[Closed] Digital SLR info: buy now or wait for new stuffs?

well Emmanuel, letslook at the facts:

He's going to by Nikon, He wants a full frame body, his mind won't be changed re: what brand he goes for, he seems fairly set on the possibility of keeping one of his film bodies.

Bearing this in mind its simply a question of waiting or not waiting for Nikons D700 update.

If I wanted a camera for use with a collection of old MF lenses I'd buy the Nex7. Have a look at the reviews (focus peaking in particular).

Nikon rumors mentioned talk of a delay with the D800 & D4

[i]Reporter: “The question everybody asks; when will the D4 or D800 be released?
Lasse Pettersson: [Jokingly] “Later!”
Reporter: “Will they be announced at the event in October?”
Lasse Pettersson: “No, I do not believe so.”

Read more on NikonRumors.com: http://nikonrumors.com/#ixzz1Z8mRUyN6
[/i]

If I had the money waiting Elfinsafety I would be watching the price of the D700 like a hawk

Anyone know if there is still any savings to be made on buying this sort of kit abroad, say Hong Kong?

This I can agree with, even if I still disagree with Tamron being better than an L lens.

I've worked with many pro's and have shot with both lenses. The Tamron is the better lens in terms of sharpness. Wide open the canon is better and the build quality is streets ahead of the Tamron.

I know one pro who I used to work with who uses the Tamron for exactly the reasons I stated. It is sharper.

The difference is Tamron and sigma make a few really good lenses, whereas Nikon and Canon only make a few average ones, most are stellar.

Kit lenses are shit. Tamron and sigma make some decent lenses that are not as expensive as Canon or Nikon. My Tamron 28-75 is sharper than Canons 28-70L and is about half the price.

Yes the build quality is [s]not as good[/s] crap, but the images it produces are wonderful.

Thing is, right, surely Nikon must be bringing out a replacement/cheaper FX sensor cam soon?

Highly unlikely. The D700 will probably be replaced within the next year or so. The replacement will almost certainly re-peg the RRP back to where it was when the D700 was first introduced (c. £2400 IIRC). That's what Nikon's done with their dSLRs for more than a decade.

Sony tried cheap FX and it bombed. The market's not there. The margin's not there. Ain't gonna happen, particularly at a price that would cannibalise high-end DX sales. Buy a D700 while they're still available and cheap(ish), or sit there fuming when the new one comes out and it's too expensive for your needs ;P

I've always said that when dijical matches fillum, then I'll switch. With the FX sensor, this moment has arrived, I feel.

I think you've been missing out on the fun 🙂 IME digital matched film with the arrival of the D2X in... when was it, 2005? Since the D3 and D300 12mp digital has been clearly superior to film (regardless of sensor size) in terms of acuity, dynamic range, noise and versatility.

Ditch the film stuff. Buy a D300 or D7000 and a decent wide zoom; keep the other lenses (though don't expect MF to work very well with modern focus screens). It'll still cost less than a D700 and it'll get you started in 'digical' while you wait (probably a very long time) for the mythical 'affordable' FX body ;P

D3 and D300 12mp digital has been clearly superior to film (regardless of sensor size) in terms of acuity, dynamic range, noise and versatility.

Hmm, for me, nothing will ever match the look I used to get with HP5 developed in my own secret recipe (that even Ilford were intrigued about...), but I concede that there is certainly no advantage to be had in continuing with fillum any longer. Fair enough.

It is only the top end cams that interest me, sorry. I've seen enough stuff done on D90s and lower cams that just don't cut it for me. Probbly fine for 70% of subjects but it's stuff like blown out highlights and the low-light limitations which rule out anything below a D300 level really, and that's DX so that's out also. I used to get better results with a cheap Vivitar body and a nice Pentax lens, than what most sub-£1000 dijicams are capable of now.

Yeah, it's the D700. Interesting to hear conflicting views on it's replacement, and I think you're right Seb, that it's unlikely Nikon will produce a cheaper FX sensor cam just yet, thinking about it. Too big a DX market. I spose give it another five years or so and FX will be in the consumer range, but too early really.

I was hoping for a D800 to be launched, as D700 prices will undoubtedly drop significantly (it'll be s/h anyway tbh), as s/h D300 prices seemed to when the D700 was launched.

Another issue is that I wear glasses, and need a large bright viewfinder. Sorry, but again it's only on the high-end models that you get this. And no, I won't be using dioptre lenses they're a pain in the bum glasses on, off, on, off.

I think you've been missing out on the fun

Not really; sort of lost the passion for photography for a while, got into other stuff. Wasn't really motivated to take pics. Want to get back into it now, for [i]me[/i], not for any other reason, which I think is the best reason.

