Nikon announces new flagship **FILM** SLR – the F6!

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote in message
news:qVY2d.113069$3l3.91388@attbi_s03...

"TP" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote:

I wonder why they didn't design the F6 to take the F5
finders.....Then
at
least, they would have a chance of getting rid of the ones they had
on
hand
that they had already made for the F5.


There is no excess stock of F5 finders.

Nikon must have learned from their experience with the F4 finders.

;-)


So, I guess the only loss is that their advertising department can't
say,
"And it has a titanium finder"....The finder must be removable however,
or
there would be no way to replace/clean the screen.......Somehow, it just
doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense to not offer different
finders......



In both the Pentax LX - which has removable finders - and the MX - which
doesn't - the screen can be removed through the lens throat. Can't see
why
Nikon couldn't have gone that route for screen changing on the new F6, so
I
wouldn't think the prism would _need_ to be removable for this reason.
Even so, a removable prism is a great advantage - I guess a lot of people
just never realised what they were missing.

Yeah.....I yank my (F5) finder off all the time....For cleaning dust out of
the finder prism, screen, and even the mirror beneath. It is a routine part
of my camera maintenance.......

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote in message
news:qVY2d.113069$3l3.91388@attbi_s03...

"TP" wrote in message
...
"William Graham" wrote:

I wonder why they didn't design the F6 to take the F5
finders.....Then
at
least, they would have a chance of getting rid of the ones they had
on
hand
that they had already made for the F5.


There is no excess stock of F5 finders.

Nikon must have learned from their experience with the F4 finders.

;-)


So, I guess the only loss is that their advertising department can't
say,
"And it has a titanium finder"....The finder must be removable however,
or
there would be no way to replace/clean the screen.......Somehow, it just
doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense to not offer different
finders......



In both the Pentax LX - which has removable finders - and the MX - which
doesn't - the screen can be removed through the lens throat. Can't see
why
Nikon couldn't have gone that route for screen changing on the new F6, so
I
wouldn't think the prism would _need_ to be removable for this reason.
Even so, a removable prism is a great advantage - I guess a lot of people
just never realised what they were missing.

Yeah.....I yank my (F5) finder off all the time....For cleaning dust out of
the finder prism, screen, and even the mirror beneath. It is a routine part
of my camera maintenance.......

Matt Clara wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
TP wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Thanks for sharing. It almost seems like more of an update to the F100,
than a change in the F5. This is the first F single digit camera from
Nikon to not allow changing the viewfinder. :-(

I am not surprised that the flash control feature of the latest digital
SLRs has made it to the film line, though I wonder if only the F6 will
have that capability in the film SLR line.

Gordon,

There is an "F105" under development which has the body style of the
F100 but with most of the features of the F6. Expect it in 2005.

Tony

A fairly obvious development, though I had heard the name F200 instead. A
cousin of a good friend works for Nikon in Japan. Unfortunately, I have
not
been able to get on the testing list . . . yet.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!



Any rumors concerning mirror lockup on this F105/200?

--

That is something I had never even considered, so I really have no idea. I
rarely ever have a need for mirror lock-up, and do quite well on those rare
occasions using the mirror pre-fire on the self timer. The easy feature to
imagine is the new flash control, which should eventually make it onto all new
body designs, though it might happen that only the high end cameras get that
feature.

What I would rather see would be an FM4A with that feature. Unfortunately, it
seems that the FM3A is the last of the manual focus line, barring some
nostalgic rare edition in the future. I still think all the Japanese companies
(except Voigtländer) will only introduce new digital cameras by 2008, and that
year is getting closer.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Matt Clara wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
TP wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Thanks for sharing. It almost seems like more of an update to the F100,
than a change in the F5. This is the first F single digit camera from
Nikon to not allow changing the viewfinder. :-(

I am not surprised that the flash control feature of the latest digital
SLRs has made it to the film line, though I wonder if only the F6 will
have that capability in the film SLR line.

Gordon,

There is an "F105" under development which has the body style of the
F100 but with most of the features of the F6. Expect it in 2005.

