As I pointed-out in my review of the Nikon F4, I’ve said many times over the years that, “I’m just not a Nikon guy.” I also pointed-out that I was walking those words back a bit at that point. And now, as I sit down to write this review, I’m forced the reckon with an inconvenient truth: I am, now, indisputably, “a Nikon guy.” I didn’t see it coming, really, but the acquisition of a Nikon F5 professional SLR is the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back. What else did I not see coming? How very much I could actually love a modern, highly electronic camera from what I refer to as the “new school” of SLR camera design.
The Back Story
When most of us think of 35mm SLRs, we tend to think of examples from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus… Perhaps Fujica, Yashica, Ricoh, or even Topcon, Petri, or countless others. Some players in the market (Leica comes to mind) were not, but the vast majority of 35mm SLRs were made by Japanese companies, and once the SLR began to dominate the camera market by the early 1960s, it seemed as if each and every one of those companies had somehow agreed to a common template; a cookie cutter design I tend to think of as “old school” SLR design.
The features of old school SLRs are easy to conjure-up. A top housing and a bottom plate, usually silver, sometimes black. In between, a body and a film door covered in leatherette (for better grip, perhaps, but also to cover fasteners and access panels underneath). A film advance lever, shutter speed dial, shutter release button, and frame counter — all on the photographer’s top right. A fold-out crank to rewind the film on the top left. A recessed button on the bottom plate to release a clutch and allow the film to be rewound. A bump-out on the front for the lens mount. A bump-up in the top housing to cover the prism, that also echoes its shape. A maker’s nameplate above the lens mount. Sure, there were some variations (the Petri V comes to mind, with its shutter release on the front, and a frame counter on the left, not the right). But generally, regardless of the manufacturer, the template was both set, and followed religiously, through the 1960s, 70s, and well into the 80s and beyond.
But it was in the early- to mid-1980s that something came along to disrupt that template: autofocus, which was often mated with in-body motorized film advance, which was a popular, bolt-on accessory for many SLRs well prior. The potentially multiple motors, the sophisticated electronics, and the power (i.e., batteries) had to go somewhere. Paired with advances in materials science and manufacturing, the “new school” of SLR design was characterized by altered proportions, smoothed curves, and an overall sculpted aesthetic. Sure, a built-in hand grip was a nice ergonomic enhancement (or could be one), but it was also a great place to shove some AA batteries, a motor, or some electronics. Moreover, the human interface design changed too; there were no more shutter speed dials, or film speed dials. Instead, we got small LCD screens on the top plates, and multifunction wheels and buttons to control settings.
The same general design aesthetic persists to this day with the newest DSLRs on the market, albeit with the color touchscreens on the back, rather than monotone LCD panels on the top plate. In fact, if you put a Nikon F5 and a Nikon D6 right next to each other, the family resemblance is clear, and most laypeople would assume they’re both “fancy professional digital cameras.”
While the old school boxy designs were consistent, the new school of SLR design wasn’t quite so cohesive; different manufacturers headed in different directions, and made different design choices between their consumer and professional models as well. In this narrative, I’m thinking primarily of the professional-grade SLRs. And, while not a pro-grade camera, Canon demonstrated its willingness to make a full embrace of the new school concepts with the EOS 650 in 1987, then did so for the professional market with the EOS 1 in 1989.
Meanwhile, in 1988, Nikon took a more conservative approach with the F4, opting to straddle the fence between old and new. With a distinctly new school, sculpted, and handsome aesthetic, the F4 retained the analog controls of the old school, such as dedicated dials for shutter speed, film speed, exposure compensation, etc. — even while integrating sophisticated electronics under the hood for driving the autofocus itself, and providing greatly improved exposure metering. (For that moment, anyway, they also kept aperture rings on their lenses, which Canon abandoned with the introduction of the EOS and the corresponding EF lens mount.) In my review, it was this blend of old and new that drew me to the F4. Fresh, new design; old style controls. Cutting-edge electronics; wide compatibility with old lenses. In addition, in the review, I delivered a rather thinly veiled level of disdain for the whole LCD-with-dials-and-buttons interface that Canon used, as would Nikon, eventually.
Many other reviewers and commenters online take the opposite opinion on this, decrying the F4 as Nikon’s failure to see the future, and lack of courage to embrace it and go all-in with a single, big step. Most holding this point-of-view cite unsubstantiated evidence that professional photographers moved in droves from Nikon to Canon in the eight years Nikon took move from the F4 design of 1988, and go all the way in the form of the F5, introduced in 1996.
But go all the way they eventually did. The Nikon F5 came to market even as the digital future was becoming more and more clear. Many consider the F5 to be the camera that the F4 should have been, and given the direction taken by Canon, it seems that it could have been, as well. But as we know, it wasn’t, and while it took time for Nikon to make it happen, the F5 seems to sit right at the pinnacle of 35mm SLR camera design, as the last and best of a breed (although there would be an F6 later on, thought produced in far smaller quantities, which results in a used market price today that’s off the charts). I’d still argue that it shares that position with the F4, but I will grudgingly accept that the F5’s more advanced capabilities give it an edge for anyone willing to give-up that one foot that the F4 has squarely in the old school.
