DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
Oh for a digital F100
- Thread starter ian_craigie
- Start date
I
innocent
Indeed the dust bug is a problem but not an obstacle. With the Nikon dslr, you may download a dust ref. Photo into the camera, and that takes care of the dust problem. Annually, or depending if you are consistently shooting in a desert you may have your CCD professional cleaned as needed or DIY it, small price to pay for the benefits you derive. A d70 with its 18-70 DX package should not be ignored for light travelling.
The dust problem is there, but as you point out, it can be solved. Still it remains an issue for many.
As for the D70 for light travel, even if it's a good camera as such, light travel is one of the reasons why I have not bought it. The camera is not particularly small, still there is no extra battery grip which would be convenient for long days without electricity, no possibility of AA batterie s and no mirror lock-up. It's of course always possible to carry extra batteries, but they cost extra money and ads to the logistic. One of the points with light travel is simple logistics.
All this was probably planned from Nikon's side, so that it shouldn't compete with the D100, but with the latter now showing it's age vs. the competition, it may not have been the smartest move.
So we are waiting, amusing ourselves with film, digicams and living life to its fullest
As for the D70 for light travel, even if it's a good camera as such, light travel is one of the reasons why I have not bought it. The camera is not particularly small, still there is no extra battery grip which would be convenient for long days without electricity, no possibility of AA batterie s and no mirror lock-up. It's of course always possible to carry extra batteries, but they cost extra money and ads to the logistic. One of the points with light travel is simple logistics.
All this was probably planned from Nikon's side, so that it shouldn't compete with the D100, but with the latter now showing it's age vs. the competition, it may not have been the smartest move.
So we are waiting, amusing ourselves with film, digicams and living life to its fullest
rogerrichards
Member
Heat, cold, rain, snow, sandstorms, grit, underwater, underground.
Cars,trains, boats, planes, studio, sports ground (muddy & wet).
Close, far, wide, tight. Fast, slow, use it with gloves on.
Quick, easy, realiable. Oh yes I'd better have some pixels as well.
Roger Richards
Cars,trains, boats, planes, studio, sports ground (muddy & wet).
Close, far, wide, tight. Fast, slow, use it with gloves on.
Quick, easy, realiable. Oh yes I'd better have some pixels as well.
Roger Richards
Hi Ian,
I agree with your emotional arguments. Same counts for me: I just like aperture rings on a lens, I like manual focussing, I like a bright, optical viewfinder which is also designed to focus manually good enough (not just for AF) and I like a certain feeling, when I use may equipment (build quality).
I read now many different answers and proposals in this discussion. I do think that we have to differentiate here, otherwise you will not find an easy way out of so many options
IMHO it is important to differentiate between:
1. stomach feelings, when using your camera and lenses
2. the real requirements for your very own individual shooting situations
3. the technological evolution over the last 20 years and what will happen over the next 5 years
Point 1)
I do think the stomach feeling is the most important factor for a user, if he does nothave to eran his living with the equipment. I have used almost all brands and my experience and the experience of all my freinds are the same: If you do not like the feeling while you use a camera, it can be the best in the world, it will stay at home and you will use in the long term something different. If theer is no pleasuer anymore while taking pictures, you will not appreciate your hobby. And for me individually the way how my eqipment fels in my hands, is part of the fun in my hobby. I am not a collector, I only buy cameras, for making pictures. Nothing else. Therefore I agree with your points in your first posting.
for point 2)
What do you want to do with your camera that is different to the past? You are taking pictures for many years now. You have been satisfied in the past with your results (I assume). So what changed for you NOW, that you have the feeling you should convert NOW to any kind of digital camera? Í am not againts a DSLR or bridge camera. But I had in the past 2 years many many discussions with friends, who bought and sold into new systems just because they fekt a kind of "pressure" to be on the train of digital images. All of them ere only happy, when they had the newest model. And then after a few months another model came out and the were unhappy again. So the yspent more time and money in researching and buying equipment, then in taking pictures. Therefore my advise would be: take your time. There is no rush, no pressure, no requirement to make a decision now, unless there are other reasons for it. You have a working system. You can alreday take pictures. No need to buy a camera which costs 4x times the price of an analogue equivalent. It can not do more than your current analogue camera. The only difference is speed to see the images. You might also have an argument for DSLRs if you took in the past more than 4500 images per year (ca. 125 rolls of Fuji Velvia film with 36 exposures), because of cost savings in film.
