F4 any more. A year later Nikon introduced the F100 and I added that as my second body to have similar controls.</p>

<p>Functionally they are similar. The F5 is more robust but is a lot bigger and heavier. I would get an F5 only if you prefer a larger body. 8 fps on a film SLR should be a non-issue nowadays. If you shoot at that kind of frame rate, film and processing cost will be insane. For someone who has been using an N90/N90S, the F100 should be similar with improvements.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Paul K, I'm sorry if I offended you or one of your favorite cameras. I think it kept you from reading my post clearly. You say you looked up Paul Chinn, but couldn't find any information he provided about the F100. Of course there wasn't any. He is the OP, the one asking about the F100. I thought he should know (or be informed about) the early problems. I called him "Paul Chinn" and not just "Paul" because your first name is also Paul, and I hoped to avoid confusion.</p>

<p>The well-known photographer who returned three F100 bodies is Moses Sparks, whose work has always impressed me. I didn't use his name to avoid getting him into it. Back in 2000, his decision to give up on the F100 convinced me something was wrong with it.</p>

<p>Yes, the thread I referenced died after a few months, just like most photo.net threads.</p>

<p>I agree with you that it's significant that Thom Hogan and Bjørn Rørslett didn't report rewinding problems with the F100. The reports of trouble came in early, only from some users, and stopped. Nikon, with its revision, evidently fixed any problem that might have existed with the rewind.</p>

<p>I also agree that the problems encountered with film cameras are far fewer than those that have come up with digital cameras.</p>

<p>Best regards,<br>

Hector Javkin</p>

[User_5050610]

<p>Shun--I think the F5 was introduced later than 1977--maybe 1996?<br>

Paul</p>

[ShunCheung]

Paul Beavin, I just spotted the typo. Nikon introduced the F5 in 1996. I bought mine in December 1997. I still remember that cold

winter day after Christmas as I walked into B&H's new store ... as if it were yesterday.