A Look Back: Viewing Nikon's F6 Film Camera Through a 2004 Lens

While there’s much abuzz about Nikon’s upcoming full-frame mirrorless cameras, it’s easy to forget that Nikon has been in the “full frame” business for a long time. Here to remind us of that is YouTuber Matt Granger, who reviews that Nikon F6, Nikon’s 2004-era 35mm film flagship, which he calls the “DSLR killer.”

No, it's not one of Nikon's new mirrorless cameras, which may also be DSLR killers. History also shows us that the Nikon F6 did not quite return film to dominance over the company's crop-sensored DSLRs of the era, but what's interesting about the review is that Granger does it in a new style he's piloting: a period review.

Complete with an Apple iBook G4 and some floppy disks on the table for good measure, Granger touts the many benefits of the camera over a DSLR, such as changeable film stocks, and much better battery life (the irony of that last point is not lost here). It really seems as if this review was released from a 2004 time capsule and plopped onto YouTube in 2018. It's a fascinating historical perspective on what is possibly the last of the line for the F series of cameras.

Wasim Ahmad's picture

Wasim Ahmad is an assistant teaching professor teaching journalism at Quinnipiac University. He's worked at newspapers in Minnesota, Florida and upstate New York, and has previously taught multimedia journalism at Stony Brook University and Syracuse University. He's also worked as a technical specialist at Canon USA for Still/Cinema EOS cameras.

Log in or register to post comments
16 Comments

First, this takes place in 2004 and not 2006 (both the F6 and Facebook came out in 2004). Second, it is highly inaccurate piece with no fact checking, He starts with the noise of a dial up modem which was circa 1980s and 1990s. By 2004, cable modems and DSL modems were the norm. Then he talks about Facebook. In 2004, Facebook was a closed group only available to students of the Ivy League and it was not available to the general population until much later. If he deletes the first half of the video and keeps the second half then it would have been a great video. He was doing a Tony Northrop and making up facts as he goes along ( e.g. Ansel Adams growing up and watching the Golden Gate Bridge except the bridge didn’t start construction until 30 years after he was born).

If he just reviewed of the camera, which can still be bought new, it would have been excellent. The second half were he was recreating the poster was excellent.

Perhaps you didn't appreciate his attempt at comedy. Or perhaps you agree that he looks a lot like Clint Eastwood.

This could have been an excellent video since the camera can still be bought new. When he reviews camera equipment, he is excellent, as demonstrated in the second half with the movie poster recreation. But if you are going to try to do comedy, then make it accurate. I sure with more research, he could have found something from 2004 that was accurate and funny at the same time.

Humour (British English) or humor (American English; see spelling differences) is the tendency of experiences to provoke laughter and provide amusement. The term derives from the humoral medicine of the ancient Greeks, which taught that the balance of fluids in the human body, known as humours (Latin: humor, "body fluid"), controlled human health and emotion.

People of all ages and cultures respond to humour. Most people are able to experience humour—be amused, smile or laugh at something funny—and thus are considered to have a sense of humour. The hypothetical person lacking a sense of humour would likely find the behaviour inducing it to be inexplicable, strange, or even irrational. Though ultimately decided by personal taste, the extent to which a person finds something humorous depends on a host of variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence and context. For example, young children may favour slapstick such as Punch and Judy puppet shows or the Tom and Jerry cartoons, whose physical nature makes it accessible to them. By contrast, more sophisticated forms of humour such as satire require an understanding of its social meaning and context, and thus tend to appeal to a more mature audience.

Humour (I like the British spelling) is subjective. It can be relative to your age, cultural experiences and life experiences, among other things. I tell my wife the funniest jokes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and, being Japanese, she doesn't think they're funny. The reverse is also true. That being said, I thought the Australian Tourism Superbowl ad was funny as hell! :-)

Truth

Oops. You basically said everything I did. Sorry. I've been sick for almost a month now.

All good. Hope you feel better soon.

Huh, they've changed the stacking of responses. Awesome.

Yeah, I noticed that too. Vast improvement!

Seriously, Felix, heard of satire? Pro tip: we don't need to split hairs over the details for the jokes to work.

Ha, you hear an Australian refer to dial up modems from 2004 or 2006 and you think that's not likely to have been his experience? Think again!

Mate, he's Aussie. Thanks to our mate Rupert Murdoch half of us are *still* waiting for decent broadband.
Broadband in 2004? Tell him he's dreaming...

Brilliant! What did you use to shoot the video, a Motorola Razr?

Wow, the F6 is still going for $2500USD. I have not priced an SLR in quite a while, but that still seems a fair bit for a 14yr old camera.

Yeah I looked one up after I wrote the article as I gave away most of my film cameras to the kids of friends for their school work. I saw the price and went back to shooting my X-T1.

I think the only film camera I had that I really miss is my Elan, but I can certainly pick one of those up for way cheaper than $2500.

If only my History teacher in High School had interlaced facts and humour like this - I would have enjoyed Friday third periods so much more ;)