CI Photocommunity
Register a free account now!
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.
Oh for a digital F100
- Thread starter ian_craigie
- Start date
I
innocent
Indeed the dust bug is a problem but not an obstacle. With the Nikon dslr, you may download a dust ref. Photo into the camera, and that takes care of the dust problem. Annually, or depending if you are consistently shooting in a desert you may have your CCD professional cleaned as needed or DIY it, small price to pay for the benefits you derive. A d70 with its 18-70 DX package should not be ignored for light travelling.
The dust problem is there, but as you point out, it can be solved. Still it remains an issue for many.
As for the D70 for light travel, even if it's a good camera as such, light travel is one of the reasons why I have not bought it. The camera is not particularly small, still there is no extra battery grip which would be convenient for long days without electricity, no possibility of AA batterie s and no mirror lock-up. It's of course always possible to carry extra batteries, but they cost extra money and ads to the logistic. One of the points with light travel is simple logistics.
All this was probably planned from Nikon's side, so that it shouldn't compete with the D100, but with the latter now showing it's age vs. the competition, it may not have been the smartest move.
So we are waiting, amusing ourselves with film, digicams and living life to its fullest
As for the D70 for light travel, even if it's a good camera as such, light travel is one of the reasons why I have not bought it. The camera is not particularly small, still there is no extra battery grip which would be convenient for long days without electricity, no possibility of AA batterie s and no mirror lock-up. It's of course always possible to carry extra batteries, but they cost extra money and ads to the logistic. One of the points with light travel is simple logistics.
All this was probably planned from Nikon's side, so that it shouldn't compete with the D100, but with the latter now showing it's age vs. the competition, it may not have been the smartest move.
So we are waiting, amusing ourselves with film, digicams and living life to its fullest
rogerrichards
Member
Heat, cold, rain, snow, sandstorms, grit, underwater, underground.
Cars,trains, boats, planes, studio, sports ground (muddy & wet).
Close, far, wide, tight. Fast, slow, use it with gloves on.
Quick, easy, realiable. Oh yes I'd better have some pixels as well.
Roger Richards
Cars,trains, boats, planes, studio, sports ground (muddy & wet).
Close, far, wide, tight. Fast, slow, use it with gloves on.
Quick, easy, realiable. Oh yes I'd better have some pixels as well.
Roger Richards
dirk
CI-Founder
Hi Ian,
I agree with your emotional arguments. Same counts for me: I just like aperture rings on a lens, I like manual focussing, I like a bright, optical viewfinder which is also designed to focus manually good enough (not just for AF) and I like a certain feeling, when I use may equipment (build quality).
I read now many different answers and proposals in this discussion. I do think that we have to differentiate here, otherwise you will not find an easy way out of so many options
IMHO it is important to differentiate between:
1. stomach feelings, when using your camera and lenses
2. the real requirements for your very own individual shooting situations
3. the technological evolution over the last 20 years and what will happen over the next 5 years
Point 1)
I do think the stomach feeling is the most important factor for a user, if he does nothave to eran his living with the equipment. I have used almost all brands and my experience and the experience of all my freinds are the same: If you do not like the feeling while you use a camera, it can be the best in the world, it will stay at home and you will use in the long term something different. If theer is no pleasuer anymore while taking pictures, you will not appreciate your hobby. And for me individually the way how my eqipment fels in my hands, is part of the fun in my hobby. I am not a collector, I only buy cameras, for making pictures. Nothing else. Therefore I agree with your points in your first posting.
for point 2)
What do you want to do with your camera that is different to the past? You are taking pictures for many years now. You have been satisfied in the past with your results (I assume). So what changed for you NOW, that you have the feeling you should convert NOW to any kind of digital camera? Í am not againts a DSLR or bridge camera. But I had in the past 2 years many many discussions with friends, who bought and sold into new systems just because they fekt a kind of "pressure" to be on the train of digital images. All of them ere only happy, when they had the newest model. And then after a few months another model came out and the were unhappy again. So the yspent more time and money in researching and buying equipment, then in taking pictures. Therefore my advise would be: take your time. There is no rush, no pressure, no requirement to make a decision now, unless there are other reasons for it. You have a working system. You can alreday take pictures. No need to buy a camera which costs 4x times the price of an analogue equivalent. It can not do more than your current analogue camera. The only difference is speed to see the images. You might also have an argument for DSLRs if you took in the past more than 4500 images per year (ca. 125 rolls of Fuji Velvia film with 36 exposures), because of cost savings in film.
If you used slide film, there is no alternative for slide projection. Prints are not an alternative for slides. Totally different pleasure to look at images. But I guess you know that already...
for point 3)
The technological evolution is very significant over the last 2 years. When you decided in the past for Nikon, the difference have been less significant to miss the right time in buying something than today. Tere was a difference in the difefrent systems, but in all systems, you would have put the same roll of film.
We are just at thze beginning of the digital evolution for advanced photographers. Like in every product life cycle in every industry, you get as a consumer first very expensive products with a relatively immature technology. Over teh years the successors of those products get significant better. The curve is very steep. You get significant more "quality and features" for the same money. And at some point the curve is flattening. The improvements are getting less and less significant for the majority of the users. At that point, new sales are made over the price, which is good for the consumer.
You could see this already in the past in the photo-industry. The analogue market was at the end of the 80is boring. Every camera had the same exposure meterings and all kind of other features. Then the AF camne and there was again a possibility to make a difference. Nowadays, nobody would like to use an AF-camera of the late 80is. Way too slow and not accurate enough. But at that time, it was a revolution and everybody bought it and found it very very fast.
Same is now with DSLRs now. Not only image quality, but also shutter lag, start-up time, fullsize chip or not, battery consumption, handling, menu-ordering, viewfinder, digital optimzed lenses etc.
As a result, you have to decide for yourself your very personal requiremets. This is for everybody different. For some it makes already sense NOW to switch to digital, for some it males more sense to wait another 2 years or even stick with film forever. Ther is not one solution for all.
As a side note I want to make aware of the polls on the homepage of Nikoninfo.com. There you see many results for analogue fans and other criteria that are asked. Very interesting...
