Nikon F4 vs. F100 vs. F5

[table1349]

I haven't heard the 'horror stories' about either the F100 or the F4 so you know more than I do. Currently debating between the F100 and the N80 (which is kinda like a poor man's F100 in some ways). Tho the build quality on the N80 is clearly less than the F100, it still does not appear (to me) to be reputed to be fragile or unreliable.

Are you serious about possibly getting an N80?
I don't remember the differences any more but I have an N70 with a 28-70 f3.5 AF lens your more than welcome to if you are not looking for one of the tank nikons.

View attachment 141675View attachment 141676

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

If you don't get a bite on this from anyone else, P.M. me a price. I don't think my F's & F2's would mind sharing shelf space with an N70.

Oh, he's definitely getting a bite from Peeb!!

Works for me. Enjoy it. I just hated to see the poor thing sitting in a box.

 

[fmw]

I didn't mention it earlier, but I already have an F3 HP - love it. My eyesight is getting fuzzy (cataracts) so I'm looking for autofocus.

As an aside, the lens implant eye surgery is less hassle than going to the dentist and works like a charm. They restored my vision to 20/20. There is no reason to live with cataracts.

 

[Derrel]

F4: old school. F5: massive and a high battery cell count camera. F100: much of the goodness of the F5 but sleeker.

 

[cgw]

Can only corroborate Derrel's take. The F4 was probably the best manual focus camera Nikon ever made but it's a relic. The F5 might best be seen as Nikon's last serious film camera in the F tradition: interchangeable finders, lots of accessories, premium pricing and build quality. The F100 seems to be one in a long line of sweet spot feature/ price cameras that punch way above their weight, much like the earlier N90s/F90x and current digital D7200.

 

[benhasajeep]

F100 with work with lenses up to VR (unsure about VR 2) F4 will not. F100 will not 3d matrix meter with MF lenses (Ai or Ai-s). F5 will not either (F4 will for Ai and Ai-s). F5 and F6 will use first gen VR (unsure about 2nd gen). F6 has better Metering than F5. F5 is supposed to have strong body over F4. And F6 is supposed to be improvement over F5. F4 has dials for everything. F5 started the button era.

For the lower priced used Nikon AF bodies. The F100 wins for cost vs. what will work with it. F6 is clearly best for MF and AF lens compatibility (fully meters Ai to newer lenses).

 

[fmw]

Can only corroborate Derrel's take. The F4 was probably the best manual focus camera Nikon ever made but it's a relic. The F5 might best be seen as Nikon's last serious film camera in the F tradition: interchangeable finders, lots of accessories, premium pricing and build quality. The F100 seems to be one in a long line of sweet spot feature/ price cameras that punch way above their weight, much like the earlier N90s/F90x and current digital D7200.

An even better manual focus Nikon F camera and the last mechanical F camera was the F2 but it is even a more of a relic. If I were choosing a relic today, it would be the F2. My second choice would be the F3 - electronic shutter but reasonable in terms of size and weight. My last choice would be the F4. I used to carry an F4 as a backup but rarely used it.

 

[cgw]

Can only corroborate Derrel's take. The F4 was probably the best manual focus camera Nikon ever made but it's a relic. The F5 might best be seen as Nikon's last serious film camera in the F tradition: interchangeable finders, lots of accessories, premium pricing and build quality. The F100 seems to be one Tin a long line of sweet spot feature/ price cameras that punch way above their weight, much like the earlier N90s/F90x and current digital D7200.

Think you missed the point--and the irony. The F4 was an abysmal AF body, especially compared to the far better contemporary N90s/F90x. But as a MF body with knobs and dials. metering options, and no menu-diving, it was great, especially for macro work. I just don't consider the F/F2 to be all that different from other 60s/70s MF bodies.

 

[table1349]

Can only corroborate Derrel's take. The F4 was probably the best manual focus camera Nikon ever made but it's a relic. The F5 might best be seen as Nikon's last serious film camera in the F tradition: interchangeable finders, lots of accessories, premium pricing and build quality. The F100 seems to be one Tin a long line of sweet spot feature/ price cameras that punch way above their weight, much like the earlier N90s/F90x and current digital D7200.

