Nikon F6 vs Nikon d700 prices

[AlexMax]

...I have been following the trend in eBay...

I find it a bit strange that a film slr, Nikon F6 is more expensive than a Pro Level dSLR, Nikon d700...

Can someone explain this to me... ??

Best regards,

Alex

 

[jeffrypittman]

I can't explain the price difference, but I have both cameras and the F6 is every bit as good at the D700 IMO. I'll keep the F6 long after I've sold the D700 (for a D750!).

 

[Pioneer]

Your question sounds very digicentric (if not a word it should be.) I guess I could frame that a bit differently. Why shouldn't the Nikon F6, one of the ultimate 35mm film cameras, be as expensive, or more, than the D700? It does everything the D700 does, it uses exactly the same lenses, it just records the photograph on the film of your choice rather than the sensor of Nikon's choice. 🙂

 

[AlexMax]

I guess you are right about that Pioneer...

My source of astonishment just stems from the fact that the D700 is built upon newer technologies, should ( theoretically speaking) reduce the work flow of a photog ( depending on how many pictures he takes per week, lets say...), and both cameras belong to the same "star league" of Pro SLR...


This drives me to conclude that film cameras are built to higher specs in terms of reliability, considering that digitals wont see as much use as film SLRs are supposed to endure...

...my two cents..

Best Regards,

Alex

 

[Pioneer]

I understand what you are saying and was just poking a bit of fun. But to be completely honest I see very little additional work.

I tend to shoot fewer frames when using my film camera then I do when shooting with digital for starters. So there is more to go through when i upload my digital work.

I develop and scan my own film, which does increase the workload a bit, but it really is not that noticeable. Since I scan my own I rarely upload anything that is obviously bad, so this does save time on the preview end.

For me, timing really isn't a real big issue. Theoretically I should be able to upload, preview and do some global editing on my digital work the same day I take the photos. However theory and reality are rarely the same in my work. I almost always have my film developed and scanned within a couple of days, which is usually sooner than I have my digital work uploaded.

I didn't follow Adobe into the Creative Cloud. I moved to Paintshop Pro instead (which I have used in the past and like.) Since I scan my film to TIFF Paintshop Pro is a great option. On the other hand, I have to use a separate RAW editor for my digital work since Paintshop Pro doesn't handle RAW quite as well.

As for the sensor issue, I like the looks of TMX 100, TriX 400 and Portra 400. Since I shoot these and then scan them I am not looking for a suitable digital pre-set to emulate these films. I have the real thing. 🙂

Needless to say, I like my film cameras, and the F6 is one of those. I enjoy digital as well but for me, my film/hybrid workflow is a lot more natural to me than my digital workflow. 🙂

 

[Aristophanes]

Supply and demand.

There are far, far more D700s out there than F6s.

I bet the D700 outsold the entire F6 production run in the latter's history in 3 months.

More supply = lower prices.

 

[Stuart John]

The D700 is an old Nikon DSLR by todays thinking, an F6 is still Nikon's latest film SLR. If Nikon had made an F7 and F8 the F6 would likely be worth less.

 

[Pioneer]

The D700 is an old Nikon DSLR by todays thinking, an F6 is still Nikon's latest film SLR. If Nikon had made an F7 and F8 the F6 would likely be worth less.

And can still be bought brand, spanking, new with a 3 year warranty for a very reasonable $2,399.00 from BHPhoto.

The D750 will cost a tidy $2246.00 from the same retailer but comes only with a 1 year limited warranty.

 

[shadowfox]

This drives me to conclude that film cameras are built to higher specs in terms of reliability, considering that digitals wont see as much use as film SLRs are supposed to endure...

This may be true for consumer digital cameras.
Professional ones are built with the same standard be it film or digital.

I just had a conversation a month ago with my friend who is a wedding pro, his D300 has about 250,000 shutter count.

Would F6 be able to do as much? I don't know, but man, that's a *lot* of film rolls...

 

[HHPhoto]

...I have been following the trend in eBay...

I find it a bit strange that a film slr, Nikon F6 is more expensive than a Pro Level dSLR, Nikon d700...

Can someone explain this to me... ??

Best regards,

Alex

Alex,
that is not strange at all.
As a D700 and F6 user I can tell you the F6 is just the better camera:
Better build quality, more precise autofocus, better ergonomics.
And the huge advantage that you can always change your sensor in a second, being up-to-date even 30 years in the future.

Some further reasons for the price difference:

Will you use the D700 in 30 years? No.
Will you use a F6 in 30 years? Yes.

Nikon F6:
- designed for professional use
- latest, most sophisticated 35mm Nikon F professional SLR
- best 35mm SLR ever built
- legendary reputation for its capabilities
- "the film camera for the rest of your life" (most F6 users see it this way)
- so far about 35,500 units have been built (it is still in production)
- low supply, high demand on the used market

Nikon D700:
- semi-professional DSLR
- relatively low resolution
- just one of numerous other DSLR models
- not the "top-of-the-line" model like the F6 is in its class
- not "the camera for the rest of your life"
- more units have been built compared to the F6 = higher supply

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

This may be true for consumer digital cameras.
Professional ones are built with the same standard be it film or digital.

