Foo - Nikon F5

I was told I could find one for cheap used.

If someone was to take a photography class, and a film SLR was required.... would this be a good choice?

I heard the F5 was almost top of the line awhile ago in the 90s for slr film cams. Was hoping to find one for under 300, is it possible to find a Nikon F5 of any year, along with a decent and/or nice lens?

I would think an F5 would be overkill for a photography class. I think you'd want more along the lines of a Nikon FM10, something manual.

Yea the F5 is huge. How about an f4 older model for.... 250$?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/f4/images/f4-28mm-14-KEN_3764.jpg

F4s are pretty good if you find one in servicable condition. They were made from the frame up to take a beating.

Even an old N2020 would do, provided you can find a flash that works with it.

this one maybe ?
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r145/grish10/photography_051.jpg

Bare bones it for a class. Mamiya-Sekor DTL500/1000

http://freenet-homepage.de/stauber/mamiya-nc/500DTL_1000DTL.JPG

I wish I still had mine. My dad stole it. :(

I just sold my N80 for $100 w/film, extra batteries, etc...

BTW: Why is the prof using film, when everything has gone to digital, seems it would be better to learn the ins and outs of digital then somewhat more forgiving film. Although old school is cool, just wondering...

I've got a Nikon FE that a friend used in a photo class not long ago. He had it checked and cleaned and it tested fine. Let me know if your interested. It's got a Tamron 35-80 2.8-4 lens attached ATM. $100 would do it. Think I even have a MD-12 motor drive somewhere. If I do I'll throw it in. It's 80's era stuff, but pretty clean for it's age.

While I'm at it, I've also got mint condition SB-50DX and SB-80DX speedlights, if interested. Or how about a D1X? D100?

F5's are cool, but definitely overkill. If you can find a clean one for 300, I'd jump on it.

Personally, one of my favorite cameras of all time is the Olympus XA line:

http://www.urban75.org/photos/images/olympus-xa-01.jpg
http://www.urban75.org/photos/olympus-xa.html
http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/olympus_xa_e.html

Split-prism viewfinder for accurate focusing. Fully manual shutter/aperture control. Some of my finest photos were taken with that camera. :)

For a class, a Pentax K1000 would be ideal and cheap.

For a class, a Pentax K1000 would be ideal and cheap.
Especially w/ the inexpensive SMC-coated 50mm, f1.4 lenses that can be had. The body makes little difference, especially in a film camera. The only consideration should be your budget and how it feels in your hands.

Go inexpensive and used until you know exactly what you want. Might even try Yashica SLRs. The Yashica TL Super is a ****ing great camera if you can find it with the 50mm, f1.7 lens.

I personally love my Olympus OM10..great camera and easy to use...lots of lenses too.

Have you looked at the Fisher Price Kid Tough line of equipment?
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r162/jsharr/kidtough.jpg

I just sold my N80 for $100 w/film, extra batteries, etc...

BTW: Why is the prof using film, when everything has gone to digital, seems it would be better to learn the ins and outs of digital then somewhat more forgiving film. Although old school is cool, just wondering...
Do you know much about photography?

Ken Rockwell did a digital vs. film SLR comparison, and if you were to compare detail of an f4(used for 250$) to a Nikon d300(2000$) the MP comparison is something like 12.3 to 100mp. Film SLRs seem to take wayyyyy better detailed pictures. There certainly is a tradeoff involved, the convenience of the digitals. Not to mention the small disposable lithium batteries that last through 100s of rolls of film.

Now as far as the class, it's bringing it back to basics. Developing in the dark room, discussing basic technique, etc. Need a film SLR for that.

I found it much easier to start (film) photo classes with a super old-school camera, everything manual, and then graduate to nicer cameras and more buttons. :)

actually since it is for a class I can see if i can get my hand on my minolta for you

if so I will give it to you and you can find out if it works. but it will be atleast ten days till i can get where it is


http://stupidhurts.org/gallery/albums/untitled%20folder/stuffs/normal_IMGP1765.jpg

http://stupidhurts.org/gallery/albums/untitled%20folder/stuffs/normal_IMGP1773.jpg
http://stupidhurts.org/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_minolta.jpeg

The F5 was a great camera.

