p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I love my F4s. I use it more often than the F5. I wish I had the MB-20, I would love it (and use it) even more.
Huss
Veteran
I forget.. can the F4 use Sigma Art lenses?
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
If they have the interface like the Nikon G lenses, they can be used in Shutter priority and Program modes. This is a trick that is fun to do with a modern G lens on a Nikon FA. It can be used in Shutter priority mode on the FA because the auto stop down lug is still mechanical. It doesn't have the absolute aperture lug to tell the camera what the max aperture is so it can't do Program mode but the F4 can, if I recall correctly. I remember using my old 18-35 G lens (which I got for my D100) on my F4 when I needed a wider lens in a pinch.
Phil Forrest
bhop73
Well-known
My reasoning is the newest metering/focus/electronic systems. Is it all in my head? possibly.. but I do know, based on my own photos, that the image quality I get from my F100 is better than the older Nikons I have. (F-F4)
farlymac
PF McFarland
Well, I don't have an F4 or F6 (F's, F2's, and F3's yes), and my Leica is a CL (with some Voigtlander wides and super wides to go along with the 40/90 combo that came with it). I've never used my FA. The N90s was retired when I got the F100 (biggest complaint there is the batteries have to be fresh!).
But my go-to lens is the 35-105. Though I have the primes when they are needed, the zoom hits that sweet spot when working a scene that doesn't afford you time to be switching lenses, or when in-camera cropping is required.
Oh, and I'm keeping the CL. It's my gateway into the M line of Leica cameras.
PF
But my go-to lens is the 35-105. Though I have the primes when they are needed, the zoom hits that sweet spot when working a scene that doesn't afford you time to be switching lenses, or when in-camera cropping is required.
Oh, and I'm keeping the CL. It's my gateway into the M line of Leica cameras.
PF
Huss
Veteran
I also had the F100, but sold it on as I didn't want to be the one left with the broken film door latch.
And I didn't notice any difference in image quality between that and my F6. Or any of the other Nikon SLRs. Because, using same lenses and same film, there isn't.
An out of focus pic is an out of focus pic. An incorrectly exposed pic is an incorrectly exposed pic. Both are faults of the user.
If the F100 just works better for you because it is easier to use/better to hold/more fun to use etc then it will be a 'better' camera for you.
I actually prefer my F3s to my F6. I find them more satisfying to use, and so more enjoyable, and so perhaps I'll get 'better' pics out of them.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Same here.
I get much much more keepers with my F100 and especially F6 compared to my old mechanical Nikons like the FM.
Because
- the matrix metering is much more precise
- the F6 autofocus is more precise than the split-image and matte screen of the FM
- the shutter and mirror dampening is much much better, therefore more sharp pictures at slower shutter speeds
- much much better exposures with flash and fill-in flash; there are worlds between the results
- because of the 1/8000s I can use wider apertures with lovely bokeh even at very good lighting situations, with the FM I always have to stop down to avoid overexposure because of the slow shutter.
Cheers, Jan
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
Saying that an F6 is going to get more keepers than an F4 or F3 or whatever is blaming the equipment rather than the user. One one end of the user spectrum it is just a preference and on the other end it is just a nonsense excuse. Granted, when shooting sports, the predictive AF of the F6 may have an edge on older models but then how are so many iconic photos made by much more primitive cameras so good? Technique of the shooter and imagination of what they wanted the shot to look like. Usually freezing action isn't pleasant to the eye in sports. We don't live in a static world so images that infer motion with a little blur are more natural looking. Helicopters with perfectly frozen blades look like they are going to fall from the sky.
This notion also makes it sound like the camera is making the image, not the photographer. While I'm sure that is often the case, film has been exposed the same way since the end of the 19th century. As long as the box is light tight, the lens firmly seated, the film plane flat and the exposure even, there is no difference in what body exposes the film. You could use a stiff cardboard box with a piece of 35mm film taped to the back with a Nikon lens stuck in a hole in the front. As long as the construction is rigid, it will make the same image that an F6 can make if the user of the camera has their technique right.
If only techno-wonder cameras made a greater percentage of the best images then there would be no place for medium or large format photography. More contemplative images that are made by the photographer instead of allowed by the camera are always superior and more satisfying to create and view.
Phil Forrest
This notion also makes it sound like the camera is making the image, not the photographer. While I'm sure that is often the case, film has been exposed the same way since the end of the 19th century. As long as the box is light tight, the lens firmly seated, the film plane flat and the exposure even, there is no difference in what body exposes the film. You could use a stiff cardboard box with a piece of 35mm film taped to the back with a Nikon lens stuck in a hole in the front. As long as the construction is rigid, it will make the same image that an F6 can make if the user of the camera has their technique right.
If only techno-wonder cameras made a greater percentage of the best images then there would be no place for medium or large format photography. More contemplative images that are made by the photographer instead of allowed by the camera are always superior and more satisfying to create and view.
Phil Forrest
leicapixie
Well-known
I agree with Phil 100%!
Strangely with all the fancy programs, all the modern technology in lenses,
the images turned out by the zillions, are mostly boring!