If you used slide film, there is no alternative for slide projection. Prints are not an alternative for slides. Totally different pleasure to look at images. But I guess you know that already...
for point 3)
The technological evolution is very significant over the last 2 years. When you decided in the past for Nikon, the difference have been less significant to miss the right time in buying something than today. Tere was a difference in the difefrent systems, but in all systems, you would have put the same roll of film.
We are just at thze beginning of the digital evolution for advanced photographers. Like in every product life cycle in every industry, you get as a consumer first very expensive products with a relatively immature technology. Over teh years the successors of those products get significant better. The curve is very steep. You get significant more "quality and features" for the same money. And at some point the curve is flattening. The improvements are getting less and less significant for the majority of the users. At that point, new sales are made over the price, which is good for the consumer.
You could see this already in the past in the photo-industry. The analogue market was at the end of the 80is boring. Every camera had the same exposure meterings and all kind of other features. Then the AF camne and there was again a possibility to make a difference. Nowadays, nobody would like to use an AF-camera of the late 80is. Way too slow and not accurate enough. But at that time, it was a revolution and everybody bought it and found it very very fast.
Same is now with DSLRs now. Not only image quality, but also shutter lag, start-up time, fullsize chip or not, battery consumption, handling, menu-ordering, viewfinder, digital optimzed lenses etc.
As a result, you have to decide for yourself your very personal requiremets. This is for everybody different. For some it makes already sense NOW to switch to digital, for some it males more sense to wait another 2 years or even stick with film forever. Ther is not one solution for all.
As a side note I want to make aware of the polls on the homepage of Nikoninfo.com. There you see many results for analogue fans and other criteria that are asked. Very interesting...
I can assure you, that there will be dramatic changes over the next 2 years in the industry. The bridge cameras willdrop in sales significantly and I do not think that Nikon will stay in this product line. IMHO Nikon will focus on the SLR market more and more, with the option of a new lens mount in addition to the existing one (which I do not want to discus here and now).
As long as chip sizes are smaller then current film-sizes, you will have to deal with the DOF problem. Only Kodak (with Canon and Nikon mount), Canon and Contax offer full-size chip-cameras. Just compare medium format DOF and 35mm DOF. What a difference! Expect the same difference between fullsize chip and APS chip. Even worse with 1/1.8 chips in most of the bridge cameras. Go to a shop and try to make a portrait shot with 100mm open aperture and look how much of the background is still very sharp.
Of course you can then buy a zoom of 300mm, but this has a differnt weight, size and apertúre with all its consequences.
These are IMO very important factors to consider when taking photography seriously - depending always on your preferred shooting situations.
For me personally, I decided these 3 points this way:
1) I need a certain build qulaity, aperture rings, bright viewfinder and fullsize chip, before I will invest heavy in any kind of DSLR system. That does not mean that I will not buy something second hand cheap to be on the leraning curve DSLR and of photoshop etc too.
Currently I see these criterias only with Contax ND. Since Contax ends, I will wait before buying one (I am heaviliy invested in the Contax N-System and will stick to it for my analogue photography).
2) I am an hobby photographer. I do not ned to eran money with it, It is my pleasure in my free time. All my requiremenst are fullfilled with all analogue system I have. There is no "urgent need" to decide anything for me personal.
3) Since I know that over the next 2 years prices will drop dramatically and features will increase in my favour. I will wait. Nikon is the right brandame, since they showed with the F6 that they still have an eye on the film.users and will not forget later on to incorporate F6-feeling in an affordable DSLR of the future, But I do not think that this will be the case over the next 12-18 months.
I hope that Nikon comes out next yeras with an additional lens mount wich makes fullsize chip easier for them possible. I will then be happy to buy aso new lenses, which would be with adigitalswitch now with APS size the same.
Just my way too ling 2 cents...Hope that helps...
I agree with your emotional arguments. Same counts for me: I just like aperture rings on a lens, I like manual focussing, I like a bright, optical viewfinder which is also designed to focus manually good enough (not just for AF) and I like a certain feeling, when I use may equipment (build quality).