I still shoot film almost all the time. E5 and E6 Fujichrome and Ilford B&W. I have low-res scans done for $5 when the film is processed, and I have a 4000 dpi film scanner on my desk for any real winners.

I've been using computers for going on thirty years. Files older than 10 years are basically unretrievable without a major expense. But I have boxes of 50 and 60 year old chromes that look like they were shot yesterday. And used correctly, the quality is equal or superior to results you'd have to spend $10K or more to get with digital equipment. Besides, it's good to learn the old skills.

That said, my Nikons became unbearable to carry and travel with. So I shoot with a Voigtlander rangefinder with Leica lenses. I would recommend looking at a high-quality, interchangeable-lens rangefinder for your photo class, rather than the uber-heavy automatic SLRs of the 90s. Although, I would endorse another poster's recommendation of something like a Nikon FM10, or an old Nikkormat (which you would probably get for $50).

Ken Rockwell did a digital vs. film SLR comparison, and if you were to compare detail of an f4(used for 250$) to a Nikon d300(2000$) the MP comparison is something like 12.3 to 100mp. Film SLRs seem to take wayyyyy better detailed pictures.
I'd be leery of comparisons like this, sounds like an agenda at work. Trying to get 100mp out of a 35mm frame is likely to yield mostly mush. Without throwing a bunch of numbers around, I'd say todays 35mm DSLR's capture pretty close to what you'd scan from a good medium format film, and top end medium format digital backs capture what used to require 4x5 film, in terms of useable resolution. Trying to do a direct resolution comparison is pretty tough, but the claim above is pretty absurd.

Do you know much about photography?

Ken Rockwell did a digital vs. film SLR comparison, and if you were to compare detail of an f4(used for 250$) to a Nikon d300(2000$) the MP comparison is something like 12.3 to 100mp. Film SLRs seem to take wayyyyy better detailed pictures. There certainly is a tradeoff involved, the convenience of the digitals. Not to mention the small disposable lithium batteries that last through 100s of rolls of film.

Now as far as the class, it's bringing it back to basics. Developing in the dark room, discussing basic technique, etc. Need a film SLR for that.

heeeere we goooooo

I would take that little "study" with a grain of salt ;) It says nothing of grain/noise or dynamic range and of course ease of use/cost etc. Pro's are slowly migrating over to digital more and more...large format film cameras are on the way out, plain truth.

Also, keep in mind, when you scan film you can scan it to whatever MP you want. If i had a scanner that could do it, i could scan a 35mm frame to 10000000000mp if i wanted...it's a matter of quality pixels

I have enjoyed Canon FD manual cameras. I still have two very good bodies, the Canon F-1N and the Canon T-90. I had a very nice Canon FT-QL for years, and took this photo with it in the 1980s:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/yaquinaguy/BikeTrike3.jpg

I just recently went digital, with a Canon Rebel Xti, and have enjoyed it. But it does take some getting used to, as the exposure parameters are different, and what you get is not necessarily what you had hoped for. Here is one that I took with the digital:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/yaquinaguy/IMG_0577a.jpg

The one thing to remember is that with a film camera, you have an original photo. I recently went through some photos I took with a Nikonos II underwater camera, and found things in them that I had not seen originally. Here's one of my photos of a freshwater mussel spawning in the 1980s:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/yaquinaguy/Musselspawninglowres.jpg

And here's a photo I took in 1967 while training at the US Naval School for Underwater Swimmers:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/yaquinaguy/USS--DeepDivesurfacing.jpg

I have kept these slides and photos for over thirty years. I'm not sure that I'll even be able to read my digital photos twenty years from now. And CDs are not archieval (they made that decision a number of years ago--they could have been). So while I'm enjoying my digital camera, I've still got my film cameras.