I can assure you, that there will be dramatic changes over the next 2 years in the industry. The bridge cameras willdrop in sales significantly and I do not think that Nikon will stay in this product line. IMHO Nikon will focus on the SLR market more and more, with the option of a new lens mount in addition to the existing one (which I do not want to discus here and now).
As long as chip sizes are smaller then current film-sizes, you will have to deal with the DOF problem. Only Kodak (with Canon and Nikon mount), Canon and Contax offer full-size chip-cameras. Just compare medium format DOF and 35mm DOF. What a difference! Expect the same difference between fullsize chip and APS chip. Even worse with 1/1.8 chips in most of the bridge cameras. Go to a shop and try to make a portrait shot with 100mm open aperture and look how much of the background is still very sharp.
Of course you can then buy a zoom of 300mm, but this has a differnt weight, size and apertúre with all its consequences.
These are IMO very important factors to consider when taking photography seriously - depending always on your preferred shooting situations.
For me personally, I decided these 3 points this way:
1) I need a certain build qulaity, aperture rings, bright viewfinder and fullsize chip, before I will invest heavy in any kind of DSLR system. That does not mean that I will not buy something second hand cheap to be on the leraning curve DSLR and of photoshop etc too.
Currently I see these criterias only with Contax ND. Since Contax ends, I will wait before buying one (I am heaviliy invested in the Contax N-System and will stick to it for my analogue photography).
2) I am an hobby photographer. I do not ned to eran money with it, It is my pleasure in my free time. All my requiremenst are fullfilled with all analogue system I have. There is no "urgent need" to decide anything for me personal.
3) Since I know that over the next 2 years prices will drop dramatically and features will increase in my favour. I will wait. Nikon is the right brandame, since they showed with the F6 that they still have an eye on the film.users and will not forget later on to incorporate F6-feeling in an affordable DSLR of the future, But I do not think that this will be the case over the next 12-18 months.
I hope that Nikon comes out next yeras with an additional lens mount wich makes fullsize chip easier for them possible. I will then be happy to buy aso new lenses, which would be with adigitalswitch now with APS size the same.
Just my way too ling 2 cents...Hope that helps...
I agree with your emotional arguments. Same counts for me: I just like aperture rings on a lens, I like manual focussing, I like a bright, optical viewfinder which is also designed to focus manually good enough (not just for AF) and I like a certain feeling, when I use may equipment (build quality).
I read now many different answers and proposals in this discussion. I do think that we have to differentiate here, otherwise you will not find an easy way out of so many options
IMHO it is important to differentiate between:
1. stomach feelings, when using your camera and lenses
2. the real requirements for your very own individual shooting situations
3. the technological evolution over the last 20 years and what will happen over the next 5 years
Point 1)
I do think the stomach feeling is the most important factor for a user, if he does nothave to eran his living with the equipment. I have used almost all brands and my experience and the experience of all my freinds are the same: If you do not like the feeling while you use a camera, it can be the best in the world, it will stay at home and you will use in the long term something different. If theer is no pleasuer anymore while taking pictures, you will not appreciate your hobby. And for me individually the way how my eqipment fels in my hands, is part of the fun in my hobby. I am not a collector, I only buy cameras, for making pictures. Nothing else. Therefore I agree with your points in your first posting.
for point 2)
What do you want to do with your camera that is different to the past? You are taking pictures for many years now. You have been satisfied in the past with your results (I assume). So what changed for you NOW, that you have the feeling you should convert NOW to any kind of digital camera? Í am not againts a DSLR or bridge camera. But I had in the past 2 years many many discussions with friends, who bought and sold into new systems just because they fekt a kind of "pressure" to be on the train of digital images. All of them ere only happy, when they had the newest model. And then after a few months another model came out and the were unhappy again. So the yspent more time and money in researching and buying equipment, then in taking pictures. Therefore my advise would be: take your time. There is no rush, no pressure, no requirement to make a decision now, unless there are other reasons for it. You have a working system. You can alreday take pictures. No need to buy a camera which costs 4x times the price of an analogue equivalent. It can not do more than your current analogue camera. The only difference is speed to see the images. You might also have an argument for DSLRs if you took in the past more than 4500 images per year (ca. 125 rolls of Fuji Velvia film with 36 exposures), because of cost savings in film.
If you used slide film, there is no alternative for slide projection. Prints are not an alternative for slides. Totally different pleasure to look at images. But I guess you know that already...
for point 3)
The technological evolution is very significant over the last 2 years. When you decided in the past for Nikon, the difference have been less significant to miss the right time in buying something than today. Tere was a difference in the difefrent systems, but in all systems, you would have put the same roll of film.
We are just at thze beginning of the digital evolution for advanced photographers. Like in every product life cycle in every industry, you get as a consumer first very expensive products with a relatively immature technology. Over teh years the successors of those products get significant better. The curve is very steep. You get significant more "quality and features" for the same money. And at some point the curve is flattening. The improvements are getting less and less significant for the majority of the users. At that point, new sales are made over the price, which is good for the consumer.
You could see this already in the past in the photo-industry. The analogue market was at the end of the 80is boring. Every camera had the same exposure meterings and all kind of other features. Then the AF camne and there was again a possibility to make a difference. Nowadays, nobody would like to use an AF-camera of the late 80is. Way too slow and not accurate enough. But at that time, it was a revolution and everybody bought it and found it very very fast.
Same is now with DSLRs now. Not only image quality, but also shutter lag, start-up time, fullsize chip or not, battery consumption, handling, menu-ordering, viewfinder, digital optimzed lenses etc.
As a result, you have to decide for yourself your very personal requiremets. This is for everybody different. For some it makes already sense NOW to switch to digital, for some it males more sense to wait another 2 years or even stick with film forever. Ther is not one solution for all.
As a side note I want to make aware of the polls on the homepage of Nikoninfo.com. There you see many results for analogue fans and other criteria that are asked. Very interesting...
I can assure you, that there will be dramatic changes over the next 2 years in the industry. The bridge cameras willdrop in sales significantly and I do not think that Nikon will stay in this product line. IMHO Nikon will focus on the SLR market more and more, with the option of a new lens mount in addition to the existing one (which I do not want to discus here and now).