I just had a conversation a month ago with my friend who is a wedding pro, his D300 has about 250,000 shutter count.

Would F6 be able to do as much? I don't know, but man, that's a *lot* of film rolls...

Yes, the F6 will be able.
It has an improved shutter, improved from the F5.
And there have been F5s with more than 1 million (!!) shutter releases (F5 and F6 have a counter, F90X and F100 as well).

Cheers, Jan

 

[Skiff]

Alex,
that is not strange at all.
As a D700 and F6 user I can tell you the F6 is just the better camera:
Better build quality, more precise autofocus, better ergonomics.
And the huge advantage that you can always change your sensor in a second, being up-to-date even 30 years in the future.

Some further reasons for the price difference:

Will you use the D700 in 30 years? No.
Will you use a F6 in 30 years? Yes.

+1.

The Nikon F6 is the best designed 35mm SLR.
It is a real dream camera.
I can highly recommend it, using mine for years.

Some more info about the F6 for those who are interested:

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/filmcamera/slr/f6/pdf/f6_4p.pdf

http://www.nikon.de/tmp/DE/24198652...80083465/1577100463/2027325250/3152926346.pdf

Excellent, detailed test report from the German high-quality film photography magazine "PhotoKlassik":
http://www.aphog.de/wp-content/photoklassik/Nikon_PhotoKlassik_I.2014.pdf

Detailed test from Tom Hogan:
http://www.filmbodies.com/cameras/camera-reviews/nikon-f6-review.html

Customer reports at B&H:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/352116-GREY/Nikon_1799_F6_35mm_SLR_Autofocus.html

The F6 project:
http://www.nikonf6.net/

 

[Godfrey]

...I have been following the trend in eBay...

I find it a bit strange that a film slr, Nikon F6 is more expensive than a Pro Level dSLR, Nikon d700...

Can someone explain this to me... ??

Best regards,

Alex

As others have said, the F6 is quite a special camera. It is the ne plus ultra of Nikon professional film SLR cameras.

The D700 was not considered even by Nikon as their pro-level offering. It is roughly contemporaneous with the D3, which was their pro level DSLR at the time. (This wikipedia chart is pretty accurate regards how Nikon DSLR cameras are tiered relative to one another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nikon_DSLR_cameras.)

The D700 was Nikon's first attempt to produce a more economically priced, FF sensor camera. Its relatively low pixel resolution, excellent sensor performance, and modest price (for a FF DSLR of course) made it very popular and kept it in production for quite a while, and of course it was used by a lot of pros. It's a solid, robust camera. But it was not built to the same standards as either the F6 or the D3, and like with most digital cameras, the depreciation curve is steep as newer technology has supplanted it.

G

 

[jonmanjiro]

Gosh, all this praise for the F6 (yep, I agree its a very special camera) is making me seriously think about buying another one... 😱😱😱

 

[Skiff]

Gosh, all this praise for the F6 (yep, I agree its a very special camera) is making me seriously think about buying another one... 😱😱😱

Just do it and be happy!
Life is too short to not living our dreams 🙂.
Honestly, I am considering as well adding a second brand new F6 to my first F6, which I enjoy using for several years now (bought that new, too).
I am often using colour and BW film parallel (or reversal and negative film parallel).
Having two identical bodies with the same, perfect handling makes sense for me.

 

[James24]

Some fun with economics.

I sold my F6 in 2009 to help fund my purchase of a D700. It got me about half way there - the F6 sold for about £850 and the D700 cost £1700.

I loved the D700 and kept it for 5 years, taking around 20,000 shots with it. Not a huge amount for a digital camera, but that's very approximately, 555 rolls of film. I sold the D700 in 2014, also for £850. I presume the used F6 would still be worth £850 in 2014, perhaps a little less. Cost per digital image £0.0425 (about 6 US cents)At £10/roll for develop and print £5550, cost per film image £0.2775 (about 40 US cents). Ouch.

 

[Skiff]

Some fun with economics.

In this case, fun with wrong economics 😉

I sold my F6 in 2009 to help fund my purchase of a D700. It got me about half way there - the F6 sold for about £850 and the D700 cost £1700.
I loved the D700 and kept it for 5 years, taking around 20,000 shots with it.

And at how much of that will you ever look again?
How much are keepers?
How much will be buried on your computer?
If you don't look at them again it has been just a waste of effort, time and money.

I hear that so often: "I've made 20k, 30k, 50k shots with my new digital cam in only 2,3, 4 years".
And when I asked whether they have looked again at these incredible huge amount of pictures they stare at me and stutter "no".
Crazy......picture inflation.

