Why the Nikon F6?

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message I also expect
that the real market for the F6 is pros who are buying D2x
cameras. Having the same look and feel, lens mount, and accessories
for both film and digital will be a big boost for them. I think it would
have been nice (but confusing) to name it the F2x as in film, model 2x
to compliment the D2x (digital model 2x).

Geoff.

Well, Nikon has been making the "F" cameras for 45 years now, (since 1959)
and the F model has traditionally been the top of their line in professional
bodies.....I think they wanted to continue that tradition......

"Scott Chapin" wrote in message
...

"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


Well, Nikon traditionally comes out with a new top-of-the line body every 10
years or so, and the F5 was introduced in 1996, so they were coming up on a
new model anyway.....They just used some of the D2x technology to come out
with one a little sooner, and save some development money.....It was a
reasonable thing to do.....I think that from now on, their film bodies, if
they continue at all, will be riding on the backs of their new digital
bodies.......

"Scott Chapin" wrote in message
...

"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


Well, Nikon traditionally comes out with a new top-of-the line body every 10
years or so, and the F5 was introduced in 1996, so they were coming up on a
new model anyway.....They just used some of the D2x technology to come out
with one a little sooner, and save some development money.....It was a
reasonable thing to do.....I think that from now on, their film bodies, if
they continue at all, will be riding on the backs of their new digital
bodies.......

"Scott Chapin" wrote in message
...

"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


Well, Nikon traditionally comes out with a new top-of-the line body every 10
years or so, and the F5 was introduced in 1996, so they were coming up on a
new model anyway.....They just used some of the D2x technology to come out
with one a little sooner, and save some development money.....It was a
reasonable thing to do.....I think that from now on, their film bodies, if
they continue at all, will be riding on the backs of their new digital
bodies.......

"Scott Chapin" wrote in message
...

"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



The only reason they won't sell well, is because their traditional Nikon
audience is switching to digital, and those will be buying the D2x, so
either way, Nikon wins.

"Scott Chapin" wrote in message
...

"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



The only reason they won't sell well, is because their traditional Nikon
audience is switching to digital, and those will be buying the D2x, so
either way, Nikon wins.

"Scott Chapin" wrote in message
...

"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



The only reason they won't sell well, is because their traditional Nikon
audience is switching to digital, and those will be buying the D2x, so
either way, Nikon wins.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..
Scott Chapin wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..

Scott Chapin wrote:


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?

The sales will tell all.

Somebody with an F5 probably will not immediately buy an F6.
Somebody considering an F5 would now, more likely, opt for the F6.

Film is not dead. I'm not tryiong to be sarcastic.


I knew no matter how hard I truely tried NOT to be sarcastic, everyone
would
think I was sarcastic. It's the type of question that lends itself that
way!
I was genuinely trying to gain an understanding, and not express my
viewpoint. I never said that film was dead.

I knew no matter how hard I tried to make that sound funny you
would think I was seriously poking at you you.

Here's a belated " ;-) ".

I'm also (while happy that Nikon have launched a major new film
camera) curious to know how people are reacting to it.

Cheers,
Alan

According to Moose Peterson, it's predictable.....He says that every time in
the past Nikon has introduced a new flagship model, it's been received
poorly at first, and then, after a year or so, it becomes very
popular.....So, the F6 is no exception to this rule.......

wrote in message
news
The main problem with smaller sensors isn't image quality, but the
qualities
of the image. It's impossible to take an image that has a similar field
of
view as an uncropped 50mm and that has the narrow depth of field of a
50/1.4. Last I looked, I couldn't find a 35/1 lens.

Well, wouldn't it be easier to have a 1.0 lens in DX format? Look at the
200 f2 which ends up having a FOV like a 300 f2 on DX. There are many
possibilities in smaller and lighter formats.

wrote in message
news
The main problem with smaller sensors isn't image quality, but the
qualities
of the image. It's impossible to take an image that has a similar field
of
view as an uncropped 50mm and that has the narrow depth of field of a
50/1.4. Last I looked, I couldn't find a 35/1 lens.

Well, wouldn't it be easier to have a 1.0 lens in DX format? Look at the
200 f2 which ends up having a FOV like a 300 f2 on DX. There are many
possibilities in smaller and lighter formats.