A small favor from anyone who has an M and an F100

[jmooney]

Hi All,

I have a small and perhaps unusual favor to ask of anyone who might have a moment. I'm trying to get an idea of the relative sizes of an M (M2/M6) with a 'cron and an F100 with a normal/wide prime. Is there anyone who has both who would be willing to post a couple of pics of an M and an F100 together? I would be most grateful.

Thanks and take care,

Jim

 

[Graham Line]

Try this. Not exactly studio lighting 🙂
I should note that the F100 has a tripod mounting plate on the bottom, so it stands about 8 mil taller than it would without.
Both cameras feel nice in the hand; I don't have a scale that works accurately in that range. That's a VC 50/2.5 on the M and a 50/1.8D on the Nikon. Normally, there would be a 24-85/2.8-4D on the F100.

 

[jmooney]

Excellent! Thank you very much, this is exactly what I was looking for.

 

[Gary Sandhu]

The difference in person is a lot more than the picture would lead you to believe. The M is a lot less bulky than the F100.

 

[Graham Line]

Well, maybe. Can't wrap my hand around an F100 and make it disappear like you can with an M. Viewed from the side, the Nikon is a lot deeper.
Have never tucked the F100 into my briefcase and hauled it around town, but there are also lighter, smaller RF cameras than the M, too.
If you're in the position of taking a photo bag along on a shooting trip, the M kit goes in half the space of SLR gear, mostly because the lenses are much smaller.
The lens usually on the F100 is twice the size of the one he asked about. If you're doing the one body, one lens thing, yeah, the F100 is a bigger package, but a camera is a camera -- it's not unwieldy or in the way.
Were you to substitute an FM2n for the F100, the form factor is pretty close with a standard lens.
Anyway, he never said why he was asking the question.