F100 vs. F5
Sailor
Sailor wrote:
> Eileen:
>
> I am a beginner too, and I decided on the F5. To me (and to other beginners as
> well, I guess), getting the correct exposure is always more challenging than, say,
> getting the correct focus. Besides, now the F100 is very much overpriced. IMHO,
> the F5 is well worth the extra money. If you find yourself really "into"
> photography, F5 is the way to go, you can always add more lenses later on.
>
> Happy shooting!
>
> Howie
>
> Eileen Chan wrote:
>
> > Hi, I am new to photography and I have been following postings for the
> > past couple weeks. Many of you have complimented on the F100 and the
> > F5, so my question is, would someone actually prefer the F100 over the
> > F5 given that the budget is not a constraint?
> >
> > Eileen
Sailor
Sailor
clear: how does one learn to "understand light", by using a light meter,
probably? Now let's say somebody built a 1,005 sensor, 3-D RGB matrix meter,
wouldn't it be a great tool for learning photography? Now let's say somebody
integrated this meter into the camera, wouldn't that tool be even more handy?
Now we know that that somebody is Nikon, and the camera is F5.
If you really want to learn photography, the F5 actually prints exposure data
between frames, you can always go back to those data and get more information
and therefore learn more.
BTW, Nikon didn't pay me to do this.
Peace.
Howie
Toshiro wrote:
> No Eileen. If you want to learn you should start with a
> manual camera. Price is not the object. Understanding
> light and learning photography is the object. If you want
> to spend money, buy a Lieca R6.2 or a Nikon FM or a
> manual Contax. I started out many years ago with an
> Asahi (ever hear of it?) Pentax and a Mamiyaflex 2 1/4
> with light meters in my hand. The best photos back
> then are every bit as good as the best today with
> automated cameras. It's the person that gets the picture,
> not the camera.
>
> Alan
Eileen Chan
Fred Whitlock
camera. I use larger formats when I'm stationary so I expect a 35mm camera
to be reasonably light and maneuverable. The F5 is as large and heavy as
some medium format cameras. I gave the F5 a good test, though. I made over
4000 exposures with it before selling it. I've gone back to smaller,
lighter manual cameras but will probably buy an F100 as soon as I can get to
the camera store to get it done. I do miss the TTL flash metering. Good
shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
Eileen Chan wrote in message <36B6B66B...@yahoo.com>...
Only me...
Eileen Chan wrote in message <36B6B66B...@yahoo.com>...
> Hi, I am new to photography and I have been following postings for the
>past couple weeks. Many of you have complimented on the F100 and the
>F5, so my question is, would someone actually prefer the F100 over the
>F5 given that the budget is not a constraint?
In a way, yes. I'm considering using the F100 instead of my F5. I find
the F5 too heavy. The 8fps drive will not be missed by me, but the AF will.
If the F100's AF seems as good, after long term analysis, I will sell my F5.
David.
Eileen Chan
Will you missed the 3D Colour Matrix Metering System on the F5? Be
sure to let the rest of the newsgroup reader know about your analysis on
the F100 after you got it...;-)
Eileen
Robert Nicholson
worth the extra weight of the F5?
Eileen Chan
I am new to photography and I don't own a F5, so I am not in the
position to answer your question. But since there are many Nikon
supporters in this newsgroup and a few of them do own the F5, I just
want to know which camera would score higher. The F100 or the F5?
I read a thread couple weeks ago taking about using grey cards to get
the correct exposure in complex lighting condition. So my question is,
does the F5 users have to worry about this problem? Do they need to use
grey cards to get the correct exposure?
Eileen
Robert Nicholson
buy cheap lenses. nobody said that they were planning on skimping
on lenses so what do you have to say about somebody who buys an F5 and
"D" lenses to go with it?
"Gee just think of all the money you could be spending on film"
Moreno Polloni
>manual camera. Price is not the object. Understanding
>light and learning photography is the object. If you want
>to spend money, buy a Lieca R6.2 or a Nikon FM or a
>manual Contax. I started out many years ago with an
>Asahi (ever hear of it?) Pentax and a Mamiyaflex 2 1/4
>with light meters in my hand. The best photos back
>then are every bit as good as the best today with
>automated cameras. It's the person that gets the picture,
>not the camera.
What's your problem? Let them get whatever camera they want. Autoexposure and
autofocus will increase the odds of getting a good photograph, especially for a
beginner. If they want to learn the basics, a flick of a switch will turn it
into a manual exposure camera. Another flick of a switch, and it's in manual
focus. And it's a camera they won't outgrow for years. Why not buy something you
like and enjoy using?
You have definite opinions on how people should learn and what equipment they
should buy. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your way is not the only way
to do things.
Robert Nicholson
> I have no intention of getting into a debate here, but let me make my point
> clear: how does one learn to "understand light", by using a light meter,
> probably? Now let's say somebody built a 1,005 sensor, 3-D RGB matrix meter,
> wouldn't it be a great tool for learning photography? Now let's say somebody
> integrated this meter into the camera, wouldn't that tool be even more handy?
> Now we know that that somebody is Nikon, and the camera is F5.
>
> If you really want to learn photography, the F5 actually prints exposure data
> between frames, you can always go back to those data and get more information
> and therefore learn more.
>
It can only do this with an MF-28 right?
> BTW, Nikon didn't pay me to do this.
>
> Peace.
>
> Howie
>
> Toshiro wrote:
>
> > No Eileen. If you want to learn you should start with a
> > manual camera. Price is not the object. Understanding
> > light and learning photography is the object. If you want
> > to spend money, buy a Lieca R6.2 or a Nikon FM or a
> > manual Contax. I started out many years ago with an
> > Asahi (ever hear of it?) Pentax and a Mamiyaflex 2 1/4
> > with light meters in my hand. The best photos back
> > then are every bit as good as the best today with
> > automated cameras. It's the person that gets the picture,
> > not the camera.
> >
> > Alan
Only me...
>
>Sailor wrote:
>
>> Eileen:
>>
>> I am a beginner too, and I decided on the F5.
An F5 for a beginner? My God! Think of the lenses you could buy if
you bought a cheaper body? You don't need a RGB colour 3D matrix meter to
get exposure right. Buy a second hand FM, and spend the considerable amount
of money you'll have left on Nikkor lenses, which are FAR more important
that a silly colour metering system. Plus, you'll learn more. Pointing
your RGB colour 3D matrix meter at a subject may get it right (sometimes),
but it will teach you nothing.
Buying an F5, then sticking a Sigma lens on it because you spent all
your cash on the body is the most stupid way of doing things imaginable. No
offence intended, but you're doing it all wrong. You need knowledge, not a
F5. If you don't want to learn anything, then you shouldn't buy a F5
anyway. Buy a F50 instead. That will give you nice shots without having to
think, and you can buy some nice lenses for it too.
David.
Eileen Chan
the same way as I do...=D I hate hearing people saying F5 is a waste on
a beginner. Although we don't gain as much as the pros do on the F5,
but I don't consider it a waste on us beginners at all. As long as the
piece of equipment help to improve the quality of our shots, then it
does not consider to be a waste. Also, if we purchase a cheap camera to
start off with, after a few years down the road, we will have to
purchase something better to satsify our needs. Wouldn't we end up
spending more dollars?
Eileen
Sailor wrote:
>
> Eileen:
>
Toshiro
Sailor <sai...@sea.world> wrote in message
news:36B3C4B6...@sea.world...
>Eileen:
>
>I am a beginner too, and I decided on the F5. To me (and to other beginners
as
>well, I guess), getting the correct exposure is always more challenging
than, say,
>getting the correct focus. Besides, now the F100 is very much overpriced.
IMHO,
>the F5 is well worth the extra money. If you find yourself really "into"
>photography, F5 is the way to go, you can always add more lenses later on.
>
>Happy shooting!
>
What a ridiculous, uninformed comment. The F100
and the F5 are two different cameras. A beginner needs
an F5 or an F100 like a 16 year old with a learner's
permit needs a Ferrari. Nice to have but not necessary.
Look, the F100 is smaller and lighter than an F5. The
F100 has the same controls, almost, as an F5. It's
main difference is lack of color intelligent metering.
The F100 is selling for 1299.00. The F5 is selling for
close to 2000.00 (US warranty).
You can get the correct exposure with a 1960 Pentax
and a hand held meter (and great pictures too).
I don't mean to be insulting but get your facts right.
There is a very interesting editorial about the new
F100 in the latest issue of Shutterbug. Read it. You
might learn something.
Beginners should learn on a totally manual camera
so that they get an intuition for light and understand the
subtleties of f stops and shutter speed combinations as
well as depth of field.
I ordered an F100 from B&H today. $1299.00.
They had 20 in stock at 2PM EST and predicted that
they would all be sold as soon as word got out that
they had them. It's a very hot item.
Alan
Toshiro
manual camera. Price is not the object. Understanding
light and learning photography is the object. If you want
to spend money, buy a Lieca R6.2 or a Nikon FM or a
manual Contax. I started out many years ago with an
Asahi (ever hear of it?) Pentax and a Mamiyaflex 2 1/4
with light meters in my hand. The best photos back
then are every bit as good as the best today with
automated cameras. It's the person that gets the picture,
not the camera.
Alan
Eileen Chan <ec...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36B7AA10...@yahoo.com...
Harvey H. King
>>Also, if we purchase a cheap camera to
>>start off with, after a few years down the road, we will have to
>>purchase something better to satsify our needs. Wouldn't we end up
>>spending more dollars?
>>
The key component in the photographic equipment is that pieces of glass.
And guess what, despite our quantum leap in electronic technology,
the optical technology remains pretty much the same.
The bad news about that is price of lens will not drop like an used computer.
The good news is that a good lens, and a light-tight box is probably
going to last you a very very long time.
Are you going to do sport photography which require fast focus? Are you
going to do Macro work which requires 100% view-finder area and
Mirror-lock-up? How about multiple exposures? Different camera
design tend to target at people's different need. Just to give you an example,
in case of astrophotography, one would better off with a manual and
mechanical camera because 1. almost all the light meter doesn't work
at near-darkness such as the night sky; and 2. long exposure tend to
drain the battery. Does F5 have mechanical shutter speed for that purpose?
No meter is perfect under any light situation; not even F5. Perhaps the
knowledge in light comes in handy when you know WHEN to overwrite the
automatic setting.
Good luck and remember, a man who has a grand piano doesn't automatically
make him a great pianist.
someone who still using his 20yr old camera.
--
JerryR USA
Why I want to buy an F5.
