Nikon SLR/D-SLR fans

[NoNotAgain]

bykfixer,

No guess work required, it's called experience. You purchased film in bulk and tested to get the best possible results with both sharpness and color saturation. I purchased from B&H in bulk once I tested a brick and found it suitable for my use.

I've got a Wing Lynch 5 processor exclusively for film and a Jobo CPP-2 for film and prints. As for hazardous materials, E-6, C-41, Cibachrome and RA-4 are all very safe chemistries. I can't speak for the Kodachrome process as Kodak issued so few licenses for the process that once Fuji brought out Velvia, the writing was on the wall. Two different types of development, but unless you need 200 plus year archival, not an issue.

Speaking of archival, what are you using to store your digital images? Check out the M-Disk.

I would could run 12 sheets of 4X5 film at a time and my cost was less than $2.00 a sheet verses $7.00 each at one of the dedicated Fuji houses.

Having learned the Zone system for exposure and using handheld meters, you quickly could spot areas where there were more that 2 stops difference. Other than composition, it would be rare to have an image that was over or under exposed by more than a half a stop that wasn't usable.

I remember my first Nikon/Kodak 460/465 pro camera. Anything higher than 3200 ISO was so noisy you might as well forget about the shot unless you were shooting monochrome.

Digital has come a long way, however shooting Velvia ISO 50 with it's grain structure (imo better that Kodachrome 25 was) or Kodak with their tungsten based films still can't be beat.

 

[will]

I learned a few things over the years with the digital cameras. They will set your speed and lens opening. BUT. they do a lot more than that. They also set the contrast, the sharpness. and lots more.

Take a landscape picture - first just using an shutter speed setting. Then do the same picture using the landscape setting on the camera. You will find that the color density will be different, maybe even the sharpness.

I used to stick with the 'Auto or Program ' mode, then go back into picasa and adjust the color and whatnot. Now I use the correct scene setting for what I am taking a picture of. Rarely do I need to go back in and make adjustments.

I made an attempt to find out what additional setting the camera did on the various scene settings, I could not find that information, only that some things were changed.

My DSLR has a lot of things you can customize - sort of like what the scene settings do.

Take a few minutes and fool around with the various setting and you will see what I am talking about.

 

[SemiMan]

Bought my first "real" digital, a D80, when it first came out. The F3 went on the shelf beside the X-370 (was amazing at night metering), but I assumed I would still shoot a lot of film. Nope, not one more shot on film. I was recently pulling out the F3, thinking I should put it on E-bay. It still has a roll of film in it. No clue what it on there

The D80 was upgraded to a D700, but I found the weight not to my non-professional liking, and with the quality of the DX I went back with the D7100 recently and have been happy. One of the impediments to an SLR is carrying it.

I can't say I miss film at all. Dynamic range with new sensors is pretty good. Not film good, but pretty good, and ISO performance is excellent as is metering. From a technology standpoint, I would say we appear to be almost topping out with current cameras with perhaps another few generations of improvements though software gets better all the time. It really is impressive.

Lenses perhaps have room for improvement (especially cost!). Getting something able to get the most out of a DX camera is not easy.

I still hit Ken Rockwell's site every month or so, mainly as a reminder that it is not the camera, but the person holding it that makes for good pictures. There is a great market out there of used equipment bought by people "upgrading" from DX to full-frame / etc. who think it is magically going to improve their shots.

 

[bykfixer]

Bought my first "real" digital, a D80, when it first came out. The F3 went on the shelf beside the X-370 (was amazing at night metering), but I assumed I would still shoot a lot of film. Nope, not one more shot on film. I was recently pulling out the F3, thinking I should put it on E-bay. It still has a roll of film in it. No clue what it on there

The D80 was upgraded to a D700, but I found the weight not to my non-professional liking, and with the quality of the DX I went back with the D7100 recently and have been happy. One of the impediments to an SLR is carrying it.

I can't say I miss film at all. Dynamic range with new sensors is pretty good. Not film good, but pretty good, and ISO performance is excellent as is metering. From a technology standpoint, I would say we appear to be almost topping out with current cameras with perhaps another few generations of improvements though software gets better all the time. It really is impressive.

Lenses perhaps have room for improvement (especially cost!). Getting something able to get the most out of a DX camera is not easy.

I still hit Ken Rockwell's site every month or so, mainly as a reminder that it is not the camera, but the person holding it that makes for good pictures. There is a great market out there of used equipment bought by people "upgrading" from DX to full-frame / etc. who think it is magically going to improve their shots.

The D80 was my first dslr too. My wedding photographer showed me his like a year before I finally decided that spending $1000 for a camera kit was ok.

Loved my 700, but the weight got old quick. So I went with the 7000.
I still prefer the FX for scenes and what-not. But for quick action type stuff where I don't have a lot of time to predict, the 7000 generally thinks like I do.