And as I've said; I'll keep me FM2 (must buy an FM2Ti some day...) and stick the occasional roll of B+W through it, just for fun. Might even resurrect me darkroom one of these days...

D700 is a bit of a hefty beast though in't it? One of the biggest downsides of the F5 is it's size and weight. Compact it is not. TBH the F100 would probbly've bin a better bet.

Of course, it won't end with a DSLR body. There'll be a flashgun needing bought, always need more lenses, then what about a nice travelling cam, like that Leica? Yes, I know cheaper compacts are available, but it's all about the glass; remember the Olympus XA? Still pees all over most dijical compact cams on the market today, for image quality. The lens in that was a jewel.

Sigh....

[img] [/img]

Oooooooooohhh.....

[img] [/img]

(Is misty-eyed)

If you like that Pentax then maybe you should look at the [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/photographers-what-do-we-think-of-the-new-nikon-1-system ]Nikon 1[/url] 🙂

Now why have you gone and shown me that Graham, eh?

FFS....

[img] ?1316585365[/img]

Oy vey.

sensor too small, lenses too big and too slow, too expensive

Yeah we know that, but it is pretty....

It is only the top end cams that interest me, sorry. I've seen enough stuff done on D90s and lower cams that just don't cut it for me. Probbly fine for 70% of subjects but it's stuff like blown out highlights and the low-light limitations which rule out anything below a D300 level really

Well, I wasn't suggesting you should look at anything below the D300. But in fact the D90 and D300 share very similar sensors. Blown highlights on modern cameras are almost always down to user exposure and process settings.

I used to get better results with a cheap Vivitar body and a nice Pentax lens, than what most sub-£1000 dijicams are capable of now.

Technically better? I very seriously doubt it. I'll put my entry level, 4 year old D40X up against your cheap Vivitar body with whatever film you choose to put in it, any day of the week.

The 'film is better argument' is dead and buried. It's not. It's different. But better? Not a chance.

I was hoping for a D800 to be launched, as D700 prices will undoubtedly drop significantly

I wouldn't count on it. The D700 has contined to sell very well despite stiff competition from the likes of the 5DII.

Another issue is that I wear glasses, and need a large bright viewfinder. Sorry, but again it's only on the high-end models that you get this

Every Nikon SLR that I've owned and used since 1989 (F801, F90X, F100, F5, F6, F80, D100, D200, D300, D40X, D2X, D3) has worked fine with my glasses. Even the cheaper ones (F80 and D40X in this list). So sorry, but you're wrong on that one 🙂

It's great that you want back in, but really... I do think you're living in the past. And I'm one of the late converts to digital 😉 Full frame Nikons aren't going to be 'cheap' anytime soon, if ever. Buy a D700 if you want affordable FX. If that's too spendy, find a nice used D300 and a 12-24 and go out and use it. I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised...

So sorry, but you're wrong on that one

Erm, I've tried a few lower end models in camera shops, and they aren't very good. Might work for you but they don't for me. It's the more spensive ones which offer the better viewfinders. Most of those you've mentioned are higher-end model cams anyway.

Technically better? I very seriously doubt it

Pentax 50mm lens, HP5 fillum, = stunning results. Point being, that with fillum, the cheaper bodies made no difference to image quality when used with decent lenses, unlike DSLRS. I'd like to see even a current low end DSLR match the quality of Fuji Velvia and a decent 50mm lens. Or with some HP5 pushed up to 3200. 😉

And back then, a basic camera body and 50mm lens would set you back about £150 tops, if you went for something like a K-mount body. New. Even allowing for inflation, the quality of results then meant better value for money. I woon't even consider a small aperture kit zoom for any serious photography, as they are nowhere near any of the prime lenses I've used, in terms of quality.

I wouldn't count on it. The D700 has contined to sell very well despite stiff competition from the likes of the 5DII.

If a D800 is released, and the D700 discontinued, there will likely be a glut of D700s in the s/h market as the gear freaks want the latest thing. Hence there will be, as I've witnessed many times in the s/h cam market, a significant drop in price of s/h bodies. Which will be a bonus for me.

I do think you're living in the past.

I took some decent pictures in the past. So did many, many photographers who were far better than you or I will ever be.

Erm, I've tried a few lower end models in camera shops, and they aren't very good. Might work for you but they don't for me.

Fair enough 🙂 But in fact the eyepoint specs for the F80 and D40X (both in my list and both low end, by your standards) aren't all that different to the high-end cameras.

I'd like to see even a current low end DSLR match the quality of Fuji Velvia and a decent 50mm lens. Or with some HP5 pushed up to 3200.