One thing to remember is that the only photo of President Clinton with Monica L. was made by a film camera. All the digital images of that event had been erased. I have gone back 25 to 30 years to find photos which I did not think were consequential, but which actually documented something special. I took one photo of Indians fishing with dip nets in the Deschutes River in the 1960s. In the mid-1990s, a woman contacted me through my brother's friend, and told me that these were the only photos she had of her mother fishing. She asked if I could perhaps find the originals, and make copies. I was able to find them, and get her nice enlargements of these photos.

John

Any of the older film cameras would be great for your class. You don't need auto anything, just a plain manual camera. I have a Pentax K1000 and an Olympus OM-2n. My daughter's baby sitter borrowed the OM-2n for a school project not too long ago. She used my Zuiko 24 F2 lens with it. The pics came out great. You don't need to spend a lot of money on this camera.

Stay away from the the original F series for beginning photography. If you like Nikons, Nikkormats are good if you can still find them in good condition. You can be cool, retro, and have a great camera. :D

One thing to remember is that the only photo of President Clinton with Monica L. was made by a film camera. All the digital images of that event had been erased. I have gone back 25 to 30 years to find photos which I did not think were consequential, but which actually documented something special. I took one photo of Indians fishing with dip nets in the Deschutes River in the 1960s. In the mid-1990s, a woman contacted me through my brother's friend, and told me that these were the only photos she had of her mother fishing. She asked if I could perhaps find the originals, and make copies. I was able to find them, and get her nice enlargements of these photos.

John

There is something truly magical about working with film right from the moment you push that button to the instant you start to see the picture coming through under that dim red light...not something you'll ever get with digital.

But...at some point you have to decide if your enjoying nostalgia or photography ;)

heeeere we goooooo

I would take that little "study" with a grain of salt ;) It says nothing of grain/noise or dynamic range and of course ease of use/cost etc. Pro's are slowly migrating over to digital more and more...large format film cameras are on the way out, plain truth.

Also, keep in mind, when you scan film you can scan it to whatever MP you want. If i had a scanner that could do it, i could scan a 35mm frame to 10000000000mp if i wanted...it's a matter of quality pixels
That's exactly true, but the bottom line is the quality of the picture DSLR v SLR on a smalled cropped spot, the film SLR is much clearer. I completely agree the DSLRs are nicer, my point is that film SLRs shouldn't be ruled out.

The best part to me about the move to digital, is that the older film SLRs are cheap! I'm still looking into getting a D80, but a film SLR.. or two wouldn't be so bad.

That's exactly true, but the bottom line is the quality of the picture DSLR v SLR on a smalled cropped spot, the film SLR is much clearer. I completely agree the DSLRs are nicer, my point is that film SLRs shouldn't be ruled out.

Agree to disagree ;)

Another thing.... Interesting thing about Ken Rockwell... I love his tips, and he seems very knowledgeable. He says his photographs speak for themselves.

I really can't find anything great about his photographs.

But his articles are very interesting to read. I find it funny, I fall into the category of "0" according to him as a photographer. I read more about it then shoot. But that's because I have nothing to shoot with! Ag.

actually since it is for a class I can see if i can get my hand on my minolta for you

if so I will give it to you and you can find out if it works. but it will be atleast ten days till i can get where it is


http://stupidhurts.org/gallery/albums/untitled%20folder/stuffs/normal_IMGP1765.jpg

http://stupidhurts.org/gallery/albums/untitled%20folder/stuffs/normal_IMGP1773.jpg
http://stupidhurts.org/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal_minolta.jpeg

I would love to borrow it man!! thx. I'll pm ya.

Agree to disagree ;)

Ok. :p

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200/d200-vs-4x5.htm

but the bottom line is the quality of the picture DSLR v SLR on a smalled cropped spot, the film SLR is much clearer.


Nothing wrong with learning with film, but this is incorrect.

Nothing wrong with learning with film, but this is incorrect.

Prove it.

..and I don't mean to start an argument. Just want to learn.

..because I'm bored shiatless.

The article your referencing is comparing 4x5 film to D200, not 35mm to D200. Huge difference.

Which any photographer will tell you is an idiotic comparison. It's like complaining your Ferrari doesn't have the hauling capacity of your dump truck.