Tony

A fairly obvious development, though I had heard the name F200 instead. A
cousin of a good friend works for Nikon in Japan. Unfortunately, I have
not
been able to get on the testing list . . . yet.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!



Any rumors concerning mirror lockup on this F105/200?

--

That is something I had never even considered, so I really have no idea. I
rarely ever have a need for mirror lock-up, and do quite well on those rare
occasions using the mirror pre-fire on the self timer. The easy feature to
imagine is the new flash control, which should eventually make it onto all new
body designs, though it might happen that only the high end cameras get that
feature.

What I would rather see would be an FM4A with that feature. Unfortunately, it
seems that the FM3A is the last of the manual focus line, barring some
nostalgic rare edition in the future. I still think all the Japanese companies
(except Voigtländer) will only introduce new digital cameras by 2008, and that
year is getting closer.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Matt Clara wrote:

"McLeod" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 02:28:53 GMT, "Matt Clara"
wrote:

I've yet to see any results from these lenses, and wonder that the
distortion inherent in their designs won't be more pronounced than in
their
uncropped cousins. Also, the 10.5 is a fisheye, is it not? Though
fisheyes
are wide-angle, they are very specialized wideangle lenses, and not quite
what I'm looking for. Time will tell on the quality of the 12-24.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara

Pretty much any camera store I've ever been to will let you take some
test shots. Also the 10.5mm can be used as a fisheye, but the
curvature can also be corrected with a mouse click in the Nikon
Capture program. Very nice. The fact that a smaller sensor is being
used means there should be less distortion, not more.



Yeah, I read a few reviews after I replied last night. Apparently
distortion isn't bad, but chromatic aberation can be a problem. Still, the
12-24 doesn't hold a candle to the 17-35mm (which I own) and the one click
correction for the 10.5 is still a kludge.

At some point in the near future, when batteries are a little more efficient,
and electronics are also a little more efficient, then we will have the
correction option within the camera body. At that point, nearly any distortion
should make little difference, with software correcting it automatically. Of
course, any software correction involves some interpolation of data, which can
lead to errors. Bottom line is that it will always be a kludge, but it may soon
become a major in camera feature.



My point wasn't about the sensor, it's about the lens itself; even if
designing for a smaller sensor, creating a 10.5mm lens without distortion
has got to be an impossible feat (at least in a cost effective manner), ergo
the kludge. 12mm can't be much easier. Of course, I'm no lens design
expert.

The software would make it easier on the lens designers. They could just design
for coverage and evenness of exposure. Then the distortion would be measured,
placing the information onto a chip in the lens. That chip would communicate
with the body, making correction available within the camera, or just
automatically. Lens construction costs could drop dramatically, leaving more
room for profits, though some additional expense in software engineering would
be needed.



Also, if we're talking about me personally, 6 megapixels isn't enough for
me, I doubt 8 is, either, I think 12 is getting close. Ergo any discussion
of what lenses I'd be willing to settle for is moot at this time.


Two page spread with bleed for high quality printed materials. Taking 300 ppi
at Tabloid size (11" by 17") plus 1/8" bleed all around, works out to about
17.5 MP. Add in some room for errors, or adjusting, and you can see how the 22
MP medium format backs make a good size target. Seriously though, the Kodak DCS
at slightly more than 14 MP should solve most imaging requirements, at least in
resolution.


As to the original post and your comments in this vein of the thread, I
still don't see the efficacy of using a crop screen in an slr. It would
allow you to maintain a single vision of what your lenses will capture in
digital, but then, you're not shooting digital, you're shooting film--if you
want digital, why not just use digital?

The funny thing I wonder about is how many sports guys shooting film previously
cropped down images from the 300 mm or 400 mm, to make the image more like a
600 mm or longer lens. Somehow I don't think that was happening too often, but
now with direct digital it is marketed as a "feature".