As long as chip sizes are smaller then current film-sizes, you will have to deal with the DOF problem. Only Kodak (with Canon and Nikon mount), Canon and Contax offer full-size chip-cameras. Just compare medium format DOF and 35mm DOF. What a difference! Expect the same difference between fullsize chip and APS chip. Even worse with 1/1.8 chips in most of the bridge cameras. Go to a shop and try to make a portrait shot with 100mm open aperture and look how much of the background is still very sharp.
Of course you can then buy a zoom of 300mm, but this has a differnt weight, size and apertúre with all its consequences.
These are IMO very important factors to consider when taking photography seriously - depending always on your preferred shooting situations.
For me personally, I decided these 3 points this way:
1) I need a certain build qulaity, aperture rings, bright viewfinder and fullsize chip, before I will invest heavy in any kind of DSLR system. That does not mean that I will not buy something second hand cheap to be on the leraning curve DSLR and of photoshop etc too.
Currently I see these criterias only with Contax ND. Since Contax ends, I will wait before buying one (I am heaviliy invested in the Contax N-System and will stick to it for my analogue photography).
2) I am an hobby photographer. I do not ned to eran money with it, It is my pleasure in my free time. All my requiremenst are fullfilled with all analogue system I have. There is no "urgent need" to decide anything for me personal.
3) Since I know that over the next 2 years prices will drop dramatically and features will increase in my favour. I will wait. Nikon is the right brandame, since they showed with the F6 that they still have an eye on the film.users and will not forget later on to incorporate F6-feeling in an affordable DSLR of the future, But I do not think that this will be the case over the next 12-18 months.
I hope that Nikon comes out next yeras with an additional lens mount wich makes fullsize chip easier for them possible. I will then be happy to buy aso new lenses, which would be with adigitalswitch now with APS size the same.
Just my way too ling 2 cents...Hope that helps...
ian_craigie
Active Member
Innocent, thanks for your thoughts. I would be interested to hear why you feel as you do about the capabilities of the Coolpix system, relative to a D70. There are no doubt compromises made, but from my recent research after Larry's recent postings, we are talking about a Nikon 8 Mp camera with 35-350 mm, f2.8-5.2 VR lens for the CP8800. I have my trusty F100, but even I can see the appeal of an all-in-one form factor, assuming the quality is not compromised. For me to achieve the same range, I would need to take both my 28-85mm lens (ordinary AF, and no VR) and my 80-400 VR lens. There is no advantage in speed, and once combined with a an SLR body, this is is not a particularly light system at all - I know - I've lugged it around on my back for weeks at a time!
Again, it is probably horses for courses, but I have looked at Larry's images with his CoolPix 5000, and they are of very high quality. If I was able to carry one or two such cameras, and achieve the same quality of image, then I would be more than content. The point of my original post was that I had invested in a system that now failed to capitalise on the very reasons it was originally chosen. Jorgen has articulated these well in previous posts. I have now come to the view that, as I am only interested in the end result, I should give serious consideration of all form factors - SLR, all-in-one, hybrids, etc.
Choosing to move away from an SLR-based system is not something I would do lightly - I have spent thousands building this up from scratch. Again, however, the reasons for me staying with a Nikon SLR system are no longer present - at present. Perhaps they will be addressed in the proposed "D200" (or whatever it will be known as...), but on current experience, this will not happen. I don't recall the last non-G lens released by Nikon, for ex&le. Even if it the "D200" is the answer to all my dreams, I still have to acknowledge that a camera of fewer parts, lower weight, smaller form, and greater dustproofing, capable of at least equal image quality, is quite a temptation!
Again, it is probably horses for courses, but I have looked at Larry's images with his CoolPix 5000, and they are of very high quality. If I was able to carry one or two such cameras, and achieve the same quality of image, then I would be more than content. The point of my original post was that I had invested in a system that now failed to capitalise on the very reasons it was originally chosen. Jorgen has articulated these well in previous posts. I have now come to the view that, as I am only interested in the end result, I should give serious consideration of all form factors - SLR, all-in-one, hybrids, etc.
Choosing to move away from an SLR-based system is not something I would do lightly - I have spent thousands building this up from scratch. Again, however, the reasons for me staying with a Nikon SLR system are no longer present - at present. Perhaps they will be addressed in the proposed "D200" (or whatever it will be known as...), but on current experience, this will not happen. I don't recall the last non-G lens released by Nikon, for ex&le. Even if it the "D200" is the answer to all my dreams, I still have to acknowledge that a camera of fewer parts, lower weight, smaller form, and greater dustproofing, capable of at least equal image quality, is quite a temptation!
I
innocent
Sometimes I wish my Jag can fly in the air like a plane, the other times I wish it will become my Honda powered boat. Imagine the convenience that could have afforded me and the potential financial benefits.
I was critical about the D70 till I owned one, not just borrowing it as I did before. With my small size 8.5 hands, the D70 is the smallest camera that I can go for and its cost doesn¹t break the bank. Yes, it lacks certai n pro features, but add those features to it and you have a D2x in size, weight and performance. If anyone had been comfortable travelling with an F100 or F5, D1X, D2H for that matter then you will remain glued to the D70, no wonder it rightly enjoys such popularity.
The battery life for the D70 which is similar to that on the D100 goes up t o 1000 shots ( in summer conditions) if you constantly review your images as you shoot. A couple of such D70 batteries are by far much lighter than a si x AA battery pack which will probably last no more than a fully recharged EN-L3.
If somebody tells me they shot x amount of images in a 30day holidays, wher e x is greater than or equal to 1000, then 90% of such images are certainly crap, forgive my being direct. If you contemplate all your shots then it is unlikely that you will exhaust the battery life + the backup in any particular trip. In the worst scenario, cr2 batteries could be used to fill the gap. BTW I have a D100 and D2H experience and probably will consider using the d2x when the dust has settled.
