Has anyone out there had good or bad experiences with the F-100? I just read that pop photo reviewed the body and griped about a constant 1/3 underexposure (though I saw the reverse from a Euro mag). Then again, Pop Photo has rated many low level Sigma zooms as 'just dandy."

I'm on the cusp of throwing lots of money into a Nikon system and would greatly appreciate any input. Is the matrix metering a gimmick- or should I stick to spot metering? Any inbfo on the shutter? Is this the same autofocus/shutterbox as the F5 (I'm concerned with long term pro use)?

I personally am not convinced by the EOS 3 bells and whistles. the nikon body seems to be very solid, ergonomically comfortable, and very sure about auto focus. Thanks!

Jonathan Klopman

-- jonathan klopman (jklopman@erols.com), March 17, 1999

Answers

I don't own a F100 yet. I do own a F5 and N90s. In a quick answer the matrix meter is not a gimmick. It will give an accurate shot in most cases. Notice I didn't say all cases. That's what the other meter systems are there for. Even my F5's RGB meter may not give me the exposure I want(less then 3% of the time). But most of those have been that I wanted a different effect then what the matrix chose. That's where the meter in your head needs to evaluate what situations require use of the spot or centerweighted meters and the use of generally accepted rules of exposure. For information purposes my N90s is 1/3 under and I've had no major problems because of it. As long as it is consistant through the EV range it doesn't matter to me.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), March 17, 1999.

For comparisons my previous camera(EOS-1N) was over by 1/2 stop which was fine for prints but was a pain if I forgot to compensate with slides. By the way 1/3 stop under was fine for most slide film I used since most of them were actually rated slower then their advertised speed.

-- Gary WIlson (gwilson@ffca.com), March 17, 1999.

Hi Jonathan,

You'll love this review:

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Musee/1274/F100.htm

-- Nelson Tan (nelson88@pacific.net.sg), March 19, 1999.

Very nice review, Nelson. I have been looking for a review of the F100 and you gave it a very thorought look. Thanks for pointing us to the page.

-- james (albanyjim1@aol.com), March 19, 1999.

I just had the chance to do a field comparison between the F100 and the older F5's. Last week I was shooting the Women's NCAA Swimming championships at the University of Georgia and used the F100 extensively on a 400/2.8 AF-S, 300/2.8 AF-S and the 80-200 AF-S as well as some wide angles.

I was using strobes in the natatorium and only used the camera meters to occasionally confirm ambient light exposure, so I cannot compare the metering capabilities except to say that they gave equivalent readings under these conditions. As for TTl fill flash capability, the F100 was very good and I saw no difference between the F100 and F5 using an SB-26 with or without the stadium strobes. The F100 autofocus was very good, quite fast and handled all the above lenses very well. I did not hesitate to choose between the bodies. Since I was only able to shoot at 1 frame/second due to the strobe recycle time, I could not really evaluate the high speed film advance rates. Since the swimmers often pop out of the water during some strokes and disappear again, the camera has to acquire sharp focus quickly as the subject moves. The F100 was very good at tracking the subject even when they were underwater and quite blurred.

I was using an N90s as the 3rd body for this type of shooting until recently. The F100 is much more compatable with the F5 and it is easier to change bodies and not have to remember how the different functions are set up. The F100 aperture and shutter speed dials are set up like the F5 whic is particularly useful. One additonal plus for the F100 is the added shutter speed wheel near the vertical shutter release on the power grip. This was useful a number of times and I wish the F5 had it. The F100 has a solid feel much like the F5 and much more solid than the N90s.

There were a few minor differences in the F100 I had not anticipated. These relate to differences in how the autofocus sensors are selected and are indicated in the single and dynamic focus modes.

While this was certainly not an extensive test of the diverse functions this reader group would like to have compared, I can certainly say that te F100 will fill many of the needs that an F5 would accomodate and it is lighter and costs less.

I will do another test this week as the NCAA Men's Swimming Championships are being held so I can do further testing on similar subjects and conditions.

Good shooting

-- Peter Bick (Bick@iquest.net), March 21, 1999.