Should I buy a Nikon F6 35mm film camera? Yes.

This page was created after another e-mail from a fellow photographer contemplating the purchase of a Nikon F6, but not sure if it was a good move or not. While I wouldn't dream of speaking definitively whether one should invest their hard-earned money on a piece of photography equipment, I'm happy to put forth my reasoning why it made sense to me. I'll assume you're an intelligent, reasonable adult capable of making your own good decisions. What conclusions you draw are completely up to you. This page isn't sponsored by anyone. There are no ads, no links to retailers (nothing wrong with that...) and I have no financial interest at all whether you buy this camera or not.

The Fish Hog, Neah Bay, Washington. EXIF: 1/125 @ ƒ4, AF-S VR-Nikkor 70-200mm 1:2.8G at 170mm, Color matrix, Aperture Priority, -0.3EV, Velvia 100.
© Copyright 2011 by John B. Crane. All rights reserved.

Question: Do you still use & like your F6? Would you recommend the F6?
Answer: As of October, 2012, yes to both. Every time the big 2 camera manufacturers announce a "new flagship camera," I look at my F6 and smile. There's a reason Nikon is still producing them in 2012. Never will it be eclipsed by a newer, better model. It is and always will be the best of the best. The same can't be said about a single digital camera – and I enjoy that immensely. Think of how much money you'll save over the years by ignoring whatever digital camera temporarily grabs the spotlight – and just getting the F6. The F6 is still the camera I reach for first when I go out to shoot. As long as 35mm film is produced, I'll choose it over digital whenenver possible. I get flack for this –but don't care... I'm becoming a cranky, old man about the topic. I like stuff that works; I like the film look, I like the film experience, and I like the film ethos - the idea of it. And as long as I shoot 35mm film, I'll shoot it with my F6. Sure; it doesn't do video, and you can't shoot ridculously-high ISO with it... but for everything else a real photographer needs, it rocks. Moving on...

Question: A camera is just a box... Who cares what kind of camera you use?
Answer: To those who would ask this question, I'll save you some time. Don't bother reading any further. I'm happy to share why I disagree with that line of thinking (but don't really expect you to be convinced if you're still asking that question). Please click here. This is an interview with Tomohisa Ikeno who articulates extremey well how I feel about this whole discussion as it pertains to the F6. If you're capable of being convinced that a camera is more than just a box, this article is good medicine.

Question: Any technical issues/problems?
Answer: This year I've noticed some intermitent contact with my 70-200 VR lens. It's the same sort of thing that used to happen when I shot the 400/2.8 on my D200 years ago. Low-battery warnings and occassional lock-ups. They only happen with this lens, and they happen intermitently with my digital camera as well. So my thinking is it's the lens that needs servicing, not the camera. Aside from this, no issues what so ever. It has never failed me nor disappointed me. I've had it since mid-2008 and have shot it not sparingly. 4 years is certainly not a meaningful longevity test for a camera of this stature. Nor would the 5 full years since its introduction be a meaningful test. So I plan on updating this page as the years go on with progress reports on maintenance, technical failures if any and servicing CLA's. So far, so good.

Hoh Rain Forest, Olympic National Park, Washington. EXIF: 5 sec. @ƒ16, AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8G ED, Color matrix, Aperture Priority, Velvia 100.
© Copyright 2011 by John B. Crane. All rights reserved.

Question: I spend way too much time on determining the exposure instead on composition, as I often shoot in difficult light conditions such as at sunrises.
Answer: So now I think we're getting closer to one of the big reasons I reach for the F6 over my other cameras. On the surface It may seem a bit incongruous to discuss speed of shooting in the context of landscape photography. After all, we're just sort of sitting there waiting for the sun, right? Nothing much happens between sun up and sun down. But the reality is I can sit in a spot all day waiting for the magic, then miss it because I was spot metering one last time in changing light, rather than making a frame (or as happened recently, missed it in the 120 seconds it took me to run and get a cold beer out of the cooler in the car). Speed and accuracy when it counts is a huge factor with the F6. When people talk about the meter being good, they're not kidding. I find myself Matrix metering (Manual mode) nearly all the time. I rarely center-weight, and have the Func button (a digital carry over unique to the F6 in film) set up to spot meter when I need it. Top honors for speed in shooting fall squarely on the F6. You can count on it. Put a good ND Grad on and you're going to get killer exposures with that combination.

Question: Does the F6 really accept all of Nikon's lenses, old and new?
Answer: The F6 has tremendous latitude in what lenses it accepts. To be honest, I don't fully comprehend the breadth of this statement. All of my lenses are more recent than the ancient ones it can accept, so I haven't had to sift through the technical nuances yet. The F6 can be modified by Nikon to accept pre AI-S lenses. For a detailed explanation of Nikon AI-S lenses please visit this link. I think the modification runs less than $100. You need to send it in to Nikon to have this done. I have not had this modification made to mine yet but expect I will at some point because of a third key differentiator: longevity (see below).

