Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Nikon F4 or F5?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:15 am    Post subject: Nikon F4 or F5? Reply with quote
I'm trying to recall now the reason why some people prefer the Nikon F4 over the F5 when it comes to using older Nikkors. Is it that the F4 can use the pre-AI lenses and the F5 cannot? Or to be more precise that the F5 cannot unless it's been converted so the AI tab pivots? Are there other reasons why a manual focus shooter will prefer the F4 over the F5?

I'm asking these questions because it seems that the F4s prices on eBay have firmed up in the high-300-dollar price range, whereas at least some F5 prices are continuing to fall. E.g., KEH is advertizing an F5 in their "BGN" condition for $299. Wow. Hell, it's getting hard to find clean Canon F-1s and Nikon F2s for that cheap. Cool


PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think one should be careful, when reading opinions by Ken Rockwell, but he says this about F4:

"...The F5 was simply the F4 in a tougher package, but with knobs replaced by buttons and menus. The F4 has dedicated knobs for everything. The F5's meter is worse than the F4's when used with manual focus lenses.

...the F5 can't get Matrix metering with manual focus lenses...

The Nikon F4 remains relevant today, as it works great with every lens made from 1959 through today's G and AFS lenses. The Nikon F4 is Nikon's most flexible camera because it's compatible with the widest range of lenses of any 35mm camera. Older cameras can't autofocus, and newer cameras don't usually meter well with manual lenses, or work at all with most lenses older than 1977. Canon cameras have no compatibility between auto and manual focus systems: Canon has no compatibility across the 1986 AF-EOS/MF-FD barrier. The F4 does it all with professional élan. The only thing the F4 doesn't do with today's newest lenses is VR."


PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Nikon F4 or F5? Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I'm trying to recall now the reason why some people prefer the Nikon F4 over the F5 when it comes to using older Nikkors.


I had two F4 but I don't know a reason why I would prefer the F4. It's a good camera but for manual lenses I am using a F3 and for Autofocus I have a F5. In the end I sold the F4 since I took either F3 or F5.

I know many people like the F4 since it has a lever or switch for every function and no display. Gurdie pointed out the biggest advantage of the F4 since you can use virtually every lens manufactured by Nikon.

If you are on the lookout for a F4 watch for bleeding displays and the function of the aperture control.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the feedback, guys. Honestly both cameras are pretty low on my priorities list. It was more idle curiousity and wanting to refresh my memory, which had gone stale.

I don't own an AF lens for Nikon, so there's not much point in buying either for AF. Good point about the F3, Ianus. I used to own one with an MD-4, and really liked using it. I especially liked the 80-20 metering pattern, which I found to be highly useful when shooting slides with the camera set to "A". Clean F3s are still getting pretty good prices on eBay though. Nowadays an MD-4 can be picked up for really cheap when, back in the day, they went for $300-400. Still even cheap, add an MD-4 to a clean F3, and you're up there in the F4/F5 prices. Or F2 prices. Cool I've read recently though that some F3s are having LCD bleed problems too. Damn things. Give me a needle anyday, LEDs if you must.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:

I don't own an AF lens for Nikon,


...so there is no real point in getting a F4 or F5.


Do you use the MD-4 for your F3 very often? I am thinking for a while if I should add one for my F3. I don't really need it for winding but I have read that balancing is better with heavier lenses. Can you second taht?


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
IANUS wrote:
cooltouch wrote:

I don't own an AF lens for Nikon,


...so there is no real point in getting a F4 or F5.


Do you use the MD-4 for your F3 very often? I am thinking for a while if I should add one for my F3. I don't really need it for winding but I have read that balancing is better with heavier lenses. Can you second taht?


I don't own that F3 anymore, but when I used it regularly, the MD-4 was a permanent fixture. Mated, they are just such a nice pair. I found that the MD-4 did not increase the weight of the system by an objectionable amount, so it just always stayed on the camera. And yes, it does tend to balance heavier lenses better, especially if you find yourself shooting hand-held, which I've often done with a 300/2.8 and my F3/MD-4 combo.