I think choices will be much better in three years time. If some enthusiasts
want to throw money at this stuff now, I hope they at least enjoy it while it
lasts. I also think there might be some great deals on second hand Kodak DCS
SLR/n cameras within three years, definitely under $1000 used price. In my
opinion, the current prices still look too much like trying to gain back R&D
money, rather than a realistic amount.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Matt Clara wrote:

"McLeod" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 02:28:53 GMT, "Matt Clara"
wrote:

I've yet to see any results from these lenses, and wonder that the
distortion inherent in their designs won't be more pronounced than in
their
uncropped cousins. Also, the 10.5 is a fisheye, is it not? Though
fisheyes
are wide-angle, they are very specialized wideangle lenses, and not quite
what I'm looking for. Time will tell on the quality of the 12-24.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara

Pretty much any camera store I've ever been to will let you take some
test shots. Also the 10.5mm can be used as a fisheye, but the
curvature can also be corrected with a mouse click in the Nikon
Capture program. Very nice. The fact that a smaller sensor is being
used means there should be less distortion, not more.



Yeah, I read a few reviews after I replied last night. Apparently
distortion isn't bad, but chromatic aberation can be a problem. Still, the
12-24 doesn't hold a candle to the 17-35mm (which I own) and the one click
correction for the 10.5 is still a kludge.

At some point in the near future, when batteries are a little more efficient,
and electronics are also a little more efficient, then we will have the
correction option within the camera body. At that point, nearly any distortion
should make little difference, with software correcting it automatically. Of
course, any software correction involves some interpolation of data, which can
lead to errors. Bottom line is that it will always be a kludge, but it may soon
become a major in camera feature.



My point wasn't about the sensor, it's about the lens itself; even if
designing for a smaller sensor, creating a 10.5mm lens without distortion
has got to be an impossible feat (at least in a cost effective manner), ergo
the kludge. 12mm can't be much easier. Of course, I'm no lens design
expert.

The software would make it easier on the lens designers. They could just design
for coverage and evenness of exposure. Then the distortion would be measured,
placing the information onto a chip in the lens. That chip would communicate
with the body, making correction available within the camera, or just
automatically. Lens construction costs could drop dramatically, leaving more
room for profits, though some additional expense in software engineering would
be needed.



Also, if we're talking about me personally, 6 megapixels isn't enough for
me, I doubt 8 is, either, I think 12 is getting close. Ergo any discussion
of what lenses I'd be willing to settle for is moot at this time.


Two page spread with bleed for high quality printed materials. Taking 300 ppi
at Tabloid size (11" by 17") plus 1/8" bleed all around, works out to about
17.5 MP. Add in some room for errors, or adjusting, and you can see how the 22
MP medium format backs make a good size target. Seriously though, the Kodak DCS
at slightly more than 14 MP should solve most imaging requirements, at least in
resolution.


As to the original post and your comments in this vein of the thread, I
still don't see the efficacy of using a crop screen in an slr. It would
allow you to maintain a single vision of what your lenses will capture in
digital, but then, you're not shooting digital, you're shooting film--if you
want digital, why not just use digital?

The funny thing I wonder about is how many sports guys shooting film previously
cropped down images from the 300 mm or 400 mm, to make the image more like a
600 mm or longer lens. Somehow I don't think that was happening too often, but
now with direct digital it is marketed as a "feature".

I think choices will be much better in three years time. If some enthusiasts
want to throw money at this stuff now, I hope they at least enjoy it while it
lasts. I also think there might be some great deals on second hand Kodak DCS
SLR/n cameras within three years, definitely under $1000 used price. In my
opinion, the current prices still look too much like trying to gain back R&D
money, rather than a realistic amount.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Matt Clara wrote:

"McLeod" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 02:28:53 GMT, "Matt Clara"
wrote:

I've yet to see any results from these lenses, and wonder that the
distortion inherent in their designs won't be more pronounced than in
their
uncropped cousins. Also, the 10.5 is a fisheye, is it not? Though
fisheyes
are wide-angle, they are very specialized wideangle lenses, and not quite
what I'm looking for. Time will tell on the quality of the 12-24.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara

Pretty much any camera store I've ever been to will let you take some
test shots. Also the 10.5mm can be used as a fisheye, but the
curvature can also be corrected with a mouse click in the Nikon
Capture program. Very nice. The fact that a smaller sensor is being
used means there should be less distortion, not more.