Not a huge amount for a digital camera, but that's very approximately, 555 rolls of film. I sold the D700 in 2014, also for £850. I presume the used F6 would still be worth £850 in 2014, perhaps a little less. Cost per digital image £0.0425 (about 6 US cents)At £10/roll for develop and print £5550, cost per film image £0.2775 (about 40 US cents). Ouch.

1. If you have kept the F6 you most probably would have not shot so much.
You would have had more self discipline: Thinking first, then taking the picture.
Resulting in a much higher keeper rate.
I've observed that with me when I've gone back to film.
And with the F6 I have the highest keeper rate of all cameras I've ever used, film and digital.

2. I've bought my F6 even brand new. But I will use it for the rest of my live (not possible with a D700 e.g.).
It's like "a once in a lifetime" purchase. Same is valid for the second one I plan to buy.
So the cost per single shot will be negligible over the years.
In the same period I would have to buy several digital cameras.
And several computers, which are needed for digital imaging.

3. You've ignored the storage costs for the pictures. These are much much lower with film compared to digital (having better safety, too).
Take some time and read this scientific evaluation of this topic:

http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/sci-tech-projects/digital-dilemma-2

All digital movies are stored exclusively on film, because it is
- much more safe
- has about factor 11x (!) lower costs.

4. You have sold your D700. So you are now either without a camera, or you have bought another digital camera.
You have to add these costs of the new cam to your calculation, too.
Because in case of keeping the F6, you would have a camera.

Digital is not cheaper than film in general, if you consider the whole costs. The cost structure is just different. In digital imaging you have other cost factors than with film.

 

[James24]

My post was meant to be mildly humourous and I have no desire to go into a film/digital debate. I do still use film but not so much these days. At the end of the day use the medium you enjoy. And for me, digital wins now. For you, it seems film is your preference.

But a few points.

I don't agree that taking a huge amount of shots means a much lower keeper rate. Yes, that might apply to those people who use digital cameras like machine guns but I am not one of those. Care can still be taken to get a good shot. My keeper rate with the D700 was very high. I've had plenty of failures with film over the last 40 years.

Those who use film cameras also use computers. It's not right to put the cost of the computer onto the digital camera. My last computer did 7 years of almost continuos use. I used it to scan film images as well as dealing with digital images, and a host of other things not related to photography.

Digital storage costs are not high. A large hard drive is not so much these days. And flash drives are very cheap, with huge storage now available on them. Decent negative files, albums, whatever probably cost a similar amount.

Yes, I sold my D700. I now use a D800E, Df and a Leica M9P. And I still occasionally use a few film cameras. Yes, agreed, the cost structures are different for each. But we're coming from different places and I don't think the twain shall meet. You enjoy your F6 (its a great camera) and I shall continue to enjoy my (mostly) digital cameras.

 

[shadowfox]

Those who use film cameras also use computers. It's not right to put the cost of the computer onto the digital camera. My last computer did 7 years of almost continuos use. I used it to scan film images as well as dealing with digital images, and a host of other things not related to photography.

But the point is, you don't have to.

Going from camera to development to darkroom without touching a computer is very doable, even today.

It is very satisfying alternative workflow for me, a geek whose time is spent mostly in front of a computer already.

Of course, if you are a wedding photographer working for a living, the above workflow won't work at all, not in today's world.
But for those who are not bound to clients, it'd be a mistake to not even try it.

 

[Godfrey]

But the point is, you don't have to.

Going from camera to development to darkroom without touching a computer is very doable, even today.

It is very satisfying alternative workflow for me, a geek whose time is spent mostly in front of a computer already. ...

As a 'geek' myself, I was delighted when I could dispense with the darkroom for making prints. Even with scanned film, digital image processing and printing is vastly more versatile and produces better results with inexpensive equipment that I have anyway. More that that, I have the space and time to do it ...

Setting up for a printing session in a wet lab, doing five prints, then closing down again turned out to be about the most I could achieve with my temporary darkroom facilities. I found myself spending an inordinate amount of the time spent doing the setup, clean up, and shut down with precious little to spend on actually printing and learning my craft. Not enough time to learn and progress. Once good image processing tools, good printers, decent inks, and decent papers were available, I tossed the wet darkroom printing entirely. That was about twenty years ago.

I still like the look of negatives for certain photos, so I still use film cameras. I usually have the negatives processed for me, but occasionally process them myself. Doing that takes very little equipment and it doesn't take much time. Maintaining good standards when making my negatives or digital exposures makes outputting prints very quick with minimal time spent.

Of course, if I want to eliminate all computer time from the process, I pick up any of my modern digital cameras, the in-camera settings for processing to JPEGs the way I want them, and connect the camera or the card directly to a printer to output my results. It's another workflow I'd strongly suggest photographers try as an alternative to either wet lab process or capture/image adjustment/print digital process.

Back to the original thrust of this thread ... I keep thinking I also should buy an F6 just for the sake of having the ultimate Nikon film SLR, but so far I just haven't felt the urge to put my money into it. It would be lovely to have the first, and likely last, top of the line Nikon film SLRs in my cabinet.

G