Nikon F4?

[Derrel]

But,but,but...I am still waiting to hear about the 1972 wisom tooth impaction and infection, and subsequent emergency oral surgery...loads of people will be interested in that topic as well...I just know they will.

To anybody who wants a knob and dial interface, the Nikon F4 was about the last truly "new" design from Nikon that allowed shutter speed adjustment on a top-deck mounted shutter speed dial, which is something that goes back to the late 1920's in 35mm cameras. Many people with decades of 35mm experience like the shutter speed selector to be a top-deck mounted, rotating dial...it's always "there", it is always visible, and there is never any guessing or remembering where the shutter speed control ALWAYS-ALWAYS-ALWAYS is located, which is something a newbie shooter might not understand as an ergonomic advantage, or as a logical advantage.

The OP would be able to use basically all lenses with the F4, since it is what I call a "bridge" design from Nikon...the F4 was designed to be capable of spanning different eras of Nikon lenses, both from the manual focus era,and the then-emerging AF era. it is a veritable tank of a body, with two main differing battery options.

I dunno...cameras are like fine,mechanical watches to some people, who like 'em, even though they might not keep as accurate a time as a $39 modern, soul-less digital from Casio or Seiko. The Original Poster's question about the F4 versus the F100 or F5...depends largely on what the exact criteria for ownership and use actually are,and or how those criteria are weighted...the F100 is nice, and light...the F5 is a monstrous battery-carrying monstrosity...I passed on the F4, F5,and F100 entirely, and preferred the FM, FE-2,and F3 High Eyepoint bodies to the early Nikon AF bodies...I was happy with FM-FE-2-F3-HP equipment for 15 years in a row...to me the F4 and F5 were just sooooo bulky, and kinda' overkill AND over-priced.

In today's depressed market though, used F4,F5,and F100 bodies are selling for a pittance. Might as well buy all three, one of each, for less than the price of any one individual model even 8 years ago...

 

[Flash Harry]

Can somebody just answer the OP's question and then lock this thread?
That is all

I did F4S, F100, F90X, Which over there the first two are the same models and the F90X is n90s I think, and one other poster mentioned the grip for the 90, I agree to his points and also think it balances the model a lot better than without. Real cheap too, over this end, and, I still have a pristine model, possibly no more than 5000 actuations. H

 

[Petraio Prime]

Can somebody just answer the OP's question and then lock this thread?
That is all

The F4 is the last camera I would advise for a Nikon user or anyone who wants a fine film camera..

 

[Oldschool92']

What's interesting is the OP has only replied once since the OP :er:
The rest has been a bunch of back and forth bickering
I think some people need to hug it out :hug::

 

[Petraio Prime]

What's interesting is the OP has only replied once since the OP :er:
The rest has been a bunch of back and forth bickering
I think some people need to hug it out :hug::

It's difficult reasoning with Nikon owners.

 

[epatsellis]

Why is it that high-end audio equipment is appreciated, but not high-end camera equipment? Are you just envious?

I am not a snob, not at all.

The truth is Leica lenses are better, optically and mechanically. If I want to devote my money to that it's my business. Having used all of the major brands at one time or another, I know what I am talking about.

If you can't afford it, that's no sin. Just don't try to deny the facts of lens design and production.
I tested and compared Nikon and Leicaflex lenses. No contest. Not even close.

And by the way, I acquired my copy of the first gen 180mm Elmarit-R used, and it was a little stiff when I got it. Who knows what the previous owner had done to it. It was easily fixed though. Just a re-greasing job.

Quite the opposite, I tend, however, to place value over cost. Same thing when I owned a high end audio store, we could of had any product line, out highest end products were state of the art at the time (Krell, C-J), yet for every Krell preamp I sold, I sold an awful lot of Acurus, Aragon and Audible Illusions. They represented better overall value. I still listen to vinyl, on tube electronics, and electrostatic speakers. I am quite conversant and knowledgeable about high end audio/video reproduction, yet fail to see how this applies to the discussion at hand? We are (were???) talking about which NIKON body would best leverage the OP's existing lenses for film use.


