Does the Nikon D4 bode badly for the F7?

please ignore this post-sorry.

I wouldn't worry about those details - I very strongly doubt that Nikon will produce an F7.

I've heard the rumors of the F7, but I just can't imagine Nikon making a film camera beyond the F6. Anything they could do to improve upon the F6 (Matrix metering and AF, for example) would only satisfy pro photographers, who are not using much film these days, and film purists probably don't care about such improvements.

I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek - I would be very surprised if an F7 were to be made anytime soon. That's not to say I wouldn't appreciate a revised F6 with the benefits of advanced autofocus. But I wouldn't be happy if the AE-L was relegated to some other button!
D

I think my F5 will end up being the last film camera I use....well, and my Holga.

Although there are a lot of things you can improve on a film camera, Nikon won't have the F7 because Nikon is not a film maker and how can they assure their customer that they will be able to use the brand new camera at least a few years down the road.
I am an film shooter and I have more cameras than I ever need but I think film is running out on me.

True, and there's that simple problem of resolution too.

The F2 has the same resolution now that the F6 does, and even more in some ways when you look back to the older film stock used that is no longer available.

Or maybe it is that I'm just missing Kodak's film, and should look further afield for it now from the European offerings.

Shoot more film, worry less about things we have no control over. I have an F100, F3HP, Nikon F, an FM, and FM2N. That's all the Nikon I need. If I can't get the shot with any of that, I might as well quit.

Goodness, I'm getting a very negative vibe in this film forum - I'm guessing because of everything going on with Kodak. I've always been a Fuji user myself, recently I've been very impressed with their superia 200. I used to think the 200 was a poor compromise between the 100 and 400, but now I think the opposite - it's terrific. Colours are very controlled, but saturated enough. The grain is much better controlled than the 400, too.

So true Mark! But it won't stop me lusting after something new... Though to be honest, I still don't see how you can improve much more on the F6. Maybe make it lighter.

Richard - try some Provia 100 or 400. I still haven't come across a film better than this. It gives a very truthful image, which is still quite saturated, and grain is minimal - and when you do see the grain, it has a nice, fine quality to it. The only downside is that it's b****** expensive. I find superia 200 gives me similar results in the colour negative world, but you need decent scanning people to get the right colours (I use NCPS).

Bebu - I think film will be with us for at least a few decades down the line, if not more.

Michael - I agree with you that matrix metering is something that most film users don't care about. I also think it won't really be possible to get a noticeable improvement on the matrix metering of the F5 - beyond that requires creativity. On the other hand, autofocus can be improved. There are times when I rely on it. But, I'm not sure the D3's autofocus is a massive improvement over the F6 in real-world usage. When I was using them alongside for a wedding, I found that the F6's group autofocus was extremely useful for portraits. The D3 only had the 'whole frame' autofocus (which was useless) and the 'single-point, then follow with 3D tracking mode', which as you were relying on a single point to get the autofocus started, was sometimes less reliable than the group autofocus mode.