I am past 60 years now and want to enjoy taking photographs of sunsets,
landscapes, wildlife, flowers, jewelry, and plain old snapshots. And yes, I
know a manual focus camera would do many of the picture taking functions just
as well, and some even better than the F5. But I want an F5, or the new
Minolta 9, if it ever gets to market. I have tried the Canons, good cameras,
but not what I want.
I have my Honeywell Pentax H3 that I bought 36 years ago. Its shutter is slow
now from lack of use for the past 10-12 years. We (my wife and I), are using
her 10 year old point and shoot instead.
I had my own dark room for years for black and white. One of the things I
learned from that was I could make up for imperfect composition by croping
while printing. But I did learn a little on how to take pictures.
Now I want to be able to point the camera and have some assurance that I might
get a good picture. Sure, I could get a GR-1, but it is wide angle only. With
a data logging back that records my shooting parameters I may be able to learn
from my experiences.
What makes you camera "experts" want to get on my case, (and others like me).
Arn't we respectible enough to own an up-scale camera? How will it hurt you if
I buy on and some primes and some longer zooms to go with it? If I set it on
the mantel, so what.
Your arguments are sort of like when I went to buy a new one ton dually
pickup. They must not have had what I wanted, for after the third salesman
change, asking what I wanted to do with it, my wife and I walked out. I only
regret that I hadn't thought to tell them I wanted to put it in the back yard
and grow roses in it!!
.>No meter is perfect under any light situation; not even F5. Perhaps the
>knowledge in light comes in handy when you know WHEN to overwrite the
>automatic setting.
>
>Good luck and remember, a man who has a grand piano doesn't automatically
>make him a great pianist.
>
>someone who still using his 20yr old camera.
I don't have to be a great photographer, I just want to have fun.
Jerry
JerryR USA
>What's your problem? Let them get whatever camera they want. Autoexposure
>and
>autofocus will increase the odds of getting a good photograph, especially for
>a
>beginner. If they want to learn the basics, a flick of a switch will turn it
>into a manual exposure camera. Another flick of a switch, and it's in manual
>focus. And it's a camera they won't outgrow for years. Why not buy something
>you
>like and enjoy using?
>
Right on.
I just got off of my soap box where I expressed my ideas (much like yours). It
has the same title but it posted seperately from this thread. (Don't know why,
maybe it AOL???)
Thanks for you words,
Jerry
Only me...
Robert Nicholson wrote in message ...
No, I wouldn't say that, but I still WOULD say that it's not an ideal
camera for a beginner. Are you going to use it manually all the time? Are
you going to learn the precepts of CW and spot metering with a grey card?
will you focus manually?
If you can afford to buy the F5 and a range of Nikkor lenses, then
that's OK, but I just wonder if you think your photos will be any better
because you're using the F5? They probably won't be. In the hands of a
beginner, the F5 will produce results no batter than any other camera. Why
not save money and buy a cheaper body? Are you so carelessly wealthy that
you just don't care? If so, then I genuinely pleased for you, go ahead. If
you're not, then you really should save money, and use it on more useful
things for your hobby. You could set up a darkroom for the cost of the F5
for instance.
David.
Only me...
Eileen Chan wrote in message <36B7AA10...@yahoo.com>...
>I totally agree with you Sailor. It's nice to find someone who thinks
>the same way as I do...=D I hate hearing people saying F5 is a waste on
>a beginner. Although we don't gain as much as the pros do on the F5,
>but I don't consider it a waste on us beginners at all. As long as the
>piece of equipment help to improve the quality of our shots, then it
>start off with, after a few years down the road, we will have to
>purchase something better to satsify our needs. Wouldn't we end up
>spending more dollars?
>
Firstly Eileen, buying the F5 will not make your shots any better than
if you were using a F50. You will gain nothing from the F5 in terms of
picture quality. The image is formed by the lens, not the body.
You may not want to buy a "better" camera when you get better at your
hobby. I'm selling my F5, as I rarely use it, and I'm a professional. If
you want a good camera that you can use automatically to get good shots, and
ignore my advice about using a manual camera to begin, then buy a F90X
(N90S). My original point was more to do with what you'll learn from the
camera rather than how much cash you'll save,. The fact that you'll save
cash is incidental now, as you seem to be rich, or at least rich enough to
buy such a camera when you have no need of one, simply for it's pose value.
If, after hearing the advice of others, you still decide to buy the F5,
than I wish you well, but try to use it's manual features, and NOT it's
automatic ones. To do that would be like buying a Lamborghini to take your
kids to school.
David.
Only me...
Toshiro wrote in message <6LOt2.787$TF2...@news.rdc1.pa.home.com>...
>No Eileen. If you want to learn you should start with a
>manual camera. Price is not the object. Understanding
>light and learning photography is the object. If you want
>to spend money, buy a Lieca R6
Very good point. If Eileen wants to spend a lot of money, for the sake
of doing so (which she is if she buys the F5), then why not buy a top of the
range Leica? Get the R8 Eileen. Costs more than the F5!! People will go
WOW and everything :-)
David.
Only me...
Sailor wrote in message <36B40E30...@sea.world>...
>I have no intention of getting into a debate here,
Too late for that.
but let me make my point
>clear: how does one learn to "understand light", by using a light meter,
>probably? Now let's say somebody built a 1,005 sensor, 3-D RGB matrix
meter,
>wouldn't it be a great tool for learning photography?
No, it would be a great tool for photographers. There's a difference.
Now let's say somebody
>integrated this meter into the camera, wouldn't that tool be even more
handy?
>Now we know that that somebody is Nikon, and the camera is F5.
It still teaches you nothing. You point it at a subject, and it gives
you an accurate exposure reading, but you have no understanding of why this
is so. Using a simple camera with centre weighted metering will make you
learn because, you'll have to LEARN how to not get it wrong, instead of
leting the camera do it for you..
Maybe this is the problem. You want to run before you can walk.
There are some things money can't buy, and one of them is talent. It
CAN buy knowledge however, so I advise you spend your hard earned cash more
productively.
>
>If you really want to learn photography, the F5 actually prints exposure
data
>between frames, you can always go back to those data and get more
information
>and therefore learn more.
It will mean nothing to a beginner, unless he understands what all this
info means, and how the numbers relate to the photo in terms of what went
wrong. You don't need all that. You need books, time, and a manual camera.
You don't want to hear that though I suspect.
>
>BTW, Nikon didn't pay me to do this.
No Shit!! <laugh> You're doing them more harm than good at present.
It's your money. Do with it what you wish. I've tried to help.
David.
Only me...
Robert Nicholson wrote in message ...
>
>
Exactly. More money that Eileen and Sailor will have to spend...
(sigh) They're quite adamant though, so leave them to it. They're harming
no one, and entertaining many.
David.
Only me...
Moreno Polloni wrote in message <>
>What's your problem? Let them get whatever camera they want. Autoexposure
and
>autofocus will increase the odds of getting a good photograph,
But teach them nothing. Maybe our problem is that we actually care
about what beginners do, and that we actually wish to give them a good start
in the hobby. Ever think of that? I'm not trying to tell people what to
do because I enjoy it. For the price of an F5, you could buy a N90S and
simple darkroom. I know which I'd prefer. How about some books? College
course? If you think an RGB meter is a substitute for the above, then you
will never understand my point.
David.
Only me...
Toshiro wrote in message ...
>
>
>What a ridiculous, uninformed comment. The F100
>and the F5 are two different cameras. A beginner needs
>an F5 or an F100 like a 16 year old with a learner's
>permit needs a Ferrari.
Save your breath, these people want jewellery to hang around their
necks, not a good camera.
David.
Andreas Nicklass
> [...] Although we don't gain as much as the pros do on the F5,
> but I don't consider it a waste on us beginners at all. As long as the
> piece of equipment help to improve the quality of our shots, then it
> does not consider to be a waste.
The problem with your reasoning is that there are only few cases
where the camera body actually improves the image quality. Way
more influential are the lenses you use. But the most significant
impact will always be due to the person who handles the gear.
The most positive thing you can say about a camera body is, that
it doesn't hamper your way of shooting.
Andreas
pwright
I have shot for over twenty years with everything from a Zenit E (Russian manual
camera) to an F5. The important thing is to match the tool to your needs. If
you're
looking for AF and an accurate meter, any new AF Nikon will do. The meters on
all cameras are accurate enough for virtually all general use. The AF is fast
enough
on all the Nikons for just about anything except fast sports (car, motorcycle and
ski racing as examples). If I were to chose my equipment from scratch, I would
probably pick what I currently have: a F90x, a 24-120 zoom, and 20mm, 28mm,
50mm, 85mm, 105mm micro, 180mm and 300mm prime lenses. The zoom is
excellent for just knocking around and when you want to do serious work the primes
will give the best quality. Add a good tripod and an SB-28, and you should be
happy
for years. The money spent on the F100 won't show in your pictures and the F5 is
so
heavy (I'm 6ft and 185lbs, how about your) that you will be hestitant to carry
places,
making picture taking difficult.
But most of all, don't take this stuff too seriously, you can get excellent
pictures with
just about any camera on the market.
Cheers,
Peter
Eileen Chan wrote:
--
Peter Lawrence Wright pwri...@SPAMcyberus.ca
Post Office Box 3,
Carleton Place, Ontario
K7C 3P3
--
Industry in art is a necessity - not a virtue -
and any evidence of the same, in the production,
is a blemish, not a quality; a proof, not of achievement,
but of absolutely insufficient work,
for work alone will efface the footsteps of work."
-- James McNeill Whistler, The Gentle Art of Making Enemies [1890]
James Keivom
say beginners shouldn't be using an F5. if they want to, and they can
afford it, why not?
the f5 is a joy to use and hold and it's AF, flash and matrix metering
come in handy when the stuff goes down.
im tired of hearing those arguments that "pro" gear is only meant for
professionals. i'm sick of hearing the argument that a pro can make great
images with a pentax k1000. in theory this is right, but no professional
is going to shoot the superbowl with a k1000. equipment is important.
period.
so if an f5 is going to help a pro, why not a beginner. i admit i cannot
follow focus as fast as an f5 with a 400/2.8 and boy i've practiced.
Eileen Chan
actually buy the camera...;-)
Eileen
Jim Upchurch
manual settings. The F5 does work quite well in full manual mode,
so why not have the best of both worlds ?
--
Jim Upchurch
remove x in name to reply
Toshiro wrote in message <6LOt2.787$TF2...@news.rdc1.pa.home.com>...