The Ken Rockwell site has steered me away from more stuff than towards. He speaks my language.
And each time I bought a new rig I'd have to go there and check out his settings of it and tailor to my tastes from there.

 

[bykfixer]

bykfixer,

No guess work required, it's called experience. You purchased film in bulk and tested to get the best possible results with both sharpness and color saturation. I purchased from B&H in bulk once I tested a brick and found it suitable for my use.

I've got a Wing Lynch 5 processor exclusively for film and a Jobo CPP-2 for film and prints. As for hazardous materials, E-6, C-41, Cibachrome and RA-4 are all very safe chemistries. I can't speak for the Kodachrome process as Kodak issued so few licenses for the process that once Fuji brought out Velvia, the writing was on the wall. Two different types of development, but unless you need 200 plus year archival, not an issue.

Speaking of archival, what are you using to store your digital images? Check out the M-Disk.

I would could run 12 sheets of 4X5 film at a time and my cost was less than $2.00 a sheet verses $7.00 each at one of the dedicated Fuji houses.

Having learned the Zone system for exposure and using handheld meters, you quickly could spot areas where there were more that 2 stops difference. Other than composition, it would be rare to have an image that was over or under exposed by more than a half a stop that wasn't usable.

I remember my first Nikon/Kodak 460/465 pro camera. Anything higher than 3200 ISO was so noisy you might as well forget about the shot unless you were shooting monochrome.

Digital has come a long way, however shooting Velvia ISO 50 with it's grain structure (imo better that Kodachrome 25 was) or Kodak with their tungsten based films still can't be beat.

^^ I hear ya sir.

I didn't purchase film in bulk, buy tons of expensive gear and become the worlds best photographer while in high school on a paper route budget or at a young adult age raising youngans and attending night school...so it was educated guessing for me n mine. I shot a few here and a few there with (mostly) Fuji 100 film.
(I still use the white containers as flash diffusers)

Now my pop was an expert sure enough. Yet at 19 I was trying to learn tricks of the trade on my own while marveling at his masterpieces...especially his black & whites.

And as tight with his money as my pop was, he used Fox photo instead of his own dark room. So I used Fox Photo.

Velvia is great stuff. But the only film rigs I have left are and old Pentax and a Rebel G(?) If memory serves both begin their auto recognize at 100 iso.

And as far as archiving I'm using gold core DVD's by Delkin devices or Sony and a couple of mirror hard drives. And Hoodman RAW steel memory cards.

 

[NoNotAgain]

Lenses perhaps have room for improvement (especially cost!). Getting something able to get the most out of a DX camera is not easy.

I still hit Ken Rockwell's site every month or so, mainly as a reminder that it is not the camera, but the person holding it that makes for good pictures. There is a great market out there of used equipment bought by people "upgrading" from DX to full-frame / etc. who think it is magically going to improve their shots.

One thing that the FX over the DX will do is give you a sharper image.

I only have a few DX lenses. The basic 28-55 is actually pretty good for what it is.

No matter how sharp a lens is, the image sensor wins out every time.

When I shot wild life and action sports, long fast Nikon glass was hard to beat. Then I dropped some serious money on two Mamiya 654 Pro fast lenses. The 300 2.8 and the 500 4.0. With the Nikon, a player sliding into third base looked good. The same third base slide using the Mamiya 645 wasn't even close, you could count the dirt particles in the air.

I haven't had a chance to test my D810 against the D7100, but at 36 mp, I've no doubt that it will beat out any of the DX based cameras.

 

[bykfixer]

I thought DX crops better between my 700 and 7000.
Just seems like the crop from the DX sensor is cleaner vs the FX. Maybe yalls experience differs?

Can't argue with good glass.
I considered Zeiss lenses at one point. But got to spending my extra $ on cars instead of camera gear...now it's flash lights.

 

[NoNotAgain]

The D700 is only a 12 mp FX camera. The D7000 is 16.3 mp DX format.

I was looking at purchasing a D750 to mount on my Align M690 Octacopter since it's lighter in weight than the D810, and not as much money if the unit crashes and burns.

With today's DOT/FAA announcement on a drone registry, that's on hold until things shake out.

I've found that with each progressive model of digital camera, the sensor gets better, in sharpness, light sensitivity, and color rendition.

Sort of like the advancements in LED lights.

 

[ComputerTime]

Quite surprised to see discussion of cameras here. Seems that this thread has been dead for almost a year.

Just wondering, has anyone thought of transplanting the digital sensor into a film back? So that the manual film camera can become digital camera?

 

[StarHalo]

Velvia is great stuff.

Bump blues and purples in your post-processing program, digital Velvia..

Just wondering, has anyone thought of transplanting the digital sensor into a film back? So that the manual film camera can become digital camera?

There are guys who do it, but it's a phenomenal engineering project/amount of work when a few hundred dollars buys you a current cutting-edge crop-sensor combo.

