Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Well, I've never bought into that myth. If you want lightweight/smaller stuff you have to carefully select bodies and lenses (just like in the SLR and DSLR days). But if you do you can still go out with a Full Frame body and 2-3 lenses far below the 1 kilo of the Z7 and 1 lens.
Well, this shows how subjective all this discussion is. For you the F6 is small and ok, for me the top design of a film camera looks and looked always different. For me the best Nikon SLR is and will always be the F3 which I have owned and shot a lot and still own a mint sample. As soon as Nikon SLRs got AF (F4 and F5) they ran into brick territory and if anyone feels offended with the word "brick" I shall state that I feel sorry for that and do not want to offend anybody, but you also could call it oversized or huge or whatever.The F6 is anything but a brick. Although it's almost a kilogram, it's slim build and excellent ergonomics makes it very easy to handle. The D850, to take an example, is heavier, thicker and offers inferior ergonomics in my view. Look at the top profile of these two, the F6 and the D700:
Here's the F6 and the D850:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#718,193,ha,t
As for film being dead or dying, in spite of being replaced by cars decades ago, horse riding is still an Olympic sport. Film won't die because many people won't use it. For some it's alive and well, just like painting and other forms of visual art that are more complicated than digital photography.
..
It just means an F6 would be in good company :ROTFL:. Just got a used one recently. Stunning piece of a camera.
Because I define the quality of a photo by the story it tells and the skill of the photographer. Unfortunately also, and this is due to the nature of digital photography, but also the nature of our digital reality in general, the sheer number of photos produced and published today make no photo stand out. If you ask me to mention a news photo from the last ten years that really stands out, I have problems giving you an answer. From the time before digital, I could give you a long list.Jorgen I agree that we are not designed to do what I'm doing at this moment (sitting IN FRONT of a computer)
But I'm mystified by your implication that shooting film will give you "better photos",
because a few post further down you state:
"……. digital. …….. Images are sharper and colours are cleaner and brighter, but the photos seen from an artistic or story telling point of view haven't changed much. "
I see no negatives written there
And of course you intend to buy one :grin:
The F6 does work with the 58mm 1.4. So far only the 28/1.4E & 105/1.4E are incompatible. The solution there is that the old 28/1.4D is an excellent lens, and finally less expensive due to the new option. For the 105 we still have the 2.0D, which is not as remarkable as the 1.4, but has it's own great reputation.
That's interesting. Many complain about AF problems that are serious enough to make them give up. I agree that it's not a big problem though, and if I buy an F6 again, it would probably be with Tamron lenses, 35 or 45mm, 85mm and possibly the new 35-150mm. Stabilised primes plus film should be a good fit
The F6 handles the 58/1.4 just fine. No limitations. The AFS Noct Nikkor for the masses still uses the traditional lever for aperture control. It was actually the AFS lens I bought after getting the DF in late 2013. It seems a bit controversial but I really do like it a lot. A bit dreamy at 1.4 but really sharp from 2.2 onwards.Because I define the quality of a photo by the story it tells and the skill of the photographer. Unfortunately also, and this is due to the nature of digital photography, but also the nature of our digital reality in general, the sheer number of photos produced and published today make no photo stand out. If you ask me to mention a news photo from the last ten years that really stands out, I have problems giving you an answer. From the time before digital, I could give you a long list.
Most things that are produced in large numbers, art and non-art, become ordinary and forgetable. If it's a photo or a Swatch or a TV-Show. Lucille Ball, Fawlty Towers and David Letterman are burnt into my memory. I could quote John Cleese any day. Now there are a zillion channels and "TV personalities", and they all look and sound the same. I see photos of these "celebrities" on the internet, and whenever I try to figure out what they did to become famous, there doesn't seem to be an answer.
Take animation, another art that is being destroyed by technological perfection and production volume. It used to be an art form, and the signature of the artist or the studio could be identified by just watching the cartoon. Now they are getting increasingly technologically perfect and "they all look the same".
During a visit to Myanmar with some European friends, one of them asked while watching an electrician climbing an electric pole wearing his traditional longyi, which a large number of Burmese men still do, why on earth he didn't wear "jeans or something", like any sensible man does. It's as if we are being trained to become ordinary and to treat whatever stands out with suspicion, be it a photo or a person. Quantity is good, quality is bad. Mao Zedong would love this world.
The F6 stands out for its qualities and because of the simple fact that after 15 years on the market, it hasn't been improved or replaced. I would actually like to see an upgrade, so that it could handle the latest F-mount lenses. Like the 58mm f/1.4, which would be great to use with film. But there are other lenses that work fine, so no worries. To me, the fact that Nikon bothers to produce the F6, and that they developed and launched it in the first place, is a good reason to support that company. Unfortunately, most people don't care. History and tradition are out of fashion, and many of those who claim to respect and represent history and tradition don't have a clue.
Yes, if I can find enough money I'll buy it again, preferably a new one this time. But money is always scarce, and there are kids around here who need the money more than I do. They need my money for their education and their future. I just "need" another piece of aluminium and plastic to fondle. So maybe I won't. I can still dream though
Sorry for the rant. Did it answer your question?
Are you sure the Tamron 85 works with no limitations? Not sure it still has the aperture lever. Plus - I am unsure what stabilisation means to the batteries. I like mit F6 naked (no battery pack).That's interesting. Many complain about AF problems that are serious enough to make them give up. I agree that it's not a big problem though, and if I buy an F6 again, it would probably be with Tamron lenses, 35 or 45mm, 85mm and possibly the new 35-150mm. Stabilised primes plus film should be a good fit
Do you know if the AF-P lenses will work? Apparently, the 70-300mm AF-P is an excellent lens, and much better than the older AF-S version.
If I want to use a big camera, I have the GX680. I have two actually :ROTFL:
You are right. It has an electromagnetic diaphragm. That's a pity. Yes, battery would have been a worry. On the F80, I have a battery grip that takes AA batteries, but it's small and not really a vertical grip. The F6 becomes rather large with the grip.
NO :grin:
It's an interesting distinction that... in front of the computer, but how can I be behind the keyboard then? Sorry for being a Norwegian.NO :grin:
I'm relectant to take the subject of the F6 Off Topic (although why this is not in 'Analogue Cameras' .......?).
But briefly - I'm not talking about the masses, I'm talking about YOU and your excellent creative output.
And as somebody who has worked quite alot with Cleese ....... my experience is not for publication here
..and it was hanging on my wall too over my bed as teenager at the time I was driving 4 cylindered Nimbus to Gymnasium, without driving license (too young to get it - shame on me)..The most famous, the most iconic and the most copied photo ever, Alberto Korda's photo of Che Guevara, is one of two frames of the same motive on that roll taken with his Leica. No technology can change that, no 50 frames per second and no ISO one million. Because regardless of technology, you have to be at the right spot at the right time, point your camera in the right direction, frame the photo and push the shutter release at the right moment. 20 clean, perfect colour, digital frames taken too early or too late will always be outshined by one perfectly timed and framed shot on Tri-X or HP5 taken with an old Leica or an F6. It's not the technology, it's the photographer.
which possibly was the excuse you have to the officer ... :ROTFL:
Jørgen...you are right..we are fugitives from reality..but its hard to save the world alone (dispite..even though we ought to try - the politicians ought to do the job, but they don't)
(by the way, Jørgen, is it Jean Paul Satre and Simone de Beauvoir on the pictures too ???)