I read now many different answers and proposals in this discussion. I do think that we have to differentiate here, otherwise you will not find an easy way out of so many options
IMHO it is important to differentiate between:
1. stomach feelings, when using your camera and lenses
2. the real requirements for your very own individual shooting situations
3. the technological evolution over the last 20 years and what will happen over the next 5 years
Point 1)
I do think the stomach feeling is the most important factor for a user, if he does nothave to eran his living with the equipment. I have used almost all brands and my experience and the experience of all my freinds are the same: If you do not like the feeling while you use a camera, it can be the best in the world, it will stay at home and you will use in the long term something different. If theer is no pleasuer anymore while taking pictures, you will not appreciate your hobby. And for me individually the way how my eqipment fels in my hands, is part of the fun in my hobby. I am not a collector, I only buy cameras, for making pictures. Nothing else. Therefore I agree with your points in your first posting.
for point 2)
What do you want to do with your camera that is different to the past? You are taking pictures for many years now. You have been satisfied in the past with your results (I assume). So what changed for you NOW, that you have the feeling you should convert NOW to any kind of digital camera? Í am not againts a DSLR or bridge camera. But I had in the past 2 years many many discussions with friends, who bought and sold into new systems just because they fekt a kind of "pressure" to be on the train of digital images. All of them ere only happy, when they had the newest model. And then after a few months another model came out and the were unhappy again. So the yspent more time and money in researching and buying equipment, then in taking pictures. Therefore my advise would be: take your time. There is no rush, no pressure, no requirement to make a decision now, unless there are other reasons for it. You have a working system. You can alreday take pictures. No need to buy a camera which costs 4x times the price of an analogue equivalent. It can not do more than your current analogue camera. The only difference is speed to see the images. You might also have an argument for DSLRs if you took in the past more than 4500 images per year (ca. 125 rolls of Fuji Velvia film with 36 exposures), because of cost savings in film.
If you used slide film, there is no alternative for slide projection. Prints are not an alternative for slides. Totally different pleasure to look at images. But I guess you know that already...
for point 3)
The technological evolution is very significant over the last 2 years. When you decided in the past for Nikon, the difference have been less significant to miss the right time in buying something than today. Tere was a difference in the difefrent systems, but in all systems, you would have put the same roll of film.
We are just at thze beginning of the digital evolution for advanced photographers. Like in every product life cycle in every industry, you get as a consumer first very expensive products with a relatively immature technology. Over teh years the successors of those products get significant better. The curve is very steep. You get significant more "quality and features" for the same money. And at some point the curve is flattening. The improvements are getting less and less significant for the majority of the users. At that point, new sales are made over the price, which is good for the consumer.
You could see this already in the past in the photo-industry. The analogue market was at the end of the 80is boring. Every camera had the same exposure meterings and all kind of other features. Then the AF camne and there was again a possibility to make a difference. Nowadays, nobody would like to use an AF-camera of the late 80is. Way too slow and not accurate enough. But at that time, it was a revolution and everybody bought it and found it very very fast.
Same is now with DSLRs now. Not only image quality, but also shutter lag, start-up time, fullsize chip or not, battery consumption, handling, menu-ordering, viewfinder, digital optimzed lenses etc.
As a result, you have to decide for yourself your very personal requiremets. This is for everybody different. For some it makes already sense NOW to switch to digital, for some it males more sense to wait another 2 years or even stick with film forever. Ther is not one solution for all.
As a side note I want to make aware of the polls on the homepage of Nikoninfo.com. There you see many results for analogue fans and other criteria that are asked. Very interesting...
I can assure you, that there will be dramatic changes over the next 2 years in the industry. The bridge cameras willdrop in sales significantly and I do not think that Nikon will stay in this product line. IMHO Nikon will focus on the SLR market more and more, with the option of a new lens mount in addition to the existing one (which I do not want to discus here and now).
As long as chip sizes are smaller then current film-sizes, you will have to deal with the DOF problem. Only Kodak (with Canon and Nikon mount), Canon and Contax offer full-size chip-cameras. Just compare medium format DOF and 35mm DOF. What a difference! Expect the same difference between fullsize chip and APS chip. Even worse with 1/1.8 chips in most of the bridge cameras. Go to a shop and try to make a portrait shot with 100mm open aperture and look how much of the background is still very sharp.
Of course you can then buy a zoom of 300mm, but this has a differnt weight, size and apertúre with all its consequences.
These are IMO very important factors to consider when taking photography seriously - depending always on your preferred shooting situations.
For me personally, I decided these 3 points this way:
1) I need a certain build qulaity, aperture rings, bright viewfinder and fullsize chip, before I will invest heavy in any kind of DSLR system. That does not mean that I will not buy something second hand cheap to be on the leraning curve DSLR and of photoshop etc too.