Think you missed the point--and the irony. The F4 was an abysmal AF body, especially compared to the far better contemporary N90s/F90x. But as a MF body with knobs and dials. metering options, and no menu-diving, it was great, especially for macro work. I just don't consider the F/F2 to be all that different from other 60s/70s MF bodies.

I think you missed the irony of your post. The F4 was the first professional 35mm body to offer auto focus in 1988. Of course it is not going to be on par with current AF systems. Here some more irony for you. The first digital SLR was built by Kodak with a Nikon body. I know it's hard to believe but digital sensors have improved from that first DSLR.

As for the F/F2's, the Nikon F was the first true SLR as we know them today. Almost all of the other 35mm SLR's prior to the F had various lack of functions, suck as a mirror that did not return to it's place until you wound the film and auto diaphragms. The Nikon F redefined 35mm SLR cameras by putting it all together for the first time. The F was world renowned for it's innovations and durability. The F2 upped the anti with it's refinements along with the photomic line of viewfinders becoming the epitome of an 35mm SLR system.

 

[cgw]

Can only corroborate Derrel's take. The F4 was probably the best manual focus camera Nikon ever made but it's a relic. The F5 might best be seen as Nikon's last serious film camera in the F tradition: interchangeable finders, lots of accessories, premium pricing and build quality. The F100 seems to be one Tin a long line of sweet spot feature/ price cameras that punch way above their weight, much like the earlier N90s/F90x and current digital D7200.

Think you missed the point--and the irony. The F4 was an abysmal AF body, especially compared to the far better contemporary N90s/F90x. But as a MF body with knobs and dials. metering options, and no menu-diving, it was great, especially for macro work. I just don't consider the F/F2 to be all that different from other 60s/70s MF bodies.

View attachment 141854
I think you missed the irony of your post. The F4 was the first professional 35mm body to offer auto focus in 1988. Of course it is not going to be on par with current AF systems. Here some more irony for you. The first digital SLR was built by Kodak with a Nikon body. I know it's hard to believe but digital sensors have improved from that first DSLR.

As for the F/F2's, the Nikon F was the first true SLR as we know them today. Almost all of the other 35mm SLR's prior to the F had various lack of functions, suck as a mirror that did not return to it's place until you wound the film and auto diaphragms. The Nikon F redefined 35mm SLR cameras by putting it all together for the first time. The F was world renowned for it's innovations and durability. The F2 upped the anti with it's refinements along with the photomic line of viewfinders becoming the epitome of an 35mm SLR system.

Nothing like a firm grasp of the obvious...

 

[pixmedic]

Can only corroborate Derrel's take. The F4 was probably the best manual focus camera Nikon ever made but it's a relic. The F5 might best be seen as Nikon's last serious film camera in the F tradition: interchangeable finders, lots of accessories, premium pricing and build quality. The F100 seems to be one Tin a long line of sweet spot feature/ price cameras that punch way above their weight, much like the earlier N90s/F90x and current digital D7200.

Think you missed the point--and the irony. The F4 was an abysmal AF body, especially compared to the far better contemporary N90s/F90x. But as a MF body with knobs and dials. metering options, and no menu-diving, it was great, especially for macro work. I just don't consider the F/F2 to be all that different from other 60s/70s MF bodies.

View attachment 141854
I think you missed the irony of your post. The F4 was the first professional 35mm body to offer auto focus in 1988. Of course it is not going to be on par with current AF systems. Here some more irony for you. The first digital SLR was built by Kodak with a Nikon body. I know it's hard to believe but digital sensors have improved from that first DSLR.

As for the F/F2's, the Nikon F was the first true SLR as we know them today. Almost all of the other 35mm SLR's prior to the F had various lack of functions, suck as a mirror that did not return to it's place until you wound the film and auto diaphragms. The Nikon F redefined 35mm SLR cameras by putting it all together for the first time. The F was world renowned for it's innovations and durability. The F2 upped the anti with it's refinements along with the photomic line of viewfinders becoming the epitome of an 35mm SLR system.

according to Thom Hogan, Nikon is clearly going to be going out of business soon due their terrible engineering and production of the F, F2, and F4 cameras instead of listening to him and being a successful camera company.

