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

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

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

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 me, 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….

Oooooooooohhh…..

(Is misty-eyed)

If you like that Pentax then maybe you should look at the Nikon 1 🙂

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

FFS….

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 technically 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 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.

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.

*grabs popcorn*

Ohh a Seb vs Elf photo showdown.

*grabs popcorn*

Cup of Tea anyone?

😉

thanks ski <passes biscuits>

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 tiny 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.

cluck cluck 😉

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! 😳

ROLL UP ROLL UP for the Great STW Photo Showdown


Elf

VS

Rogers

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 what???

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.

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 12×16 and 20×16 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 😉