>No Eileen. If you want to learn you should start with a
>manual camera. Price is not the object. Understanding
>light and learning photography is the object. If you want
>to spend money, buy a Lieca R6.2 or a Nikon FM or a
>manual Contax. I started out many years ago with an
>Asahi (ever hear of it?) Pentax and a Mamiyaflex 2 1/4
>with light meters in my hand. The best photos back
>then are every bit as good as the best today with
>automated cameras. It's the person that gets the picture,
>not the camera.
>
>Alan
>
>Eileen Chan <ec...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:36B7AA10...@yahoo.com...
>>I totally agree with you Sailor. It's nice to find someone who thinks
>>the same way as I do...=D I hate hearing people saying F5 is a waste on
>>a beginner. Although we don't gain as much as the pros do on the F5,
>>but I don't consider it a waste on us beginners at all. As long as the
>>piece of equipment help to improve the quality of our shots, then it
>>does not consider to be a waste. Also, if we purchase a cheap camera to
>>start off with, after a few years down the road, we will have to
>>purchase something better to satsify our needs. Wouldn't we end up
>>spending more dollars?
>>
>>Eileen
>>
>>Sailor wrote:
>
>
>
Jim Upchurch
Someone that is envious that others have the money to purchase
what they want. I had someone tell me that I had no business owning
a F5 because I didn't fully understand the metering system. Perhaps
if they focused ( no pun intended ) a bit more on what they were doing
they would be a bit more sucessfull in life, which would increase the
likelyhood of having the ability to make their own purchases, instead
of petty jeolousy.
--
Jim Upchurch
remove x in name to reply
Only me... wrote in message <7992ip$t76$7...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
Tom Sapiano
1005 segment color matrix meters. I havn't played enough with the F100 as
yet to judge, but the F5's meter is the best ever offered. It handles
any situation with perfect accuracy. In theory, the F100, which uses the
same AI system, should be pretty good - certainly better than anything
asside from the F5, but with less segments and no color data it is bound
to be a little less acurate. The F5's viewfinder is also bigger and
offers 100% frame coverage (an indespensible feature).
The F5 is quite heavy and that turns many people towards the F100.
Personally, I don't mind the weight. It is more solid and more stable
with the added weight. I've easily handheld it for 1/30 sec. with a
300mm lens with good results up to 8x12. It's a matter of personal
preference. If you can handle the weight, the F5 is definately the
choice hands down. If weight does matter, then it is a question between
the two.
Only me... (dg...@globalnet.co.uk) wrote:
: Eileen Chan wrote in message <36B6B66B...@yahoo.com>...
: > Hi, I am new to photography and I have been following postings for the
: >past couple weeks. Many of you have complimented on the F100 and the
: >F5, so my question is, would someone actually prefer the F100 over the
: >F5 given that the budget is not a constraint?
: In a way, yes. I'm considering using the F100 instead of my F5. I find
: the F5 too heavy. The 8fps drive will not be missed by me, but the AF will.
: If the F100's AF seems as good, after long term analysis, I will sell my F5.
: David.
--
Thomas M. Sapiano
ac...@torfree.net <prefered>
tsap...@ieee.org <not yet ready>
Moreno Polloni
Only me... wrote in message <7992iq$t76$8...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
>
>Moreno Polloni wrote in message <>
>>What's your problem? Let them get whatever camera they want. Autoexposure
>and autofocus will increase the odds of getting a good photograph,
> But teach them nothing. Maybe our problem is that we actually care
>about what beginners do, and that we actually wish to give them a good start
>in the hobby. Ever think of that?
My point (which you edited out) is that the camera can run in manual mode as
well. I think the best thing you can do for beginners is to keep them interested
in photography. A beginner with a manual-only camera will miss a lot of photo
opportunities twiddling with the dials, get very inconsistent results, and
possibly become frustrated with photography as a result. I've seen this happen
many times. I think an auto exposure/autofocus camera with full manual override
is a better choice for most people. We're talking beginners here. If you are
talking about serious students of photography, I agree with you that manual
everything is a good way to learn, but most beginners just want a good camera to
take good photos. They'll get better results and be happier with an automatic
camera.
>I'm not trying to tell people what to
>do because I enjoy it. For the price of an F5, you could buy a N90S and
>simple darkroom. I know which I'd prefer. How about some books? College
>course?
The F5 or F100 might seem like overkill for a beginner, but it didn't seem like
money was the issue here. Some feel indignant or jealous when a beginner starts
out with top-of-the-line camera. Why? You don't have to earn any mysterious
"rights" to own high-end equipment. All you need is the cash. If you can afford
it, why not?
Nick Fiduccia
>
> Why I want to buy an F5.
>
> What makes you camera "experts" want to get on my case, (and others like me).
> Arn't we respectible enough to own an up-scale camera? How will it hurt you if
> I buy on and some primes and some longer zooms to go with it? If I set it on
> the mantel, so what.
>
> Your arguments are sort of like when I went to buy a new one ton dually
> pickup. They must not have had what I wanted, for after the third salesman
> change, asking what I wanted to do with it, my wife and I walked out. I only
> regret that I hadn't thought to tell them I wanted to put it in the back yard
> and grow roses in it!!
>
> .>No meter is perfect under any light situation; not even F5. Perhaps the
> >knowledge in light comes in handy when you know WHEN to overwrite the
> >automatic setting.
> >
> >Good luck and remember, a man who has a grand piano doesn't automatically
> >make him a great pianist.
> >
> >someone who still using his 20yr old camera.
>
> I don't have to be a great photographer, I just want to have fun.
>
> Jerry
Jerry,
You could certainly buy whatever you want. Afterall, it is your
money. However, there is alot of experience people out there
who shared an opinion (one for which I agree). Salespeople are
paid to give opinions and look out for the one that doesn't. He
either doesn't have an opinion or just wants to sell you anything.
Whether you want to listen to someone elses opinion is up to
you. Good luck and I hope you get what you want.
-Nick
Tran102471
because it has 100% viewfinder, and miror lockup that's, I think, good for
macro work. However, I think that F5 is heavier compare to F100, and F100
doesn't have the 100% viewfinder, miror lockup. Please give me any
recommendations. Thanks a lot
Ps: Most of my subjects are landscape, close up, and portrait, and 95% of my
pictures are on tripod. Sometimes, I feel that the N90 and 80-200D f2.8 a
little bit heavy because I'm only 125 pounds.
bbb
Sailor wrote in message <36B3C677...@sea.world>...
>Yeah .. did I mention that F5 has a 1,005 sensor, 3D RGB meter?
>
>Sailor wrote:
>
>> Eileen:
>>
>> I am a beginner too, and I decided on the F5.
With all due respect, you sound like a beginer also.
As you gain experience in photography and (hopefully) get better at it and
more comfortable with it (no one really ever stops learning), you will come
to understand that all of these features are really just fluff.
I can tell you right now that whatever features each camera has, the
differences will not show up in your pictures (except for mirror lock-up,
possibly).
You should choose between them based upon the following criteria:
1- Which one feels better in your hands? If a camera is easy to operate you
will forget about it and take better pictures.
2- Weigth/size. The best camera in the world is useless if you leave it at
home.
I can appreciate that as a new photographer, all the techno-babble can be
overwhelming, and you can even find yourself thinking that one feature (3D
RGB?) is actually important. Once you have lived with the camera for a
while, you won't care what meter it has (Nikon will come up with a new catch
phrase for their next camera anyways), but you WILL care about whether you
have to push several different buttons at the same time to simply rewind the
film (people who buy cameras based on technical hype don't actually use
film, so that's not a problem).
My recommendation:
Wait for the F6. It will feature "holographic fuzzy logic non-sequential
spatial exposure system" that puts the F5 to shame and makes every other
camera obsolete.
You may want to pick up one of the two cameras mentionned in the meanwhile,
but just as a stop-gap measure.
Bernard
Eileen Chan
understand that you and are trying to help, but what you said was rather
offensive Dave.
Eileen
Eileen Chan
that the people who oppose a beginner owning the F5 is just trying to
lead us to learn photography in a more conventional way - start with
fully manual cameras. But, what's wrong with a beginner learning
photography with the F5? It's can be used as a manual camera.
Just like someone who learned how to drive manual in a Porsche, nothing
wrong with that. There are many people out there who owns Ferraris or
Porsches even though they don't race professionally on tracks. They
just take their cars out on weekends crusing 40 mph in city streets.
Anything wrong with that? I think not. Each of us allocating our money
differently, and I just happen to be a beginner who is willing to spend
more in cameras and accessories.
Eileen
Eileen Chan
I can see that they want the beginners to learn photography in a
conventional way, and they do have a point. I think I will go to the
basement and dig up my dad's Minolta and start practicing with that
first. However, I will NOT give up on the F5. It is still something
that I crave for. :-)
Eillen
Moreno Polloni wrote:
> What's your problem? Let them get whatever camera they want. Autoexposure and
> autofocus will increase the odds of getting a good photograph, especially for a
> beginner. If they want to learn the basics, a flick of a switch will turn it
> into a manual exposure camera. Another flick of a switch, and it's in manual
> focus. And it's a camera they won't outgrow for years. Why not buy something you
> like and enjoy using?
>
> You have definite opinions on how people should learn and what equipment they
> should buy. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your way is not the only way
> to do things.
Eileen Chan
your idea. =D
Eileen
James Keivom wrote:
>
> I'm a photojournalist and i find people it strange that some people
> say beginners shouldn't be using an F5. if they want to, and they can
> afford it, why not?
>
Robert Kowalski
Robert.
Robert Kowalski
It's the person that gets the picture,
>not the camera.
>
>Alan
>
Robert.
Robert Kowalski
>If you really want to learn photography, the F5 actually prints exposure
data
>between frames, you can always go back to those data and get more
information
>and therefore learn more.
>
Contax do the same. But it's quite easy to write it on a pice of paper.
Robert.
Robert Kowalski
good enough for type of your work. Try manual and buy what you want
(especialy if you have N90 for snapshots or wildlife).
Regards.
Robert.
Tran102471 napisał(a) w wiadomości:
<19990203132956...@ng127.aol.com>...
Robert Kowalski
Jim Upchurch napisał(a) w wiadomości:
<799ske$c...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
>I disagree here. I think it is more valuable to compare the auto vs.
>manual settings. The F5 does work quite well in full manual mode,
>so why not have the best of both worlds ?
>
Robert.
Robert Kowalski
>My recommendation:
>Wait for the F6. It will feature "holographic fuzzy logic non-sequential
>spatial exposure system" that puts the F5 to shame and makes every other
>camera obsolete.