The article your referencing is comparing 4x5 film to D200, not 35mm to D200. Huge difference.

Which any photographer will tell you is an idiotic comparison. It's like complaining your Ferrari doesn't have the hauling capacity of your dump truck.

Correct a more accurate comparison would be with something like this:
http://www.dcviews.com/press/Hasselblad-39-series.htm

Prove it.

..and I don't mean to start an argument. Just want to learn.

..because I'm bored shiatless.

Let me just throw this at you

For years canon has had a series of lenses that have served them well, world class quality. With each new release of their 1Ds, pro's are beginning to worry that the cameras are out resolving the lenses. If film is better than digital in terms of image quality, why is this only now an issue?

Here's the camera he's talking about.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/tachihara.htm

Excellent camera within it's limitations. Weighs about 3 lbs., folds flat, full set of swings and tilts. Kinda slow in the frame rate department though.

I was told I could find one for cheap used.

If someone was to take a photography class, and a film SLR was required.... would this be a good choice?

I heard the F5 was almost top of the line awhile ago in the 90s for slr film cams. Was hoping to find one for under 300, is it possible to find a Nikon F5 of any year, along with a decent and/or nice lens?

Then they're in the wrong class. Find an instructor who wants to teach digital photography.

Good grief.

If you don't follow that advice, sign up for the Telegraph Operator class next. At this rate you'll have one helluva future ahead of you, but you'll never be ready for it.

I'm an old school trained photographer and honestly you DON'T want to go there. It may seem romantic to you briefly but it will wear off fast. Old school film photography is technical, technical, technical.

Did I mention its a technical challenge?

Honestly you will need to do 2 years of technical study just to learn how to expose film properly and PROCESS film properly and then once you learn this you will be condemning yourself to forever processing film yourself or forever being unhappy with the work of the labs and being a pain in the **se customer.

You will have stuff like film curves, density and colour temperature drummed into you and you will forever be obsessed about keeping the process "on line". To be good at it you will become a photographic NERD. Honestly when they talk about getting maximum resolution out of film that's all seriously nerdy stuff to achieve and you won't get anything like the results by simply taking some pictures on film and taking the film to your local film processor.

As a professional wedding photographer I was using Fuji NPH 400 and taking it to a professional film lab. Several years of training meant I could expose a negative really nicely and I was always aware of colour temperature and my results stood head and shoulders above anything the family guest photographers would do but still, modern digital camera's do a better job now for much less effort.

Maximum resolution from film camera's involves using ISO 50 or slower films which aren't conducive to people photography anyway and using slow film just introduces more challenges. How about contrast control?

Regards, Anthony

Then they're in the wrong class. Find an instructor who wants to teach digital photography.

Good grief.

If you don't follow that advice, sign up for the Telegraph Operator class next. At this rate you'll have one helluva future ahead of you, but you'll never be ready for it.

I really don't agree with that honestly. You're going to be hard pressed to find an intro photo class that doesn't require film, and there is a reason. It's more difficult and requires more attention to detail.

Oh, If I haven't managed to put you off I will have a go at answering the original question. The Nikon F series professional model, Ie F1, F2, F3, F4, F5 were always really HEAVY lumps of camera's that were about satisfying photographic nerds desire for durability more than anything. The F4 is still a serious LUMP of a camera that didn't have good autofocus performance anyway. After using newer camera's you will be really unhappy with the F4's autofocus performance. As far as Nikon film camera's go the Nikon N90s (I call it an F90x) is a really underrated camera and can be had for not a huge amount of money. As usual condition is everything. You can go older school to and look for a Nikon FE2. That's a good old school manual focus camera although I was never a fan of how the winder had to be positioned away from the body slightly to work because they always poked into me.

Regards, Anthony

The class I'm referring too is for someone else.

They simply don't offer a Digital Photographer beginners course. The class requires a film SLR.

With that criteria, a nikon f4 isn't very great? can I do better?