I didn’t expect to like the F5; I didn’t even expect to try one, let alone buy one. In my F4 review, I mentioned that I’d bought a second F4S to use as a backup and secondary body. Unfortunately, that camera ended-up being claimed by a family member who was so impressed with my F4 results, that they wanted to try it as well. I didn’t get it back. I then worked on finding a third F4S for the original purpose, but a mint condition body slipped through my fingers before I could even make the purchase happen. Since the seller had an F5, I decided to try it.
Much as was the case with my initial F4 experience, the first F5 had a viewfinder LCD problem, and had to be returned. It turned-out to be a lucky break, as one of my local brick-and-mortar camera shops, Englewood Camera, had just taken-in an F5 in outstanding condition, both cosmetically and operationally, which they were selling for a below-market price, one lower than I’d paid for the first attempt. Even better, it was equipped with an MF-28 multifunction back, the F4 equivalent of which (the MF-23) I had briefly considered for my F4S. It was an easy decision, and a few rolls into it, I’m pleased that I got an F5 instead of a backup F4 body.
The Camera
It’s difficult not to make direct comparisons between the F5 and the F4, and especially the F4S, since it has roughly the same size and profile as the F5. And while they do have a lot in common, the F5 isn’t merely a somewhat evolved F4S.
What’s the same between the F4S and F5 is, as I said, includes the general proportions, but also the replaceable viewfinder (although not cross-model compatible); the shooting modes (“PSAM” — program, shutter-priority, aperture-priority, manual); the focusing modes (matrix, center-weighted, spot); the focusing methods (manual, servo, continuous); depth-of-field preview; exposure and focus lock buttons; and, a two-levered manual or automatic film rewind — among other capabilities.
According to Nikon, the main new features of the F5 are:
- Improved autofocus, with higher speed, higher accuracy, and five autofocus spots.
- 3D color matrix metering, which considers more data points than the F4 when calculating exposure.
- Improved motors for faster film advance and rewind.
- Various shutter improvements.
- A move to the LCD screen–command wheels–buttons method of camera configuration and navigation.
- Custom settings and a computer interface system.
I would add to that list a few other items. It offers more intelligence about the lens’s aperture, both when using older D-type and newer aperture-ring-less G-type lenses; it has support for both the aforementioned G-type lenses as well as VR (motion stabilized) lenses; and it has a host of other “quality of life” improvements, including a digital aperture display in the viewfinder, and a faster frames-per-second continuous shutter speed.
Among the quality of life improvements is one of my favorite new features, which garners barely a mention in the manual: flexible program. When the camera is in full program mode, it will, as usual, set the aperture and shutter speed values according to the camera designer’s defaults, based on the exposure meter’s readings, aimed at balancing the speed and aperture. In the F4, you could influence that with PH, or high-speed program mode, which would prioritize a higher shutter speed. Flexible program goes one better; simply rotate the main command dial in either direction, allowing you to choose different combinations of aperture and shutter speed that maintain the metered exposure, thus allowing you to dial-in a preference for freezing motion, or achieving shallow depth-of-field, without having to change shooting modes. For me, anyway, it obviates the need to bother with shutter- or aperture-priority shooting in most situations.
According to Nikon’s own narrative, the name of the game in designing the F5 was speed. In fact, their history states:
The development of the F5 progressed under the slogan of “What to do with a camera to speed every operation as a tool to take photos,” keeping in mind the performance of the then-current competitors’ models. The slogan is the basic concept of F5 leading to the subsequent keyword of “Speed.”
Given that — at least to me — the F4 is already a speedy camera, further speed improvements might have been a tall order, but Nikon did seem to achieve it. While the speed objective was not solely a reference to shutter speed, I think it’s worth noting that the camera can run at up to 8 frames per second. Said another way, it can exhaust an entire 36-exposure roll of film in 4.5 seconds flat. Given the cost of film these days, I have no idea who would put this to the test under real world conditions, but it’s an impressive demonstration when dry firing the camera without film.
Not everything new to the F5 is necessarily an improvement. Many have criticized the increase in the size of the body, seemingly due entirely to the design decision not to make the camera’s power source modular, as in the F4. With that model, photographers could choose between the F4, F4S, and F4E, with the MB-20, MB-21, and MB-23 battery holders respectively; the MB-20 holder of the plain F4 reduced the overall proportions of the body considerably for those who preferred the smaller footprint to extended battery life. With the F5, you’re stuck with an eight-cell battery holder integrated into the one and only body variation. Coming from an F4S as I am, it’s not a big leap; for a user of a plain F4? I’m imagining not many loved it — then, or now.
