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

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 12×16 and 20×16 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 informed 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 you, 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 shit they are good or bad they might be

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..

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.
my soon to be updated website is in my profile, more current work on the AOP website and some random stuff on a site called gallerystock.

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

no. i wouldn’t bother telling you how to suck eggs either 🙂

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

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.

That’s telling ya Molly. 😉

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 him.

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.

+1

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.