I'll put my (not current) D40X up against your F5, on both counts. Seriously. Wanna play? 😉

If a D800 is released, and the D700 discontinued, there will likely be a glut of D700s in the s/h market as the gear freaks want the latest thing. Hence there will be, as I've witnessed many times in the s/h cam market, a significant drop in price of s/h bodies. Which will be a bonus for me.

You may be right. But the S/H prices of (say) D200 and D2X bodies has been remarkably stable for the past 3 years or so. Personally I think there'll continue to be high demand for the D700, which will keep prices relatively high. But I'd like to be proved wrong, because I'd like to buy a 'cheap' D700 too!

I took some decent pictures in the past. So did many, many photographers who were far better than you or I will ever be.

Very true, but artistic merit is not the point. You keep insisting that film cameras and lenses produce [i]technically[/i] superior results compared to (I'm paraphrasing here) the cheaper digital offerings. No-one's suggesting that newer cameras make nicer pictures. They don't. But technology [i]has[/i] moved on and, while prices have gone up, a decent mid-range dSLR is capable of stunning results that easily and measurably (sharpness, dynamic range, colour accuracy and so on) out-perform any 35mm film you care to mention.

You don't have to believe me, but I do think you're missing out. Film was great. It still is. But digital is more versatile and incredibly enabling. Which makes it worth the price of entry alone, IMHO. YMMV 🙂

I'll put my (not current) D40X up against your F5, on both counts. Seriously. Wanna play?

Ohh a Seb vs Elf photo showdown.

[i]*grabs popcorn*[/i]

Ohh a Seb vs Elf photo showdown.

*grabs popcorn*

Cup of Tea anyone?

😉

thanks ski <[i]passes biscuits[/i]>

just one sugar thanks

it's all about who has the biggest zoom swinging in the breeze.

it's all about who has the biggest zoom swinging in the breeze

That'll be Elf's F5, then. My D40X is [i]tiny[/i] in comparison...

I'll put my (not current) D40X up against your F5, on both counts. Seriously. Wanna play?

Submerge your D40x in water for a minute. Then drop it onto a concrete paving slab from about 3 feet. Then we'll play... 😉

Does it go up to ISO 3200? I've long toyed with the idea of pushing some Ilford 3200 right up to silly high speeds, maybe 128,000....

So how does this game go? See, I'm at a disadvantage on the printing side of things these days, as getting a neg or slide printed up A2/A1 size will cost a bastard fortune. 😯 Scanning it in kind of defeats the purpose.

You don't have to believe me, but I do think you're missing out.

Er, had you read all my posts on here you wooduv figured this out by now. I think you believe me to be a complete luddite, who doesn't want to go dijical. If I am to continue with my photography, then I accept I need to go dijical. As film isn't really an economically or practically viable option any longer.

And if I am going to go dijical, then I'm looking for kit which matches the quality of what I've bin used to. hence a D700 as minimum. For reasons I've already stated, several times.

But technology has moved on and, while prices have gone up, a decent mid-range dSLR is capable of stunning results that easily and measurably (sharpness, dynamic range, colour accuracy and so on) out-perform any 35mm film you care to mention.

Got any actual proof of this then Seb? Or is this merely your own opinion? I ask this, as it seems damn near impossible to actually find any proper scientific evidence of claims one way or another. Plenty of stuff online about this, but too often using digitally scanned negs as a comparison, which isn't really a level playing field. I'd really like to see large A2/A1 prints from both, in the exact same conditions, using the same lenses etc, to be able to compare. The closest I've achieved is to have a slide printed up in a lab, old skool style, and scanned in and printed out on a decent colour printer. Only about A4 size though, so very difficult to detect any 'measurable' differences. That was using a decent 5400ppi scanner, and a teeny tiny bit of post production sharpening to compensate for the 'generational loss' of having the slide scanned.

Your challenge is an interesting one, but I fear it's not practically possible to really engage in it for various reasons. I think a range of different shooting conditions/subjects etc, side by side, might reveal some actual information, but how to go about that?

Your challenge is an interesting one, but I fear it's not practically possible to really engage in it for various reasons.

[i]cluck cluck[/i] 😉

C'mon Elf - he's insulting your emulsion man - lets have a showdown 😀

do your own leg work. there are plenty of examples on the web of film/digital/different format comparisons.
maybe it's the use of the words 'dijjical' and 'fillum' when using google is the reason you aren't getting anywhere.

I'd be happy to, Graham, but in order for a proper level playing field type test to go ahead, we'd need to be in exactly the same place, at the same time, using the same lens, same ISO, etc etc etc.

Care to tell me who's going to arrange all that?