Look for one of these, http://web.mit.edu/cai/www/nikon/N90s.html

Regards, Anthony

That's exactly true, but the bottom line is the quality of the picture DSLR v SLR on a smalled cropped spot, the film SLR is much clearer. I completely agree the DSLRs are nicer, my point is that film SLRs shouldn't be ruled out.

The best part to me about the move to digital, is that the older film SLRs are cheap! I'm still looking into getting a D80, but a film SLR.. or two wouldn't be so bad.

I agree with phred. In 25 years used 35mm, MF, LF, and digital. Film with skill will produce nicer prints than even the most high end digital. I think it's the random arrangement of grain vs. the more linear appearance of digital.

I owned two F4S Bodies and a bivy of lens at one time. Awesome cameras and great optics.

I also had to N8000 or N80 bodies as backup.

Their metering systems were great and the auto focus was spot on (pun intended)

Wish I had kept the whole lot!

I just sold an Olympus OM2s with two strobes and a bunch of top end lens for $ 300.00.

Film may still have a quality edge, but I know no Pros still using film unless it's by special request. Post processing, control, and overall ease put digital here to stay. We were a long film holdout, but once I had better systems for processing, we went digital and have not looked back.

Film may still have a quality edge, but I know no Pros still using film unless it's by special request. Post processing, control, and overall ease put digital here to stay. We were a long film holdout, but once I had better systems for processing, we went digital and have not looked back.

There is at least one National Geographic photographer who still uses slide film. I saw a special on him last year.

Here's the problem with films:

--You're dependent upon the lab to process it correctly.
--You need to use slow speed film for best results, preferably with a tripod.
--If you want to use separate ISO film, you need more than one camera, or to switch film before the roll is finished.
--You are restricted to 36 photos/roll.
--Scratched film will drive you batty.

Here's the good points:

--With a good lens, film results can be very good at a reasonable price; to get the same level as 35mm film in resolution, you need to go to a full-frame, professional quality digital camera. Saying that, for most of us, we don't need to get that kind of resolution these days (when was the last time you enlarged to a 16x20 inch print?).
--The film will keep almost indefinitely.
--The used camera market is relatively cheap. To go digital, I have to replace all my camera hardware with that which is compatible with the particular camera I'm using.

John

I guess I should have added I only know a handful of professional photographers, I'm sure there are plenty high end guys still using film. I'm still trying to learn the basics of our new digital.

Well I think I'll go for a nikon f4, if simply to own a film slr. I still plan on a Nikon d80 and/or a d40x.

The F5 is a GREAT camera. Fully compatible with just about everything in the Nikon line up:

Accepts AI, AI-S, AI-P and some specialty MF Nikkor lenses
Accepts AF, AF-I and AF-S lenses included D and G-type lenses
Is fully compatible with Nikon's speedlights from the SB-16 to the SB-800...I recommend the SB-28.
Has a host of accessories.
It is a pro camera that can be used just as simply as a point and shoot (albeit a big point and shoot).

Almost as good, check out the F100, in my opinion, when you look at current used prices vs. performance, this is a deal! EXTREMELY capable. I bought mine just as production was ending and yes, I paid what was then new several years ago, about $700. Today, you can find an excellent F100 around $250-350. F5's typically go for $450-600 (from what I recall).


I've said it before and I'll say it again...www.nikonians.org

As far as Ken Rockwell is concerned, there are better places to look for information on the internet. That's all I'll say about that.

I must have missed something. When did you get a job Jon?

Here are some links....

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/jrp_faq/jrp_faq_what_camera/faq_what_camera_to_buy.html
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/body/chart/nikon_body_comparison_chart.html
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/merlin/f3_1.html
http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/f4/review.html
http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/f5/review.html
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/body/f6_first_look/index.html
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/body/f5/f5handson-bgs.html
http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/f80/review.html

http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=17044&forum=DCForumID201&viewmode=threaded
http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/d80/review.html
http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/d50/review.html

I must have missed something. When did you get a job Jon?
Trying to get one as we speak. I have an interview coming up for a job.

The photography class isn't till summer semester, just was researching film SLRs in my spare time.