Forum menu
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 - MemberHas 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.
Why?
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.
They were probably just as good/bad on the original film camera but without pixel peeping nobody ever knew.
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.