Keith: The problem with film-based SLRs, as I saw it, was that the manufacturers had painted themselves into a corner by the late 1990s. From TTL metering to AE to multi-mode AE to TTL flash to multi-pattern metering to integral motorization to AF, manufacturers always had something new to dangle in front of photographers, at least for a ten-year period. Trouble was, by about 1998-2000, the trick-bag was about empty: you could shoot close to ten frames per second and have (presumably...I've seen otherwise) perfectly-expose, in-focus images. And there wasn't much more to go after. Worse, for those not interested in pursuit of the bleeding edge knew that most of the issues surrounding mechanics and optics had largely been licked years before, the only variable being the film one put into the camera. this was great for Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Agfa et al, but not so hot for the Nikons, Canons, Minoltas and Olympuses of the Industry. Digital turned that around in a number of ways, several of which I personally find appalling (rapid obsolescence and stupid-proprietary RAW formats being just two examples). Now, just the insecurity that comes seemingly naturally with a fully-digital workflow is enough to keep people trading "up", especially if you're among the dwindling number of individuals eking out a living in this racket.
The Nikon F6 doesn't offer a major improvement over the F5's trick-bag as much as it reshuffles the deck in response to a changed market: the F6 offers, for lack of a better term, a more "rounded" high-end SLR in a world where most front-line pro SLR shooters went digital a while ago, and those still shooting film might want something other than the usual ten-foot-tall, monster-truck approach of years past. If I were still using SLRs as my Main Axe gear, I'd have had a pair of F6s already. Instead, I went with a pair of Hexar RFs because I felt the need for a bigger (and, ahem, smaller) change. It wasn't a manifesto. I just felt the need to roll differently.
- Barrett