>
Robert.
Tom Sapiano
everything by yourself. However, with proper disipline, an F5 can be
used to the same extend by using the manual controls instead of automatic
functions. The F5 unlike many modern automatic cameras has controls that
are easy to access. Aside from the shutter speed dial, everything is the
same as a manual camera - and that isn't all that different. The F5 does
have a lot that won't be used by a beginer, but as they learn they can
move up to using them. F series camera are also built to last so you can
expect it to last as long as you need it. In the case that you need to
take pictures quickly you have the option to move up to automatic mode
quickly. The 100% frame coverage will alow you to practice composition
better, since you can precisly frame the photo (as long as you use a
decent lab). With the option to flip to a spot meter, they can look at
the precise exposures and compare them to the matrix meter to determine
how to properly expose pictures.
At the begining, the F5 won't give you much advantage over the simple,
lower cost cameras, but as your knowledge grows it will be worth every
penny. As long as you use it in manual modes, you will learn just as
well as with an FM or Leica.
With that said, by going with a manual focus Nikon like the FM or F3 you
could afford more lenses (assuming that price is evenutally an object),
incident meters and other accesories that may help your learning. An
incident meter can help show you exposure and how it works precisely. A
larger lens set will alow you to see the effects of various focal lengths
and speciallty lenses. Glass is a priority when starting a system and
unless you are planning on shooting sports or really difficult
environments alot, the money would probably be better spent (for a
beginner) on lenses. Additional accesories like multiple flashes, or
even studio flash sets, can demonstratehow lighting works by allowing you
to control it even more. Mind you, if price is not an option you might
as well do both!
Toshiro (alan...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: No Eileen. If you want to learn you should start with a
: manual camera. Price is not the object. Understanding
: light and learning photography is the object. If you want
: to spend money, buy a Lieca R6.2 or a Nikon FM or a
: manual Contax. I started out many years ago with an
: Asahi (ever hear of it?) Pentax and a Mamiyaflex 2 1/4
: with light meters in my hand. The best photos back
: then are every bit as good as the best today with
: automated cameras. It's the person that gets the picture,
: not the camera.
: Alan
: Eileen Chan <ec...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:36B7AA10...@yahoo.com...
: >I totally agree with you Sailor. It's nice to find someone who thinks
: >the same way as I do...=D I hate hearing people saying F5 is a waste on
: >a beginner. Although we don't gain as much as the pros do on the F5,
: >but I don't consider it a waste on us beginners at all. As long as the
: >piece of equipment help to improve the quality of our shots, then it
: >does not consider to be a waste. Also, if we purchase a cheap camera to
: >start off with, after a few years down the road, we will have to
: >purchase something better to satsify our needs. Wouldn't we end up
: >spending more dollars?
: >
: >Eileen
: >
: >Sailor wrote:
Only me...
Jim Upchurch wrote in message <799t0n$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
>It would only be entertaining to a small minded insecure individual.
>Someone that is envious that others have the money to purchase
>what they want.
I own a F5, why would I be jealous? :-) You astound me Jim. I'm
trying to stop these people wasting there money. I appreciate that it's
their money, and it's their choice, but I've seen this scenario SO many
times. Beginner takes up photography. Beginner gets best available under
the impression that pictures will be better. Beginner shoots like mad with
said camera. Beginner is disillusioned, and thinks, "If these are crap with
THIS camera, then I may as well give up now".
>I had someone tell me that I had no business owning
>a F5 because I didn't fully understand the metering system. Perhaps
>if they focused ( no pun intended ) a bit more on what they were doing
>they would be a bit more successful in life, which would increase the
>likelyhood of having the ability to make their own purchases, instead
>of petty jeolousy.
I find that statement curious, seeing as you have no idea of who I am,
or what my income is. I will not divulge my financial situation with
strangers, but suffice to say that I'm don't often feel envious of others,
and when I do, money has little to do with it.
As I said, I tried to impart advice. If you don't like the advice, then
ignore it. I can't, and wasn't trying to force an opinion upon anyone. I
was trying to make someone understand that you can't be a better
photographer by spending money. It's called helping people. If you, or
anyone doesn't require my help, then I suggest you ignore me.
Your desire to join this debate, when you weren't actively involved
would lead me to believe that it is indeed you who may be insecure. I'm
quite content to sit back and be amused by your folly.
Good Day,
David.
Only me...
Moreno Polloni wrote in message
>
>My point (which you edited out) is that the camera can run in manual mode
as
>well. I think the best thing you can do for beginners is to keep them
interested
>in photography. A beginner with a manual-only camera will miss a lot of
photo
>opportunities twiddling with the dials, get very inconsistent results, and
>possibly become frustrated with photography as a result.
This twiddling dials you refer to, is called "learning". Forgive me if
I'm wrong, but your aversion to dial twiddling would indicate that you would
indeed advocate the use of automation on the camera whilst learning, and
that, will teach you nothing.
Yes, the beginner will miss shots, and make mistakes, so? They're
beginners. That's what beginners do. They make mistakes. Using the F5's
automation will not make up for lack of talent. You may think it will,
because the likelihood of successful (in your opinion) shots increases.
However, the beginner will not learn from this. How can he, or she?
The beginner will get clear, sharp, shots from the F5 without having to
do any work.
If you saw nothing wrong with the above sentence, then just leave the
debate now, as you clearly don't understand.
You mention that it can be used manually. Well, OK, it can, and if used
as such, will be as useful as a learning tool as any manual camera. If this
is so, what makes you think the shots from a F5 on manual, will be better
than those from any other camera? RGB metering? <laugh> Oh dear. Yes,
it's good, but not foolproof.
When on manual there is just as much dial twiddling to be done with the
F5 as there is with any other manual camera, so I fail to see the logic in
your argument. Won't the beginner just miss the shots whilst twiddling with
the F5? Unless it's on auto of course... and back to the start we go.
David.
Only me...
Jim Upchurch wrote in message <799ske$c...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
>I disagree here. I think it is more valuable to compare the auto vs.
>manual settings. The F5 does work quite well in full manual mode,
>so why not have the best of both worlds ?
>
Because I've yet to meet a beginner who uses an automatic camera on
manual. Why bother when you don't have to? I fail to see the problem. By
a FM2 or something, learn the basics, and gain a good understanding of the
fundamentals: Focus, Depth of field, exposure, reciprocity, zone system (if
you like that sort of thing), lighting, manual flash calculations, which
will make you aware of nasty sounding, but essential things like "Inverse
Square Law". Once you have done that, and are a competent photographer, by
the F5. You'll then have a nice FM2 as a manual back up body too. You'll
be a more knowledgeable, and above all, talented photographer as a result.
That's why you'll find few books, or teachers that will recommend anything
but an automatic camera to begin with. Of course, they're all wrong aren't
they. You just said so.
David.
Only me...
James Keivom wrote in message <799ipu$p...@peabody.colorado.edu>...
>>
>im tired of hearing those arguments that "pro" gear is only meant for
>professionals. i'm sick of hearing the argument that a pro can make great
>images with a pentax k1000. in theory this is right, but no professional
>is going to shoot the superbowl with a k1000. equipment is important.
>period.
As usual, the whole point trying to be made has been turned on it's
head.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be used by the "non pro", I'm saying it
shouldn't be used by the beginner. There's a whole world of difference
between the two.
>so if an f5 is going to help a pro, why not a beginner. i admit i cannot
>follow focus as fast as an f5 with a 400/2.8 and boy i've practiced.
Because, as a pro, you know, and appreciate what the camera is doing for
you. As a result, you will know when each feature is needed, and use them
appropriately with full understanding of what control you are relinquishing
to the camera, and what impact this could impart upon your photographs. The
beginner does not. The beginner just uses auto more often than not, because
it's there, and it gives better results initially, without having to give it
much thought.
I'll bet that you learned on a manual camera, and I bet you are a better
photographer for it. In THEORY, what you say is absolutely right, but I've
yet to see a beginner that would not use all these cool features until they
learned all about the fundamentals. They will just skip all that boring bit
at the start. You know... that bit where you get everything wrong, and all
your shots are crap. What's it called now... er.... LEARNING! That's it
:-)
David.
>
Only me...
Tom Sapiano wrote in message ...
>The biggest disadvantage to the F100 IMO is the 10 segment monochrome vs.
>1005 segment color matrix meters. I havn't played enough with the F100 as
>yet to judge, but the F5's meter is the best ever offered. It handles
>any situation with perfect accuracy.
It's not THAT reliable Tom. I've seen it fooled a few times. I end up
not fully trusting it certain situations, so it may as well not be there.
In practice, I doubt the RGB meter will be missed by many. If the AF is as
trustworthy as the F5, I'll be saying goodbye to the damned thing. It's just
too heavy for me. I'm no great fan of light cameras either. I fitted a
MD-12 to my FM2 just to get the extra weight! However, the F5 is just a
joke and if the F100 can do all the focusing tricks the F5 can, you'll be
seeing a lot of second hand F5s I think.
David.
Anders Svensson
> Sailor wrote in message <36B3C677...@sea.world>...
> >Yeah .. did I mention that F5 has a 1,005 sensor, 3D RGB meter?
> >
> >Sailor wrote:
> >
> >> Eileen:
> >>
> >> I am a beginner too, and I decided on the F5.
> (...edit...)
>
> With all due respect, you sound like a beginer also.
> As you gain experience in photography and (hopefully) get better at it and
> more comfortable with it (no one really ever stops learning), you will come
> to understand that all of these features are really just fluff.
> I can tell you right now that whatever features each camera has, the
> differences will not show up in your pictures (except for mirror lock-up,
> possibly).
> You should choose between them based upon the following criteria:
> 1- Which one feels better in your hands? If a camera is easy to operate you
> will forget about it and take better pictures.
> 2- Weigth/size. The best camera in the world is useless if you leave it at
> home.
> I can appreciate that as a new photographer, all the techno-babble can be
> overwhelming, and you can even find yourself thinking that one feature (3D
> RGB?) is actually important. Once you have lived with the camera for a
> while, you won't care what meter it has (Nikon will come up with a new catch
> phrase for their next camera anyways), but you WILL care about whether you
> have to push several different buttons at the same time to simply rewind the
> film (people who buy cameras based on technical hype don't actually use
> film, so that's not a problem).
>
> My recommendation:
> Wait for the F6. It will feature "holographic fuzzy logic non-sequential
> spatial exposure system" that puts the F5 to shame and makes every other
> camera obsolete.
>
> You may want to pick up one of the two cameras mentionned in the meanwhile,
> but just as a stop-gap measure.