There's no denying the Leitz designs emphasize contrast and sharpness, however as to mechanical and optical superiority, I'd question your assertion. I've owned all the major brands as well, from Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Contax and Leicas. I personally find that the Japanese lenses, on the whole, do a much better job when it comes to subtleties of tonality.

My Leica experience is primarily from the R4 era and going back to my M4, M3 and a screwmount IIIF. When they work, they work well. And that is the crux of my issues with the R series. Spending a fortune in bodies and lenses only to have to ship them off to be repaired within 3 months of purchase is absurd. I can see maybe one or two in a few years, but out of 6 bodies, 5 had to be repaired (3 of them several times until things got "sorted out"). Mechanically, if they were cars, I'd of gotten a refund under the lemon laws. Optically, it's not my cup of tea, as I prefer a more "honest" rendering of tonality. My commercial clients felt the same way, the chromes were too "over the top" on the light table, and difficult to separate for repro. I went back to the Nikon lenses and bodies and gave up on the entire Leitz mystique nonsense.
Since you somehow feel that you are a better photographer based on what you spent on equipment, great, I'm glad you find something to bring you happiness. If you feel that you have to have the most expensive (to offset your "lackings" in other areas), then by all means. If you prefer contrast at the expense of microcontrast in the lower zones, that's your choice, I prefer to have more information on the negative and choose what I'm going to print (or not). Personally for smaller formats, the earlier Japanese lenses give a more honest rendering of the tonality. Interestingly, Bronica, Hasselblad (1000/1600 series) and Canon (in their rangefinder days) held the same opinion, it seems, as well.


You demonstrate the very elitism I mentioned earlier, and you are a perfect example of why in my later years, I've put the pursuit of money and possessions far down on my list and prefer to share my knowledge, free of the secret handshake, platinum card bull****.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Why is it that high-end audio equipment is appreciated, but not high-end camera equipment? Are you just envious?

I am not a snob, not at all.

The truth is Leica lenses are better, optically and mechanically. If I want to devote my money to that it's my business. Having used all of the major brands at one time or another, I know what I am talking about.

If you can't afford it, that's no sin. Just don't try to deny the facts of lens design and production.
I tested and compared Nikon and Leicaflex lenses. No contest. Not even close.

And by the way, I acquired my copy of the first gen 180mm Elmarit-R used, and it was a little stiff when I got it. Who knows what the previous owner had done to it. It was easily fixed though. Just a re-greasing job.

Quite the opposite, I tend, however, to place value over cost. Same thing when I owned a high end audio store, we could of had any product line, out highest end products were state of the art at the time (Krell, C-J), yet for every Krell preamp I sold, I sold an awful lot of Acurus, Aragon and Audible Illusions. They represented better overall value. I still listen to vinyl, on tube electronics, and electrostatic speakers. I am quite conversant and knowledgeable about high end audio/video reproduction, yet fail to see how this applies to the discussion at hand? We are (were???) talking about which NIKON body would best leverage the OP's existing lenses for film use.


There's no denying the Leitz designs emphasize contrast and sharpness, however as to mechanical and optical superiority, I'd question your assertion. I've owned all the major brands as well, from Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Contax and Leicas. I personally find that the Japanese lenses, on the whole, do a much better job when it comes to subtleties of tonality.

My Leica experience is primarily from the R4 era and going back to my M4, M3 and a screwmount IIIF. When they work, they work well. And that is the crux of my issues with the R series. Spending a fortune in bodies and lenses only to have to ship them off to be repaired within 3 months of purchase is absurd. I can see maybe one or two in a few years, but out of 6 bodies, 5 had to be repaired (3 of them several times until things got "sorted out"). Mechanically, if they were cars, I'd of gotten a refund under the lemon laws. Optically, it's not my cup of tea, as I prefer a more "honest" rendering of tonality. My commercial clients felt the same way, the chromes were too "over the top" on the light table, and difficult to separate for repro. I went back to the Nikon lenses and bodies and gave up on the entire Leitz mystique nonsense.
Since you somehow feel that you are a better photographer based on what you spent on equipment, great, I'm glad you find something to bring you happiness. If you feel that you have to have the most expensive (to offset your "lackings" in other areas), then by all means. If you prefer contrast at the expense of microcontrast in the lower zones, that's your choice, I prefer to have more information on the negative and choose what I'm going to print (or not). Personally for smaller formats, the earlier Japanese lenses give a more honest rendering of the tonality. Interestingly, Bronica, Hasselblad (1000/1600 series) and Canon (in their rangefinder days) held the same opinion, it seems, as well.