I am happy to concede that the fillum process is far more fiddly and fraught with potential problems. for one, Seb would have an instant result, whilst I'd have to toddle off to Boots and wait a while...

Care to tell me who's going to arrange all that?

You could always join Seb on one of his photo courses.

You might even learn how to take colour shots 😀

Heh! 😆

In all this, I've completely forgotten to check the times for the Curzon Renoir for Tinker Tailor tonight! 😳

[b]ROLL UP ROLL UP for the Great STW Photo Showdown
[/b]
[img] [/img]
[b]Elf

VS

Rogers[/b]

[img] [/img]

whilst I'd have to toddle off to Boots and wait a while

why process in a high st chemist? there are a couple of good e-6/c-41 labs still hanging on by catering to the doe-eyed wealthy amateurs. at least then you could do a clip test and push/pull the film to obtain optimum results.

Has anyone said yet - if you are that bothered about full frame but don't want to spend loads, you could get a second hand Canon 5D - about £600. Sell your crusty old Nikon lenses and buy some nice Canon ones instead. 🙂

All sorted! they're showing it on both screens due to demand, although apparently the air con is brokedificated so we might go to Rich Mix instead. The Rio isn't showing it for some bizarre reason.

Sell your crusty old Nikon lenses and buy some nice Canon ones instead.

😯

Do [i]what[/i]???

BLASPHEMER!!!! BURN HIM!!!!!!! 👿

Heathen! May ye be cast into the fiery pit of Hell where ye shall burn for eternity for your sins!

why process in a high st chemist?

Erm, it was a joke? 😕

I'd never get owt proccessed at Boots, after a mate of mine who worked there on film processing told me what happens to all the saucy pics they spot when developing them. 😯

Let's just say there are probbly many people who don't realise quite the attention they are getting online....

why limit yourself to one system when you have the opportunity to start from scratch? pick the best system that suits your needs. i bet most of your nikon lenses are poor performers if you use them on higher MPxl crop format bodies or full frame. assess the features you require and make an informed choice instead of an illojical emotional choice of a feeble mind.

grum - Member

Has anyone said yet - if you are that bothered about full frame but don't want to spend loads, you could get a second hand Canon 5D - about £600. Sell your crusty old Nikon lenses and buy some nice Canon ones instead.

I did on page one, but lets not stop the fun just yet 😉

Canon? Don't they make photocopiers and fax machines?

Have they started doing cameras now? 😉

why limit yourself to one system when you have the opportunity to start from scratch? pick the best system that suits your needs. i bet most of your nikon lenses are poor performers if you use them on higher MPxl crop format bodies or full frame. assess the features you require and make an informed choice instead of an illojical emotional choice of a feeble mind.

Lots of people are buying bodies so they can use their old lenses.

Nothing wrong with a bit of nostalgia.

i bet most of your nikon lenses are poor performers if you use them on higher MPxl crop format bodies or full frame

Yes. There there dear. Would you like some soup?

lets not stop the fun just yet

Heh! Oh, keep it going, please! 😀

Re old lenses on digital cameras.. I read about a chap who had a load of famously nice Olympus lenses and he tried them all out on his E-3 I think it was. The results were very hit and miss actually - some were good and some were pants.

So is it possible that the same would be true for Nikon? Would some older lenses just not perform even on ff?

Canon? Don't they make photocopiers and fax machines?

Yeah. Or, to put it another way: Other stuff that takes pictures. 😛

Re old lenses on digital cameras.. I read about a chap who had a load of famously nice Olympus lenses and he tried them all out on his E-3 I think it was. The results were very hit and miss actually - some were good and some were pants.

Got any actual proof of this then Seb? Or is this merely your own opinion? I ask this, as it seems damn near impossible to actually find any proper scientific evidence of claims one way or another.

Define 'scientific'.

Yes, it's my opinion. Got a problem with that? 😉 I earned my living from 1996 to 2005 shooting film. Since 2005 it's been 100% digital. I've got folders full of A3 prints from Velvia and Provia trannies (scanned on a 4000dpi scanner - for some reason you seem to regard this as cheating, I'm not sure why) and even more folders full of other A3 prints from various digital SLRs. Yes, you can tell the difference. Easily. The 4000dpi scans are bigger files with more pixels, but most of the extra pixel real estate is recording grain rather than detail. The digital files - particularly the D3 files - are much cleaner, contain more detail, record more shadow and highlight detail, have more accurate colour... d'you want me to go on? No, I've not measured any of this stuff, but after 15 1/2 years of doing this nearly every day I know what my eyes are telling me.

I've also got a small pile of 12x16 and 20x16 Cibachromes. They're not holding up too well, either. Dodgy colour, blocked in shadows, fuzzy details...

