There’s nothing to stop you using a Digital SLR with manual focus, exposure, ISO and white balance. Or am I missing something?

That’d be like riding a geared bike and only using one ratio, only you would know it’s a singlespeed.

Re the full frame sensor and trickling down to mass market. I can’t see that happening until the new Pro standard is brought out. Currently the sensor size is the clearest difference between a pro camera and an overenthusiastic hobbyist. Because of this it’ll command a higher price.
EOS5d Mk11 here when funds allow…
I’d rather go for a second hand full frame over a new toy camera…

Plus a lot of consumer level people have a lot of consumer level lenses, so anyone upgrading to FX would be limited to people prepared to shell out a whole load of cash because the other lenses would not work.

I’d rather go for a second hand full frame over a new toy camera…

I wouldn’t. But then I don’t get hung up over image quality 🙂

The fixed focal length would force you to be creative instead of relying on zooming… more thinking about composition

See, I don’t get this – surely you’d be thinking LESS about composition because you have fewer alternatives. I got some pictures I really love with my Sigma 30mm at the weekend, but whilst it was on the camera I missed a load of shots where I wasn’t able to back up enough. I also had no choice over what was in the background once I’d got the subject where I wanted in the frame.

I took the 30mm f1.4, the kit 14-42mm and my brilliant 8mm fisheye. I was swapping lenses the whole time.

yeah how may people actually need or would even max out the potential of a full frame beast… it might just get left at home

this guy shoots with micro four thirds (owns both panasonic and olympus) and gets better results than a lot of people would using a DSLR

http://www.bobtullis.com/

Low light is the only thing, but I am getting some nice pics with a swivel and bounce flash that look pretty natural I reckon.

Conqueror – Member

yeah how may people actually need or would even max out the potential of a full frame beast… it might just get left at home

this guy shoots with micro four thirds (owns both panasonic and olympus) and gets better results than a lot of people would using a DSLR

http://www.bobtullis.com/

Some amazing work there, nice link Conqueror

Clearly there IS a market for a DM2N. I need something small, beautifully made, metal to partner my nikkor 24mm. And at a price less than the Fuji. This would be the camera to make the nikkorcenti jump to digital. I just wish Nikon could see it.

Don’t buy a D700 now, Nikon will release the D4 and the D700’s replacement (D800) in the next few months. It was to be Q3, but the earthquake there set them back in schedule. As soon as the new one is announced, 2nd hand prices for D3s and D700 will fall.

I’m waiting for the D4 myself…

Keep an eye on Nikon Rumours

If anyone wants a FF camera, I will be selling my mint Canon 5D soon……

No not really Geoff. I’ve always said that when dijical matches fillum, then I’ll switch

that happened in 2005 with the 5D and 1dsMKII in 2004. get with the program.

Oh and regarding kit, the vast majority will never use even the mid range bodies and lenses to their full potential.

Don’t bother with high end stuff unless you are rich or a pro.

FF is great as is medium format, but unless you are making large prints it isn’t all that. The main advantage is being able to compose easier due to the bigger viewfinder. You get used to a crop sensor though 😉

that happened in 2005 with the 5D and 1dsMKII in 2004. get with the program.

Nope film is still king when it comes to pictures with high contrast. Even the most fancy digital backs clip the highlights, where as film softly transitions to white.

Once they crack this film will truly be obsolete.

Can’t say I agree Kudos100 high end pro lenses are just amazing – can’t go back to kit lenses once you’ve used them…

Film is quite thin, I expect sensors are much thicker.

the actual light capturing part of the sensor is measured in microns, film is thick in comparison. (this is why the depth of field is slightly different between digital and film as light is focused on one place instead of through layers of film)

Nope film is still king when it comes to pictures with high contrast. Even the most fancy digital backs clip the highlights, where as film softly transitions to white.

Once they crack this film will truly be obsolete.

maybe for amateurs, pixel peepers and measurbators.

why have all the film c-41 and E6 labs closed in london? i know people who spent 20k a year on film and processing 8 years ago, their film bill now is zero.

get with the program

Just a couple of points to someone saying ‘git wiv da pogrom’ (or something like that I dunno);

One: Did you bother reading the bit about me being a Nikon user? Did you? Hmm?

Did you?

Two: Can use older manual focus lenses with a Canon AF body? Can I? Hmm? Well?