I was critical about the D70 till I owned one, not just borrowing it as I did before. With my small size 8.5 hands, the D70 is the smallest camera that I can go for and its cost doesn¹t break the bank. Yes, it lacks certai n pro features, but add those features to it and you have a D2x in size, weight and performance. If anyone had been comfortable travelling with an F100 or F5, D1X, D2H for that matter then you will remain glued to the D70, no wonder it rightly enjoys such popularity.
The battery life for the D70 which is similar to that on the D100 goes up t o 1000 shots ( in summer conditions) if you constantly review your images as you shoot. A couple of such D70 batteries are by far much lighter than a si x AA battery pack which will probably last no more than a fully recharged EN-L3.
If somebody tells me they shot x amount of images in a 30day holidays, wher e x is greater than or equal to 1000, then 90% of such images are certainly crap, forgive my being direct. If you contemplate all your shots then it is unlikely that you will exhaust the battery life + the backup in any particular trip. In the worst scenario, cr2 batteries could be used to fill the gap. BTW I have a D100 and D2H experience and probably will consider using the d2x when the dust has settled.
H
hawkeye34
I am joining in this discussion rather late, but I can add a bit of recent experience. I am a retired professional photojournalist now living in Spain. I have a D70, with 12-24, 18-70 and 75-300 ED. I also own and use the Panasonic LC-1 ( the nearest I can afford to a digital Leica M) plus a Panasonic FZ20. With these two prosumer, small, lightweight 5Mp cameras, I get really acceptable quality up to A4 size that I can print, and at my age, I am happier carrying them both together for all-day shoots. With one extra wide angle attachment for the FZ20, the two cameras cover 25-432mm, the lens on the FZ20 being 36-432mm at a steady f2.8 with Image Stabilising. AND - it's a Leica lens ! So I should have everything there that I need. Except that when back in harness doing some location shooting for a local English language magazine last week, I found that in the brilliant sunshine of Andalucia in winter I could hardly see or define anything through the Electronic Viewfinders on both cameras. Of course you can use the big LCDs on the back, but even these block up horribly in the light. So for the rest of these shoots, I am using the D70 with its optical finder, and am finding it perfect. My lenses cover all I want, and the only inconvenience is having to change from the wide angle to the telephoto every other minute as I see something that catches my eye. The answer has been to order another D70 from Dr Joseph Yao in Hong Kong, and when it gets here this week, I will have two bodies, one with the 12-24 on, and the other toting the telephoto - fast reaction time assured with either range. Of course the Panasonics will still soldier on as carry-around cameras, and will give great results through their Leica lenses, but as usual, the real work will be done by the Nikons. I have probably overused the names of other manufacturers too much here, but I want to say that I too would be looking for a D200, if only to get a vertical grip with all the controls on it. I love the prosumer fixed-zoom cameras for their dustfree lenses and great range, but the FZ20 has an electronic zoom which is difficult to control with finesse, and I prefer the old feel of the Nikon kit to which I have been accustomed for more years than I care to remember. For the work I am currently doing, and for all the manual control of the zooms, the DSLR is perfect, and Nikon still cuts the mustard. Albest, Hawkeye34 Some results with all the above cameras can be seen on my website, _
(
)
rogerrichards
Member
Sorry. I have no idea how this posting ended up here. The subject was about
something completely different (as you might have gathered)!
Still haven't got my head around the idiosyncracies of this forum email
system.
Roger Richards
Posted by Roger Richards (Rogerrichards) on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 12:24
pm:
|
| Heat, cold, rain, snow, sandstorms, grit, underwater, underground.
|
| Cars,trains, boats, planes, studio, sports ground (muddy & wet).
something completely different (as you might have gathered)!
Still haven't got my head around the idiosyncracies of this forum email
system.
Roger Richards
Posted by Roger Richards (Rogerrichards) on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 12:24
pm:
|
| Heat, cold, rain, snow, sandstorms, grit, underwater, underground.
|
| Cars,trains, boats, planes, studio, sports ground (muddy & wet).
admin
Well-Known Member
Hi Rogers,
the email system is very straight forward. If you answer to a specific thread, your posting also appears in that thread
The title of the thread can be seen in the "regarding line" of the incoming email. Same as you are used to with any regular email conversations outside of our forum.
Hope that helps. More details are available in the help/instructions within the forum (at the top)
the email system is very straight forward. If you answer to a specific thread, your posting also appears in that thread
The title of the thread can be seen in the "regarding line" of the incoming email. Same as you are used to with any regular email conversations outside of our forum.
Hope that helps. More details are available in the help/instructions within the forum (at the top)
ian_craigie
Active Member
> Innocent, you make your point as eloquently as ever, and I can appreciate the passion with which you hold your views. However, I believe you have misunderstood the direction of my previous posts. I am not seeking to criticise any particular camera, least of all the D70. From the start, the question was about the evolution of technology, and the fact that there is often value in older principles - hence my desire for a "digital F100". It would obviously be a great camera, and I sought to illustrate why I would prefer this particular model to have the features listed as desirable. These do not appear to be important to you, or perhaps to the majority, considering Nikon's current range, but I would find their inclusion very useful.
Certainly, the D70 is a very desirable camera, and I have looked closely at its capabilities and features. It is light, well-built, and takes all of my lenses. I am sure I would be delighted with the images. However, there are still certain features that I find to be less than ideal, or have been omitted all together. Having listed them on a few occasions, I will not repeat them here. However, I can see few reasons, if any, to no longer include such features - indeed, some manufacturers do just that to this day.
Your point regarding battery life is well made. I have not tried one of Nikon's new lithium-ion batteries, and so you speak with an authority that I cannot match. However, using my F100 in a game park was pretty exciting for me, and I have to admit that, believing film to be cheap in comparison to the cost of getting there, I did indeed shoot a lot of photos (I've posted some of those I have scanned on the gallery). I guess this was not "contemplative", but my abilities as a wildlife photographer will have to be made up for by shooting more frames.
Perhaps my lithium ion batteries would have held out fine, but I was able to recharge my AA's with a solar charger every day - quite important as I was c&ing in Etosha reserve, and had no easy access to an AC power supply. CR2 battery or not, I would have had difficulties - the nearest place to sell such a specialised cell would have been many miles distant (fortunately, my 80-400VR has an aperture ring, so I could have used my FM2 if necessary ... but then, that was on the wish list, too!)