Currently I see these criterias only with Contax ND. Since Contax ends, I will wait before buying one (I am heaviliy invested in the Contax N-System and will stick to it for my analogue photography).
2) I am an hobby photographer. I do not ned to eran money with it, It is my pleasure in my free time. All my requiremenst are fullfilled with all analogue system I have. There is no "urgent need" to decide anything for me personal.
3) Since I know that over the next 2 years prices will drop dramatically and features will increase in my favour. I will wait. Nikon is the right brandame, since they showed with the F6 that they still have an eye on the film.users and will not forget later on to incorporate F6-feeling in an affordable DSLR of the future, But I do not think that this will be the case over the next 12-18 months.
I hope that Nikon comes out next yeras with an additional lens mount wich makes fullsize chip easier for them possible. I will then be happy to buy aso new lenses, which would be with adigitalswitch now with APS size the same.
Just my way too ling 2 cents...Hope that helps...
ian_craigie
Active Member
Innocent, thanks for your thoughts. I would be interested to hear why you feel as you do about the capabilities of the Coolpix system, relative to a D70. There are no doubt compromises made, but from my recent research after Larry's recent postings, we are talking about a Nikon 8 Mp camera with 35-350 mm, f2.8-5.2 VR lens for the CP8800. I have my trusty F100, but even I can see the appeal of an all-in-one form factor, assuming the quality is not compromised. For me to achieve the same range, I would need to take both my 28-85mm lens (ordinary AF, and no VR) and my 80-400 VR lens. There is no advantage in speed, and once combined with a an SLR body, this is is not a particularly light system at all - I know - I've lugged it around on my back for weeks at a time!
Again, it is probably horses for courses, but I have looked at Larry's images with his CoolPix 5000, and they are of very high quality. If I was able to carry one or two such cameras, and achieve the same quality of image, then I would be more than content. The point of my original post was that I had invested in a system that now failed to capitalise on the very reasons it was originally chosen. Jorgen has articulated these well in previous posts. I have now come to the view that, as I am only interested in the end result, I should give serious consideration of all form factors - SLR, all-in-one, hybrids, etc.
Choosing to move away from an SLR-based system is not something I would do lightly - I have spent thousands building this up from scratch. Again, however, the reasons for me staying with a Nikon SLR system are no longer present - at present. Perhaps they will be addressed in the proposed "D200" (or whatever it will be known as...), but on current experience, this will not happen. I don't recall the last non-G lens released by Nikon, for ex&le. Even if it the "D200" is the answer to all my dreams, I still have to acknowledge that a camera of fewer parts, lower weight, smaller form, and greater dustproofing, capable of at least equal image quality, is quite a temptation!
Again, it is probably horses for courses, but I have looked at Larry's images with his CoolPix 5000, and they are of very high quality. If I was able to carry one or two such cameras, and achieve the same quality of image, then I would be more than content. The point of my original post was that I had invested in a system that now failed to capitalise on the very reasons it was originally chosen. Jorgen has articulated these well in previous posts. I have now come to the view that, as I am only interested in the end result, I should give serious consideration of all form factors - SLR, all-in-one, hybrids, etc.
Choosing to move away from an SLR-based system is not something I would do lightly - I have spent thousands building this up from scratch. Again, however, the reasons for me staying with a Nikon SLR system are no longer present - at present. Perhaps they will be addressed in the proposed "D200" (or whatever it will be known as...), but on current experience, this will not happen. I don't recall the last non-G lens released by Nikon, for ex&le. Even if it the "D200" is the answer to all my dreams, I still have to acknowledge that a camera of fewer parts, lower weight, smaller form, and greater dustproofing, capable of at least equal image quality, is quite a temptation!
I
innocent
Sometimes I wish my Jag can fly in the air like a plane, the other times I wish it will become my Honda powered boat. Imagine the convenience that could have afforded me and the potential financial benefits.
I was critical about the D70 till I owned one, not just borrowing it as I did before. With my small size 8.5 hands, the D70 is the smallest camera that I can go for and its cost doesn¹t break the bank. Yes, it lacks certai n pro features, but add those features to it and you have a D2x in size, weight and performance. If anyone had been comfortable travelling with an F100 or F5, D1X, D2H for that matter then you will remain glued to the D70, no wonder it rightly enjoys such popularity.
The battery life for the D70 which is similar to that on the D100 goes up t o 1000 shots ( in summer conditions) if you constantly review your images as you shoot. A couple of such D70 batteries are by far much lighter than a si x AA battery pack which will probably last no more than a fully recharged EN-L3.