You demonstrate the very elitism I mentioned earlier, and you are a perfect example of why in my later years, I've put the pursuit of money and possessions far down on my list and prefer to share my knowledge, free of the secret handshake, platinum card bull****.

Your comments on lens contrast and tonality are all wrong, but I have no time to go into that now. If you like lots of flare in the shadows, fine. You're used to it. Leica lenses have lower overall flare and produce fantastic contrast from highlight to shadow.

I am not rich. Nor am I an elitist. What gets me is the "reverse elitism" so many photographers display.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo[/ame]

I happen to value good equipment, as I started out with a Yashica J-5 screw thread camera and bought Vivitar and Soligor lenses for it.

When I did go to college and used the Nikon stuff at the yearbook, I also worked in a camera store. We sold Nikon, Pentax, Alpa, Minolta, Canon, and later Olympus, etc.

My Yashica outfit was stolen in 1971 and it was insured. With the settlement I was able to get a used Leicaflex body for $325. I saved up and got a 90mm Elmarit-R for $159 on dealer special (40% off list). At that time I could have bought a new Nikon and a couple of lenses with that same $325.

Why didn't I?

Having used the Nikon stuff that was the yearbook's equipment, and comparing the Leicaflex cameras and lenses that I had access to at the store, it was not even close.

My point in this thread was that many of those old 1960s Nikon lenses were not very good by today's standards, and some were awful even then. Of the 7 or 8 lenses we had, only the 105 f/2.5 was any good.

It has taken me a long time to acquire my current outfit, and I have made sacrifices to get it.

For what it's worth I never cared for the R cameras, and have used Leicaflexes since 1971. I think Leica stumbled with the R4 in particular.

 

[slate mike]

Hi, Gang! It's me - the OP. So everyone quit skirting the issues and tell us what you REALLY think!:lmao:

 

[Petraio Prime]

Hi, Gang! It's me - the OP. So everyone quit skirting the issues and tell us what you REALLY think!:lmao:

What are you doing here? Now then, what was I saying?

 

[Mike_E]

Ummm, not much.

Slate, everybody with an opinion agrees that an F4/s would be great.

Those of us who only have an ego think you should go with a Leica.

 

[cooltouch]

I bought a Nikon FE with 50mm f/1.8 AI Nikkor off Goodwill's auction site last week for $52 and I feel like it's Christmas. It arrived a couple of days ago and is actually in very nice condition. No, it doesn't AF and so what. Great little camera and has one of the nicest viewfinders Nikon has ever produced for manual exposure control with its match-needle metering system.

 

[slate mike]

Is the fight over? Who won? One thing for sure, I learned a whole lot about Leica. Which is a system WAY above my budget. decent F4's on Ebay are going for $200 to whatever and the F100's are a little less. A nice one just sold for $158.

 

[Boneez]

I found this thread funnily enough because I was wondering why my F4 was acting up. Would seem to work fine, and then just shut down completely - only to spring back to life, autofocus and do all the regular jazz for a few seconds, and then just die again. I knew it had been a while since I changed batteries but it seemed quite short so I didn't even think low battery life at first. I'd push the test button on the MB-21 and it would sometimes flicker both LED's for alkalines, and sometimes just the one. Never happened before! Opened it up and remembered I was in a pinch a while back and threw some dollar store AA's into it. D'oh! Put 6 Duracell's into it and works like a charm again. Phew!