Blue Hour, Rialto Beach, Olympic National Park, Washington. EXIF: 15sec @ ƒ8, AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1:2.8D @17mm, Color matrix, Manual, Velvia 100.
© Copyright 2011 by John B. Crane. All rights reserved.

Question: Is it worth investing in 35mm technology here so late in the game?
Answer: Longevity. Yup - longevity. I have no idea where the film industry is headed. Companys like Ilford, Fuji, Kodak etc. are companies that make business decisions based on their own information and data, and I'm not privy to that. But, let's assume 35mm film will be around for some time to come - which I believe it will be (think of how many 35mm film cameras are still out there clicking away right now). There's an enormous following still of 35mm film and a viable market for the forseeable future. That said, the F6's practical usefulness, in my opinion, far exceeds even today's most robust, sophisticated digital cameras. I love my D3S and will shoot it for many years to come, but no digital camera is as good as it can yet be, while shooting film with the F6 has never been better. The F6 has sophisticated electronics within that can fail, to be sure. But where it really shines is the step _away_ from the computer it takes once the image is made. I believe it's the digital camera's link to the computer that is ultimately its undoing. How many generations of software/hardware pass by during the old, typical 8 year production cycle of the Nikon F-mount film bodies? Even the typical 4 yr. production cycles of the (pro) digital cameras. By the time a top-shelf digital is 4 years old it's looking a little long in the tooth compared to what the "new" one can do. Not so with a camera like the F6. A frame of Velvia 50 is essentially the same today as it will be tomorrow. It's truly timeless; a camera I'll pass on to my son many years from now, wether they're still making film or not.

Wooden Ship Hull, Port Townsend, Washington. EXIF: 1/125 @ ƒ13, AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4D, Color matrix, Aperture Priority, -0.3EV, Velvia 100.
© Copyright 2011 by John B. Crane. All rights reserved.

Question: Due to the cost, storage and inconvenience why would you still shoot film?
Answer: I've heard of too many times and had too many close-calls where losing a catalog of computer-stored images due to hardware/software failure is a hard reality of the digital world. I find great comfort in being able to examine a slide mount in my hand with a loop on the light table, knowing there are no further 1's and 0's required. To be sure, computers are a reality in our world today. But having my photography directly dependent on those 1's and 0's when there exists an alternative? Again, taking a step away from the computer is another welcome benefit for me.

Hall of Mosses, Hoh Rain Forest, Olympic National Park, Washington. EXIF: 1/80 @ ƒ3; AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8G ED, Color matrix, -0.3EV, Velvia 100. © Copyright 2011 by John B. Crane. All rights reserved.

GMC Truck, Laramie, Wyoming. On the Left, the venerable Nikon D3s set to "Vivid" mode. On the right, the trusty F6 with Velvia 100.
Both images right out of the camera, no post processing. © Copyright 2011 by John B. Crane. All rights reserved.

Question: Do you agree Velvia 50 provides better saturated colors than digital unless you become very knowledgeable in Photoshop?
Answer: So I'm going to revise my original response here and point to the image above as evidence. These are two separate photographs, made within minutes of each other (the amount of time it took to remove the lens from the D3s and put it on the F6). The left portion of the above image was made with the D3s. The right half of the above image was made with the F6 on Velvia. When I opened the D3s image I remember thinking wow, that's a nice, sharp image. With nothing to compare the color to, I deemed it pleasing/adequate, and filed the image away. When I got my films back and the scanned image came up on the screen, I remember thinking, "wow, that's a nice sharp image... and I love what happened to the color and texture of frame." This begins the controversial topic of "image quality." I've tried to avoid this topic thus far because to me, it's more of a subjective, wholistic assessment than a quantifiable standard so many tend to attempt to boil it down to. For me, image quality isn't simply "high" or "low." "Poor" or "excellent." I see image quality as the quantitative accumulation of various attritubes of the image; not simply how sharp or noise free it may or may not be. For shots like this, my money is on the image to the right; the F6 and a good Chrome film.

(here is my original response, written 3 years ago: I've been in Photoshop since version 2.5 (20+ years) so know my way around it pretty well. I taught college level for a while in Santa Fe. I only mention that because I believe to get the most out of any photograph that passes through the computer (which is nearly every photograph these days), a trip through Photoshop for a little tune up will bring the most from that frame - whether digitally captured or film scanned. That said, I agree that Velvia 50 possesses a uniquely beautiful look no digital file can match. I don't know that I'd agree that Velvia 50 provides better saturated colors than digital unless you become very knowledgeable in Photoshop. I have been extremely impressed with the color renditions of my D3S - to the extent that I'd say it's the first digital camera I've been pleased with the (RAW) images coming straight out of the camera. Every other digital camera, to my eye, has required tweaking. But I have some custom Picture Controls set up that have been tuned to my liking, so that's a huge part of why.)