I've got an F5 here. And a 4000dpi scanner. And an A2 printer. So I could easily do a side by side comparison with the D40X and a bunch of different films, but I'm not sure I can be bothered because I know what the results will show 🙂

I'm not dissing film, because it's got a great look and feel that's hard to replicate with mere pixels. But I'm not going back, either. I've shot magazine covers on the D40X. In terms of picture quality I'd rather shoot with the D40X than the F5, any day of the week (btw I dropped an F5 on a concrete floor once... it was a write-off).

Would some older lenses just not perform even on ff?

Yup. I've got some highly regarded, very expensive Nikon lenses here that were designed in the film era and are OK but not outstanding on digital. It's useful to be able to migrate existing lenses onto a new body but not a deal-breaker if you can't, IMHO.

Would some older lenses just not perform even on ff?

How can a piece of glass 'not perform'? 😕

More likely the problem was in the cam, in it's firmware or software or something. All a lens does is focus light. It's 'performance' is fixed.

All a lens does is focus light. It's 'performance' is fixed.

<sigh> No, it's not. Some lenses perform differently on digital compared to film. I don't pretend to understand the details of why, but they do. Many lenses designed for film simply don't resolve well enough for modern dSLRs and there can be issues around various varieties of colour fringing which aren't an issue on film.

If you bought a dSLR you could test this for yourself 😉

for some reason you seem to regard this as cheating, I'm not sure why

Ok: A print from a neg or slide is light shone through the film, onto light-sensitive paper. Etc. Scanning a neg then involves the transformation from analogue to dijical information, which adds another layer of possible degradation. Basically, you're making a digital photo of a tiny 36x24mm image, rather than a sensor gathering information through a lens in a DSLR. Scanners use an artificial light source. Lots of fancy maths is done to correct things like colour balance etc. Scanners aren't always all that good. A compromise situation really.

Make sense?

My own example is of actual 'wet' prints, against scanned then dijicalled prints. I had to make tiny adjustments to the dijical stage, due to tiny inefficiencies/anomalies in the dijical system. The 'wet' prints were just printed straight using top-end pro equipment at a top lab.

Do you have 'wet' prints from your trannies (!)? because then I'd see that as an accurate means of comparison.

I've got an F5 here. And a 4000dpi scanner. And an A2 printer

Do you have a colour darkroom and optical printer for the film side of things?

I'm not arguing with your experiences mate; I'm just saying my own (albeit not the same in terms of tech really) are different. I've got B+W prints I've done that are top-notch; it's taken me a lot of post-processing to produce half-decent prints via dijical, because of the inadequacies of the tech, quite frankly. Can't beat a decent B+W print on FB paper imo.

I've bin going to the Wildlife photographer of the Year show for years now. up until a few years ago, most stuff was done on fillum, and the results, with big backlit display transparencies, were always stunning. You could spot the dijical images though because they were slightly inferior, but now, most of the images are done on dijical, and all are amazing. One or two are still on fillum, but are just as good, quality wise. I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference mind.

I've also got a small pile of 12x16 and 20x16 Cibachromes. They're not holding up too well, either. Dodgy colour, blocked in shadows, fuzzy details...

I've got a few CDs of scanned images which no longer work. 🙁

Thankfully I still have the slides...

Oh, and to put this to bed, for the record:

Dijical has now finally surpassed fillum in most aspects. Ease of use and immediacy being the two biggest factors. Absolute quality? Hmm. I'd like to see some proper scientific results before I'm absolutely convinced.

I don't pretend to understand the details of why, but they do

😉

How can a piece of glass 'not perform'?

By not resolving sufficient detail for the higher density sensors, suffering from sensor reflection, chromatic aberration, and flare to name just a few.

Not to mention the ailments that time alone can cause ...

I think the reason lenses perform differently on film and digital is to do with how the light lands on the target. I would assume that the red, green and blue sensors are always in the same order - that is, red on the left, green in the middle and blue on the right. So for any given 'pixel' the light landing on the red bit has taken a different path to the green bit. This would add up and by the edges of the frame you'd see red fringing on one side and blue on the other, like I used to see on my compact.

In film it would not matter because the red, green and blue grains are randomly scattered.

