>Just from looking at the F100 specs, I get the impression that it's >just as rugged as the F5, but stripped down for less weight and cost. In anticipation of many Nikon Digester's questioning the ruggedness of the F100 I offer the following theoretical opinion. If in it's construction the F100 is as ruggedly constructed as the F5 then it will stand up to more abuse than the F5. This is because of the additional mass of the F5. If you were to calculate the exact height at which an F5's case would break when dropped, the F100 would not break when dropped at that height because it has less mass and therefore less inertia. This theory would also apply to damage to the lens mount with lenses attached. >It looks to me like Nikon saw a hole in their lineup and plugged it with the >F100. It isn't a direct upgrade from either the N90 or F5. It's the new F3. Nikon replaced the N50 with the N60. I think the F100 was intended to replace the N90s but as costs escalated Nikon decided to place it between the F5 and the N90s Art Art Searle, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lake Grove, NY, USA 20 miles east of Nikon USA www.erols.com/w2nra The United States of America - Nulli secundus