Yeah, I read a few reviews after I replied last night. Apparently
distortion isn't bad, but chromatic aberation can be a problem. Still, the
12-24 doesn't hold a candle to the 17-35mm (which I own) and the one click
correction for the 10.5 is still a kludge.

At some point in the near future, when batteries are a little more efficient,
and electronics are also a little more efficient, then we will have the
correction option within the camera body. At that point, nearly any distortion
should make little difference, with software correcting it automatically. Of
course, any software correction involves some interpolation of data, which can
lead to errors. Bottom line is that it will always be a kludge, but it may soon
become a major in camera feature.



My point wasn't about the sensor, it's about the lens itself; even if
designing for a smaller sensor, creating a 10.5mm lens without distortion
has got to be an impossible feat (at least in a cost effective manner), ergo
the kludge. 12mm can't be much easier. Of course, I'm no lens design
expert.

The software would make it easier on the lens designers. They could just design
for coverage and evenness of exposure. Then the distortion would be measured,
placing the information onto a chip in the lens. That chip would communicate
with the body, making correction available within the camera, or just
automatically. Lens construction costs could drop dramatically, leaving more
room for profits, though some additional expense in software engineering would
be needed.



Also, if we're talking about me personally, 6 megapixels isn't enough for
me, I doubt 8 is, either, I think 12 is getting close. Ergo any discussion
of what lenses I'd be willing to settle for is moot at this time.


Two page spread with bleed for high quality printed materials. Taking 300 ppi
at Tabloid size (11" by 17") plus 1/8" bleed all around, works out to about
17.5 MP. Add in some room for errors, or adjusting, and you can see how the 22
MP medium format backs make a good size target. Seriously though, the Kodak DCS
at slightly more than 14 MP should solve most imaging requirements, at least in
resolution.


As to the original post and your comments in this vein of the thread, I
still don't see the efficacy of using a crop screen in an slr. It would
allow you to maintain a single vision of what your lenses will capture in
digital, but then, you're not shooting digital, you're shooting film--if you
want digital, why not just use digital?

The funny thing I wonder about is how many sports guys shooting film previously
cropped down images from the 300 mm or 400 mm, to make the image more like a
600 mm or longer lens. Somehow I don't think that was happening too often, but
now with direct digital it is marketed as a "feature".

I think choices will be much better in three years time. If some enthusiasts
want to throw money at this stuff now, I hope they at least enjoy it while it
lasts. I also think there might be some great deals on second hand Kodak DCS
SLR/n cameras within three years, definitely under $1000 used price. In my
opinion, the current prices still look too much like trying to gain back R&D
money, rather than a realistic amount.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

"William Graham" wrote:

Yeah.....I yank my (F5) finder off all the time....For cleaning dust out of
the finder prism, screen, and even the mirror beneath. It is a routine part
of my camera maintenance.......


Paradoxically, if you used a body with a fixed finder, such as the
F100 or new F6, you probably wouldn't have to clean the camera quite
so often.

With interchangeable viewfinders, it doesn't matter how good the
sealing appears to be, dust and moisture can get in, and they surely
do.

"William Graham" wrote:

Yeah.....I yank my (F5) finder off all the time....For cleaning dust out of
the finder prism, screen, and even the mirror beneath. It is a routine part
of my camera maintenance.......


Paradoxically, if you used a body with a fixed finder, such as the
F100 or new F6, you probably wouldn't have to clean the camera quite
so often.

With interchangeable viewfinders, it doesn't matter how good the
sealing appears to be, dust and moisture can get in, and they surely
do.

"William Graham" wrote:

Yeah.....I yank my (F5) finder off all the time....For cleaning dust out of
the finder prism, screen, and even the mirror beneath. It is a routine part
of my camera maintenance.......


Paradoxically, if you used a body with a fixed finder, such as the
F100 or new F6, you probably wouldn't have to clean the camera quite
so often.

With interchangeable viewfinders, it doesn't matter how good the
sealing appears to be, dust and moisture can get in, and they surely
do.