And don’t bother trying to come back with something witty and clever cos I’ll just make a ‘W’ shape with my fingers, and go ‘Whatever, girlfriend’, in a camp New York type stylee manner favoured by über-trendy divas what frequent achingly fashionable nightspots. 🙂

So there.

Coming in with yer ‘git with a can of Niblets’ like Aguirre: Wrath of God, then leaving like a pair of cheap binoculars.

Tsk.

That’d be like riding a geared bike and only using one ratio, only you would know it’s a singlespeed.

I was wondering how to reply and thank you don for putting it so well.
it’s the whole tactile experience that is so unsatisfactory with digital cameras though to be fair manual focussing of lenses has been rubbish ever since film cameras went autofocus.
I should point out that I’m very pro digital and I think the combination of a fully manual camera combined with immediate images would be by far the best way one could ever learn about taking better pictures. For me I would only go back to film if I had a darkroomm again – unless you do all the processing and printing I see little point.
The Lieca is nice in it’s way but what I want to see is something the beginner might buy.

Just a couple of points to someone saying ‘git wiv da pogrom’ (or something like that I dunno);

laughable coming from an adult who insists on using childlike affectations when describing ‘digital’ and ‘film’

One: Did you bother reading the bit about me being a Nikon user? Did you? Hmm?

Did you?

just use an adapter for your ancient lenses, your flash will not work anyway. or sell the lot and buy a decent digital camera.

The main advantage is being able to compose easier due to the bigger viewfinder

I was gonna say, Elf already posted the reason he wants full frame.. but he already replied 🙂

Plus I don’t think he’s exactly an amateur as such…

the actual light capturing part of the sensor is measured in microns

Yes but it needs support doesn’t it?

Another thing is, you can’t use older AIS lenses on some of the cheaper Nikon bodies, like the D70, as there’s no mechanical aperture activation on those cams, they need AF lenses with electronic aperture control. See?

As I understand it, they won’t meter but you can still use them in Manual (M) mode.

On a D700 they will meter but you only get Manual and Aperture Priority.

See http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html

(just FYI. Sounds like your set on a big FX body anyway)

just use an adapter for your ancient lenses, your flash will not work anyway

Jeeze do you not bother reading anything?

Seriously?

You’ve come on to try to appear all clever and knowledgeable about photography, but you’ve failed to appreciate that I might, just might, know what I want and need a bit more than you, seeing as how it’s my photography I’m talking about, not yours.

The D700 allows the use of older AI MF lenses without any adapter, and with full aperture control by the camera, and my flashguns will still work with dijical bodies (albeit not in full TTL mode). Obviously certain bits of kit would need to be upgraded but that’s how it is. I fully expect to have to buy a fully compatible flash at some stage anyway. something like the SB800 or 900.

Oh yeah, and:

…Girlfriend. 😉

buy a d700 then.

Easy, you two.

So far as I can see the only limitations to the DX format if you already have a stock of lenses is you won’t be able do do super wide angle shots without a a new lens. Some of the DX cameras will work properly with older AF lenses (motor needs to be in the body rather than the lens) and some will only work manually. FX lenses won’t bust a DX body, but DX lenses can be bad news on an FX/film camera

So get a cheapish DX body to try out (maybe something mid to upper price but used), keep your F5 for landscapes. If this works then you probably only need a wide DX lens and some tippex to write your new focal lengths on your old lenses.

Two: Can use older manual focus lenses with a Canon AF body? Can I? Hmm? Well?

Certainly can, as well as all your nikon ones, leica, and pretty much anything else you would want to list. In fact I have a lovely Zeiss Planar I used to use regularly on a Canon 5d.

Given the larger lens mount size of the Canons over the nikons … theres actually wider scope for using niche lenses. Canon bit the bullet of increasing the aperture size when it went to its AF mount, Nikon decided to stick with its existing mount which has become a bit of an achilles heel.

Now … which programme are we getting with now ???

maybe for amateurs, pixel peepers and measurbators.

why have all the film c-41 and E6 labs closed in london? i know people who spent 20k a year on film and processing 8 years ago, their film bill now is zero.

Not for high end ad and fashion photographers. Clients want proofs yesterday so the vast majority shoot digital, but I know some who shoot both. Especially large format. 5×4 still beats just about every digital back.

The labs have closed because the vast majority are shooting digital due to cost and pressure from clients, but that does not mean digital is ‘better’ it just has different strengths and weaknesses.

Certainly can

Without an adapter? With full open aperture ttl metering? Aperture control?

No, thought not.

Now … which programme are we getting with now ???

