Why the Nikon F6?

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news
Matt Clara wrote:


As a Nikon user, and a person who intends to stick with film for life
(with
the addition of digital when I can get 14 megapixel full frame for $1500,
which could be awhile) I find the F6 quite exciting.

I'm not sure that the obsession with full frame is either healthy or
neccesary... the 1/1.5 size sensors do a great job (witness Bret's full
size post from his new cam.)

Cheers,
Alan


It took a while for me to get used to thinking about the 1.5X factor. When I
went to1.3X, I never gave it a second thought.

nick



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news
Matt Clara wrote:


As a Nikon user, and a person who intends to stick with film for life
(with
the addition of digital when I can get 14 megapixel full frame for $1500,
which could be awhile) I find the F6 quite exciting.

I'm not sure that the obsession with full frame is either healthy or
neccesary... the 1/1.5 size sensors do a great job (witness Bret's full
size post from his new cam.)

Cheers,
Alan


It took a while for me to get used to thinking about the 1.5X factor. When I
went to1.3X, I never gave it a second thought.

nick



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

"Andrew Koenig" wrote in message
...
"Scott Chapin" wrote in message
...

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but why would Nikon manufacture the F6?
With
digital technology moving the way it is, is their anyone desirous of
spending the motherlode on a new film based camera?

Nikon seems to be willing to bet a considerable sum of money on a
viewpoint
that differs from yours. If that fact won't convince you to reconsider
your
opinion, it's hard to believe that anything that anyone says on this
newsgroup will do so.



Hi Andrew,

I was afraid someone would not understand what I meant. I am far from being
a digital cheerleader. I have an F-100 and love it. Wouldn't part from it. I
have a Hassy and have an eternal love for the images it can make. So I'm not
sure what you think my opinion is, for it certainly isn't anti-fillm.

My conundrum is over the EXPENSE that folks would still be willing to pump
into new film based cameras when the existing models are so exceptionally
good. If digital's coming of age were'nt so close to reality, I could see
it. Being a man of modest means, I am leary of investing large sums into
something that might be soon obsolete, whether I love the camera or not.

I suppose, if I had an F5, the smaller size of the F6 would be enticing.
That's the best argument I've read here.

Scott

"Andrew Koenig" wrote in message
...
"Scott Chapin" wrote in message
...

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but why would Nikon manufacture the F6?
With
digital technology moving the way it is, is their anyone desirous of
spending the motherlode on a new film based camera?

Nikon seems to be willing to bet a considerable sum of money on a
viewpoint
that differs from yours. If that fact won't convince you to reconsider
your
opinion, it's hard to believe that anything that anyone says on this
newsgroup will do so.



Hi Andrew,

I was afraid someone would not understand what I meant. I am far from being
a digital cheerleader. I have an F-100 and love it. Wouldn't part from it. I
have a Hassy and have an eternal love for the images it can make. So I'm not
sure what you think my opinion is, for it certainly isn't anti-fillm.

My conundrum is over the EXPENSE that folks would still be willing to pump
into new film based cameras when the existing models are so exceptionally
good. If digital's coming of age were'nt so close to reality, I could see
it. Being a man of modest means, I am leary of investing large sums into
something that might be soon obsolete, whether I love the camera or not.

I suppose, if I had an F5, the smaller size of the F6 would be enticing.
That's the best argument I've read here.

Scott

"TP" wrote in message
...
"Scott Chapin" wrote:

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but why would Nikon manufacture the F6?

Presumably because they expect to sell some, and make a profit in the
process. Having put in all the research and development $$$, it would
be silly not to manufacture the camera, even if it isn't the
film/digital hybrid that Nikon originally intended to make.


Well....that's the obvious answer. Now the inovious is why they expect to
sell some!

Scott

"TP" wrote in message
...
"Scott Chapin" wrote:

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but why would Nikon manufacture the F6?

Presumably because they expect to sell some, and make a profit in the
process. Having put in all the research and development $$$, it would
be silly not to manufacture the camera, even if it isn't the
film/digital hybrid that Nikon originally intended to make.


