To me, you have to put F4 in perspective. I thought it came out around 86, but what I see online is 89- which would put it contemporary to the EOS-1. And I think that is a great ‘break point’ in cameras.
To me, as a young shooter, the F4 was ‘it’. Building on the F3 and the history of Nikons. At least from my perspective in the 1980s, Nikon’s were pro cameras and Canons were consumers cams, (like the AE-1 Program that my mom had). My first camera was an A1 to build on the lenses in my family, but I wanted an FM2n and I REALLY wanted an F4s.
But to me, the F4 was the last time that Nikon could say that they ruled pro 35mm SLRs. AF was coming. The F4 was 4 years after the Minolta(Sony) Maxxum 7000. Canon had ditched their FD mount and had gone non-compromises with the new EF mount.
Nikon listened to their customers and kept the F lens mount, and tried to adapt (pretty well) AF to it over time. Maybe a great example of how you shouldn’t always listen to your customers as Canon became ascendant, especially in sports.
Want a lighter F4? Buy a Canon T90… a few years older, but the start of the EOS camera design gestalt.
So we had the F4 and in 10 years digital was the path forward, and after the Canon 5D full frame, film even for consumers became a distant second.
So, to me, the F4 is that maximum of the tech as there is a transition. The Grumman Bearcat- perhaps the ultimate prop fighter that was replaced by jets. Cool tech, taken to the logical extremes, but soon cast aside.
Perspective. We photographers should appreciate that…
With all that, there are few cameras as pretty and imposing as a F4s with a 50/1.4 on it. Decades later is screams- I’M A PHOTOGRAPHER…. Hear my click! (At 5fps.)
anselwannab wrote:
To me, you have to put F4 in perspective. I thought it came out around 86, but what I see online is 89- which would put it contemporary to the EOS-1. And I think that is a great ‘break point’ in cameras.
To me, as a young shooter, the F4 was ‘it’. Building on the F3 and the history of Nikons. At least from my perspective in the 1980s, Nikon’s were pro cameras and Canons were consumers cams, (like the AE-1 Program that my mom had). My first camera was an A1 to build on the lenses in my family, but I wanted an FM2n and I REALLY wanted an F4s.
But to me, the F4 was the last time that Nikon could say that they ruled pro 35mm SLRs. AF was coming. The F4 was 4 years after the Minolta(Sony) Maxxum 7000. Canon had ditched their FD mount and had gone non-compromises with the new EF mount.
Nikon listened to their customers and kept the F lens mount, and tried to adapt (pretty well) AF to it over time. Maybe a great example of how you shouldn’t always listen to your customers as Canon became ascendant, especially in sports.
Want a lighter F4? Buy a Canon T90… a few years older, but the start of the EOS camera design gestalt.
So we had the F4 and in 10 years digital was the path forward, and after the Canon 5D full frame, film even for consumers became a distant second.
So, to me, the F4 is that maximum of the tech as there is a transition. The Grumman Bearcat- perhaps the ultimate prop fighter that was replaced by jets. Cool tech, taken to the logical extremes, but soon cast aside.
Perspective. We photographers should appreciate that…
With all that, there are few cameras as pretty and imposing as a F4s with a 50/1.4 on it. Decades later is screams- I’M A PHOTOGRAPHER…. Hear my click! (At 5fps.)...Show more →
This is so true. When I took photos for my high school yearbook in the early 90's, one of the other kids had an F4S and it was the sh*t! I've always shot Pentax and Canon (and more recently, other random film cameras), but if I ever got a Nikon, it would be an F4S.
anselwannab wrote:
Nikon listened to their customers and kept the F lens mount, and tried to adapt (pretty well) AF to it over time. Maybe a great example of how you shouldn’t always listen to your customers as Canon became ascendant, especially in sports.
I think sticking with F-mount and „listening to customers“ is only part of the story here - and a convenient excuse for Nikon at the time. It seems they were also a bit of a lazy incumbent and probably underestimated the importance or speed of development in autofocus and how aggressive Canon would be able to take market share off of them.
To me this suggests Nikon had underinvested in AF R&D. At least relative to Canon. And that’s the much more inconvenient story as it’s a management failure.