Anyway, this thread is hilarious. The OP has probably made his decision seeing as it's 2 years old now - I hope he made the right one and bought an F4 or some persuasion thereof. The MB-20 might be a nice option although I have never used one, but it seems like a good alternative to the MB-21 I have used for years now for day-to-day walking around, although I can't see how much lighter it can actually make that tank of a camera. Regardless of grip, however, the F4 is a SWEET camera:

-it meters in all modes on ANY Nikon lens ever made, period

-it AUTOFOCUSES with any Nikon lens that has autofocus capabilities built into it, with *no* restrictions - even new G lenses will autofocus with it, and if you are really hard up on getting a new G lens for your old F4, it will work great with P or Ph settings, and you can have some semblance of aperture control via the shutter priority setting and the over/under exposure dial

What a lot of people don't realize though, is that as mentioned above, the F4's ability to meter in any metering mode on any lens transcends just old lenses - do you like macro photography? Got a bellows? Guess what! The F4 will meter PERFECTLY through a bellows unit with stop-down metering. Or extension rings or reversed lenses or any combination of the above. It DOES IT ALL. And unlike newer Nikons (or any Canon of late), if macro is your thing, you can slap a 6x mag finder on it to help you pursue this end. Why Nikon dropped interchangeable finders is beyond me, although I suppose with the advent of digital screens on DSRL's I can see why there isn't much call for action finders anymore. Anyway, the F4 is one of the chosen bodies that NASA brought into space, and unfortunately Canon and Leica just weren't chosen for some reason. Hm.

I got to play with a lot of stuff in my dad's camera shop back in the good old days. Some of the slides we took with outrageously priced Leica gear, rangefinder and SLR, are stunning to look at today. But to be fair, some of the slides we took with the old Nikkor's will hold a candle to those taken with the Leica gear. Now, for someone going for a legacy system, I'll give Leica a gut punch even though I love the look of some of their lenses:

-if you have several thousand dollars lying around, get a Noct-Nikkor and compare it to a Noctilux. For shooting people in any lighting they look great. For shooting at night outside, maybe from a balcony or from a mountain overlooking a city, there is NO COMPARISON. The Nikkor will demolish the Noctilux.

-as I recall, if you have a Leica system, kiss ultrawide lenses goodbye. Leica 6mm lens? 220 degree view? No, they never made that. Leica fans talk about their 15+K Hologon lenses (made by Zeiss, hmm), but even there, compare it to Nikon's 13mm ultrawide they made on a custom basis - there is *no comparison*. An F4 has convenient mirror lock to enable these lenses too, sadly lacking on most more modern bodies.

-Telephoto lenses? Yes, Leica made a 1600mm f/5.6... and never put it into production. Their APO-Telyt lenses were great... but you could usually buy a (new) automobile for the cost of one of these lenses. Comparable Nikkors were (relatively) more reasonably priced, had autofocus capabilities, and are still not only being made, but also serviced. Which brings me to the last point...

The OP doesn't have an arsenal of Leica glass to worry about. He has some Nikon glass and wants a camera to build within that system. An F4 would be a great camera for him, especially considering his criteria: maybe he wants some new glass? An F4 will do nicely with any AF-D lens Nikon currently makes (or even any internal motor lenses they make that have an aperture ring). Got old glass? The F4 will handle that with ease and grace too. It is one of the most versatile camera bodies ever made, by any manufacturer.

Leica made great optics, and continues to do so. If the OP had a Leicaflex certain people's suggestions on this page would make sense. But he doesn't, so those suggestions miss the point. If someone had a heavy investment into Olympus or Pentax glass, nobody would suggest dumping it for another brand - it wouldn't make sense. All the major brands have made great equipment over the years, and (with possible exception of Canon and Minolta), all are worthwhile supporting. I only say those two brands because they *did* dump their mount over the years and system compatibility suffered as a result. But hey, who am I to say? Canon lenses will often autofocus better than those by Nikon. But Nikon got chosen to go to space (repeatedly). Minolta built most of Leica's stuff in the latter years. Olympus lenses shot a lot of NASA's earthbound stuff. It's all good. If you have an investment in something go with it. They all made great gear. If you *really* want to upgrade and see a vast difference... buy a Hasselblad! Or a Mamiya, or a Bronica, or a Rollei. Or... a Linhof @_@

(or Sinar, or Toyo, or Graflex, or whatever... )

 

[BrianV]

I use Nikon lenses on my Leica.

There is no point in reviving an old argument carried on by many members that are no longer active on the forum.

 

[epatsellis]

Not AS active, but still checking in from time to time...