That's my guess, anyway, but I don't really know for sure. But there are factors like this at work. It's part of the reason for Oly designing Four Thirds - they wanted to make sure the path of light on the sensor was more perpendicular, which is why even cheap Oly 4/3 lenses are very good, the trade-off is high ISO performance. I think Oly mis-understood their target market though 🙂

Thanks for reading my ill-informed waffle, now here's your reward - the link:

http://www.biofos.com/cornucop/omz_e1.html

that is, red on the left, green in the middle and blue on the right

Majority actually use a bayer array, alternative being the Foveon sensors. The advantages of the Foveon were the ability to record a higher dynamic range but seemed to lack favour due to its lack of marketable sensor density. Shame really because they produced stunning results and very popular for a while with wedding photographers.

lol at the spurious rehashed internet bullsh*t* about how film and sensors work.

all this to take pics of sunsets and london landmarks at jaunty angles.
can't you just do that with your phone?
i feel sorry for the pleb behind the counter when you finally do go to buy/trade up.
if you weren't so defensive and TJ like about taking on board the info and advice from those with more knowledge/experience than yourself (yes it is possible) then you might actually become better informed, and make an [u]informed[/u] choice instead of blindly insisting photography stopped with an FM2 a roll of tri-x in HC110-dilution B

I feel sorry for anyone who ever has to deal with [i]you[/i], with your attitude.

if you weren't so defensive and TJ like about taking on board the info and advice from those with more knowledge/experience than yourself (yes it is possible) then you might actually become better informed.

Sigh... What do you know of my photographic experience? Eh? Bugger all, so why not keep such stupid onions to yourself?

FWIW, I've found Seb's comments very interesting indeed. And I do respect his onions, even if I don't completely agree with them.

You seem to be unduly wound up about something. Why not have a nice walk or something, it's a lovely evening.

X

did that on sunday. got some great pics with my new (toy) camera

Ok. Why not post some up then, for us all to enjoy? Do something positive.

X

something positive is finishing manipulating/stitching/retouching/butchering then uploading them to a stock library's FTP so they can earn me some money. (i even made some of them black and white as they were a bit iffy)

Do you have 'wet' prints from your trannies (!)? because then I'd see that as an accurate means of comparison.

Yeah, those Cibachromes - which used to be the benchmark in terms of ultimate print quality from a tranny - look pretty shoddy next to the inkjets out of my Epson (which, incidentally, should last about as long).

Dijical has now finally surpassed fillum in most aspects. Ease of use and immediacy being the two biggest factors. Absolute quality? Hmm. I'd like to see some proper scientific results before I'm absolutely convinced.

If you're taking pictures for fun (I assume you are?) then those first two factors should have made the decision for you long ago. And then with a bit of trial and error, I think you'd work out the last one for yourself. And come to the same conclusion as just about everyone else who's made the switch.

I was one of the last bike pros to make the switch (I think I even managed to hang onto film longer than John Gibson ;P). I loved film, I hated the cost of switching to digital, I wasn't convinced about the quality. The D100 didn't sway me, though I could see that it was close. The D2X matched film. Everything since then has knocked film over the boundary (to mangle a metaphor). You're talking to a fellow digital sceptic and you still won't take my word for it that digital is better 🙂

Just buy a D700. You'll love it, and wonder why you waited so long.

The D2X matched film

but what film? 🙂 i thought the files were horrible.
but then this could have been something to do with the odd sensor and how they tweaked the raw and C1/ACR couldn't get the best out of them. the 2 people i know who bought them ditched them very quickly.

lol at the spurious rehashed internet bullsh*t* about how film and sensors work

It's not re-hashed internet bullsh*t, it's half remembered internet information and supposition, and it was acknowledged as such. However it seems to be the case (and this was my point) that film and sensors behave differently.

if you weren't so defensive and TJ like about taking on board the info and advice from those with more knowledge/experience than yourself (yes it is possible) then you might actually become better informed

And if you weren't being such a bellend and apparently keen to take the worst possible interpretation of the OP, maybe you'd read his posts with a bit more sympathy and understand where he's coming from. I understand his viewpoint even though I don't share it.

And besides, having read so many of Elf's posts over the years it is clear to me that he is a genuinely artistic soul rather than just a techno photogeek and although I've only seen a couple of his pictures I'd like to see more. I don't recall seeing any of yours MrSmith..

but what film? i thought the files were horrible.

Velvia and Provia, specifically. Up to ISO400. 800 was a bit dicy, but last month an image I shot on my D2X and ISO800 6 years ago made it onto the front cover of a mag, so it's all relative.

There are two approaches to using a camera:

1. Stick it on auto, point, press, let Supasnaps (film) or the camera's built-in processing (digital) do the legwork. Accept the results, however shit they are.

2. Engage brain, use a proper lab (film) or do your own raw processing (digital). Constantly work at improving the results.