I am thoroughly tired of moving water resembling cotton waste (cotton wool).
I know there are some great images here on RFF and nearly all shot with basic "old" equipment.
Equipment can be your other eye.
Allowing a computer to make images that exhinit no character is a bad idea.
I have used almost every brand of camera and lenses.
No one manufacturer had all the best.
The differences were marginal, some bad lenses gave great images.
I love mt Leica M's but when it came to money making, out came the SLR.
Strangely with all the fancy programs, all the modern technology in lenses,
the images turned out by the zillions, are mostly boring!
I am thoroughly tired of moving water resembling cotton waste (cotton wool).
I know there are some great images here on RFF and nearly all shot with basic "old" equipment.
Equipment can be your other eye.
Allowing a computer to make images that exhinit no character is a bad idea.
I have used almost every brand of camera and lenses.
No one manufacturer had all the best.
The differences were marginal, some bad lenses gave great images.
I love mt Leica M's but when it came to money making, out came the SLR.
Last edited:
HHPhoto
Well-known
Phil and leicapixie, you have completely misunderstood my statement.
Of course you can do excellent pictures with older cameras. I do that, too.
But in certain situations you definitely profit from improved modern gear.
For example 1/30s with my FM or FA ist often blurred because of the not so good dampened shutter and especially mirror.
The shutter and mirror dampening of the F6 is so good that with it sharp shots at 1/30s are no problem for me.
The center-weighted meter in the older bodies works good in about 95% of my shooting situations, the matrix metering of the F6 in 99% of my shooting situations. Higher keeper rate. And the rest 1% I benefit from the built-in spot meter of the F6.
I often use fill-in flash to reduce high contrast and get both optimal shadow and highlight detail at the same time. Works perfectly with the F6 and SB-800. You get wonderful natural looking pictures in which you don't see that additional fill-in flash was used. You can't get the same quality with the old bodies.
Modern fill-in flash technology has opened up a complete new photographic world to me.
I like to separate my object from the background, especially in portraits. Outdoors in the summer you often have already with a ISO 100 film so much light that you need the 1/8000s to use wider apertures like 2.8, 2.0 or 1.4.
No problem with a modern body. With the old bodies I would have to use strong ND filters, and several of them, but I don't like the hassle of fiddling with them.
That are just some examples in which cases I personally - in my regular shooting situations - benefit from modern camera technology.
Of course not in all shooting situations. But in enough to make it worth to me.
I don't want to miss that.
Cheers, Jan
Of course you can do excellent pictures with older cameras. I do that, too.
But in certain situations you definitely profit from improved modern gear.
For example 1/30s with my FM or FA ist often blurred because of the not so good dampened shutter and especially mirror.
The shutter and mirror dampening of the F6 is so good that with it sharp shots at 1/30s are no problem for me.
The center-weighted meter in the older bodies works good in about 95% of my shooting situations, the matrix metering of the F6 in 99% of my shooting situations. Higher keeper rate. And the rest 1% I benefit from the built-in spot meter of the F6.
I often use fill-in flash to reduce high contrast and get both optimal shadow and highlight detail at the same time. Works perfectly with the F6 and SB-800. You get wonderful natural looking pictures in which you don't see that additional fill-in flash was used. You can't get the same quality with the old bodies.
Modern fill-in flash technology has opened up a complete new photographic world to me.
I like to separate my object from the background, especially in portraits. Outdoors in the summer you often have already with a ISO 100 film so much light that you need the 1/8000s to use wider apertures like 2.8, 2.0 or 1.4.
No problem with a modern body. With the old bodies I would have to use strong ND filters, and several of them, but I don't like the hassle of fiddling with them.
That are just some examples in which cases I personally - in my regular shooting situations - benefit from modern camera technology.
Of course not in all shooting situations. But in enough to make it worth to me.
I don't want to miss that.
Cheers, Jan
Huss
Veteran
It's funny that the matrix metering of the F6 is claimed to be a bonus. I find it awful, and never use it. It is pretty much an avg metering pattern that gives random results. Anything backlit? Forget it.
FYI I get the same shots hand held at 1/30 with my F2 and FM2 as I do with my F6.
And the F4, N8008 etc have the same 1/8000 shutter speed as the F6, but for pennies on the dollar.
There is nothing wrong with being a fan of an F6 - or any camera - if it works for you that is great.
The F6 (or any camera) is not going to take better photos. That job is up to the photographer.
FYI I get the same shots hand held at 1/30 with my F2 and FM2 as I do with my F6.
And the F4, N8008 etc have the same 1/8000 shutter speed as the F6, but for pennies on the dollar.
There is nothing wrong with being a fan of an F6 - or any camera - if it works for you that is great.
The F6 (or any camera) is not going to take better photos. That job is up to the photographer.
chrism
Well-known
I also agree with Phil very strongly. Assuming the mechanical engineering is accurate, a photograph's technical quality boils down to lens, film and developing. The artistic quality is down to something inside the photographer's head, and none of us are qualified to begin to understand that.