Additionally, Nikon somewhat bizarrely decided to ship the F5 without a retractable AI tab, as provided on the F4, eliminating the possibility of using older, non-AI lenses on the camera. I say “bizarrely,” because at the time, Nikon offered owners the option of having the camera modified with the retractable tab by sending it to a Nikon service facility; it’s even mentioned in the camera’s owner’s manual. It boggles my mind why they wouldn’t have simply included the feature as standard for what certainly amounted to a couple of dollars’ worth of parts. Perhaps it was to encourage adoption of the newer AF lenses? Who knows, but the net result is that few F5 cameras in the wild have had this modification, or so it appears; certainly none I’ve seen for sale to-date have had it, and the modification service is no longer available.
The Experience
In my review of the Nikon F4, I noted my surprise that I use the camera predominantly in program mode, and nearly always with autofocus lenses. The reason I do otherwise on the F4 is to achieve a specific creative vision, either blurring motion (slow shutter, small aperture) or achieving shallow depth-of-field (fast shutter, wide aperture). Mostly, I use aperture-priority to achieve either of these objectives. As for autofocus lenses, I’ve acquired enough of them now (more since that review) that there’s no need to go back to what few manual focus Nikon lenses I own. (In fact, I find myself using my auto-focus lenses on my manual bodies at this point.)
With the F5, I use the camera the same way, but with the aforementioned flexible program feature of the F5, I never leave program mode to get the creative result I’m after.
I’m still somewhat surprised with myself at all of this, as I’ve long been a fan of traditional, old school, vintage SLRs. I dearly love my Minolta XG 1, which is about as far afield from the Nikon F4 or F5 as you can get in a 35mm SLR. And I also really enjoy using the Yashica FR I. And my Exaktas. And my Minolta SR-Ts, and X-700s. In fact, I’m a big fan of simple SLRs that don’t try and do every single thing for me.
But there’s something refreshing about these cameras — both the F4, and especially the F5 — that I just can’t shake. When I use them, I concentrate more easily on the subject and composition; how I want to frame the shot, and which lenses might be best to get me where I want to go. I find the creative experience to be completely different, and if I’m being completely honest, I prefer it much of the time. There’s a time and a place for futzing with exposure meters and focus rings, and there are times when I prefer the limitation of having only a limited number of lenses to choose from, forcing me to make the most of what I have. But I’d be lying if I’ve not come to really enjoy the luxury of dispensing with all of that, concentrating more on the photography, and less on the gear.
Everything I love about the Nikon F4 carries forward into the F5, apart from what I would refer to as the camera’s configuration: film speed, shutter speed, aperture, exposure compensation, and so on. One of the reasons I chose the F4 in the first place was that it had analog controls for all of these things, and LCD panel–command wheel–buttons set-up of the F5 reminded me of the only camera in my collection that I actively hate: the Canon EOS Rebel G. I came into the F5 with a strong bias, and while I imagined that I’d not warm-up to using it, that’s not been the case. In fact, I’m beginning to see the command wheels for what they enable: a convenient way to change a setting without taking the camera from my eye.
In short, it just goes to show you that no matter how much you might think you know yourself and what you prefer, reality has a way of showing you otherwise when you’re open to it. I was open to it; I chose the F5 instead of a second F4, believing that a slightly different experience would have its benefits, and I was right.
About the only negative that I’ve experienced with this camera so far is that the buttons require more pressure than it seems they should. That goes for the top-mounted mode button as well as the rear-mounted AE-L/AF-L (autoexposure lock / autofocus lock) button, the two I end-up using most often. My guess is that the weather seals on the camera are responsible for this effect, but in any case, I’m getting used to it at this point.
There’s really nothing else that I dislike. It’s everything the F4 is, just more polished. I still think it shares the pinnacle position with the F4, but regardless, it truly is one of the finest 35mm cameras ever made, one of the last of its kind before the world made a sharp turn to digital photography.
The Accessories
As was the case with the F4, the F5 is a system camera, and Nikon produced a wide range of accessories for it, including, (non-exhaustively):
- Viewfinders
- The standard multi-meter finder
- AE action finder
- 6x magnification finder
- Waist-level finder
- Right-angle viewing attachment
- Eyepiece magnifier
- Eyepiece adapter
- Eyepiece correction lenses
- Rubber eyecup
- Focusing screens — 14 different types (says the manual, but only 11 are mentioned explicitly: EC-B, EC-E, B, U, C, M, E, J, A, L, and G)
- Speedlights — multiple models, with the SB-28 being the premier option, plus various TTL sync cords and multi-flash cords mentioned previously
- Optional backs
- Multi-control back
- Data back
- Ni-MH battery and charger (MN-30)
- External power cord (MC-32)
- Various cable releases, connecting cords, and more
- A very wide array of lenses, as well as extension tubes, bellows, and the like
The Results
Photographic results on an SLR are disproportionately the impact of lens selection. Yes, you must have correct exposure. Yes, you must have the image focused properly and accurately. But in the end, the lenses seem to me to hold the lion’s share of the influence, and on that score, there’s really no difference between the F5 results I’ve achieved, and those of the F4S.
That being said, yes, the F5 is a faster focusing camera. And yes, its matrix metering is as good or better as the F4.
What does that mean? In short, the results of the F5 are superb. Below are just some of the results I’ve gotten.