If you're going to get the best out of either, you need to do 2. But I didn't need to tell you that, did I? Thing is, I bet it took you a while to figure out how to get the best out of HP5, or TriX, or Velvia, or whatever. It's the same with digital. Whatever dSLR you use and whichever raw application you buy, it takes a while to work out how to tweak the default values to get what you want.

the 2 people i know who bought them ditched them very quickly.

I've seen awful results out of the D2X, but then I've seen awful results out of a whole range of dSLRs of all manufacturers. In every case the problem was the photographer ;P

The D2X wasn't at its best above base ISO and it had a highlight clipping issue that needed careful handling, but at ISO100 it held fine detail better than the D3s, D700 and D300 do today. And before you ask, no I don't have scientific proof, but I have thousands of files that prove the point conclusively to my eyes 😉

1. Stick it on auto, point, press, let Supasnaps (film) or the camera's built-in processing (digital) do the legwork. Accept the results, however [s]shit they are[/s] [b]good or bad they might be[/b]

Let's just clear that up shall we? There are great pictures taken on auto, imo.

Only by happy accident.

I've only seen a couple of his pictures

there's one that's burned into my retina such is it's frequency.

I don't recall seeing any of yours MrSmith..

But I didn't need to tell you that, did I?

And before you ask, no I don't have scientific proof, but I have thousands of files that prove the point conclusively to my eyes

i didn't have you down as a measurebator 🙂 and i'm unlikely to ask for scientific proof. there are only 4 relevant questions

is it easy to use?
is it reliable?
will it pay for itself?
are your clients happy with the results?

any working photographer will be familiar with the above.

Only by happy accident.

Don't be silly.

The typical exposure goes for the middle ground - this is fine for recording the scene. Are you trying to say that EVERY shot could be improved by changing the exposure from that middle ground?

i don't have any reason to post any images on a website about MTB's and stuff

Except we'd like to see them, so it'd keep us happy. Unlike the rest of your contributions on this thread at least 🙂

The typical exposure goes for the middle ground - this is fine for recording the scene.

wrong.
a meter will try to make things 18% grey(of the same luminance)
so a black dog standing in front of a blackboard will give a reading and exposure that makes them grey, a white horse in a snowstorm will also be grey if the 'correct' exposure given by the meter is followed.

the actual correct exposure would be the same (if using black and white film with a wide tonal range) if the luminace of the 2 scenes is constant.

understanding how your meter works is one of the fundamentals of photography.
this is an old book about B&W but it explains it very well and once learned you can apply it to all photography
[img] [/img]

Ok so next time I am out snapping polar bears or panthers I'll bear that in mind. However, typically we arent.. so if I step out onto a Cardiff street and snap someone in the crowd - is my camera going to get it 'wrong'?

that's for you to work out for yourself once you understand how your meter works.

Or could I not just look at the screen and/or histogram?

and having finished "chimping" you look up to take the shot again and it's gone or the light has changed.

If anyone wants to to really shoot my flawless complexion in total quality they use large format, you 35 mm dudes are talking round in circles, your cameras are toys, reading you arguing with each other about quality on a small area sensor.... What can I say.

To the OP I say buy it dude, this year I have lost two good friends, they're dead, gone, no more photo opportunities for them, buy the 700 now dude and go create and show us your pictures. I love good photography, (especially if it includes me) tomorrow the sky could fall on your head, buy the camera now quality at your level? Don't even discuss it, your photos will all go on crappy internet or computer screens so why worry?

Life is too short.

Cibachrome hah it always washed out, it was never for detail, it just had long term UV resistant dyes for display prints and lightbox use.

My understanding is that metering (and by that I'm talking about Nikon's Matrix Metering as used in all the auto modes) neither goes for the "middle ground" not does it go for 18% grey.

It actually splits the picture up into hundreds of segments then compares those segments to a database of thousands of "well exposed" images to find the closest match and use the exposure from that.

I suspect other cameras may employ similar techniques for full auto metering and exposure.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Learn-And-Explore/Nikon-Camera-Technology/ftlzi4lw/1/3D-Color-Matrix-Metering-II.html

and having finished "chimping" you look up to take the shot again and it's gone or the light has changed

Not quite sure what your point is other than telling me how shit I am at taking photos, what a bad time I am having and how worthless my whole effort is...?

PS I'm not so stupid to look down at my camera when shooting something dynamic.... but cheers for the assumption 🙂

i'm not saying anything of the sort, i'm saying that if you understand how your meter works (it seemed to me that you didn't) then you would take better pictures.

I'm sure that's the case since I have plenty to learn.

However your tone is awfully disparaging and has been this whole thread.

EDIT: having read back, you are not being directly disparaging to me beyond the 'chimp' comment which I assume is a generally used term, seems your earlier posts directed at Elf set the tone with which I read the rest of the comments... 🙂

i'm not saying anything of the sort, i'm saying that if you understand how your meter works (it seemed to me that you didn't) then you would take better pictures.