I don't know that 90% of my photos were unacceptable, but a fair few were less than I had hoped! I guess that is one thing that would change with a digital SLR, that a film-based camera can't match - the ability to review what images you wish to keep, and those you do not. With film, I have always felt that for wildlife shots you are better shooting more than fewer, because I will probably never get the same opportunity again. Isn't it true, though, that you will have to go through the process of aiming, focussing, vibration reducing, shutter releasing, and image storing, whether or not you keep the image? If so, then this must use a comparable charge to a film camera (apart from the motor for film transport), while LCD screen display and subsequent on-camera editing will also have a power penalty.
As stated before, I am not suggesting the D70 is anything other than a fine camera. However, so is the F80, and yet this did not suit my style of photography as well as the F100. Perfectly good camera, but I wanted the feature set of the F100. As Jorgen stated earlier, "The (D70) is not particularly small, still there is no extra battery grip which would be convenient for long days without electricity, no possibility of AA batteries and no mirror lock-up. It's of course always possible to carry extra batteries, but they cost extra money and ads to the logistic. One of the points with light travel is simple logistics." I could have written the sentence myself...
If I look for similar features to an F100 in a Nikon digital SLR, they are simply not there. Many other wonderful features are, but there are some items that I have found of great benefit over a number of years, and so I am reluctant to give them up simply to adopt a digital system. The "D200" may fill the gap, but I still hold that there is no equivalent to the F100 in the digital range. Some may consider these items to be outdated, but my point is that to some of us they are as relevant today as ever.
Thanks also for your comments, Dick. I found your analysis interesting and helpful. My attachment to certain camera features, though, is purely practical, and has less to do with emotion. It is simply that I have chosen certain cameras for what they could do for me, and I find I no longer have the choice. Rather, my current Nikon choice (D2 or D70) sees me leave such features behind.
Your second point is very valid - what is it about digital imaging that appeals, when I have been more than satisfied with analog imaging to date? I guess I have a number of reasons, again all practical as far as I can tell.
Firstly, it seems like fun! I have a small Pentax digital P&S, and there is no doubt that it is quite liberating, and instructional, to have the instant feedback of the digital image. I am sure I would shoot more photos, and see what I could learn from this instant feedback. I love getting my slides back, but of course, analysis will not alter how I take a shot in the field. I would also really like to spend some time doing some digital darkroom manipulation. True, i can use scanned slides, but this adds another complexity to the process.
Secondly, it is obviously good for display and reproduction ease. As perhaps you do, I have hundreds (thousands!) of slides, from many years of photography, and I simply do not look at them as often as I would like. They are packed away in boxes for much of the time, which seems a shame. Digitised images can be displayed, shared, printed, and so on, with relative ease, whether scanned or captured on an image sensor. Film may be scanned, but it takes a while to do, that's for certain!
Thirdly, I am aware that my storage space is limited. I like the idea of storing all my images on disk, and perhaps backing up all to removable media. If I wanted, I could store images "off site" as well as those stored locally. No doubt, storage will continue to expand exponentially, but I feel it is approaching the time when I will benefit from storing digital images, rather than celluloid in plastic mounts. Just as important, when travelling, the idea of being able to store digital images (even duplicating the storage in case of loss or theft) is appealing. It simply seems to make good sense, as long as image quality is considered reasonable.
You are absolutely right - today has seen a technological revolution, and whatever is new today will itself be superceded tomorrow. Larry has made the point that digital cameras should be considered exendable - they will be out -of-date all too soon, and so we should make the most of them, enjoy them, and move on. I guess it is difficult for me to consider a camera as "disposable", with limited lifespan - that is just the way I was brought up, I guess (more emotion!), but I can see this very same argument applies to all consumer electrical goods - computers, PDAs, mobile phones and the like. It's high turnover.
I certainly agree with your sentiments regarding the purchase of a second-hand, less elaborate camera for learning purposes. I have considered this, and the idea of a CP8800 is, as I have said in the past, very tempting. Not an SLR, true, but it sounds to be an excellent imaging machine - even moreso for the price charged. As you stated, it does not replace the interest I have in an SLR that has the features I would look for, but if it proves a half-decent choice, it would at least be a place to start learning about digital photography, for the reasons mentioned above.
Again, many thanks for your comments. All much appreciated.
Kind regards,
Ian
Certainly, the D70 is a very desirable camera, and I have looked closely at its capabilities and features. It is light, well-built, and takes all of my lenses. I am sure I would be delighted with the images. However, there are still certain features that I find to be less than ideal, or have been omitted all together. Having listed them on a few occasions, I will not repeat them here. However, I can see few reasons, if any, to no longer include such features - indeed, some manufacturers do just that to this day.
Your point regarding battery life is well made. I have not tried one of Nikon's new lithium-ion batteries, and so you speak with an authority that I cannot match. However, using my F100 in a game park was pretty exciting for me, and I have to admit that, believing film to be cheap in comparison to the cost of getting there, I did indeed shoot a lot of photos (I've posted some of those I have scanned on the gallery). I guess this was not "contemplative", but my abilities as a wildlife photographer will have to be made up for by shooting more frames.
Perhaps my lithium ion batteries would have held out fine, but I was able to recharge my AA's with a solar charger every day - quite important as I was c&ing in Etosha reserve, and had no easy access to an AC power supply. CR2 battery or not, I would have had difficulties - the nearest place to sell such a specialised cell would have been many miles distant (fortunately, my 80-400VR has an aperture ring, so I could have used my FM2 if necessary ... but then, that was on the wish list, too!)
I don't know that 90% of my photos were unacceptable, but a fair few were less than I had hoped! I guess that is one thing that would change with a digital SLR, that a film-based camera can't match - the ability to review what images you wish to keep, and those you do not. With film, I have always felt that for wildlife shots you are better shooting more than fewer, because I will probably never get the same opportunity again. Isn't it true, though, that you will have to go through the process of aiming, focussing, vibration reducing, shutter releasing, and image storing, whether or not you keep the image? If so, then this must use a comparable charge to a film camera (apart from the motor for film transport), while LCD screen display and subsequent on-camera editing will also have a power penalty.
