p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
18 months later I still believe what I said.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
The G lenses have full functionality on the F4 as long as you don't use Aperture-priority or Manual mode. The G lenses are fully functional (the proper aperture will be selected) in Ph, P, and S modes. No limitations on focusing.
I use a 60/2.8 AF-S G Micro-Nikkor on my F4s. The first time I tried it, I thought the lens was broken: it focused so fast and quietly. I was listening for the sound, didn't hear it and thought the lens didn't work.
I agree - thd F4 has been a total bargain for quite some time. It is the last of the professional Nikons where all the features have dedicated external controls.
Last edited:
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
The squeal is from the mirror actuation mechanism, not the shutter, and it's an easy CLA fix.
Dogman
Veteran
Undervalued: Anything I own and want to sell.
Overvalued: Anything I want to buy.
Overvalued: Anything I want to buy.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Undervalued: Horseman 6x9 technical cameras. They do everything I want a camera to do, almost, and dirt cheap. Overvalued: Rollei 6x6 SLRs, which doesn't stop me from being madly in love with mine. At least 'til the electronics fail...
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Right, it's more an annoyance than anything else. The A-1 has it also; doesn't seem to affect the actual working of the shutter. There's a plastic gear behind the lens mount (at about 11:00) that requires a small amount of oil.
rulnacco
Well-known
That's awesome! I think I actually knew that at one time, but had forgotten it, thanks for straightening me out. Pretty amazing that the F4 is actually able to work with lenses having features (well, in the case of G lenses, features *removed*) that didn't even exist when it was designed.
As a matter of fact--were any AF-S lenses around when the F4 was released? I know that it first went on sale in 1988, and my 17-35 AF-S and my 80-200 AF-S weren't released until 1999. So it *appears* at least that Nikon gave the F4 the ability to use the lens contacts to autofocus lenses that weren't even released until over a decade after it went on sale!
For fun, I just now stuck my 24-70/2.8 G lens on the front of the F4. Even though I had the mode switch in manual, the camera automatically switched to program mode, and showed me the aperture and shutter speed in the viewfinder that it was going to use. And when I switched to shutter priority, it did indeed indicate it would work just fine there, too.
That's really crazy, how future-proof that camera is! Unbelievable, really.
And as you pointed out, having all dedicated external controls is, for me, a positive. One thing that hacks me off about DSLRs is that they're way too freaking complicated--who needs all that stuff, it's just marketing fluff most of it--and you have to *switch off* so much junk that just gets in the way of taking photos. And you have to go hunting through menus for it.
The F4 has a meter that, for film, is as good as anything today. It's got a far better viewfinder (and far more versatile choices of viewfinders) than any modern camera. It's compatible (works pretty much perfectly, really) with *all* but the newest Nikon lenses--a lot of which are freaking oversized beasts for what they are. And you can do auto-exposure, auto focus, all that fancy stuff with it--or you can go completely manual and get into that sort of zen mind frame with it. To me its *only* drawback is the weight--but with an MB-20, that's not even too bad, either.
rulnacco
Well-known
I have both an F2AS and F3HP as well as my F4. They *are* both very nice cameras, and lighter (at least the F3) than the F4, and have a few other characteristics which many would regard as advantages. I enjoy shooting both of them, particularly the F3.
However, the F4 meter and viewfinder display kill either one of them. The meter in the F4 gives you a far quicker and more informative way to see how far off recommended exposure you are--making it easier, when you know you need to overrule your meter, to set the exposure exactly where you want it--and it's much more convenient to see your aperture and shutter speed, the display light works far better than either (especially the F2), and it has a built-in diopter adjustment (which, given my older eyes, is super valuable). And you've even got a focus confirmation light, if you should need it--whether you're using autofocus or manual. (I'm not going to even get into the automated exposure features of the camera, which also are more extensive than either the F2 or F3--simply because I never use them, basically. But they are there, for those who need them.)
You can shoot stupid numbers of rolls of film with the F4 even with an MB-20, and the other two grips will let you check your battery level quite easily. I've never had a problem with the batteries in the F4 letting me down. (I have *not* shot in extreme cold, where you might indeed have a serious problem with being battery-dependent.)