 

[Derrel]

The funny thing about all the bitching and whining about the F3 and its electronically-timed shutter being "unreliable"...it never failed me one time. As I recall, when the MD-4 motor drive was attached, the power for the shutter was taken over by the eight AA-cell batteries in the MD unit. I shot the F3HP from about 1985 until 2001, when I got a D1.

But back to these older cameras..the N90s was a really good body, for not all that much money. The 8008s was a nice camera too, for not all that much money. Nikon's higher-end "enthusiast" cameras were always as cgw says, ones that "punched above their weight". I felt the same way about the F100 versus the F5...the F100 was the camera the Portland Police Bureau bought dozens of for its daily documentation duties in the film era. Yet, after they had gone digital, they had a heck of a time selling off the F100's! At one time, they had a whole slug of them consigned to ProPhoto Supply, and they sold slooooowly...evidence that although the higp-end enthusaist Nikons are great cameras, many buyers like the allure of the flagship models like F2,F3,F4,F5--even if the lower-tier models have a better feature set.

 

[table1349]

Can only corroborate Derrel's take. The F4 was probably the best manual focus camera Nikon ever made but it's a relic. The F5 might best be seen as Nikon's last serious film camera in the F tradition: interchangeable finders, lots of accessories, premium pricing and build quality. The F100 seems to be one Tin a long line of sweet spot feature/ price cameras that punch way above their weight, much like the earlier N90s/F90x and current digital D7200.

Think you missed the point--and the irony. The F4 was an abysmal AF body, especially compared to the far better contemporary N90s/F90x. But as a MF body with knobs and dials. metering options, and no menu-diving, it was great, especially for macro work. I just don't consider the F/F2 to be all that different from other 60s/70s MF bodies.

View attachment 141854
I think you missed the irony of your post. The F4 was the first professional 35mm body to offer auto focus in 1988. Of course it is not going to be on par with current AF systems. Here some more irony for you. The first digital SLR was built by Kodak with a Nikon body. I know it's hard to believe but digital sensors have improved from that first DSLR.

As for the F/F2's, the Nikon F was the first true SLR as we know them today. Almost all of the other 35mm SLR's prior to the F had various lack of functions, suck as a mirror that did not return to it's place until you wound the film and auto diaphragms. The Nikon F redefined 35mm SLR cameras by putting it all together for the first time. The F was world renowned for it's innovations and durability. The F2 upped the anti with it's refinements along with the photomic line of viewfinders becoming the epitome of an 35mm SLR system.

Nothing like a firm grasp of the obvious...

And yet to some it seems to be as slippery as a catching a greased pig at a county fair.

 

[OldManJim]

Just to update everybody, I had decided on an F4, saved up enough money for an F4, and then this really nice F5 fell into my lap AT THE SAME price as the F4. It came from a pro and has some cosmetic dings (mostly on the bottom), but my local camera shop checked it out and told me it was fine. So, I'll pick it up next week and post some images in a while.

Thanks for the interesting discussion and comments!

 

[benhasajeep]

I still have working 4004, 6006, 8008, N90s, and F100 was my final purchase for film AF bodies. I had a used F4s for about 4 years. I never had a single issue with it. I bought it used while in college. And sold it for slightly more than I paid for it.

I still look at F5's used every now and then. Have no real reason to buy one. But they interest me. And for the right price I would probably buy it.

 

[OldManJim]

The F5 arrived yesterday. Aside from some paint missing on the hinge for the film back and a few odd scratches in the back, it seems it good condition. Came with new batteries and all the functions I've tried seem to work as they should.

I reset the custom settings to the factory defaults since I didn't know what they were, and I want to be able to adjust them to meet my requirements.

I put a new roll of Velvia 50 through it and am sending it off to processing. I'll shoot a roll of HP5+ this weekend and process it myself to check for light leaks. So far, all my lenses (Nikon & Tamron) seem to work in autofocus. I'm really impressed by how fast and how quiet the autofocus is.