Digital BW, The Print

Is it the features or the plastic body that you object to?

I ask because the Kodak 14n has a Kodak-designed F80 body redone in 
magnesium alloy :-)

In article <000301c2ddff$545d39f0$11980b45@Seth>, seth@... (Seth 
Rossman) wrote:

> Bob-
> 
> Never called the F100 cheap or amateurish.  Too bad Nikon didn't use 
> F100
> bodies for the D100. I used my F100 more in Kosovo, than my F5.  Less
> finicky in weird weather. Delta Airlines smashed the hinge off a Pelican
> case, no less, cracking the F5 display.  The F100 was unscathed.
> 
> The N80/D100 is cheap, but suits many needs adequately.  Just lacks
> professional features.  I was going to buy a D100 as a third body to the
> D1's, but was warned off at the camera store. But, I don't shoot in a
> studio.
> 
> Seth
> 
> 
> 
> =-----Original Message-----
> =From: Bob Frost [mailto:bobfrost@...] 
> 
> =and autoexposure on the F100). The F100 is not cheap, and I've 
> =never heard anyone call it amateurish, but the D100 produces 
> =better pictures in my short experience of it (compared with 
> =using a LS4000 and Provia 100F on the F100 or F80). OK it has 
> =a plastic body like the F80, but I don't want it to last for 
> =ever; it will be out-of-date in a few years. And it doesn't 
> =wear a groove in my neck like the F100. When we tried out my 
> =friend's Canon 1Ds recently, we all groaned; fine for studio 
> =work, but who would want to carry that around all day? It's 
> =features seemed to be roughly the same as my Nikon's; just a 
> =few more pixels, heavy body like the F100, more waterproofing, 
> =and an extra \ufffd5000 or so!
> =
> =Bob Frost.
> =
> =----- Original Message -----
> =From: "Seth Rossman" <seth@...>
> =>
> =>  I wouldn't buy a D100 because it's built on a cheap, amateur body 
> => with amateur-type features I can't work with.  No other reason. Okay 
> => for those that can get by that way.
> =