No camera is perfect, certainly--there's only what's *closest* to perfect for *you*. As I say, I like all three of those cameras in their particular ways. But overall, especially if I'm going to shoot something a bit out of the ordinary (like macro--although the F3's in-body meter makes a good argument for it, if you're using a chimney finder--or sports), I'm going to grab the F4. It's the *closest* to perfect for *me*!
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
Most over-valued: Any Leica M camera
Most undervalued: Most Leica SLR cameras
Most undervalued: Most Leica SLR cameras
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Consider adding an MF-23 multi-function back. According to the wonderful MIR site, an F4 without an MF-23 has only 90% of its abilities.
For me, and I've got an MF-23 on both of my F4s's, I use the MF-23 to print exposure information between the frames. I've also used it in it's trap-focus mode: it automatically trips the shutter when an object comes into focus. The MF-23 has a plethora of functions.
To read about the MF-23, scroll down to the bottom third of this page:
You'll need to read the MF-23 manual very carefully; its use is not intuitive and there are subtleties in its use.
Attachments
das
Well-known
Part of the reason Leica R bodies are cheapish is because the lenses are currently ridiculously overpriced.
The Spastic Image
Established
Tim Murphy
Well-known
Dear Paul,
Once again I apologize for not knowing how to use accent marks. You told me previously that your name is pronounced like "Paul" so I hope you don't mind me sticking with that.
It's good to know what you wrote about the MF-23. I am in the process of consolidating my collection of cameras. I love my F4S but don't use it all that often.
Maybe once I trim the fleet down, I will use it more? The idea that it is type AB blood when it comes to being the recipient of Nikkor lenses makes it more appealing to me.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Harrisburg PA
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Hi Tim, that's a great analogy.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
panatomic
Member
Not trying to shit on anyone’s shopping decisions, just toning down the hype:
Canon AE-1: plastic top plate, mirror squeak is common, not that well-made, IMO shouldn’t cost more than $100-150 even now.
Canonet QL17 GIII: mushy shutter button and film advance lever. Another $100 max camera.
Mamiya 7: take out the light meter and it would cost much less.
Hasselblad X-Pan: future paperweight, doesn’t actually make your photos look “cinematic”, I’d rather use medium format for landscapes.
Contax T2, T3, and other luxury P&S: more future paperweights, not that much better than other P&S, better off buying a couple less expensive models for backup and parts.
Canon AE-1: plastic top plate, mirror squeak is common, not that well-made, IMO shouldn’t cost more than $100-150 even now.
Canonet QL17 GIII: mushy shutter button and film advance lever. Another $100 max camera.
Mamiya 7: take out the light meter and it would cost much less.
Hasselblad X-Pan: future paperweight, doesn’t actually make your photos look “cinematic”, I’d rather use medium format for landscapes.
Contax T2, T3, and other luxury P&S: more future paperweights, not that much better than other P&S, better off buying a couple less expensive models for backup and parts.
PWL2
Newbie
I’ll go with the few who mentioned Minolta. An overlooked and underestimated brand in my opinion. I cut my photographic teeth, so to speak, with Minolta cameras, starting with an X-370 I got as a Christmas present, and Minoltas were my standard shooting gear for years.
Still shoot with them today. I think you get a lot of bang for the buck with Minoltas, particularly the XD. (Just sorry the brand went defunct. But then I’ve always been a sucker for lost causes…)
Still shoot with them today. I think you get a lot of bang for the buck with Minoltas, particularly the XD. (Just sorry the brand went defunct. But then I’ve always been a sucker for lost causes…)
Undervalued: Minolta HiMatic 9, with 45/1.7 Rokkor PF 6 element in 5 group lens. Manual exposure mode with metering, and full auto-exposure mode.
Almost unknown and usually undervalued- Minolta AL-E. Compact fixed-lens RF, 40/1.8 Rokkor QF 6 element in 4 group. Shutter preferred auto, and manual mode with metering.
Overpriced- any P&S plastic AF camera from the 80s and 90s selling for more than $50. Including my Leica Mini.
Almost unknown and usually undervalued- Minolta AL-E. Compact fixed-lens RF, 40/1.8 Rokkor QF 6 element in 4 group. Shutter preferred auto, and manual mode with metering.
Overpriced- any P&S plastic AF camera from the 80s and 90s selling for more than $50. Including my Leica Mini.
Peter_S
Peter_S
For the money asked for, the Sigma Merrills and Quattros are „underpriced“.