Personally, I haven't had the pleasure of using an F100 yet but it seems that it is just about the answer to my request when the F5 came out of "Smaller and simpler!!!" Let's face it, the F5 is the most advanced camera on the market and will do crazy amounts of things. But do you need all that? I don't. I wanted a smaller, simpler body than the hulking F5. I shoot sports but 8fps is nuts. 5-6 fps is fine. I don't need a removable prism or mirror lock up or a color meter. I want a solid, small camera that is flexible. I currently use N90s's and love them but the F100 is better built and for those very rare times when I use AF it will be easier to use than my current setup. The F100 is nothing more than the "Baby F5" that suits shooters like me. I'm in line to get one. It does seem that they were holding on to it and refining until the last minute so that they could release it with the 28-70 AFS and the 80-200 AFS lenses. As for the EOS3, BIG DEAL! It's really competing against the F5. Sure it's cheap, like most Canon gear in my opinion, but it's not built to Nikon F standards. My long time contention with multipoint AF systems is that controlling the point of critical focus is so hard or impossible. If you are shooting in low light, or with a long lens or as I regularly do, at f/1.4-2, you have to keep the persons eyes sharp. How can you control that with 45 AF points, of which the camera is choosing? Canon's "more is better" philosophy is certainly not mine. Better is often simpler. I'll reserve final judgment until I've put film through an F100 but I don't see any reason to think that Nikon has anything to worry about from the EOS3 and the F100 fits the bill asked for by working pros like myself. Jonathan Castner Photojournalist Denver