>
> Bernard
To agree, and to put in another way (I am a computer consultant)
Buy what you need today, with a marigin for the next one or two years to come.
If you know that you are going to commit yourself to serious photography and
actively pursue knowledge, and do it fast, (develope quickly -hehe), then
perhaps a F5 *is* for you. Who knows...
But like computers, the next better version is coming up real soon, and the
price for staying current on technology is *high*. The period when you know that
you have "the best" (certainly a legitimate pleasure) may be shorter than you
think.
It sounds really strange, but surfing the back of the technology wave is almost
as fast (both front and back goes the same speed, you know) - but is much less
costly.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
Only me...
Eileen Chan wrote in message <36B890DD...@yahoo.com>...
> Hey, you don't need to be that harsh on us beginners do you? I
>understand that you and are trying to help, but what you said was rather
>offensive Dave.
Sorry Eileen. In retrospect, it probably was. I was offended by yours,
and Sailor's rebuke though. Despite what you think, I'm genuinely trying to
help beginners. If you feel you must by the F5 as your first ever SLR,
please try to use it on manual everything until you understand what's going
on. You'll take better photos when it's on auto if you do. Trust me.
David.
Only me...
Only me... wrote in message <79ab62$r3q$3...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
>That's why you'll find few books, or teachers that will recommend anything
>but an automatic camera to begin with.
I must check what I type before I post. As you no doubt gathered, that
should have read "anything but a manual camera".
Harvey H. King
F100 (MB-10?).
That thing even has a shutter-speed dial as well as a manual rewind
crank.
--
Jim Upchurch
What folly ? It is a public forum correct ? You gave your opinion
and I disagreed right ? Why buy a manual only camera when what you
want will duplicate those same features ??? You certainly are entitled to
your
opinion, but as I posted I have seen others bash people for getting a
higher end camera than what they have if they feel they have more
experience. It was the only sense I could make of your post. Who
appointed you THE authority here ?
Jim Upchurch
remove x in name to reply
J Singer
the F5 ?
Anders Svensson
> Jim Upchurch wrote in message <799t0n$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
> >It would only be entertaining to a small minded insecure individual.
> >Someone that is envious that others have the money to purchase
> >what they want.
>
> I own a F5, why would I be jealous? :-) You astound me Jim. I'm
> trying to stop these people wasting their money.
> David.
David, David...
... A known Sierra Cosworth aficionado/driver taking upon himself to advice on
sound monetary descisions and "what you really need" ? ? ?
May your Torsen differential valves jam closed, and the oil sump shaft gaskets
leak eternally if you don't immediately allow Eileen and Sailor their F5's.
;-))
William Reid
Terry Danks
>
>[snip]
>My recommendation:
>Wait for the F6. It will feature "holographic fuzzy logic non-sequential
>spatial exposure system" that puts the F5 to shame and makes every other
>camera obsolete.
>
>You may want to pick up one of the two cameras mentionned in the meanwhile,
>but just as a stop-gap measure.
>
I have no idea why I am responding to this. It just makes me smile is
all. (But I'm just an old f... who still likes F2's and Kodachrome.)
Terry Danks
Nova Scotia
Canada
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
Redjac
is no object, then by all means get an F5. But if you're on a budget, go
for something less pricey. There's no need to blow the rent money, tuition,
and electric bill on an F5. An FM will take just as nice a picture. The
other doodads and stuff are all nice to have, but they're not really
necessary. And when you've hit the lottery, and lighting your stogies with
20s, then an F5 is just the ticket.
Only me... wrote in message <79ab5c$r3q$1...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
>
>Jim Upchurch wrote in message <799t0n$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
>>It would only be entertaining to a small minded insecure individual.
>>Someone that is envious that others have the money to purchase
>>what they want.
>
>
> I own a F5, why would I be jealous? :-) You astound me Jim. I'm
Eileen Chan
I apologize if my earlier remarks did offend you. I know that you are
just trying to help me. Yeah, if I am really going to buy the F5, I
will definitely practice it on manual to help me learn more about
photographic techniques like you and Tom suggested. However, I think I
will leave it on automatic if I am shooting in a basketball or hockey
game. I am also planning to go to Montreal to see the Canadian Grand
Prix this year, perhaps F5 would be nice to use.
I treasure all the comments that you guys have made earlier, if not, I
wouldn't even bother posting in this newsgroup. :-)
Eileen
Redjac
Anders Svensson wrote in message <36B8BB1E...@swipnet.se>...
>Only me... wrote:
>
>> Jim Upchurch wrote in message <799t0n$l...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
>> >It would only be entertaining to a small minded insecure individual.
>> >Someone that is envious that others have the money to purchase
>> >what they want.
>>
>> I own a F5, why would I be jealous? :-) You astound me Jim. I'm
Terry Danks
No. Robert it is NOT easy to do that in my world. It might be so for a
casual photographer shooting a few well controlled shots here and
there. It is far from simple when you are chasing flora and fauna
through the bushes. It is one of my major problems . . . keeping track
of exposure data so I can learn from it.
I don't have an F5 (yet) but reading that it can do this (with the
MF-28?) makes me want one.
Of course, to be really useful it would be nice if it somehow recorded
what the meter recommended too . . . not likely.
Terry Danks
<zam...@za.onet.pl> wrote:
>
>Jim Upchurch napisał(a) w wiadomości:
><799ske$c...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>...
>Try F5 at 30 C below zero. And try Leica R 6.
>
>
I don't know about the R 6 at minus 30C. I have used a Nikon F2 at
that temperature (Dempster Highway, Yukon. Canada, January, 1973).
F2 worked fine BUT remember to advance the film SLLOOWWLY to prevent
shattering it and tearing the sprocket holes all to heck.
No idea 'bout the F5 at that temp. either but I just finished using
the F90X at about minus 7C. Camera worked OK . . . no battety trouble
but I noticed a piece of broken film when I opened it up.
Motor advance and rewind is not the best way when temps are cold.
Hey! At least the F5 allows for manual rewind.
Redjac
you've tons of dough. But if not, what do you think is the better choice??
Ransoming the house? or buying a much less expensive, but just as capable
slr? Be realistic. F5s are ridiculously expensive and you know it. For a
beginner to blow ungodly bucks on an F5 makes nada sense. The more sensible
track is to buy something cheaper, see if you like the hobby, then move
up....especially if using the next mortgage payment for the F5 is necessary.
This is a no-brainer and you should know it.
Moreno Polloni wrote in message
<6C4B5FA47D0328AF.E6367439...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
>>No Eileen. If you want to learn you should start with a
>>manual camera. Price is not the object. Understanding
>>light and learning photography is the object. If you want
>>to spend money, buy a Lieca R6.2 or a Nikon FM or a
>>manual Contax. I started out many years ago with an
>>Asahi (ever hear of it?) Pentax and a Mamiyaflex 2 1/4
>>with light meters in my hand. The best photos back
>>then are every bit as good as the best today with
>>automated cameras. It's the person that gets the picture,
>>not the camera.
>
>
>What's your problem? Let them get whatever camera they want. Autoexposure
and
>autofocus will increase the odds of getting a good photograph, especially
for a
>beginner. If they want to learn the basics, a flick of a switch will turn
it
>into a manual exposure camera. Another flick of a switch, and it's in
manual
>focus. And it's a camera they won't outgrow for years. Why not buy
something you
>like and enjoy using?
>
>You have definite opinions on how people should learn and what equipment
they
>should buy. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your way is not the only
way
>to do things.
>
>
Paul Skelcher
Redjac wrote in message <79anjt$s7f$1...@news1.epix.net>...
>Don't finances enter into this?? Sure, an F5 is all good and wonderful if
>you've tons of dough. But if not, what do you think is the better choice??
>Ransoming the house? or buying a much less expensive, but just as capable
>slr? Be realistic. F5s are ridiculously expensive and you know it. For a
>beginner to blow ungodly bucks on an F5 makes nada sense. The more
sensible
>track is to buy something cheaper, see if you like the hobby, then move
>up....especially if using the next mortgage payment for the F5 is
necessary.
>This is a no-brainer and you should know it.
Thanks for your pompous condescending input Big Brother. We should all move
onto that " more sensible track" alongside you, and maybe you can whisper
the secrets of the Torsen, 'cause I doubt that many here know what it is.
"Nada sense"? It's ok, if Greenspam makes fun of your English, I'll be in
your corner.
Paul
Robert Nicholson
dan...@ns.sympatico.ca (Terry Danks) writes:
> On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 20:10:26 GMT, "Robert Kowalski"
> <zam...@za.onet.pl> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>If you really want to learn photography, the F5 actually prints exposure
> >data
> >>between frames, you can always go back to those data and get more
> >information
> >>and therefore learn more.
> >>
> >Contax do the same. But it's quite easy to write it on a pice of paper.
> >Robert.
> >
> No. Robert it is NOT easy to do that in my world. It might be so for a
> casual photographer shooting a few well controlled shots here and
> there. It is far from simple when you are chasing flora and fauna
> through the bushes. It is one of my major problems . . . keeping track
> of exposure data so I can learn from it.
> I don't have an F5 (yet) but reading that it can do this (with the
> MF-28?) makes me want one.
> Of course, to be really useful it would be nice if it somehow recorded
> what the meter recommended too . . . not likely.
Robert Nicholson
market anyway so even if you spend at of money initially you won't lose much
when you choose to give up the hobby providing your equipment is in good
condition.
Robert Nicholson
computer equipment.
khanh
You've heard enough reason why you should not get the F5 as your first
SLR. Your reason to get the F5 seem to be its color meter to get a
"correct" exposure. But, do you understand what "correct" exposure
means? (and no, it's not meter off of a gray card, and it's far from
setting the camera according to you "color matrix" metering).
Let me give you an example where the correct exposure is not the
value read off a gray card (which is what all camera tries to do, even the
F5).
The idea is like this: You have 9 "zones," ranging from 1 = total black,
5 = middle gray (18%), and 9 = total white, indicating image density on
the film. Each increment is equivalent to 1 stop of exposure. However,
the *useable* range is from 3 to 7, where 3 still shows shadow detail,
and 7 shows highlight detail. So if you were to take a picture of, say,
a black sweater, with proper exposure, you want it to land in zone 3,
rather than zone 1 or 2, because at 3 you can still see the texture of
the fabric, whereas at 1 or 2 the sweater would simply appear as solid
black on the film.
