If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
"The D2H, a great camera, it has even got better at 1999USD".
For those who think that I am slamming the D2H, you are wrong. The D2H continues to be and will remain a very capable camera. My concern was that it was over-sold for what it is and for the price at issue date. Noise level in D2H is better controlled than the 1DsMkII (eg at ISO1600). From ISO 800 and below, you have a perfect camera in D2H.
The point is, if you take a stand, your standard will be put to test. Nikon took a high stand on the D2H and hence the criticism that are currently abound. I am seriously considering re-purchasing the D2H having sold mine at a bargain ( it would now appear) and still be in profit when I visit the US in spring. In my view if your prints are mainly A4 and you are shooting flowers and portraits, there would not be much problem with the D2H but only recognise its limitations including the occassional black frames. For serious landscape work there's hardly any digital that is up to scratch when compared to slides anayway, and so my mint F5 + Super Coolscan 5000 will always be in use for a long time to come. Will I get the D2x, probably not, its spec of max ISO800 is not encouraging and with the multi-exposure function, it presupposes that the sensor and metering are lacking in precision.
Innocent, then why don't you just take your pictures at 1600 ISO on your slides with your F5. I am sur you will have a beautifull picture with absolutely no grain. I think not. It seems you are expecting miracles from the D2H. A standard you dont request of your F5.
Paul, I don't request an ISO 1600 from my F5 for the reasons which I'm sure you are well aware of. A film camera does not make any pretention about ISO. However an F5 can handle any ISO thrown at it, notably ISO 25. My F5 does not cost the earth compared to D2H. The film grains in any event is different (mono-chrome)to that of digital which is multi-chrome. Films handle better latitude than any digital, therefore I could shoot with ISO 400 and obtain decent results better than you can imagine with any digital currently on offer shooting at similar sensitivity . Please correct me if I'm wrong.
When painters first saw photography, I'm sure had there been an internet at the time, the threads would have been something along the lines of; This new medium will never capture the subtle tones and hues of a blazing sunrise. We now have Provia.
When digital was first discussed as the medium to replace film, some near 20 years ago now, I myself said "digital will never be good enough to replace my film camera". I now own a D100 and a D2H and soon the D2X. (the F5 still gets exercise regularly as well)
When I hear someone/anyone say "Films handle better latitude than any digital, therefore I could shoot with ISO 400 and obtain decent results better than you can imagine with any digital currently on offer shooting at similar sensitivity ", I say explore some more. I think you will find that with digital, a single frame, a single exposure is archaic thinking. With digital, you can get MORE latitude than with any film. Or at the very least, the appearance of more latitude. It's called layers. (and knowing how to use the histogram/tone curves PROPERLY may surprise you on the latitude question) Multi image panoramas, layers, cut, paste, a nearly infinite variety of tools are at your disposal with digital. I have not found one single situation with digital, where I could not complete a task, assignment or client request. I've had clients look at a finished print and assume that I was using a medium format film camera. I let them think what they like.
PLEASE, lets stop comparing apples and oranges. They will never be the same, no mater how hard you try. So what does it really matter if camera X can't do what camera Y can? Use camera Y then and be happy. Getting bogged down in these never ending and somewhat pointless discussions about what camera can do what is getting very old. It's a tool. The mind is where the art really happens.
To add one more point to the above statement, can you tell me of one thing that the human has built that can do it all? The F-15 jet is as fast as the Concorde, but is it as comfortable? The Mercedes is a comfortable car, but is it as fast as a Ferrari? Each bit that man has designed, is designed for a purpose, the D2H was made for crusty news and sports photographers that will at the most need a half page photo on news print or in a magazine. If you want that fussy perfection get a leica or hasselbald digital for $30K+. The Nikon (no matter which model) is like a Honda. For the money, I repeat, for the money, you can NOT get a better camera.
> Boris, it seems to me that your understanding of the meaning of film latitude is grossly lacking and I therefore suggest you do some reading before exposing your ignorance. Comparisons of objects is what leads to advancement in nature., and it will simply not go away because Boris said so. So long as film and digital exist in parallel for the same objective comparisons between them will be inevitable. So the comparison between Nikon v Canon will continue to persist. It is a common knowledge that the camera is a tool, but as a tool it must fulfil its objective otherwise it is hopeless as hopeless as the D2H was for the price it was offered at the time.
> Boris, you are right on about the advances of digital capture. I just completed an assignment to take pictures of a Christmas musical at a local church. I did not want to use flash (because I hate it). So I used a tripod and set my white balance for tungsten lighting. Many of my images were shot in total manual control, since there were spotlights and black backgrounds. Most of them were taken at f/8 and 1/60 to 1/90 sec. I have images that I will challenge any film to beat. It's not an issue of film versus digital quality any longer. It's an issue of what Larry, you and others are saying all along. The photograper with experience and understanding light is what makes the difference. By the way, I used the new Nikon D-70 for the shoot and when I saw the images on my iMac, I had tears well up in my eyes from the outstanding colors and sharpness. They were incredible. I would have had a tougher time capturing these with film I am sure. I have been at the professional level for some time now with a great advantage over most of the youngsters. I started in this business over 32 years ago, with there were no automatic cameras, no shutter or aperture priority, nothing but the match needles. I tell all my proteges that the first thing they should do is to saw off all of the automatic controls on their cameras and learn to shoot manual. I culd see the anguish on the neophites faces when they pointed their digitals (every make, every model) at the stage and ended up with blown out highlights. We ain't kiddin' folks when we say go learn to shoot manually---there is no better way to get the proper exposure than by reading your light. You cannot depend upon the camera's built-in light meter to read every situation. If I had not known what I was doing, I would have wasted my time trying to capture the performers under the changing lighting conditions.