Why not rent a body and see what you think?

You could then test your old lenses with a modern Nikon DSLR, which would give you real world experience of the body in question. You sound pretty set on FX, but think you might be surprised with something like a D7000.

I would be surprised if the price of a D700 dropped much in comparison to the D800 when it is released, although we can keep our fingers crossed!

Be interested to hear how you get on either way.

maybe something to do with giving an informed answer which is followed by a 'yeah but' response from those who don't know what they are talking about but think it's better to have some sort of comeback instead of acknowledging they didn't have a clue and might have learned something.

Seb has a longer fuse than me as i wouldn't offer any more hard earned advice to somebody who just asks more 'yeah but' questions not to actually be better informed themselves but because they have a fear of not being as expert as they thought they were.

i'm happy to learn of others who know more than myself and share the info but not enter into a TJesque pissing contest.

Why not rent a body and see what you think?

if you buy right you can test it out then sell it again for no loss (or less than the cost of a days hire)

i wouldn't bother telling you how to suck eggs either

My comments weren't aimed at you 😕

there are only 4 relevant questions

is it easy to use?
is it reliable?
will it pay for itself?
are your clients happy with the results?

any working photographer will be familiar with the above.

But Elf isn't a working photographer, AFAIK. So those questions aren't relevant to [i]him[/i].

Let's just clear that up shall we? There are great pictures taken on auto, imo.

Graham's right. If a shot on auto is 'right', that's a happy accident that's been nudged into being by a clever algorithm that gets things right 'enough' some of the time. A good photographer with a decent grasp of how exposure works can do much better than that, nearly all of the time.

My original post might have struck the wrong tone, but the point is valid. I was suggesting that if a high-end camera like the D2X is turning out poor results, the fault lies with the photographer not the camera. Don't blame the tools. Learn to use them better.

quite right. i should have said "relevant to me"

(and a big yes to the above post)

Don't blame the tools. Learn to use them better.

Seb has a longer fuse than me

Not sure about that. I swore off this forum a while back after getting dragged into one too many pointless 'yeah but' debates. I'm a sucker for a good argument 😀

So I'm signing off. Elf, good luck with whatever decision you make. I think you should just buy one and use it. You never know, you might have fun 😉

maybe something to do with giving an informed answer which is followed by a 'yeah but' response from those who don't know what they are talking about

I don't think that's what happened - at least I didn't read it like that.

Elf's confrontational, but then we know that. And there had been a lot of people not really reading or paying attention to his OP which is annoying to be fair. After that there seemed to be a lot of slagging off of other people's photo taking which was un-called for.

I admitted that I didn't know what I was talking about by the way 🙂

i don't have any reason to post any images on a website about MTB's and stuff. it doesn't generate income and i'm not after plaudits.

Fair enough. Not exactly sure quite why you bother posting on photography threads on here though really, if that's your attitude.

Seb has a longer fuse than me as i wouldn't offer any more hard earned advice to somebody who just asks more 'yeah but' questions not to actually be better informed themselves but because they have a fear of not being as expert as they thought they were.

Your condescending and sneering attitude suggests it is in fact yourself who might fear exactly that you accuse others of...

I've bin doing photography on and off for over twenty years mate. Done bits and pieces for money, but chose not to follow a career in it because that's not what it's about for me. I just want to enjoy it. And I enjoy others enjoying my stuff.

You seem to think I am some sort of 'beginner' who hazzunt a clue. Carry on in your ignorance, I find it amusing to think that you consider any advice you might give someone, as doing them some sort of favour for which they should be grateful. How arrogant. Seb is a highly respected cycling tographer (I'm sure he does other stuff too that I'm not aware of), yet he's not once come across as arrogant or superior, as you have many times on many photography threads on here. Seems that these sort of threads are a waste of your precious time. Maybe save yourself the bother and don't worry yourself with any of them in future. Just an idea, like...

I've already stated I respect Seb and value his opinons. It's a shame I don't feel the same about you, or yours.

i'm happy to learn of others who know more than myself and share the info but not enter into a TJesque pissing contest.

Why mention TJ at all? Completely irrelevant and a snidey bit of an ad hominem attack there. If you ask me, it's all about a pissing contest with you. That's how you come across, anyway.

Elf, good luck with whatever decision you make. I think you should just buy one and use it. You never know, you might have fun

Seb, cheers mate. I appreciate your input, truly. And I think that a D700 is the way to go, sooner rather than later. So, thanks for yours and all other positive comments, as they've actually been very interesting and helpful.