Let say you have a situation where the shadow is 1/15 at F8 and
highlights at 1/500 F8? In this case, there are 6 stops, and it
would seem that you can't fit the entire tonal range of the subject into
the 5 stops of the system. Well, the general rule is to set the exposure
so that the darkest shadows land in zone 3 (so the above would be
F8 @ 1/60s, but you are "overexposing" by 1/2 stop). The reason for this
is because if you underexpose your film, you are effectively failing to
capture enough information about the image. Overexposure, by contrast,
merely "blocks up" the density of the highlight regions--the information
is still there on the film. Now you see why just metering a gray card
isn't always right--if you did this, you would lose 1/2 stop of shadow
detail.
Now Eileen, how can the F5 help you in this situation? The F5 will
give you an acceptable picture but not the best possible picture inthat
situation. If you read the above paragraph and understand what I am saying
then you don't need the F5 and still take perfect picture using nothing but
a spot meter.
Bye all
Khanh
Eileen Chan wrote in message <36B774D7...@yahoo.com>...
>Robert,
>
>I am new to photography and I don't own a F5, so I am not in the
>position to answer your question. But since there are many Nikon
>supporters in this newsgroup and a few of them do own the F5, I just
>want to know which camera would score higher. The F100 or the F5?
>
>I read a thread couple weeks ago taking about using grey cards to get
>the correct exposure in complex lighting condition. So my question is,
>does the F5 users have to worry about this problem? Do they need to use
>grey cards to get the correct exposure?
>
>Eileen
Moreno Polloni
Only me... wrote in message <79ab5n$r3q$2...@newnews.global.net.uk>...
>
>Moreno Polloni wrote in message
>>
>>My point (which you edited out) is that the camera can run in manual mode
>as
>>well. I think the best thing you can do for beginners is to keep them
>interested
>>in photography. A beginner with a manual-only camera will miss a lot of
>photo
>>opportunities twiddling with the dials, get very inconsistent results, and
>>possibly become frustrated with photography as a result.
>
> This twiddling dials you refer to, is called "learning". Forgive me if
>I'm wrong, but your aversion to dial twiddling would indicate that you would
>indeed advocate the use of automation on the camera whilst learning, and
>that, will teach you nothing.
You're forgiven. Personally, I don't have any aversion to "twiddling", as most
of my cameras are manual, and have been for the last 25 years. As far as a
beginner's learning, why should they buy only a manual camera at the start, only
to end up replacing it a few months later.
I feel that the technical aspect to photography is the least important, and the
easiest to learn. The creative aspects are the most challenging, and the most
diffucult to master. The camera really doesn't matter that much. Manual control
is nice, so is automation.
> Yes, the beginner will miss shots, and make mistakes, so? They're
>beginners. That's what beginners do. They make mistakes. Using the F5's
>automation will not make up for lack of talent. You may think it will,
>because the likelihood of successful (in your opinion) shots increases.
>However, the beginner will not learn from this. How can he, or she?
Using an F5 will not make up for lack of talent. I agree with you there. Using a
manual camera will not make up for lack of talent either.
I view talent as a creative quality, not a technical quality, as you seem to
imply.
> The beginner will get clear, sharp, shots from the F5 without having to
>do any work.
>
> If you saw nothing wrong with the above sentence, then just leave the
>debate now, as you clearly don't understand.
It's not necessary to suffer to take good photographs. A creative mind is more
important to good photography than a technical mind.
Maybe you're the one who doesn't understand, and maybe you should be leaving
this debate. Who appointed you king, anyway?
William Reid
Eileen Chan
Otherwise, what's the point of using newsgroup?
Dag wrote:
>
> Well, not to flame, but I'm a (relative) beginner too, and I disagree with just
> about everything you said.
> I bought the Nikon FE-10 about a year ago since a local camera store had it on
> sale for almost half regular price. I had been shooting with an old Pentax
> (don't remember what it's called) up until then, but it kind of broke, so I
> needed a new camera. I had been looking at the F50 and some Canon, Pentax and
> Minolta bodies, but settled for the Nikon since it was a lot cheaper and I
> hadn't needed AF up until then so I figured I wouldn't need in the future (of
> course I've never used an AF SLR so who am I to comment :) ).
>
> Right so now I have a new Nikon body and a bit of money left over, so what do I
> do. I take the money I have left over and buy used 35, 50 and 100mm E series
> lenses, a tripod and later some grey cards.
>
> What's the point I'm trying to make here? I'm getting to it, just setting the
> background.
>
> Anyway to address Sailors point, yes getting the right exposure is challenging
> and sure I have any number of pictures kicking about my flat that are useless
> as far as exposure goes (and focusing and composure and just about everything
> else that can go wrong). But the point is I'm getting better. Each time I
> get back a set of pictures a higher and higher percentage have acceptable
> exposure.
> And a few month ago I started to seriously use grey cards and my exposures are
> getting better still, perhaps almost as good as your RGB Matrix meter. But
> unlike you I'm starting to get a feel for what makes the exposure right, when I
> can use the cameras meter and when I should use a grey card and when I have to
> dial exposure in manually. I'm starting go get a feel for what effect
> different exposures have. I'm starting to look at a scene and go; `right my
> grey card reads 1/125, so that will make that appear like that, but it'll
> probably black out that in the shadows, I think 1/60 will work'. And if I had
> to I could probably get a good exposure without a meter and a bit of
> bracketing.
> In other words, I'm learning about photography, while you're just taking
> pictures.
>
> While in the beginning you may very well take better pictures with your F5
> (actually I'd argue that whoever is better at composition will take better
> pictures, regardless of equipment), what will the situation be like 5 years
> down the road?
>
> OK I'll be the first to admit that there would be no way in hell I'd be able to
> afford an F5 and of course I wouldn't turn on down if offered to me. But if
> someone gave me enough money to buy an F5 and told me to spend it on photo
> equipment, I wouldn't buy an F5. I'd get a used F3, perhaps a light meter and
> more glass. Why? Well I honestly believe that that would help me take better
> pictures than an F5.
>
> Of course, relative to most people here, I'm still a newbie so I may very well
> have no idea what I'm on about :)
> But if someone asked me how to learn about photography, I'd say get as simple
> a camera as possible.
>
> On a somewhat unrelated note, I just got back my latest batch of slides today,
> and just sat there going `WOW...did I take these'? So I must be doing
> something right.
>
> Dag
Asmuni
My own opinion is a person will need F5 or FM10 depending on how he/she
wants to learn about photography. Lenses may last longer than the body
itself. So, investing in lenses are somewhat more important. However, many
people started their photography with simpler body (also cheaper) and
eventually upgrade to N90s/F100 (right now). Upgrading to N90s/F100 may not
be a good option since F5 price is way cheaper than one year ago.
So, if money is not an objective and spending 30-40% of what he/she wants to
spend is still about the price of F5, then go ahead and get the F5. Then,
spend the rest for lenses, flashes, bags, filters, tripod and other stuffs.
Asmuni.
Only me... <dg...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7992il$t76$3...@newnews.global.net.uk...
>
>Robert Nicholson wrote in message ...
>>This is totally abased on the assumption that if I buy an F5 I'm gnna
>>buy cheap lenses. nobody said that they were planning on skimping
>>on lenses so what do you have to say about somebody who buys an F5 and
>>"D" lenses to go with it?
>>
>>"Gee just think of all the money you could be spending on film"
>
> No, I wouldn't say that, but I still WOULD say that it's not an ideal
>camera for a beginner. Are you going to use it manually all the time? Are
>you going to learn the precepts of CW and spot metering with a grey card?
>will you focus manually?
>
> If you can afford to buy the F5 and a range of Nikkor lenses, then
>that's OK, but I just wonder if you think your photos will be any better
>because you're using the F5? They probably won't be. In the hands of a
>beginner, the F5 will produce results no batter than any other camera. Why
>not save money and buy a cheaper body? Are you so carelessly wealthy that
>you just don't care? If so, then I genuinely pleased for you, go ahead.
If
>you're not, then you really should save money, and use it on more useful
>things for your hobby. You could set up a darkroom for the cost of the F5
>for instance.
>
>David.
>
>
Asmuni
F100 has 96 or 97% (??)
N90s has 92%
For my work, closeup, landscape and nature snapshot, the frame doesn't make
much different. I used F4 and N90s with no problem in composing.
The only time I prefer to use F4 is when I need to do extreme close up and
taking slide from monitor, otherwise, again, there is no difference.
Tripod, 105/2.8D, macro-slider and F4/N90s/ other bodies are a "must" in my
work of art.
80-200/2.8D is a nice lens, especially if you coupled this lens with
teleconverter from third party to maintain its AF capability for casual
snapshot ( I notice soft edges using Sigma 1.4X and Tamron 2X). But, it is
not a good lens for macro work, unless you use bellows (I'm not a bellow
user).
For landscape work, any 24mm or 28 mm lens can do the work nicely. I like
my 20-35/2.8D lens.
The combination of N90s w/ 80-200/2.8D is a heavy combination. Try to use
105/2.8D or 20-35/2.8D with N90s. It may be lighter, but not in your
pocket.
My $0.02
Asmuni.
Tran102471 <tran1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990203132956...@ng127.aol.com...
>I also confuse how to choose between a F5 or F100. I'm interested in F5
>because it has 100% viewfinder, and miror lockup that's, I think, good for
>macro work. However, I think that F5 is heavier compare to F100, and F100
>doesn't have the 100% viewfinder, miror lockup. Please give me any
>recommendations. Thanks a lot
>Ps: Most of my subjects are landscape, close up, and portrait, and 95% of
my
>pictures are on tripod. Sometimes, I feel that the N90s and 80-200D f2.8
a
>little bit heavy because I'm only 125 pounds.
Asmuni
I agree. But, who knows, especially in this era of technology. I may
change my mind by the next hour.
Asmuni.
Robert Nicholson <ste...@shell8.ba.best.com> wrote in message
news:yl3emo6...@shell8.ba.best.com...
Terry Danks
wrote concerning the F5:
>[snip] It handles
>any situation with perfect accuracy [snip]
Do you really believe that Tom?
If that is true we might as well all go home I guess. Nobody needs any
understanding of exposure at all. We're along way from that yet IMO,
F5 or no F5.
James Keivom
>
> I'm not saying that it shouldn't be used by the "non pro", I'm saying it
>shouldn't be used by the beginner. There's a whole world of difference
>between the two.
>
>
>>so if an f5 is going to help a pro, why not a beginner. i admit i cannot
>>follow focus as fast as an f5 with a 400/2.8 and boy i've practiced.