Well....that's the obvious answer. Now the inovious is why they expect to
sell some!

Scott

"TP" wrote in message
...
"Scott Chapin" wrote:

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but why would Nikon manufacture the F6?

Presumably because they expect to sell some, and make a profit in the
process. Having put in all the research and development $$$, it would
be silly not to manufacture the camera, even if it isn't the
film/digital hybrid that Nikon originally intended to make.


Well....that's the obvious answer. Now the inovious is why they expect to
sell some!

Scott

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"Scott Chapin" wrote in message
...
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but why would Nikon manufacture the F6?
With
digital technology moving the way it is, is their anyone desirous of
spending the motherlode on a new film based camera? Would it really
offer
features that you can't live without, if you are already shooting with
an
F5
and waiting for digital to be reasonably perfected?

Scott Chapin



I've known several photographers to purchase F5's, and then trade down to
first the N90x, and then the F100 after its release, just because the F5
was
too heavy and bulky. This new camera offers all of the cutting edge the
F5
offered, and then some (except the 1/3 of a stop slower flash sync speed),
and put it in a smaller, highly ergonomic body. If you want the bulk, and
need the 8 fps speed (as opposed to 7.4 fps without) there's always the
battery pack addition.

As a Nikon user, and a person who intends to stick with film for life
(with
the addition of digital when I can get 14 megapixel full frame for $1500,
which could be awhile) I find the F6 quite exciting.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara

www.mattclara.com



That's fair. I opted for the F-100 because I didn't like the F5's bulk,
among other reasons. I like my D-100 despite the 2/3 frame. It has a niche
in some of my work and keeps me away from the hassles of a lab, but I still
love my F-100.

Thanks,

Scott

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"Scott Chapin" wrote in message
...
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but why would Nikon manufacture the F6?
With
digital technology moving the way it is, is their anyone desirous of
spending the motherlode on a new film based camera? Would it really
offer
features that you can't live without, if you are already shooting with
an
F5
and waiting for digital to be reasonably perfected?

Scott Chapin



I've known several photographers to purchase F5's, and then trade down to
first the N90x, and then the F100 after its release, just because the F5
was
too heavy and bulky. This new camera offers all of the cutting edge the
F5
offered, and then some (except the 1/3 of a stop slower flash sync speed),
and put it in a smaller, highly ergonomic body. If you want the bulk, and
need the 8 fps speed (as opposed to 7.4 fps without) there's always the
battery pack addition.

As a Nikon user, and a person who intends to stick with film for life
(with
the addition of digital when I can get 14 megapixel full frame for $1500,
which could be awhile) I find the F6 quite exciting.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara

www.mattclara.com



That's fair. I opted for the F-100 because I didn't like the F5's bulk,
among other reasons. I like my D-100 despite the 2/3 frame. It has a niche
in some of my work and keeps me away from the hassles of a lab, but I still
love my F-100.

Thanks,

Scott

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
...
"Scott Chapin" wrote in message
...
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but why would Nikon manufacture the F6?
With
digital technology moving the way it is, is their anyone desirous of
spending the motherlode on a new film based camera? Would it really
offer
features that you can't live without, if you are already shooting with
an
F5
and waiting for digital to be reasonably perfected?

Scott Chapin



I've known several photographers to purchase F5's, and then trade down to
first the N90x, and then the F100 after its release, just because the F5
was
too heavy and bulky. This new camera offers all of the cutting edge the
F5
offered, and then some (except the 1/3 of a stop slower flash sync speed),
and put it in a smaller, highly ergonomic body. If you want the bulk, and
need the 8 fps speed (as opposed to 7.4 fps without) there's always the
battery pack addition.

As a Nikon user, and a person who intends to stick with film for life
(with
the addition of digital when I can get 14 megapixel full frame for $1500,
which could be awhile) I find the F6 quite exciting.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara

www.mattclara.com



That's fair. I opted for the F-100 because I didn't like the F5's bulk,
among other reasons. I like my D-100 despite the 2/3 frame. It has a niche
in some of my work and keeps me away from the hassles of a lab, but I still
love my F-100.

Thanks,

Scott