Good-looking blast from the past for sale right now by orongo1 on eBay
Nikon must have sold an absolute grizillion of these cameras, just before digital took off—and a whole lot of the people who had to have one either didn't shoot a lot, or didn't shoot a lot before they went fluttering off to pixel-land. Because for years now there have just been truckloads of these formerly expensive, near-pro-level Nikon film cameras for sale on eBay, most in very good condition and many looking close to new.
A couple of years ago I was psyched that you could get one of these for less than $300. Now it would be pretty easy to get one for less than $200. That's for a camera that cost well over a grand back when it was da bomb (and people still called things "da bomb").
How to find them? Just go to eBay and type in "Nikon F100." Here's my review from nine years ago.
Note that I'm not recommending this for everybody, just for people who are looking for a bargain in a camera that shoots film.
UPDATE: And the absolute worst bargain in a film camera...the palm goes to this black-paint Leica M3 offered for a cool $46,800.
I have nothing against the seller...I just bought a lens from them, in fact...but this is absurd on so many levels. First of all, there's no such thing as "mint minus." Something's either looks like a coin fresh from the mint—perfect—or it doesn't. Sorta kinda mint is like sorta kinda pregnant. Secondly, this might be in good condition for what it is, but it's got brass showing through in a number of places. Mint, nothin'. Third, black paint was the economy finish in an M3, spurned at the time. Finally, the whole appeal of a black-paint Leica is the nice way it shows wear—so why buy one in good condition that's too expensive to touch?
I have nothing against other peoples' enthusiasms, so long as they're harmless, but really, the guy who buys this is an argument for raising taxes on people who have too much money. I'm averse to the word "silly" appearing on my blog, but I'll relent and sneak it in here.
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Alan Fairley: "Personally, I would take an F3HP over the F100 for $25 less. I won't motor shoot film, and I wouldn't rely on matrix metering to expose film. But that may be because I loved my F3 back in the day (and still have one)...."
Harry Lime: "And the best part is that Nikon will continue to service the F100 for some time, whereas support for most older film cameras has been dropped. I think the worst that can be said about the F100 is that it likes to eat batteries, but luckily it takes AA's and two sets of four rechargeables should have you covered for all but the heaviest of shooting."
Roger: "Shhh don't tell too many people, it just drives up the price of the cameras. Just like what happened to old Nikon flashes on eBay after David Hobby started his Strobist blog. I have a F100 and it's built like a tank, by far one of my most favourite 35mm bodies. Best of all, all my pro Nikon glass is compatible."
David: "Maybe I'm weird, but I prefer the cheap lens to the 'perfect' one. The Zeiss is just too big and heavy, while the 50mm ƒ/1.8 is crisp and contrasty as all get-out. Some people complain about the too-busy OOF areas, but these are the same people who rhapsodize about the too-busy bokeh of the $10,000 Noctilux. And it makes a great portrait lens on DX Nikons."