It would take them a lot of time to catch up to Canon in terms of AF but with the introduction of 3D tracking (introduced 2007 with the D3, I think) they were on par or actually slightly ahead until the 1DX with iTR AF mostly matched that in 2012.
The decision to put the AF Motor into the camera instead of the lenses was (in hindsight) also a mistake, but probably not the crucial one as they were able to focus very fast in later models. And it’s also not related to F-mount as AF-S lenses (introduced in 1996) proved.
I undestand that the F4 does not focus as fast as the equivalent Canon, but I never had problems with the F4's AF. Always accurate, no isses even in dim light. Totally fine for 'street' photography plus it focuses waaaaay quicker than I can manually!
Desmolicious wrote:
I undestand that the F4 does not focus as fast as the equivalent Canon, but I never had problems with the F4's AF. Always accurate, no isses even in dim light. Totally fine for 'street' photography plus it focuses waaaaay quicker than I can manually!
There was no equivalent Canon AF camera (EOS 1) until a year after the F4s. And I'm sure you recall that a lot of Canon users were so pissed that their lenses were useless on the EOS, that they were looking at Nikon and Minolta instead.
OffTrail wrote:
The lower LCD is part of the finder so a swap would fix it. The upper LCD is part of the camera and just magnified via the finder.
The upper left LCD in the finder has bleed. The lower LCD is fine. So, a new finder won't help me I assume?
What info am I missing at the top? exposure and frame counter?
mascejos wrote:
The upper left LCD in the finder has bleed. The lower LCD is fine. So, a new finder won't help me I assume?
What info am I missing at the top? exposure and frame counter?
Can you return the camera? There are plenty out there that are fine.
I would pick non leaky LCDs over a perfect cosmetic condition camera.
mascejos wrote:
The upper left LCD in the finder has bleed. The lower LCD is fine. So, a new finder won't help me I assume?
What info am I missing at the top? exposure and frame counter?
Correct. I believe the top left LCD is actually an easy replacement if parts are available. I know in the F3 it was designed to be a quick replacement, and working LCD"s still appear to be common enough.
I couldn't actually remember what the top LCD showed so I got mine out. With the DP-20, it only shows frame count. You've got a frame counter on the body, so that's not a big deal IMO. With the DP-20 removed, I see some exposure info displayed but with the DP-20 installed, that goes away and the exposure info is shown in the bottom of the viewfinder. My guess is that the top LCD's exposure info is for use with other finders or no finder.
So I personally wouldn't worry about the top LCD if I intended to only use the DP-20 (which I do). And evidently I never look at it if I couldn't remember what it was good for anyway
OffTrail wrote:
Correct. I believe the top left LCD is actually an easy replacement if parts are available. I know in the F3 it was designed to be a quick replacement, and working LCD"s still appear to be common enough.
I couldn't actually remember what the top LCD showed so I got mine out. With the DP-20, it only shows frame count. You've got a frame counter on the body, so that's not a big deal IMO. With the DP-20 removed, I see some exposure info displayed but with the DP-20 installed, that goes away and the exposure info is shown in the bottom of the viewfinder. My guess is that the top LCD's exposure info is for use with other finders or no finder.
So I personally wouldn't worry about the top LCD if I intended to only use the DP-20 (which I do). And evidently I never look at it if I couldn't remember what it was good for anyway ...Show more →
Thanks for your reply. Ya, I didn't think it was a big deal on upper LCD. All I need to see is info on lower LCD. I will keep the camera. It literally looks brand new and works fine.
I have the DP-20 finder
fjablo wrote:
I think sticking with F-mount and „listening to customers“ is only part of the story here - and a convenient excuse for Nikon at the time. It seems they were also a bit of a lazy incumbent and probably underestimated the importance or speed of development in autofocus and how aggressive Canon would be able to take market share off of them.
To me this suggests Nikon had underinvested in AF R&D. At least relative to Canon. And that’s the much more inconvenient story as it’s a management failure.
It would take them a lot of time to catch up to Canon in terms of AF but with the introduction of 3D tracking (introduced 2007 with the D3, I think) they were on par or actually slightly ahead until the 1DX with iTR AF mostly matched that in 2012.