Ruby Beach, Olympic National park, Washington. EXIF: 1.3 sec. @ ƒ22, AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1:2.8D @17mm, Color matrix, Aperature Priority. Velvia 100.
© Copyright 2011 by John B. Crane. All rights reserved.

Question: I have and love my F5. Why should I get an F6?
Answer: First, allow me to go on record in praising the Nikon F5. A classic piece of photographic history, no doubt. But the F6 is better. More everything - except size and weight. My F6 has the MB-40 power pack attached - with a Kirk L-Bracket - so it's actually larger than the F5. But when I need to, I can remove the MB-40, slip in 2 CR123 batteries and have a much smaller, incredibly tight, solid, do anything, go anywhere package -significantly smaller than the F5. For a detailed list of differences between the F5 and the F6, the best thing would be to read Thom Hogan's breakdown. And if you're like me and you like that solid, beefy feeling of the F5, imagine that same feeling in a trimmer, tighter, smaller package. The feeling of holding the F6 compared to the F5 is just as solid, just as tight, inspiring the same confidence the F5 does without the mass. It's a beautiful thing.

Port Townsend, Washington. EXIF: 1/100 @ ƒ11, AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4D, Color matrix, Aperture Priority, +0.7EV, Velvia 100.
© Copyright 2011 by John B. Crane. All rights reserved.

Question: Can't I make the same images with my F3, or F4S or F5 as I can make with the F6? Why "upgrade?"
Anwer: I'd say 90% of the time the answer would be yes (90% of all statistics are made up). But the rest of the time you'd have a distinct advantage over other cameras. And it's that other 10% of the time that can easily make the difference between a photograph everyone else could make, and a special one you can make because of the tool in your hands. But let's face it: if you were solely basing your decision on "practicality" you'd probably buy a D700 and be done with it. So I don't think that's the issue.

Columbia River, Oregon. EXIF: 3 sec. @ ƒ22, AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1:2.8D @25mm, Color matrix, Aperture Priority, Velvia 100.
© Copyright 2011 by John B. Crane. All rights reserved.

There's the obvious practical argument, though: if you want to shoot with Nikon's CLS (you should be doing this, by the way... it's a fantastic tool and another way to separate your well lit images from everyone else's "natural light" images). The F6 is the only Nikon camera to employ their Creative Lighting System. Even with the SU-800 control head, no other camera has the circuitry to trigger remote flash.

Another obvious practical argument to move from the F3 or F4 (and older) cameras is, if you want to use a G-series Nikon lens (G-series lenses began the "no aperture ring" revolution in lens design), you are stuck with Program mode, or Shutter Priority mode - neither of which interest the Manual or Aperture Priority shooter. You need the Main and Sub Control dials on the newer cameras (the F5 and F6) to shoot G-series lenses with complete control.

There's also the VR component. I'll have to look into this deeper, but I don't think the older cameras support VR on the newer lenses. I'm pretty sure it's a CPU/Contact thing. I'll look into this and build this out later.

Question: The F6 has a "Silent" mode. Is it really Silent"
Answer: Nope. If you want to take a little break in the reading and have a listen, here's a piece that you can hear how unsilent the "Silent" mode is. I'll say this - it's more silent than my D3S' shutter. I think the D3S has about the loudest shutter I've ever heard.

Question: The size and weight of the F6 seem ideal compared to the F5, which was so big. What are your thoughts?
Answer: The ergonomics of the camera are simply astounding. It's a very pleasant camera to hold and work with - which is a key argument against the "a camera is just a box" accusation. Here's what I think: if you have a camera that's comfortable to hold, easy to use, and small enough to tote with you just about everywhere, you're going to shoot it. I am of the opinion that the more you shoot the camera, the more valuable photographs you'll make as a result. If a camera is large, cumbersome, bulky and difficult to work with (like my Mamiya RZ67), you're less likely to have it dangling around your neck when a moment you want to capture presents itself. Regarding MF (medium format), sure - you'll get a nice, big frame of film, but the spontinaeity factor is dramatically reduced because it takes so much longer comparatively to get off that shot.

The Nikon F6 is extremely refined, extremely solid - yet somehow not bulky and large. If it had ab's it would have a 6-pack. It's a marvel of texture, form, sound, tactile layout, logic and ease of use. Its sounds are refined, sophisticated, subdued; not ostentatious or bombastic. Its an instrument that somehow allows the user to more easily envelope; to more naturally become an extension of oneself with which to record intimate moments. It's hard to describe because this is where the emotional component begins to enter into the equation for me. Round where it makes sense, solid to the touch, and density without bulk. There's a response the camera somehow invites the user to offer that, if present, further enables the camera. Like a dog thumping its foot when you scratch the right spot.

If you're committed to 35mm film, I'm convinced you can do no better than the Nikon F6. Not only is the camera excellent, but you also have the full weight of the unmatched Nikon System behind your investment. From the old lenses and PB-6 bellows, to the new CLS Flash system, I don't believe there's a more robust, complete, higher quality, flexible system available to the photographer today.