>
> Because, as a pro, you know, and appreciate what the camera is doing for
>you. As a result, you will know when each feature is needed, and use them
>appropriately with full understanding of what control you are relinquishing
>to the camera, and what impact this could impart upon your photographs. The
>beginner does not. The beginner just uses auto more often than not, because
>it's there, and it gives better results initially, without having to give it
>much thought.
>
the beginner often wants to learn more than the pro who thinks he knows
more than he does. i think you underestimate beginners.
> I'll bet that you learned on a manual camera, and I bet you are a better
>photographer for it. In THEORY, what you say is absolutely right, but I've
>yet to see a beginner that would not use all these cool features until they
>learned all about the fundamentals. They will just skip all that boring bit
>at the start. You know... that bit where you get everything wrong, and all
>your shots are crap. What's it called now... er.... LEARNING! That's it
>:-)
i actually started with a camera that had aperture priority. i went
through the minolta x7a, canon 630, 8008, 8008s, n90, n90s, f4, eos 1n.
you seem to think exposure is the only thing about photography. there is
so much more skills(than getting the exposure dead on) one needs to hone
before capturing the perfect exposure on film: timing, focusing skills,
composition, anticipation. i've seen perfectly exposed photos that have
no life. look at many of henri-cartier bresson's photos. did you know
many of his photos were horribly exposed and were saved by master
printers? exposure is not everything.
Dag
>Eileen:
>
>I am a beginner too, and I decided on the F5. To me (and to other beginners as
>well, I guess), getting the correct exposure is always more challenging than, say,
>getting the correct focus. Besides, now the F100 is very much overpriced. IMHO,
>the F5 is well worth the extra money. If you find yourself really "into"
>photography, F5 is the way to go, you can always add more lenses later on.
Only me...
Terry Danks wrote in message <36badb9f...@news1.sympatico.ca>...
>No. Robert it is NOT easy to do that in my world.
Then get a F90X and dump the shooting info onto your PC.
David
Only me...
on
>sound monetary descisions and "what you really need" ? ? ?
>
>May your Torsen differential valves jam closed, and the oil sump shaft
gaskets
>leak eternally if you don't immediately allow Eileen and Sailor their F5's.
>
>
>;-))
Good point. However, can you imagine a 17 year old who's just passed
his
driving test getting into a 390 bhp Cosworth? Exactly. Although jumping in
and
using the F5 won't kill you, the beginner will no more be able to resist
using the automation, than the 17 year old would be able to resist flooring
the 'Cossie' in second gear, and putting it through a hedge.... backwards
:-)
David.
jacob
today,
>and just sat there going `WOW...did I take these'? So I must be doing
>something right.
>
>Dag
any way you can post these up somewhere? <g> just curious...
jacob.
Toshiro
enthusiast for 35 years and used everything from an Instamatic
to an 8X10 view camera and have been a professional but now
am an amateur and have taught photography...that makes me
a "petty know-it-all".
Grow up.
Alan
William Reid <bgb...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24678-36...@newsd-273.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Toshiro
Jim Upchurch <ran...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:799ske$c...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com...
>I disagree here. I think it is more valuable to compare the auto vs.
>manual settings. The F5 does work quite well in full manual mode,
>so why not have the best of both worlds ?
>
Because every teacher of photography knows that if you
have automatic features available you will use them and
your cheating will prevent you from learning and understanding
the basics.
It's similar to math education. If you allow scientific calculators
in every test situation you will never get the students to learn
the principles that allow for understanding which allows for
innovation and invention.
Alan
Only me...
James Keivom wrote in message <79aqld$5...@peabody.colorado.edu>...
>
>the beginner often wants to learn more than the pro who thinks he knows
>more than he does. i think you underestimate beginners.
>
I know. They wish to run before they can walk. I do not underestimate
anyone. However, I think you're overestimating the beginner here. After
all, they're BEGINNERS. If they did know as much as you give them credit
for, then they're hardly beginners, are they.
>you seem to think exposure is the only thing about photography.
Really? You psychic?
However, accurate exposure is the only thing a beginner would gain by
using the F5, so using the most salient point of your argument, you've just
made it
redundant. Now shoot your other foot off :-)
> there is
>so much more skills(than getting the exposure dead on) one needs to hone
>before capturing the perfect exposure on film: timing, focusing skills,
>composition, anticipation.
Really? I never knew that. I was just taught to expose film at
college, nothing more.... please. Do me a favour.
i've seen perfectly exposed photos that have
>no life. look at many of henri-cartier bresson's photos. did you know
>many of his photos were horribly exposed and were saved by master
>printers? exposure is not everything.
Never said it was. As you have now said for the second time, "exposure
is not everything". So, apart from the accurate RGB meter, what else is
there to recommend the F5 to the beginner? I suppose the 100% finder is
useful, but there are cheaper cameras with that. Er..... Fast AF?
Hmmm.... I think the F90X is more than fast enough for most, especially a
beginner. Er..... Nothing really, is there? DOF preview is
nothing special. Mirror lock up? Hell, get a Pentax KX :-) What else..
fast motor? Not really needed is it, especially as you get over 4fps with
loads of SLRs these days. 1/8000th? Nope, other Nikons have that.....
Wanna help me out, 'cause I'm running out of features that a beginner may
need here. People think they're pics will be better, that's why they want
one. As you just so eloquently pointed out though, they won't be, as
"exposure is not everything"
I don't know whether you noticed, but although I was advocating that
beginners use a manual camera to learn the basics, I was also stressing that
talent can not be bought. It is developed from what is already there. Some
people will NEVER be good photographers. It's as simple as that. If you're
meant to be a photographer, you'll be one without the help of a RGB 1000+
pixel light meter. That's the problem here I think. No one expects that
they will ever be a master painter, or a concert pianist, but everyone
thinks
that they can be a master photographer. Funny that, isn't it?
Let's face it, there's nothing that the F5 does, that would warrant the
beginner getting one, apart from simply wanting it. If they want one, then
they should just buy one. I have no problem with that if they just go ahead
and do it. It's this letting off steam, and desperately trying to justify
it on here that is a bit weird.
David.
Only me...
Dag wrote in message <79aqmf$i8t$1...@eol.dd.chalmers.se>...
>
>Of course, relative to most people here, I'm still a newbie so I may very
well
>have no idea what I'm on about :)
>But if someone asked me how to learn about photography, I'd say get as
simple
>a camera as possible.
>
Well said.
Toshiro
Robert Kowalski <zam...@za.onet.pl> wrote in message
news:V22u2.31974$014.2...@news.tpnet.pl...
>>manual settings. The F5 does work quite well in full manual mode,
>>so why not have the best of both worlds ?
>>
Good point! Maybe somebody other than you and
me will get it :-)
Alan
Toshiro
Redjac <re...@nevereddy.net> wrote in message
news:79amd4$qt6$1...@news1.epix.net...
>This whole thing is becoming ridiculous. The simple fact is that if money
>is no object, then by all means get an F5. But if you're on a budget, go
>for something less pricey. There's no need to blow the rent money,
tuition,
>and electric bill on an F5. An FM will take just as nice a picture. The
>other doodads and stuff are all nice to have, but they're not really
>necessary. And when you've hit the lottery, and lighting your stogies with
>20s, then an F5 is just the ticket.
>
I don't think so. This thread is the best I've seen in a long
time. I usually don't participate; I just read but I couldn't
resist with this thread. So much wisdom and so much
ignorance mixed up together. What a kick!
Maybe some of you will cast off the cloak of ignorance
and actually learn something.
Alan
Toshiro
>
>Tom Sapiano wrote in message ...
>>The biggest disadvantage to the F100 IMO is the 10 segment monochrome vs.
>>1005 segment color matrix meters. I havn't played enough with the F100 as
>>yet to judge, but the F5's meter is the best ever offered. It handles
>>any situation with perfect accuracy.
>
>
> It's not THAT reliable Tom. I've seen it fooled a few times. I end up
>not fully trusting it certain situations, so it may as well not be there.
>In practice, I doubt the RGB meter will be missed by many. If the AF is as
>trustworthy as the F5, I'll be saying goodbye to the damned thing. It's
just
>too heavy for me. I'm no great fan of light cameras either. I fitted a
>MD-12 to my FM2 just to get the extra weight! However, the F5 is just a
>joke and if the F100 can do all the focusing tricks the F5 can, you'll be
>seeing a lot of second hand F5s I think.
>
>David.
Right on, David
Alan
Toshiro
I have an F100 in my hands, I wouldn't give it up
for an F5 if you paid me. RGB meter? So what.
A 10 segment 3D matrix meter is good enough
for me and I'm not lugging a concrete block
around my neck or my shoulders.
Alan
J Singer <jsin...@email.com> wrote in message
news:01be4fbc$c2480ba0$81b2...@default.nycap.rr.com...
>F100 and MB15 cost only $420 less than a F5 is it worth the extra $$ for
>the F5 ?
>
>
Toshiro
have more than 90% of the frame in view. I had an F3HP
for many years (sorry I sold it). It had 100% view. So
what? It made absolutely no difference in my picture
taking but it was cool.
Alan
Tran102471 <tran1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990203132956...@ng127.aol.com...
>I also confuse how to choose between a F5 or F100. I'm interested in F5
>because it has 100% viewfinder, and miror lockup that's, I think, good for
>macro work. However, I think that F5 is heavier compare to F100, and F100
>doesn't have the 100% viewfinder, miror lockup. Please give me any
>recommendations. Thanks a lot
>Ps: Most of my subjects are landscape, close up, and portrait, and 95% of
my
>pictures are on tripod. Sometimes, I feel that the N90 and 80-200D f2.8
Toshiro
Alan
Eileen Chan <ec...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36B890DD...@yahoo.com...
> Hey, you don't need to be that harsh on us beginners do you? I
>understand that you and are trying to help, but what you said was rather
>offensive Dave.
>
>Eileen
>
>"Only me..." wrote:
>>
>> Toshiro wrote in message ...
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >What a ridiculous, uninformed comment. The F100
>> >and the F5 are two different cameras. A beginner needs
>> >an F5 or an F100 like a 16 year old with a learner's
>> >permit needs a Ferrari.
>>
>> Save your breath, these people want jewellery to hang around their
>> necks, not a good camera.
>>
>> David.
Toshiro
Very good message. Very wise. But I don't agree that
somebody with an F5 will take better pictures in the
beginning unless the person has inate talent. Picture
taking is an art and the camera is just the means to the
end. If you don't find the subject and seize the right
moment your pictures will be nothing more than a pile
of waste paper. Also give two people the same subject
at the same time with the same camera and one will take
a better picture than the other. True every time. Imagine that.