As for not getting an F4 or F5, hey, I have a pretty decent selection of old Nikkors. And once I do get an AF body, I'll begin to acquire the AF lenses. It doesn't make sense to buy AF lenses if you don't have an AF body. But it does make sense to buy an AF body before you have AF lenses. Right? Unless you're talking EOS or Sony/Minolta Maxxum.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="cooltouch"]
IANUS wrote:
cooltouch wrote:


I don't own that F3 anymore, but when I used it regularly, the MD-4 was a permanent fixture. Mated, they are just such a nice pair. I found that the MD-4 did not increase the weight of the system by an objectionable amount, so it just always stayed on the camera. And yes, it does tend to balance heavier lenses better, especially if you find yourself shooting hand-held, which I've often done with a 300/2.8 and my F3/MD-4 combo.



Thanks for your comments. I think I will try a MD4 when I come across a reasonable one. (I probably should get the 300/2.8 as well Wink - to try out the combo).



Quote:
But it does make sense to buy an AF body before you have AF lenses. Right?


If you ask me it does allways make sense to buy a new (old) camera - unfortunately my wife has a different opinion on that.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Heh, I've pretty much given up trying to convince myself I don't need any more old cameras. It's a lost cause. There are just too many cool old cameras around and nowadays many of them are priced so cheap they just can't be ignored.

As for a 300/2.8, I've never chosen to afford a Canon or Nikon. Just too damn expensive. But keep your eyes open for the Tamron. It's an outstanding lens, and sometimes you can pick one up for a reasonable amount. I owned one back when I was shooting a lot with my F3, and I just recently bought another. Won an auction on eBay for a fairly clean example for $500. Usually they sell for more than that on the Bay -- I just got lucky. It's really nice having a 300/2.8 again. Another "bargain" 300/2.8 that does a good job, but is pretty rare, is the Tokina. Tokina made an MF ATX for a few years back in the late 80s, priced comparably to the Tamron. They also made an AF model. As did Tamron. Predictably, the AF ones go for a healthy premium over the MF ones.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have always regarded the F4 as a monstrosity.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
But is it really, compared to whatever the top of the line Nikon DSLR is? Or the Canon one, for that matter? Those are huge cameras.

I agree -- back in the day, I thought the F4 was huge. But by today's standards, it doesn't seem all that out of place, I'm thinking. And besides, have you ever handled a Nikon F2 with MD2/MB1 combination? It's probably just as bulky and even heavier than the F4s. Or the old Canon F-1 with the Motor Drive MF. Now there's a rig that's definitely bigger than an F4s.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Heh, I've pretty much given up trying to convince myself I don't need any more old cameras. It's a lost cause. There are just too many cool old cameras around and nowadays many of them are priced so cheap they just can't be ignored.

As for a 300/2.8, I've never chosen to afford a Canon or Nikon. Just too damn expensive. But keep your eyes open for the Tamron. It's an outstanding lens, and sometimes you can pick one up for a reasonable amount. I owned one back when I was shooting a lot with my F3, and I just recently bought another. Won an auction on eBay for a fairly clean example for $500. Usually they sell for more than that on the Bay -- I just got lucky. It's really nice having a 300/2.8 again. Another "bargain" 300/2.8 that does a good job, but is pretty rare, is the Tokina. Tokina made an MF ATX for a few years back in the late 80s, priced comparably to the Tamron. They also made an AF model. As did Tamron. Predictably, the AF ones go for a healthy premium over the MF ones.


I have seen the Tokina model once which is a hefty piece of glass. I guess you have to think twice if you pack it in your bag for a dayrip with a 2.8/300.
I might consider the slower Nikkor 4,5/300 which would get more use since it is easier to carry.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
I have always regarded the F4 as a monstrosity.


The F5 is the same monstrosity as well as many of the Pro-SLR-Systems.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
IANUS wrote:
I have seen the Tokina model once which is a hefty piece of glass. I guess you have to think twice if you pack it in your bag for a dayrip with a 2.8/300.
I might consider the slower Nikkor 4,5/300 which would get more use since it is easier to carry.