The decision to put the AF Motor into the camera instead of the lenses was (in hindsight) also a mistake, but probably not the crucial one as they were able to focus very fast in later models. And it’s also not related to F-mount as AF-S lenses (introduced in 1996) proved. ...Show more →
It was probably multifaceted, and I’d like to hear from sports shooters of that time if teh pro-support at events was different for the companies. I’ve seen that Canon brings gear to major events and pro’s can use them- and have back-ups if needed. Not sure if Nikon was as big into this?
---------------------------------------------
EB-1 wrote:
There was no equivalent Canon AF camera (EOS 1) until a year after the F4s. And I'm sure you recall that a lot of Canon users were so pissed that their lenses were useless on the EOS, that they were looking at Nikon and Minolta instead.
EBH
Well, I’d say that the gamble paid off.
It would be interesting to know why the Maxxum line didn’t really take off until Sony took over the Alpha line? Though I guess the answer is that Sony sank a lot of money and brought out new cameras at a fast pace.
I bought an F4s because I'm collecting all the Voigtlander SL lenses and the two ultra wides have non-retrofocal designs that require a true mirror lock-up which, to my understanding, the F5, F100, and F6 lack. Would be nice at times to have more modern AF and G-type aperture control, but I'm mostly using it with my SL and Leica R lenses, so it doesn't really matter that much.
IIRC mir.com has had Nikkors and Nikon cameras for over 25 years, and I was on the 56K dialup.
I did not know they had Canon gear and I'm not sure about specific models.
Lee Saxon wrote:
... and the two ultra wides have retrofocal designs that require a true mirror lock-up which, to my understanding, the F5, F100, and F6 lack.
Wow, true MLU! Haven't thought about that camera feature in a few years. My only camera, oddly, with true MLU is the Contax RTS III of 1990. Oddly because no other Contax SLRs is so equipped. BTW, retrofocus was invented to allow more clearance (back focal distance), not less. UWA lenses with symmetric designs like the CZ Hologon or Russian Jupiter-12 (35mm) are the ones where the rear element scrapes across the film when you advance.
OffTrail wrote:
Correct. I believe the top left LCD is actually an easy replacement if parts are available. I know in the F3 it was designed to be a quick replacement, and working LCD"s still appear to be common enough.
I couldn't actually remember what the top LCD showed so I got mine out. With the DP-20, it only shows frame count. You've got a frame counter on the body, so that's not a big deal IMO. With the DP-20 removed, I see some exposure info displayed but with the DP-20 installed, that goes away and the exposure info is shown in the bottom of the viewfinder. My guess is that the top LCD's exposure info is for use with other finders or no finder.
So I personally wouldn't worry about the top LCD if I intended to only use the DP-20 (which I do). And evidently I never look at it if I couldn't remember what it was good for anyway ...Show more →
I think the upper left LCD is for frame counter and exposure compensation. Mine has a slight bleed in that one too.
Lee Saxon wrote:
I bought an F4s because I'm collecting all the Voigtlander SL lenses and the two ultra wides have retrofocal designs that require a true mirror lock-up which, to my understanding, the F5, F100, and F6 lack. Would be nice at times to have more modern AF and G-type aperture control, but I'm mostly using it with my SL and Leica R lenses, so it doesn't really matter that much.
Interesting. How does the MLU differ in the F4 vs. the others?
OffTrail wrote:
Interesting. How does the MLU differ in the F4 vs. the others?
Certain non-retrofocal (I left out the "non" accidentally in my first post) early ultra wide angle lens designs protruded back past the mount and got in the way of the mirror. Older SLRs required a mechanical lever that "permanently" locked up the mirror so that it wouldn't bang into such a lens while you had it mounted. The mirror *stays* up until you remove the lens and re-open that lever. You had to mount an external viewfinder in the flash shoe so you could frame your shot. As fewer and fewer people still had those ancient lenses, Nikon only kept this feature in their top end bodies, up until (double-checking just now, I was mistaken, the F5 was the last to have it, not the F4).