In a permissive role there are also factors that probably occupy 80% of forum discussions: how does the operation of the equipment impede or facilitate the production of a photo with optimal technical and artistic qualities? These things are less important than good engineering, which itself is less important than the eye for a 'good' photo, but making it easier is the icing on that cake - nice to have but not strictly necessary. So let's briefly talk about that icing.
We need it to work, and to work in a manner that doesn't get in our way. The F6 won't take photos better than any other camera using the same lens, but you might find it easier to take them if you can get on with the way it works. I'm definitely happier with proper (ie traditional) aperture and shutter speed controls, but even so I am more than willing to have a dial under my forefinger for aperture, and another under my thumb for shutter speed given the ease with which it gives results that please me - I am lucky enough to be an amateur who has no one else to please.
The upshot of this, for what it is worth, is that I now tend to neglect my other 35mm SLRs and even the film Leicas; using them is simply a treat for the experience, but not with an expectation I will make anything better. I can justify use of my MF and LF cameras on other grounds, and I'll add that the second place for ease of use among my collection has to be a Pentax 645n. Essentially, every time I use those other, neglected cameras it is for the tactile experience, and I enjoy that too. The F6, the 645n (and for that matter, the Pentax SF1/SFX for which I have a quirky but real soft spot) all get used in a way that reveals my age and experience. I use aperture priority and choose my DOF, then meter on whatever part of the subject looks right and then lock exposure, then I focus using the centre spot (or only spot in the case of two of them) and lock, recompose and shoot. It suits me, and is exactly the same process I use for a fully manual camera. Like all of you, I can make the same photograph with other cameras, but this method makes a compromise between user control, automation and convenience that works for me.
I hope Dante will enjoy his F4 and have lots of splendid pictures to share with us!
In a permissive role there are also factors that probably occupy 80% of forum discussions: how does the operation of the equipment impede or facilitate the production of a photo with optimal technical and artistic qualities? These things are less important than good engineering, which itself is less important than the eye for a 'good' photo, but making it easier is the icing on that cake - nice to have but not strictly necessary. So let's briefly talk about that icing.
We need it to work, and to work in a manner that doesn't get in our way. The F6 won't take photos better than any other camera using the same lens, but you might find it easier to take them if you can get on with the way it works. I'm definitely happier with proper (ie traditional) aperture and shutter speed controls, but even so I am more than willing to have a dial under my forefinger for aperture, and another under my thumb for shutter speed given the ease with which it gives results that please me - I am lucky enough to be an amateur who has no one else to please.
The upshot of this, for what it is worth, is that I now tend to neglect my other 35mm SLRs and even the film Leicas; using them is simply a treat for the experience, but not with an expectation I will make anything better. I can justify use of my MF and LF cameras on other grounds, and I'll add that the second place for ease of use among my collection has to be a Pentax 645n. Essentially, every time I use those other, neglected cameras it is for the tactile experience, and I enjoy that too. The F6, the 645n (and for that matter, the Pentax SF1/SFX for which I have a quirky but real soft spot) all get used in a way that reveals my age and experience. I use aperture priority and choose my DOF, then meter on whatever part of the subject looks right and then lock exposure, then I focus using the centre spot (or only spot in the case of two of them) and lock, recompose and shoot. It suits me, and is exactly the same process I use for a fully manual camera. Like all of you, I can make the same photograph with other cameras, but this method makes a compromise between user control, automation and convenience that works for me.
I hope Dante will enjoy his F4 and have lots of splendid pictures to share with us!
Steve M.
Veteran
I was never comfortable relying on my Nikon's matrix metering. A much better option was to use the spot metering on my N8008s, on which I use manual focus lenses. Mostly Leica R, but I now shoot it w/ a Makinon 135 2.8. Even with 67 year old eyes I can get good focus w/ just the factory AF matte screen and no split prism because the viewfinder is so bright and big. I understand what the particular scene needs for metering, the camera doesn't, and matrix metering can be fooled just as easily as center weighted in certain situations.
Getting keepers has not too much to do with a camera in my opinion, it's about becoming familiar with what you shoot and learning the limitations of it, and AF is no magic bullet for getting keepers. It's a given that you are going to need to focus any camera accurately, that's the photographer's job, and yes, I have gotten out of focus shots w/ AF cameras. Everyone has. I DO find a camera that has electronic film advance to be quicker to shoot than a camera that has a manually operated film advance crank. Whether or not that quickness equals more keepers is debatable, as my manually operated Canon FT QL works fine, even w/ it's dead meter.
Getting keepers has not too much to do with a camera in my opinion, it's about becoming familiar with what you shoot and learning the limitations of it, and AF is no magic bullet for getting keepers. It's a given that you are going to need to focus any camera accurately, that's the photographer's job, and yes, I have gotten out of focus shots w/ AF cameras. Everyone has. I DO find a camera that has electronic film advance to be quicker to shoot than a camera that has a manually operated film advance crank. Whether or not that quickness equals more keepers is debatable, as my manually operated Canon FT QL works fine, even w/ it's dead meter.
Ste_S
Well-known
While I have zero issues with, and like, matrix metering for digital I'll always prefer Nikon's 60/40 system with the 60% circle in the viewfinder for film