You tell me, Honey… 😉

Can’t say I agree Kudos100 high end pro lenses are just amazing – can’t go back to kit lenses once you’ve used them…

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 not as good, but the images it produces are wonderful.

My Tamron 28-75 is sharper than Canons 28-70L and is about half the price.

I think I would dispute that.

Without an adapter? With full open aperture ttl metering? Aperture control?

Must have missed those requirements in your original post. Mind you given that no pre Ai lenses will work with modern bodies, and the prevalence of Ai and Ai-s that will only work in stop down / sunny 16 or external meeting I don’t think its a great cause for celebration personally.

I actually find the canon system much simpler for people to understand, Theres EF lenses, and theres non EF lenses, no need for compatibility charts, or will it / won’t it work dilemmas.

My Tamron 28-75 is sharper than Canons 28-70L and is about half the price.

I think I would dispute that.

I’ve read very good reports about the Tamron, but think this is the exception rather than the rule, nicely summed up by you may get a sharp Tamron, but you should get a sharp canon (or nikon equivalent).

The other factor is build quality, Ive a 24-70 than has been abused in a studio for 4 years, dropped numerous times, cleaned thousands of times with edges of clothing, leant on, sat on … you name it. But its still going strong (bar a slightly wobbly mount).

At the other end of the spectrum, was recently registering focus calibrations on a 1 series body and was shocked at how poor a Sigma 70-200 2.8 was resolving detail, even stopped down. Was quickly sold on as a result.

but think this is the exception rather than the rule, nicely summed up by you may get a sharp Tamron, but you should get a sharp canon.

This my experience, the Tamron I have will pull out one ocassional image and the Canon seldom disappoints and it’s usually user error. 😳

I’ve read very good reports about the Tamron, but think this is the exception rather than the rule, nicely summed up by you may get a sharp Tamron, but you should get a sharp canon (or nikon equivalent).

The other factor is build quality, Ive a 24-70 than has been abused in a studio for 4 years, dropped numerous times, cleaned thousands of times with edges of clothing, leant on, sat on … you name it. But its still going strong (bar a slightly wobbly mount).

At the other end of the spectrum, was recently registering focus calibrations on a 1 series body and was shocked at how poor a Sigma 70-200 2.8 was resolving detail, even stopped down. Was quickly sold on as a result.

Quality control is not as good, but canons quality control is not that brilliant itself. I have seen soft L lenses and I have seen soft tamrons and sigmas.

Wide open the canon is marginally better, but stopped down the tamron is better. Not much in it.

I love the build of L lenses and the 70-200 is the cats whiskers, but unless you are pro I don’t see the point in spending x amount extra to have the coveted ‘L’ series lenses.

Too many people worry about having the expensive gear, when they have little understanding of composition or light.

Too many people worry about having the expensive gear, when they have little understanding of composition or light.

For me, it’s about having reliable, dependable kit you can trust to do a good job. And stuff that works the way you want it to.

Elfin – I’ve got a Sony DSLR which I bought new for £250 does everything you say there.

Do people buy expensive cameras these days as an attempt at skill compensators? IMO you can either take a good picture or you can’t, doesn’t matter if its a £10 camera or £5k +

For me, it’s about having reliable, dependable kit you can trust to do a good job. And stuff that works the way you want it to.

In that case stick with Nikon. Over on the DWF (Digital Wedding Forum) screeds of shooters have migrated to Nikon over the last decade due to dodgy ‘L’ glass. Yes, the bodies are great, but the glass is unreliable in terms of focussing issues…

It’s quite simple. Forget about everything said on this thread, and ask yourself the original question again and do just that. You seem to know exactly what you want so i’m struggling to find out what it is you are after.

mmh to tell him it’s allright?

elfin.buy 30m of bw film,roll it yourself.develop while watching tv sitting on the sofa.sorted.just saved you buying throwaway stuff.

if you NEED it,buy it.whenever something’s announced it’ll take 6months to get to market anyway.then there won’t be any for a year or so.if you don’t need it..lots of good deals on used mf.
if you want it.well,get it.can’t take pictures with gold.
or just get this
wa version available too.
with a flatbed scanner.a v750,v700 you’ve got huge files.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm#costly

I love the build of L lenses and the 70-200 is the cats whiskers, but unless you are pro I don’t see the point in spending x amount extra to have the coveted ‘L’ series lenses.

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

Do people buy expensive cameras these days as an attempt at skill compensators?

Clearly some, but not all, do.