I'm a member of the former Texas Photo Forum -- Now "Pixtus" -- and we have several dedicated birders who are active participants. Their bird pics are absolutely fantastic. These folks use big guns to capture their images, like the Canon EF 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4. And their favorite spot to take their photos is Brazos Bend State Park, a bird sanctuary southeast of Houston. I've never been there, but I've asked the photographers about it, and apparently to get the good shots you've got to get there very early and be prepared to walk in at least a couple miles (say 3 km or so). Those folks do this on a regular basis with their bazookas. So I suppose it's all relative. Depends on how bad you want that shot and what you're willing to do to get it.

When I go to air shows, I'm lugging around 15 to 20 kg of camera gear, easy. Just the way it is. And it's always a loooong walk from where I've parked my car to a good spot to take photos of the aircraft.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I'm a member of the former Texas Photo Forum -- Now "Pixtus" -- and we have several dedicated birders who are active participants. Their bird pics are absolutely fantastic. These folks use big guns to capture their images, like the Canon EF 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4. And their favorite spot to take their photos is Brazos Bend State Park, a bird sanctuary southeast of Houston. I've never been there, but I've asked the photographers about it, and apparently to get the good shots you've got to get there very early and be prepared to walk in at least a couple miles (say 3 km or so). Those folks do this on a regular basis with their bazookas. So I suppose it's all relative. Depends on how bad you want that shot and what you're willing to do to get it.

When I go to air shows, I'm lugging around 15 to 20 kg of camera gear, easy. Just the way it is. And it's always a loooong walk from where I've parked my car to a good spot to take photos of the aircraft.


I see I am underequipped. I am wondering what my wife would tell me when I would put one of this bazooka in my bag. Mr. Green

But I think I don't have much need for one of those big lenses. I would love to try one but a slower 300mm is way more practical (for me).

Do you have some links to photos you mentioned from the Park?


PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
But is it really, compared to whatever the top of the line Nikon DSLR is? Or the Canon one, for that matter? Those are huge cameras.

I agree -- back in the day, I thought the F4 was huge. But by today's standards, it doesn't seem all that out of place, I'm thinking. And besides, have you ever handled a Nikon F2 with MD2/MB1 combination? It's probably just as bulky and even heavier than the F4s. Or the old Canon F-1 with the Motor Drive MF. Now there's a rig that's definitely bigger than an F4s.


It's not the size alone, it's the complicatedness of it.

Compare a Leicaflex SL2 and you begin to get the picture/


PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
But is it really, compared to whatever the top of the line Nikon DSLR is? Or the Canon one, for that matter? Those are huge cameras.

I agree -- back in the day, I thought the F4 was huge. But by today's standards, it doesn't seem all that out of place, I'm thinking. And besides, have you ever handled a Nikon F2 with MD2/MB1 combination? It's probably just as bulky and even heavier than the F4s. Or the old Canon F-1 with the Motor Drive MF. Now there's a rig that's definitely bigger than an F4s.


It's not the size alone, it's the complicatedness of it.

Compare a Leicaflex SL2 and you begin to get the picture.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
IANUS wrote:

Do you have some links to photos you mentioned from the Park?


Yeah. Here are some taken at Brazos Bend State Park.

Jesse Homan, Canon EOS 1D Mk II, Canon EF 500mm f/4 L IS:


Ronnie de la Cruz, Canon 30D, Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM with a 2X TC:


Not BBSP, but still a remarkable photo.
Mark "Matwey", Canon 5D Mk II, EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM


Not BBSP either, but just on the other side of Galveston Bay.
Roy O'Dell, Canon 1D Mark III, Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS:


Back to BBSP:
Doug Haass, Canon 50D, lens not mentioned:


Jim Victory, Canon but camera and lens not mentioned. Had to be a big gun, though.


Here's a link to the wildlife area of the forum. Just browse through the threads there -- or search on Brazos Bend, or even just bbsp, and you'll get plenty of hits.

http://www.pixtus.com/forum/nature-wildlife/


PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:


Yeah. Here are some taken at Brazos Bend State Park.


Thanks for the pictures and the link.

The shots are quiete impressive.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
IANUS wrote:
cooltouch wrote:


Yeah. Here are some taken at Brazos Bend State Park.


Thanks for the pictures and the link.

The shots are quiete impressive.

Shocked wow!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
Page 1 of 1