[skyline889]

Okay, I was shooting the other day, and it's been pretty windy here. Somehow the wind managed to knock over a 15lb tripod with my Nikon F2 on top. The camera fell on the shutter release, and now when you advance the film, the mirror goes up and snaps back down, the focal plane shutter no longer opens either. I'm not sure how much it would cost to fix it but I assume it would be very pricey, I'll eventually have it done since this camera was a legend back in it's day, and was the choice camera for Vietnam photo journalists, but right now I'd rather invest in a new good film camera. Do you guys know how the Nikon F100 performs? Is it a substantial improvement over the F2 if I don't need all the fancy auto features and what not? I'm just looking for the camera that performs the best. I would prefer to stick with Nikon as I only have one lense for my Canon Rebel.

 

[seeberg]

Give www.kenrockwell.com a look, he might have some good bits of info. As for your injured F2, I'd call around and see what a few places would approximately charge you to fix it. As far as the F100, I've never used it (I've actually never used an F series camera

), though I imagine its a decent camera body.

,
Abe

 

[elan]

Even better, check out Thom Hogans site. He writes a pretty good, balanced article. The F100, from what I've heard, is a very good camera. By most accounts it's one of the best film cameras on the market. I'm a Canon shooter (hence my profile name), so I'm not so well versed in the ways of Nikon, but I've spent a lot of time with a camera, and I know what features I like. The F100 has them all. My Elan 7 is pretty nice too, but the F100 is better!

Here is Thom's site: http://www.bythom.com/

 

[Samgotit]

I love my Canon A2. I'd go used body and spend the rest on new glass. I only know Canon, but you could go the same route for Nikon.

Check out KEH: A2, N80, N90, etc.
http://www.keh.com/

Ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-F90X-N90S-...QQcmdZViewItem

With the Canon A2 the only limitation I found was "action shot" capability. Additionally, I'm sure the F100 would focus faster, given you are using it's auto focus, than the older Nikon or Canon stuff.

Good Luck,
Sam

 

[Whitebread]

www.phototakers.com They will answer all of your questions.

Can I ask, why no digital?

 

[nikongod]

lots of people dont like digital. you also have problems on long/remote trips. not having to cary film is nice, but the weight of a few sets of batteries is about the same as many rolls of film.

anywhoo, used nikon f4's are CHEAP on ebay. i may not totally recomend the f5/f100, as the totally electronic feel of them is a little weird (personally) i like to turn a shutter speed knob that is where it should be. the newer cameras still have manual, but its a very digital/computerised manual control. the meters are nicer in the newer f's though.

perhaps an f3? i like the manual wind feeling sometimes. the meter is unquestionably nicer than any of the f2 variants. apreture priority is also very nice. want to buy mine? it has the md4 motor too...

or my f2, the meter is a little knackered (the "s" meter, swap your old prism/meter over if yours still works) otherwise, both are in excelent shape.

 

[Whitebread]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikongod lots of people dont like digital. you also have problems on long/remote trips. not having to cary film is nice, but the weight of a few sets of batteries is about the same as many rolls of film.

With a grip, you can get thousands shots out of most cameras. And most grips takes a few double A batteries. 12 double A batteries aren't expensive or heavy in the least bit.

Digital has its short commings, but I don't think you should discount it in the least bit. It a great many advantages over film and its getting better everyday. Todays technology may not give you everything you want/need but in a few years time I'm sure full frame cameras with excellent dynamic range will be much cheeper than they are now.

 

[mateo05]

Ken Rockwell earns many

Thom Hogan, on the other hand, is pretty awesome, and this is coming from a confirmed Canon shooter.

The F100 is a very solid camera, its kind of like the EOS 3 equivalent, the tweener in between the top of the line and the "prosumer".

I could understand a hobbyist wanting to stick with film. That said, I've never shot a serious frame of film in my life and I have nearly 40k actuations on my Mark II- I encourage you to at least explore digital a bit on the internet before you make a decision.

 

[chadbang]

Not to harp, but when you hear Kodak is discontinuing manufacturing B&W photo paper, doesn't that tell you something? Honestly, I suggest looking into digital. The demise of your F2 might have been a sign from above. I've worked for several newspapers and met alot of professionals, none of them shoot film anymore. I met one photographer from the South China Post who had just published a book on his travels through India. Stunning work. This guy has won award after award. I wanted to cry because his B&W photos were so good, anything I'd ever shot in my lifetime looked like absolute crap in comparison. His prints would have done Ansel Adams proud. They were stunning, rich creamy B&Ws. I said, what paper are you using? Agfa? Kodak? He said "Canon paper in a Epson printer." That was the moment I knew once and for all that digital had met the challenge of film.

 

[JaGWiRE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang Not to harp, but when you hear Kodak is discontinuing manufacturing B&W photo paper, doesn't that tell you something? Honestly, I suggest looking into digital. The demise of your F2 might have been a sign from above. I've worked for several newspapers and met alot of professionals, none of them shoot film anymore. I met one photographer from the South China Post who had just published a book on his travels through India. Stunning work. This guy has won award after award. I wanted to cry because his B&W photos were so good, anything I'd ever shot in my lifetime looked like absolute crap in comparison. His prints would have done Ansel Adams proud. They were stunning, rich creamy B&Ws. I said, what paper are you using? Agfa? Kodak? He said "Canon paper in a Epson printer." That was the moment I knew once and for all that digital had met the challenge of film.

He has a digital camera, check out his photography in the other thread, I love the pictures he took with the rebel, they are really nice imho. I'm considering getting into amateur photorgaphy myself, and the rebel seems like an afforderable place to start.