As stated before, I am not suggesting the D70 is anything other than a fine camera. However, so is the F80, and yet this did not suit my style of photography as well as the F100. Perfectly good camera, but I wanted the feature set of the F100. As Jorgen stated earlier, "The (D70) is not particularly small, still there is no extra battery grip which would be convenient for long days without electricity, no possibility of AA batteries and no mirror lock-up. It's of course always possible to carry extra batteries, but they cost extra money and ads to the logistic. One of the points with light travel is simple logistics." I could have written the sentence myself...
If I look for similar features to an F100 in a Nikon digital SLR, they are simply not there. Many other wonderful features are, but there are some items that I have found of great benefit over a number of years, and so I am reluctant to give them up simply to adopt a digital system. The "D200" may fill the gap, but I still hold that there is no equivalent to the F100 in the digital range. Some may consider these items to be outdated, but my point is that to some of us they are as relevant today as ever.
Thanks also for your comments, Dick. I found your analysis interesting and helpful. My attachment to certain camera features, though, is purely practical, and has less to do with emotion. It is simply that I have chosen certain cameras for what they could do for me, and I find I no longer have the choice. Rather, my current Nikon choice (D2 or D70) sees me leave such features behind.
Your second point is very valid - what is it about digital imaging that appeals, when I have been more than satisfied with analog imaging to date? I guess I have a number of reasons, again all practical as far as I can tell.
Firstly, it seems like fun! I have a small Pentax digital P&S, and there is no doubt that it is quite liberating, and instructional, to have the instant feedback of the digital image. I am sure I would shoot more photos, and see what I could learn from this instant feedback. I love getting my slides back, but of course, analysis will not alter how I take a shot in the field. I would also really like to spend some time doing some digital darkroom manipulation. True, i can use scanned slides, but this adds another complexity to the process.
Secondly, it is obviously good for display and reproduction ease. As perhaps you do, I have hundreds (thousands!) of slides, from many years of photography, and I simply do not look at them as often as I would like. They are packed away in boxes for much of the time, which seems a shame. Digitised images can be displayed, shared, printed, and so on, with relative ease, whether scanned or captured on an image sensor. Film may be scanned, but it takes a while to do, that's for certain!
Thirdly, I am aware that my storage space is limited. I like the idea of storing all my images on disk, and perhaps backing up all to removable media. If I wanted, I could store images "off site" as well as those stored locally. No doubt, storage will continue to expand exponentially, but I feel it is approaching the time when I will benefit from storing digital images, rather than celluloid in plastic mounts. Just as important, when travelling, the idea of being able to store digital images (even duplicating the storage in case of loss or theft) is appealing. It simply seems to make good sense, as long as image quality is considered reasonable.
You are absolutely right - today has seen a technological revolution, and whatever is new today will itself be superceded tomorrow. Larry has made the point that digital cameras should be considered exendable - they will be out -of-date all too soon, and so we should make the most of them, enjoy them, and move on. I guess it is difficult for me to consider a camera as "disposable", with limited lifespan - that is just the way I was brought up, I guess (more emotion!), but I can see this very same argument applies to all consumer electrical goods - computers, PDAs, mobile phones and the like. It's high turnover.
I certainly agree with your sentiments regarding the purchase of a second-hand, less elaborate camera for learning purposes. I have considered this, and the idea of a CP8800 is, as I have said in the past, very tempting. Not an SLR, true, but it sounds to be an excellent imaging machine - even moreso for the price charged. As you stated, it does not replace the interest I have in an SLR that has the features I would look for, but if it proves a half-decent choice, it would at least be a place to start learning about digital photography, for the reasons mentioned above.
Again, many thanks for your comments. All much appreciated.
Kind regards,
Ian
I
innocent
Ian,
I appreciate your concern regarding the twist your post had taken. In fact I came in when the matter you initially raised had already been twisted. I only took just an aspect of the twist. I do not mean in any way to talk down any particular camera but simply stating the facts as they stand.
Further to your post no 7 above where you inquired as follows: "I would be interested to hear why you feel as you do about the capabilities of the Coolpix system, relative to a D70". May I refer you to the link on CCD sensor sizes and image quality which I created, because I too has found that the thread has diverted so much from the original post. In the said link you will find that the sensor sizes in the coolpix range is the main deficiency in the coolpix system apart from the glass embedded with them.
Having said that, it is not for me to judge which camera system is suitable for any individual but all I can do is to analyse their (the cameras) objective characteristics to draw conclusion about their competencies and to choose which is most suitable to ME. However, whichever digital choice you make, enjoy it.
Regards
I appreciate your concern regarding the twist your post had taken. In fact I came in when the matter you initially raised had already been twisted. I only took just an aspect of the twist. I do not mean in any way to talk down any particular camera but simply stating the facts as they stand.
Further to your post no 7 above where you inquired as follows: "I would be interested to hear why you feel as you do about the capabilities of the Coolpix system, relative to a D70". May I refer you to the link on CCD sensor sizes and image quality which I created, because I too has found that the thread has diverted so much from the original post. In the said link you will find that the sensor sizes in the coolpix range is the main deficiency in the coolpix system apart from the glass embedded with them.
Having said that, it is not for me to judge which camera system is suitable for any individual but all I can do is to analyse their (the cameras) objective characteristics to draw conclusion about their competencies and to choose which is most suitable to ME. However, whichever digital choice you make, enjoy it.
Regards
Have you noticed that there is something in the air? Contax is dead, Leica is dying, Bronica is on their way and Rollei is being reduced to a point-and-shoot brand. Mamiya will survive in the studio if the ZD is very good and not too expensive.
All manufacturers that are not successful with digitals, some of them among the oldest camera manufacturers on earth, are disappearing within a period of 1-2 years. At the same time, Canon is launching an amateur SLR that, if we look at picture quality alone, probably surpasses any other digital camera that was manufactured until 12 months ago, except their own 1Ds.