Starting with the F100, F6, and DSLRs, even the pro bodies lost this "true" mirror lock-up and got an electronic mode which you might call mirror "pre-fire" instead of "lock-up". First shutter activation raises the mirror temporarily, you wait for vibration to die down, second activation fires the shutter, but then the mirror automatically comes back down, preparing you to frame your next shot. The D850 even automated this into an "Exposure Delay" mode that only required one shutter press (sort of a blend of mirror pre-fire and a very short self-timer). This is a huge improvement and far easier and more convenient for the 99.9% of people who were using mirror lock-up mode just to reduce vibration, but obviously it wouldn't work for the 0.01% of people experimenting with some ancient protruding non-retrofocal lens, because the mirror would crash into it.
(Also: Huss implies I might be mistaken about the F6, and indeed I haven't confirmed this myself this is just based on my research online)
Lee Saxon wrote:
Certain non-retrofocal (I left out the "non" accidentally in my first post) early ultra wide angle lens designs protruded back past the mount and got in the way of the mirror. Older SLRs required a mechanical lever that "permanently" locked up the mirror so that it wouldn't bang into such a lens while you had it mounted. The mirror *stays* up until you remove the lens and re-open that lever. You had to mount an external viewfinder in the flash shoe so you could frame your shot. As fewer and fewer people still had those ancient lenses, Nikon only kept this feature in their top end bodies, up until (double-checking just now, I was mistaken, the F5 was the last to have it, not the F4).
Starting with the F100, F6, and DSLRs, even the pro bodies lost this "true" mirror lock-up and got an electronic mode which you might call mirror "pre-fire" instead of "lock-up". First shutter activation raises the mirror temporarily, you wait for vibration to die down, second activation fires the shutter, but then the mirror automatically comes back down, preparing you to frame your next shot. The D850 even automated this into an "Exposure Delay" mode that only required one shutter press (sort of a blend of mirror pre-fire and a very short self-timer). This is a huge improvement and far easier and more convenient for the 99.9% of people who were using mirror lock-up mode just to reduce vibration, but obviously it wouldn't work for the 0.01% of people experimenting with some ancient protruding non-retrofocal lens, because the mirror would crash into it.
(Also: Huss implies I might be mistaken about the F6, and indeed I haven't confirmed this myself this is just based on my research online)...Show more →
No, I think you’re right now that you have given a detailed description
Lee Saxon wrote:
Certain non-retrofocal (I left out the "non" accidentally in my first post) early ultra wide angle lens designs protruded back past the mount and got in the way of the mirror. Older SLRs required a mechanical lever that "permanently" locked up the mirror so that it wouldn't bang into such a lens while you had it mounted. The mirror *stays* up until you remove the lens and re-open that lever. You had to mount an external viewfinder in the flash shoe so you could frame your shot. As fewer and fewer people still had those ancient lenses, Nikon only kept this feature in their top end bodies, up until (double-checking just now, I was mistaken, the F5 was the last to have it, not the F4).
Starting with the F100, F6, and DSLRs, even the pro bodies lost this "true" mirror lock-up and got an electronic mode which you might call mirror "pre-fire" instead of "lock-up". First shutter activation raises the mirror temporarily, you wait for vibration to die down, second activation fires the shutter, but then the mirror automatically comes back down, preparing you to frame your next shot. The D850 even automated this into an "Exposure Delay" mode that only required one shutter press (sort of a blend of mirror pre-fire and a very short self-timer). This is a huge improvement and far easier and more convenient for the 99.9% of people who were using mirror lock-up mode just to reduce vibration, but obviously it wouldn't work for the 0.01% of people experimenting with some ancient protruding non-retrofocal lens, because the mirror would crash into it.
(Also: Huss implies I might be mistaken about the F6, and indeed I haven't confirmed this myself this is just based on my research online)...Show more →
Gotcha. I wondered because I know the F5 lockup levers are mechanical, and it seemed like there was no risk of the mirror falling. But I've never mounted a lens that protrudes into the mirror box, so figured I was missing something.
I've bumped into problems with electronic MLU's on other systems where a weak battery won't hold the mirror up, but never thought much about electronic vs. mechanical past that. Makes sense if you're sticking something into the mirror box, though.