 

[ComputerTime]

Frankly, that was the dream I thought about before I own a DSLR. I do not require 90% of the new DSLR, faster AF, better metering, different scenarios, etc. I still prefer the manual camera. Even I am using my DSLR now, I am still using Manual mode. I.e. I am underutilising my camera.

 

[StarHalo]

I would argue that using "scene modes" is underutilizing a camera, and that knowing how to get the shot manually, especially in RAW format, represents the fullest use of a DSLR. I typically shoot in a Program-type mode with f-stop set to one wheel and ISO to the other, so the camera can decide some of the settings some of the time, but even shooting full manual I'd prefer the image and lens quality from a modern camera.

 

[ComputerTime]

haha, no need to argue. Just different prospective. I take it as I did not make use of all the features provided by the camera. One of such is fast AF, as I am using my manual lens, or not an AFS lens. I do not use the camera AI, in deciding the Aperture and Shutter; I determine it.

I am hoping that they (the camera maker) can just come out the basic DSLR, like FM2, this will help to cut down our cost. But that is their way of pushing out highend stuffs and force us to spend more.

 

[NoNotAgain]

Computer Time. Nikon still sells the Fx camera. Looks just like the old FA/FE/FM series cameras.

I've used Nikon for over 35 years. Each generation of camera attempts making photographers out of "point and shoot" people. A lot of professional photographers looked down on autofocus when it first hit the market. Now you'd be hard pressed to find one that isn't using autofocus unless it's on a view camera.

Your first question on making your own digital back has been thought of before. It can be done on single shot cameras, but interfacing a shutter with the back for exposure is problematic. Look at the old Kodak/Nikon DCS 460 for an example of what I'm talking about.

 

[ven]

Hey there NNA, as you know Rach likes her cameras and starting weddings again! Little set up for now to help get on track , and you know she is a Nikon chick ! Had Canons but i guess the brand you get brought up with or used to is the one you stick with for life......
d2x which is a decent old camera, not light mind! 24-120 VR lens,some heft with the flash gun on top












How many lumens!



Modeled by Madison(real happy about it too :laughing: )

 

[NoNotAgain]

Well Ven, I've got a couple of D2xs cameras as well as a couple of D3x cameras. The D2x is about a pound lighter than the D3 series as well as the D2's being a Dx format. Lenses are much lighter.

Her camera appears in nice cosmetic shape. I do see she uses the zoom ring with the missing gold gilding. No tripod baseplate mount?

My Nikon rep will cut me a deal if I purchase two D5 bodies at once. Still close to $10k for the pair.
Burke gave me four lenses to test out over the weekend and bring back the ones I didn't want. Not too many business people trust you with $15k of property and just bring back what you don't want.

I can understand a woman wanting lighter weight but you give up using CF storage cards for Sd which don't have the same reliability.
From what I'm hearing from my guy, the D750 is being well received as a backup unit. Same can be said for the D810 (too much money IMO). You still need an extended battery grip if you shoot portrait which I'm sure Rach does.
Her D2x shutter is good for 300k clicks verses prosumer cameras good for 100k or so. It might not be the latest and greatest, but rarely can you tell the difference between 12, 16, or 20 mega pixel images with good equipment.

Just about every piece of equipment I own has a redundancy. I used two F2 cameras, two F3 cameras, same for the F4's. When shooting fast paced subjects and you have an equipment failure, you need to pickup where you left off not where is this feature on this body? It's rare you got a second chance for that once in a life time shot.

 

[ven]

Very true, back up camera's are important, good old D300 is sufficient or d300s for that duty, 18-200vr should have it covered. No plate, but we have tri-pods a plenty although she prefers not to use them.

 

[ComputerTime]

I am not against new technology.

I am using D600 now. Photography is just my hobby, not my income. Nikon only push out the FX Camera to the upper-end of the product line; middle to lower end DSLR does not support metering in manual mode. Thus, I am being pushed to use such a highend model, but did not fully utilise the features (The camera is charged at such a high price because of all the features).

Hence, I have an idea of doing a digital back for my film camera. Having said that, nothing has been done, as I am not engineering/technician trained, and I don't have the necessary equipment to do the job. Therefore, it will still be a dream.

 

[ComputerTime]

I am not against new technology.

I am using D600 now. Photography is just my hobby, not my income. Nikon only push out the FX Camera to the upper-end of the product line; middle to lower end DSLR does not support metering in manual mode. Thus, I am being pushed to use such a highend model, but did not fully utilise the features (The camera is charged at such a high price because of all the features).

Hence, I have an idea of doing a digital back for my film camera. Having said that, nothing has been done, as I am not engineering/technician trained, and I don't have the necessary equipment to do the job. Therefore, it will still be a dream.

 

[StarHalo]

(The camera is charged at such a high price because of all the features).

For a feature-heavy mid-range camera, look to Pentax; their ~$600 bodies have the features of Nikon's ~$1,000 models.