At the same time, my favourite camera shop have an increasing number of min t condition medium format cameras for sale. Pro equipment, but hardly used. Three additional Contax 645 the last week, and a new N1 for $900 including the beautiful 24-85 lens. Something for the mantelpiece?
I have a feeling this is it. There will be film cameras in the future too, but only from those firmly established on the digital side. That means Niko n and Canon, period.
I guess the launch of EOS 350D will also put an enormous pressure on the prices. Both cameras like the D70 and the top spec CPs will have a hard tim e if they don't adapt. That means competitive prices.
Now is the time to remain cool and not rush. Things will become much, much cheaper and much, much better, and we will get so many nice tools for our favourite activity.
Jorgen
All manufacturers that are not successful with digitals, some of them among the oldest camera manufacturers on earth, are disappearing within a period of 1-2 years. At the same time, Canon is launching an amateur SLR that, if we look at picture quality alone, probably surpasses any other digital camera that was manufactured until 12 months ago, except their own 1Ds.
At the same time, my favourite camera shop have an increasing number of min t condition medium format cameras for sale. Pro equipment, but hardly used. Three additional Contax 645 the last week, and a new N1 for $900 including the beautiful 24-85 lens. Something for the mantelpiece?
I have a feeling this is it. There will be film cameras in the future too, but only from those firmly established on the digital side. That means Niko n and Canon, period.
I guess the launch of EOS 350D will also put an enormous pressure on the prices. Both cameras like the D70 and the top spec CPs will have a hard tim e if they don't adapt. That means competitive prices.
Now is the time to remain cool and not rush. Things will become much, much cheaper and much, much better, and we will get so many nice tools for our favourite activity.
Jorgen
> Perhaps my lithium ion batteries would have held out fine, but I was > able to recharge my AA's with a solar charger every day - quite > important as I was c&ing in Etosha reserve, and had no easy access > to an AC power supply.
Hi Ian,
I share your desire for the ability to use AA batteries in some form. I have used solar power to charge the Lithium Ion batteries for my D70 but there are times when either the sun isn't bright enough or I don't have the time to set up the panel. For much of my shooting, the Lithium Ion is super but a battery grip option for AA's (even without a vert. release) would be great.
Eliminate the metering lockout with non CPU lenses to at least allow stop down metering, add multiple Custom Curves and the ability to load Custom Curves from CF and a AA battery grip and I would be quite satisfied.
By the way, I too have a ton of slides. I adapted an old Kodak slide projector with a 5 watt bulb to an AF micro nikkor on my D70 as an almost automated slide copier to archive many of my slides and my father's slides for my elderly mother.
Ron
Hi Ian,
I share your desire for the ability to use AA batteries in some form. I have used solar power to charge the Lithium Ion batteries for my D70 but there are times when either the sun isn't bright enough or I don't have the time to set up the panel. For much of my shooting, the Lithium Ion is super but a battery grip option for AA's (even without a vert. release) would be great.
Eliminate the metering lockout with non CPU lenses to at least allow stop down metering, add multiple Custom Curves and the ability to load Custom Curves from CF and a AA battery grip and I would be quite satisfied.
By the way, I too have a ton of slides. I adapted an old Kodak slide projector with a 5 watt bulb to an AF micro nikkor on my D70 as an almost automated slide copier to archive many of my slides and my father's slides for my elderly mother.
Ron
ian_craigie
Active Member
> Hi Ron,
Thanks very much for your comments. I mentioned that I have an F4s (which admittedly does not get used as much these days because I am so pleased with my F100), but changed its large and heavy(er) MB23 battery pack for the smaller and neater MB20 from the start. This allowed me to continue using the 4 AA batteries in the F4, along with cutting down on weight and volume in the camera bag - a sensible and much appreciated option for Nikon to have provided. Just as you mentioned, such versatility, even without a vertical release, is well worth it IMHO.
I was particularly intrigued by your set-up for copying slides to your D70! What a great idea. Can I ask for a few more details regarding your system? Did you simply project the photos, and then have your camera on a tripod and blaze away? Did you perhaps have a rear projection display, and shoot directly from the projector itself? I'd love to hear more about how you achieved your aim.
Thanks again for your post and thoughts,
Kind regards,
Ian
Thanks very much for your comments. I mentioned that I have an F4s (which admittedly does not get used as much these days because I am so pleased with my F100), but changed its large and heavy(er) MB23 battery pack for the smaller and neater MB20 from the start. This allowed me to continue using the 4 AA batteries in the F4, along with cutting down on weight and volume in the camera bag - a sensible and much appreciated option for Nikon to have provided. Just as you mentioned, such versatility, even without a vertical release, is well worth it IMHO.
I was particularly intrigued by your set-up for copying slides to your D70! What a great idea. Can I ask for a few more details regarding your system? Did you simply project the photos, and then have your camera on a tripod and blaze away? Did you perhaps have a rear projection display, and shoot directly from the projector itself? I'd love to hear more about how you achieved your aim.
Thanks again for your post and thoughts,
Kind regards,
Ian
> Posted by Jorgen Udvang > Have you noticed that there is something in the air? Contax is dead, > Leica is dying, Bronica is on their way and Rollei is being reduced to > a point-and-shoot brand. Mamiya will survive in the studio if the ZD > is very good and not too expensive.
It is very difficult for many companies to adjust to new realities. IBM spent much of the late 1980s and early '90s in deep crisis. The internal establishment saw IBM as strictly a big systems company, happy to deal with a handful of huge corporations and govenments. They barely fought when Compaq cloned the system. A large corporation can be as bureaucratic as any civil service. It is said that some bureaucrats have 30 years of experience but often it is one year of experience repeated 30 times.
I expect that this is the case with many camera companies. When Contax first announced their dSLR, it had the potential to make them the absolute leader in high-end digital photography. Years later, when they finally canned it, it was too little, too late and for too much money. Kyocera is making money hand over fist at the moment with their other product lines, and see Contax/Yashica as a drain on their resources. Rather than adjust to the new marketplace, they are canning the whole division. It is possible that someone will buy the facility and brand names. Sony has been mentioned.