For those of you that get digital cameras for Christmas, enjoy them, read the instruction manual, and go shoot manual. >
Perhaps it is a language barrier or perhaps you misunderstood the whole point. Please re-read what I wrote and figure it out for yourself. As I stated earlier these back and fourth threads about film vs. digital and my camera vs. his camera, are to a great extent, pointless. I'm not saying that they don't have value for those learning photography, but it has been argued to a point where most of us just don't want to hear it anymore. For those that want to know those points, a little research on this forum and others will yield a wealth of search results.
I operate under the principle of: Don't tell me why you can't do something, tell me how you accomplished it. I think it was Larry Bolch (hope I spelled that right Larry) that some time in the past two years, presented a very articulate ex&le of what digital is capable of, vs. film.
If I made myself misunderstood, I apologize. It's because I was just waking up and I'm not a morning coffee person. I prefer my espresso late in the afternoon.
Lol, I've been right there with you concerning the tear factor!
> multi-chrome. Films handle better latitude than any digital, therefore > I could shoot with ISO 400 and obtain decent results better than you > can imagine with any digital currently on offer shooting at similar > sensitivity . Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Negatives tend to accommodate a longer dynamic range than either chromes or digital cameras. However, chromes and digital are much more closely related as photo materials than either is to negatives. Anyone who has shot a lot of slides will be right at home with a digital - exactly the same problems are shared. The prime difference is that digital allows one some flexibility after the exposure if the contrast range falls below the sensitivity curve of the material.
With slides, one needs to rephotograph on internegative material to do adjustments. Chromes that are reproduced through photomechanical means - printing presses that is - are adjusted in the colour separation phase. With the low contrast of negatives, corrections are much easier, and are well within the scope of every one-hour lab or enthusiast with their own fume-room.
In reference to earlier discussions, there is no such thing as an unmanipulated print off a negative. Every snapshot that goes through the big machine at the one-hour lab is analyzed and the colour is adjusted to the current batch of printing paper.
> Posted by Tom Rains (Tom_rains) on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 2:54 > am: > blown out highlights. We ain't kiddin' folks when we say go learn to > shoot manually---there is no better way to get the proper exposure > than by reading your light. You cannot depend upon the camera's > built-in light meter to read every situation. If I had not known what > I was doing, I would have wasted my time trying to capture the > performers under the changing lighting conditions.
Perhaps better advice is to get to understand how the systems work. I shoot with both manual and the most sophisticated of digital systems and get consistent results from both.
In fact, automation puts a significantly greater burden on the shooter to really see what is in the image frame, in order to compensate for the bias of the systems. Automatic cameras have no intelligence, so do as they are designed to do. It is the responsibility of the photographer to supply the intelligence. If neither the camera nor the photographer have any intelligence, no timeless masterpieces are likely to be created.
One bright light will depress the overall exposure as the camera seeks an average, and the opposite is also true. Photograph a performer against a black backdrop, and the camera will try to boost the backdrop to a middle grey. Most automatic exposure systems have at least a +/-2.0EV exposure compensation control and it is much needed. One must constantly shoot test shots and check the histogram before trying to get a keeper.
Auto colour balance is another system that must be understood and treated with care. There are many complaints about how the Nikon system does very poorly in incandescent light. That is a feature - not a bug. I have also read messages from owners of point-and-shoots whose auto white balance is so good that a spectacular sunset is impossible to shoot. The camera neutralizes it to daylight colours!!!
Owners of the CP5700 were cursing their investments because the near 300mm lens would not focus instantly. One s&le posted was shot indoors in low light of a grey teddy-bear against a grey background with the zoom at the max. The system works by finding straight contrasty lines. All the camera saw when it was in focus was what it saw when it was out of focus - soft tones of grey. No automatic camera - without built-in radar - would be able to focus in such conditions. The dolt did not have the sense to switch to manual.
Know how the system works, and the problems go away as long as there is a photographer using the camera. The essence of the art of photography is seeing - that is why the human is needed. Humans who abdicate seeing to the camera deserve the dismal failures they get.
> For those of you that get digital cameras for Christmas, enjoy them, > read the instruction manual, and go shoot manual.
The manual is the best friend you have. Go through it with the camera in hand and work through every page - try every menu item, every control and every feature as described. Keep it close by during the first few months of shooting as a reference and once you have a couple of thousand exposures, go through it from cover to cover again - with camera in hand.
It cost nothing in film and processing with a digital, and feedback is immediate. When you read a section - DO IT. It only becomes real when you actually try it and see the results. First time through, expect to be confused by some of what you read, so blow past it. Second time through, it will be clear and understandable with the advantage of a couple thousand shots of experience.
These are extremely complex image acquisition devices. They require the same understanding of the basic principles of photography that a manual film camera demands, and far, far more. They are not capable of instant gratification. Opening the box and hanging the camera around the neck does not transform one into a photographer. Only with a full understanding and the intelligence to make use of it, will these devices pay you back bountifully on your investment in them.