Also, chadbang, I am planning with my mom a photographer for my barmitzvah, and a few still do use film, you can choose with some what you want them to use. Everybody is migrating to digital, but there is nothing wrong with film. I went through many booklets of pictures taken with film and digital, and I can honestly say imho film is easily as good as digital from what I saw. My moms first husdband who died of cancer over 20 years ago had a SLR camera I believe, I remember seeing it a few years back, it's around here somewhere. It's a pentex, my mom said mx-300 or something, but she wasn't sure. I wonder if it's any good. Anyway, this threads not about that.

PS, take a look at this photo from 1936. It blew me away, if you doubt film.. : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ntMother02.jpg

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang Not to harp, but when you hear Kodak is discontinuing manufacturing B&W photo paper, doesn't that tell you something? Honestly, I suggest looking into digital. The demise of your F2 might have been a sign from above. I've worked for several newspapers and met alot of professionals, none of them shoot film anymore. I met one photographer from the South China Post who had just published a book on his travels through India. Stunning work. This guy has won award after award. I wanted to cry because his B&W photos were so good, anything I'd ever shot in my lifetime looked like absolute crap in comparison. His prints would have done Ansel Adams proud. They were stunning, rich creamy B&Ws. I said, what paper are you using? Agfa? Kodak? He said "Canon paper in a Epson printer." That was the moment I knew once and for all that digital had met the challenge of film.

I have a Nikon D70 and a Panasonic DMC-FZ5K. I've done digital, and I have found that digital, in terms of SLRs, are still having the kinks worked out of their systems, as evidenced by the large amount of problems Nikon had with it's D70. The only serious shots I've ever taken are with film, sure digital allows you to review your shots after you've taken them, shots'll last forever on your hd and what not, but there's something about film that just makes me concentrate harder, whether it's the limited amount of shots, or the thought of having to develope each and every photo you take, I don't know, but I've found I much prefer film to digital.

As for printers, did you ask him what kind of Epson he had? I don't feel the need to drop a grand on soemthing like an Epson R2400, or 4800. I also prefer to develope my own pictures rather than relying on a printer or a software program to decide brightness and contrast.

For Kodak, nor offense, but I don't much care for them anyway, they've converted their business into a quantity over quality deal a long time ago ,so their switch to digital does not surprise me. I prefer Ilford as they actually take care of their customers.

For cameras, the links you guys provided me seem to point to the F5 as the better camera then the F100. What do you guys think? Of course the Nikon F6, would be the best option, but unfortunately I don't want to spend $1200 on a camera right now. Thanks guys.

 

[vibin247]

I know Nikon is the choice at this moment, and I would pick any of the Nikons listed (I've only used the FM2 and it's an awesome 35mm camera). What about medium format? I would try getting a Mamiya 6 or 7 rangefinder camera off of Ebay, or go to online merchants like B&H Photo and Calumet, and they usually sell them with a standard 80mm lens for like $600. There's an internal center-weighted light meter built in, and the best feature is the Aperture-Priority mode, which I used a lot when I was in the field with one, even though I had a Sekonic incident light meter. If you want a camera you can keep for years and years, the Hasselblad 500 series with A12 film back and 80mm Carl-Zeiss Planar lens would be my choice. I'm actually saving up money so I can buy a used kit.

 

[skyline889]

Hmm, I've taken a look at a few TLRs and they look really prosmising, but unfortunately for me most of them are either too big, or too expensive. Plus I assume developing that film would be quite a bit more difficult then your standard 24mmX36mm film.

 

[Edwood]

I have my digital images printed on the same photo printers that print high end wedding photos. So I will never go back to film again.

 

[mateo05]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 I have a Nikon D70 and a Panasonic DMC-FZ5K. I've done digital, and I have found that digital, in terms of SLRs, are still having the kinks worked out of their systems, as evidenced by the large amount of problems Nikon had with it's D70.

Well of course, you were shooting a Nikon *dons flamesuit*. Seriously, there are few kinks left to be worked out, as evidenced by the mass professional acceptance of digital now. This is a 3 year old argument that is no longer relevant.

Quote:

The only serious shots I've ever taken are with film, sure digital allows you to review your shots after you've taken them, shots'll last forever on your hd and what not, but there's something about film that just makes me concentrate harder, whether it's the limited amount of shots, or the thought of having to develope each and every photo you take, I don't know, but I've found I much prefer film to digital.

One of the dangers of digital is that you can get loose and sloppy. However, if you approach each shot to get it perfect in-camera, I think a lot of this goes away.

Quote:

As for printers, did you ask him what kind of Epson he had? I don't feel the need to drop a grand on soemthing like an Epson R2400, or 4800. I also prefer to develope my own pictures rather than relying on a printer or a software program to decide brightness and contrast.

Learn postprocessing. You can "develop" your photos so incredibly far more than you can in the darkroom its not even funny. "Relying on a software program to decide" parameters is just an incorrect statement.

Also, Epson has smaller printers in their photo inkjet line. R800 comes to mind. Or you could go for a used 2220- I have one, and although it has its quirks, it works well and was the standard for its print size for a few years.

Quote:

For cameras, the links you guys provided me seem to point to the F5 as the better camera then the F100. What do you guys think? Of course the Nikon F6, would be the best option, but unfortunately I don't want to spend $1200 on a camera right now. Thanks guys.

F5 is better than F100, but it all depends on your needs. What type of shooting will you be doing? I suspect that it would be slow, set landscape/still life ish stuff, in which case the F100 is enough camera for your needs, but if you're doing anything that relies on AF, the F5 would be the way to go.