New nikon f100

A

Angrius

Carbonite Member
I'm very excited today. I just picked up a f100 and the mb-15 battery pack for it. It's a great film camera and I can't wait to start using it.
Does anybody own one or have experience with it?
I'm trying to figure out what lens to get for it. Right now I'd like to pick up a AF 28-200 ED IF for it because I'm going to Montreal next week and it seems like a good "vacation lens" that doesn't break the bank.

Any comments on this or experience notes on the camera and or lens would be great. Thanks.
 
The F100 is one of the best film cameras Nikon ever made. It's still my favorite Nikon of all time and remains unmatched for the crisp finder and ergonomics. I haven't used the F6, but it's based more on the F100 than the F5. I got my D200 because it's so F100-like.I'm not a big fan of 28-200 lenses because of their mediocre optical performance. For a good bargain, you might consider the 35-70 f/2.8 or the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5.
 
One more thing. Don't forget to go through all the custom settings to get the camera working the way you like. Also the F100 is MUCH happier with AA lithium cells rather than alkaline. The lower voltage of the alkalines can cause glitches.
 
I'm picking up a 28-105 3.4-4.5/f for my Canon, I think that is a good range for some versatility in your composition without sacrificing quality like Barry point out.

Man, with all this praise of the F100 I might have to go pick one up.
 
Congrats on the F100.
Oh, and if finances permit, and you're in the market for primes, don't forget about the new Zeiss Nikon F mount lenses coming out.
 
Damn it I'm excited to get this camera! Thanks for the input guys. i'll post some pics here when I get going.
 
I second Barry on the vote for the 28-105. If we're talking about the same lens (D-series, 3.5-4.5), it's one of the sharpest zooms I've ever seen, especially for the price. And the macro function is so good that I haven't needed to buy a macro lens. It'll focus to about 6-8 inches away, which at 105mm is pretty good.

The F100 is a great camera, good choice. Is it your first Nikon? Congratulations in any case...
 
After talking with the previous owner of the camera, he suggested getting a 35-70mm lens. It sounded like he was actually going back to using prime lens as apposed to any zooms, but this really isn't in my budget right now.
I think I will get the 28-105 for now. Sure there are issues with a lens like that but they are minor to me and I really think it'll be a great starter lens to take on my travels.

I found this one. What do you guys think?

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Nikon-28-105_W0QQitemZ7596869752QQcategoryZ30067QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Oh ya and just for the hell of it, the guy I bought the camera from is a gentleman named Carl Bower. Check this out!:

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1995/feature-photography/
 
I just got a Tokina 29-105 for my Canon A1...like you said, having the versatility is nice, plus 28 is true wide angle which is really useful!
 
Hey the camera came in...it's sweet..and complicated. I'm feeling a bit overwheled but that's half the fun of it.

The mb-15 vertical grip came attatched to the camera. I can't seem to remove it. There is a dial with "lock" in the middle of it, but it won't budge either way it's turned. Anybody know what's going on? Thanks.
 
The F100 is a film camera and the 5D is a digital, so the bigger question is--what kind of workflow do you want? In terms of absolute quality, I'd give film the edge because of the tremendous dynamic range of high quality color negative stock like Fuji NPH400. Film also yields archival quality negatives, which will likely long outlast the life of the digital files. Also, my feeling is that digital black and white prints are definitely inferior to silver-based prints made from silver-based film. That being said, everything else points to digital--mainly because of the ease of use, image management, and client expectations.
 
Barry_S said:
Film also yields archival quality negatives, which will likely long outlast the life of the digital files
Click to expand...

I agree with you on most point about the film v.s digital however for archival reasons the digital files will last as long as you preserve them safely and despite how hard you try to preserve your film it will enevitbly (after about 200 years?) get messed up which will be out of your hands.
 
egproductions said:
I agree with you on most point about the film v.s digital however for archival reasons the digital files will last as long as you preserve them safely and despite how hard you try to preserve your film it will enevitbly (after about 200 years?) get messed up which will be out of your hands.
Click to expand...


Of course you could always scan your slides. With anything, there will be preservation loss eventually. A slide, a dvd, a harddrive. I think that's why I like the idea of shooting in film right now (the benifits of it) and scanning them in.
 
Exactly. Because egproductions specifically mentioned weddings, I think a random bride and groom may not have the discipline to continually migrate digital files every few years. Negatives or slides can be kept for 100 years or more with no intervention from anyone. As Angrius mentions, they can also be scanned at any time during those hundred years and you'd have both a film and digital copy. So from a practical standpoint, the digital files can be almost indefinitely propagated, but it takes regular intervention so the data isn't lost or degraded. The bride and groom can stick the negatives in a box and even if their children and children's children ignore the damn things, their great grandchildren might have a blast digitizing the film and viewing the images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top