And the better artist will take the better picture most of the
time.
Take an F5 into a rainstorm an try to get a high contrast
bright photo. It is possible but the meter, no matter how
good, won't do it for you. You have to "see" the shot
and know how to record what you "see" on film.
Alan
Dag <f98...@dd.chalmers.se> wrote in message
news:79aqmf$i8t$1...@eol.dd.chalmers.se...
...And a few month ago I started to seriously use grey cards and my
>Of course, relative to most people here, I'm still a newbie so I may very
well
>have no idea what I'm on about :)
>But if someone asked me how to learn about photography, I'd say get as
simple
>a camera as possible.
>
big_s...@my-dejanews.com
I don't know what all the hooha is about.
The F5 makes a great amateur camera, and even a great beginners camera. Just
stick it on "P", turn on AF, point and shoot. How much more of a great
beginners camera can you get? (The only point that may be worth considering
is its weight. It is quite heavy, especially when you add a decent size lens
to it plus a speedlight.)
And once a person is used to its "basic" mode then there are a myriad of other
functions waiting to be experimented with. Could keep a person occupied for
years 8-)
Go for it!!!!
Mark
jerr...@aol.com (JerryR USA) wrote:
>
> Why I want to buy an F5.
>
> I am past 60 years now and want to enjoy taking photographs of sunsets,
> landscapes, wildlife, flowers, jewelry, and plain old snapshots. And yes, I
> know a manual focus camera would do many of the picture taking functions just
> as well, and some even better than the F5. But I want an F5, or the new
> Minolta 9, if it ever gets to market. I have tried the Canons, good cameras,
> but not what I want.
>
> I have my Honeywell Pentax H3 that I bought 36 years ago. Its shutter is slow
> now from lack of use for the past 10-12 years. We (my wife and I), are
using
> her 10 year old point and shoot instead.
>
> I had my own dark room for years for black and white. One of the things I
> learned from that was I could make up for imperfect composition by croping
> while printing. But I did learn a little on how to take pictures.
>
> Now I want to be able to point the camera and have some assurance that I might
> get a good picture. Sure, I could get a GR-1, but it is wide angle only.
With
> a data logging back that records my shooting parameters I may be able to learn
> from my experiences.
>
> What makes you camera "experts" want to get on my case, (and others like me).
> Arn't we respectible enough to own an up-scale camera? How will it hurt you
if
> I buy on and some primes and some longer zooms to go with it? If I set it on
> the mantel, so what.
>
> Your arguments are sort of like when I went to buy a new one ton dually
> pickup. They must not have had what I wanted, for after the third salesman
> change, asking what I wanted to do with it, my wife and I walked out. I only
> regret that I hadn't thought to tell them I wanted to put it in the back yard
> and grow roses in it!!
>
> .>No meter is perfect under any light situation; not even F5. Perhaps the
> >knowledge in light comes in handy when you know WHEN to overwrite the
> >automatic setting.
> >
> >Good luck and remember, a man who has a grand piano doesn't automatically
> >make him a great pianist.
> >
> >someone who still using his 20yr old camera.
>
> I don't have to be a great photographer, I just want to have fun.
>
> Jerry
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Barry F Margolius
-barry
James Keivom
>anyone. However, I think you're overestimating the beginner here. After
>all, they're BEGINNERS. If they did know as much as you give them credit
>for, then they're hardly beginners, are they.
>
if you read my post, you would see that i was arguing that beginners are
not all lazy and want to cut corners. as a beginner i shot mostly
manual(doesn't matter what body) and i still shoot on manual even on an
eos-1n. there are times when i need autoexposure. i use it when i need
it. if i had an F5 back then, i'd still use manual unless the light
was changing dramatically.
ps. i was talking about professionals who think they know everything, not
beginners. we are always beginners because there is so much to learn.
>>you seem to think exposure is the only thing about photography.
>
>
> Really? You psychic?
>
that's all you focused on in your post.
> However, accurate exposure is the only thing a beginner would gain by
>using the F5, so using the most salient point of your argument, you've just
>made it
>redundant. Now shoot your other foot off :-)
>
>
>
>> there is
>>so much more skills(than getting the exposure dead on) one needs to hone
>>before capturing the perfect exposure on film: timing, focusing skills,
>>composition, anticipation.
>
> Really? I never knew that. I was just taught to expose film at
>college, nothing more.... please. Do me a favour.
>
well if you post your photos, maybe you can prove my theory. let's see
the goods.
>
>
>i've seen perfectly exposed photos that have
>>no life. look at many of henri-cartier bresson's photos. did you know
>>many of his photos were horribly exposed and were saved by master
>>printers? exposure is not everything.
>
> Never said it was. As you have now said for the second time, "exposure
>is not everything". So, apart from the accurate RGB meter, what else is
>there to recommend the F5 to the beginner? I suppose the 100% finder is
>useful, but there are cheaper cameras with that. Er..... Fast AF?
>Hmmm.... I think the F90X is more than fast enough for most, especially a
>beginner. Er..... Nothing really, is there? DOF preview is
>nothing special. Mirror lock up? Hell, get a Pentax KX :-) What else..
>fast motor? Not really needed is it, especially as you get over 4fps with
>loads of SLRs these days. 1/8000th? Nope, other Nikons have that.....
>Wanna help me out, 'cause I'm running out of features that a beginner may
>need here. People think they're pics will be better, that's why they want
>one. As you just so eloquently pointed out though, they won't be, as
>"exposure is not everything"
>
please tell me what nikon bodies have 100% viewfinder. comparing the n90
to the F5 autofocus is ridiculous. if you've ever used the N90 and the F5
you'll realize the F5 shoots at 7+ frames a second on AF, the N90 a
fraction of that on continous AF. sure you don't need 7fps, but the focus
tracking is a way better than on the n90s and more shots are in
focus(especailly in sports). My friend upgraded to an F5 because of the
slower AF on his N90s, not to mention dynamic AF and multiple focus
points, beautiful fill flash, rugged body, the quieter shutter,
self-diagnosing shutter, custom functions, AF start button. sure a
beginner might not need these, but in the future, he/she will as they
progress. where do you get this stereotype that all beginners are lazy?
> I don't know whether you noticed, but although I was advocating that
>beginners use a manual camera to learn the basics, I was also stressing that
>talent can not be bought. It is developed from what is already there. Some
>people will NEVER be good photographers. It's as simple as that. If you're
>meant to be a photographer, you'll be one without the help of a RGB 1000+
>pixel light meter. That's the problem here I think. No one expects that
>they will ever be a master painter, or a concert pianist, but everyone
>thinks
>that they can be a master photographer. Funny that, isn't it?
>
>
funny, cartier bresson said he din't have talent so he really had to work.
whose to say some people "will NEVER be good photographers." If you look
at some of the early works of many artists, you would never think they had
it. but they didn't listen to naysayers like you who said they wouldn't
amount to anything. they just kept on working.
> Let's face it, there's nothing that the F5 does, that would warrant the
>beginner getting one, apart from simply wanting it. If they want one, then
>they should just buy one. I have no problem with that if they just go ahead
>and do it. It's this letting off steam, and desperately trying to justify
>it on here that is a bit weird.
>
whats weird is you sitting on a high-horse and telling people what they
should and shouldn't be doing.
Jed
Sailor wrote:
> I am a beginner too, and I decided on the F5. To me (and to other beginners as
> well, I guess), getting the correct exposure is always more challenging than, say,
> getting the correct focus.
That's probably right. Unless of course you start out using a manual camera. Then let
me assure you that it becomes just as big a problem. But what eats me is, how does
getting an F5 cater to solving this problem? I mean, if it's challenging, you take
more time to understand it, and then you master the subject. You don't go and buy the
best tool in the business and let it do all the work for you, cause then YOU will
never rise to the challenge. Ditto for AF too... when you see people who've been
shooting sports with manual focus since the dawn of time... now that's fast focusing!
Buying an F5 does nothing to improve your focusing over buying an F100, and neither
does it assist in the challenge you face in getting the exposure right. Sure, the F5
could get the exposure right, but you wouldn't. Now put your camera to spot (yes, even
the sorry little, overpriced, and worthless in some people's opinion, F100 can do
this!), and then you might learn something.
> Besides, now the F100 is very much overpriced.
That I agree with.
> IMHO,
> the F5 is well worth the extra money.
Yes, to a person who needs the extra features. If Eileen needs 8fps, a self-diagnosing
shutter, a 150000 rated shutter, 500 extra grams, interchangeable viewfinders, 19
focusing screens, etc. If the F5 cost only a dollar more than the F100, but didn't
offer me any more features that I'd use, the F5 wouldn't be worth the extra $1, would
it?
> If you find yourself really "into"
> photography, F5 is the way to go, you can always add more lenses later on.
IMO, you need at least 60% of your budget on lenses... right from the start. I've seen
people on this NG ask for advice about what lens to stick on their first camera, an
F5, because they're on a budget. Their choices? The Tamron 28-200, the Sigma 28-200,
and the Nikkor 28-200. Please help choose one. Excuse me? Eileen, if you can afford an
F5, plus all the lenses you want, by all means go for it. Especially if you feel that
you will at least use the camera on manual at least some of the time, use something
other than the matrix meter, and know when to turn off your AF.
Eileen, to answer your original question, yes. The weight... the F5 weighs a tonne.
The imposing stature of the F5... frightens some potential subjects. Also, the large
size of the F5 makes it a tempting target for theft. With the F100 and MB15, you have
the option of removing the MB15. I believe battery consumption is lower. The upgraded
features of the F100, which is supposed improved AF software, plus the red LED over
the AF point in use rather than a hard to see darker black indication on the F5, plus
something about better control of the 5 AF points which I'm not too sure about.
Oh, and by the way. If you're worried about the F100's shutter only being rated at
50,000 firings.. think about this. That's 1389 36-exp rolls. Or about $14000 in film
and processing. And at a rate of 2 rolls a week for the pretty avid shooter (non-pro),
that will still last all of 13 years and 4 months. In short, don't worry about non-pro
(despite what Nikon USA says) build specs and QC. Believe me, the average Nikon, and
Canon, and Minolta, and any other camera out there, is built to better standards than
what we generally need.
Make a good choice. It's one I'm trying to make myself at the moment, once I come up
with enough cash!
> > Hi, I am new to photography and I have been following postings for the
> > past couple weeks. Many of you have complimented on the F100 and the
> > F5, so my question is, would someone actually prefer the F100 over the
> > F5 given that the budget is not a constraint?