Leitz has been resting on their laurels, building antiques for collectors for the past many decades, as well as a few fairly contemporary SLR bodies for enthusasts with very deep pockets and a lust for the red circle that says Leica. There are still a few photographers who use the equipment, rather than collect it, and I have heard reports of an appalling drop-of in lens quality. I would guess that they assume that the lens would never take a picture anyway, so why bother.
In the studio, the price of a camera is incidental. Studios are using breathakingly expensive scanning backs on Sinars and medium format bodies. In commercial or catalogue work, a lot of salaries are involved and if an hour or two can be saved across the board by shooting digital rather than Ektachrome, the camera is paid for in days just in increased productivity. If a table setup must remain in place while the film is developed and the client signs off on the job in case a reshoot is needed, the cost is enormous. If the client can see the digital image on a monitor seconds after it was shot, hours are saved all up and down the food chain. A change of lighting, styling or props and a reshoot cost almost nothing with digital since they can be done immediately with reference to the previous shot.
Even in a small studio, the cost of equipment is a small item. A long time on-line friend and top wedding photographer has gone almost exclusively digital with a very pricey 1Ds. It paid her back in the first couple of shoots.
larry! ICQ 76620504
It is very difficult for many companies to adjust to new realities. IBM spent much of the late 1980s and early '90s in deep crisis. The internal establishment saw IBM as strictly a big systems company, happy to deal with a handful of huge corporations and govenments. They barely fought when Compaq cloned the system. A large corporation can be as bureaucratic as any civil service. It is said that some bureaucrats have 30 years of experience but often it is one year of experience repeated 30 times.
I expect that this is the case with many camera companies. When Contax first announced their dSLR, it had the potential to make them the absolute leader in high-end digital photography. Years later, when they finally canned it, it was too little, too late and for too much money. Kyocera is making money hand over fist at the moment with their other product lines, and see Contax/Yashica as a drain on their resources. Rather than adjust to the new marketplace, they are canning the whole division. It is possible that someone will buy the facility and brand names. Sony has been mentioned.
Leitz has been resting on their laurels, building antiques for collectors for the past many decades, as well as a few fairly contemporary SLR bodies for enthusasts with very deep pockets and a lust for the red circle that says Leica. There are still a few photographers who use the equipment, rather than collect it, and I have heard reports of an appalling drop-of in lens quality. I would guess that they assume that the lens would never take a picture anyway, so why bother.
In the studio, the price of a camera is incidental. Studios are using breathakingly expensive scanning backs on Sinars and medium format bodies. In commercial or catalogue work, a lot of salaries are involved and if an hour or two can be saved across the board by shooting digital rather than Ektachrome, the camera is paid for in days just in increased productivity. If a table setup must remain in place while the film is developed and the client signs off on the job in case a reshoot is needed, the cost is enormous. If the client can see the digital image on a monitor seconds after it was shot, hours are saved all up and down the food chain. A change of lighting, styling or props and a reshoot cost almost nothing with digital since they can be done immediately with reference to the previous shot.
Even in a small studio, the cost of equipment is a small item. A long time on-line friend and top wedding photographer has gone almost exclusively digital with a very pricey 1Ds. It paid her back in the first couple of shoots.
larry! ICQ 76620504
It is entirely practical to project directly onto the focal plane of a camera. In the fume-room, I frequently needed to make slides off negatives or duplicate slides. I used my 35mm camera below the enlarger, with a right-angle finder to make sure I got the cropping I needed and for focusing. When doing slides off negatives, I had a fibre-glass conduit from the viewfinder to the colour analyzer so I could set the colour balance on the enlarger head. Worked perfectly.
larry! ICQ 76620504
larry! ICQ 76620504
ian_craigie
Active Member
> Hi Larry and Ron,
I actually have a Nikon slide copier attachment - a PS5 or 6, I think it is called - although have not used it for many years. Would using this with my 60mm Nikon micro (1:1 ratio) lens, and appropriate positioning of the lens, allow a full-frame image to be recorded on a D70 reduced size focal plane/image sensor?
I used my SB-24 flash as the light source in the past, and this has worked reasonably with standard TTL exposure (via cable connection to the camera hotshoe). I am not sure, however, whether I would be able to make use of this facility with a Nikon digital SLR. Do you know if I would have to use an SB-600 or SB-800? How would the fittings work with this combination of lens/copier/camera?
I have to admit, I had never thought of such a set-up until now - I am learning every day! Whatever one makes of the "digital revolution", it is quite amazing how 20 years on I feel there is a whole new world of photography out there to discover. How wonderful!
Thanks again,
Regards,
Ian
I actually have a Nikon slide copier attachment - a PS5 or 6, I think it is called - although have not used it for many years. Would using this with my 60mm Nikon micro (1:1 ratio) lens, and appropriate positioning of the lens, allow a full-frame image to be recorded on a D70 reduced size focal plane/image sensor?
I used my SB-24 flash as the light source in the past, and this has worked reasonably with standard TTL exposure (via cable connection to the camera hotshoe). I am not sure, however, whether I would be able to make use of this facility with a Nikon digital SLR. Do you know if I would have to use an SB-600 or SB-800? How would the fittings work with this combination of lens/copier/camera?
I have to admit, I had never thought of such a set-up until now - I am learning every day! Whatever one makes of the "digital revolution", it is quite amazing how 20 years on I feel there is a whole new world of photography out there to discover. How wonderful!
Thanks again,
Regards,
Ian
This should work. I would probably approach it by getting a big sheet of white card stock taped to a wall. For comfort, I would use a tripod, and point the camera at the centre of the sheet a few feet back from it.
With the flash on the camera, there should be enough light bouncing back through the copy attachment to get a decent exposure. This should provide very even lighting, and the TTL should give reasonable exposure accuracy. Of course if there is a large area of density in the slide or low density, you may have to use the exposure compensation to adjust for it.
A scanner is much simpler, however.
larry! ICQ 76620504
With the flash on the camera, there should be enough light bouncing back through the copy attachment to get a decent exposure. This should provide very even lighting, and the TTL should give reasonable exposure accuracy. Of course if there is a large area of density in the slide or low density, you may have to use the exposure compensation to adjust for it.
A scanner is much simpler, however.
larry! ICQ 76620504