If somebody tells me they shot x amount of images in a 30day holidays, wher e x is greater than or equal to 1000, then 90% of such images are certainly crap, forgive my being direct. If you contemplate all your shots then it is unlikely that you will exhaust the battery life + the backup in any particular trip. In the worst scenario, cr2 batteries could be used to fill the gap. BTW I have a D100 and D2H experience and probably will consider using the d2x when the dust has settled.
I was critical about the D70 till I owned one, not just borrowing it as I did before. With my small size 8.5 hands, the D70 is the smallest camera that I can go for and its cost doesn¹t break the bank. Yes, it lacks certai n pro features, but add those features to it and you have a D2x in size, weight and performance. If anyone had been comfortable travelling with an F100 or F5, D1X, D2H for that matter then you will remain glued to the D70, no wonder it rightly enjoys such popularity.
The battery life for the D70 which is similar to that on the D100 goes up t o 1000 shots ( in summer conditions) if you constantly review your images as you shoot. A couple of such D70 batteries are by far much lighter than a si x AA battery pack which will probably last no more than a fully recharged EN-L3.
If somebody tells me they shot x amount of images in a 30day holidays, wher e x is greater than or equal to 1000, then 90% of such images are certainly crap, forgive my being direct. If you contemplate all your shots then it is unlikely that you will exhaust the battery life + the backup in any particular trip. In the worst scenario, cr2 batteries could be used to fill the gap. BTW I have a D100 and D2H experience and probably will consider using the d2x when the dust has settled.
H
hawkeye34
I am joining in this discussion rather late, but I can add a bit of recent experience. I am a retired professional photojournalist now living in Spain. I have a D70, with 12-24, 18-70 and 75-300 ED. I also own and use the Panasonic LC-1 ( the nearest I can afford to a digital Leica M) plus a Panasonic FZ20. With these two prosumer, small, lightweight 5Mp cameras, I get really acceptable quality up to A4 size that I can print, and at my age, I am happier carrying them both together for all-day shoots. With one extra wide angle attachment for the FZ20, the two cameras cover 25-432mm, the lens on the FZ20 being 36-432mm at a steady f2.8 with Image Stabilising. AND - it's a Leica lens ! So I should have everything there that I need. Except that when back in harness doing some location shooting for a local English language magazine last week, I found that in the brilliant sunshine of Andalucia in winter I could hardly see or define anything through the Electronic Viewfinders on both cameras. Of course you can use the big LCDs on the back, but even these block up horribly in the light. So for the rest of these shoots, I am using the D70 with its optical finder, and am finding it perfect. My lenses cover all I want, and the only inconvenience is having to change from the wide angle to the telephoto every other minute as I see something that catches my eye. The answer has been to order another D70 from Dr Joseph Yao in Hong Kong, and when it gets here this week, I will have two bodies, one with the 12-24 on, and the other toting the telephoto - fast reaction time assured with either range. Of course the Panasonics will still soldier on as carry-around cameras, and will give great results through their Leica lenses, but as usual, the real work will be done by the Nikons. I have probably overused the names of other manufacturers too much here, but I want to say that I too would be looking for a D200, if only to get a vertical grip with all the controls on it. I love the prosumer fixed-zoom cameras for their dustfree lenses and great range, but the FZ20 has an electronic zoom which is difficult to control with finesse, and I prefer the old feel of the Nikon kit to which I have been accustomed for more years than I care to remember. For the work I am currently doing, and for all the manual control of the zooms, the DSLR is perfect, and Nikon still cuts the mustard. Albest, Hawkeye34 Some results with all the above cameras can be seen on my website, _www.robinadshead.com_ (http://www.robinadshead.com)
rogerrichards
Member
Sorry. I have no idea how this posting ended up here. The subject was about
something completely different (as you might have gathered)!
Still haven't got my head around the idiosyncracies of this forum email
system.
Roger Richards
Posted by Roger Richards (Rogerrichards) on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 12:24
pm:
|
| Heat, cold, rain, snow, sandstorms, grit, underwater, underground.
|
| Cars,trains, boats, planes, studio, sports ground (muddy & wet).
something completely different (as you might have gathered)!
Still haven't got my head around the idiosyncracies of this forum email
system.
Roger Richards
Posted by Roger Richards (Rogerrichards) on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 12:24
pm:
|
| Heat, cold, rain, snow, sandstorms, grit, underwater, underground.
|
| Cars,trains, boats, planes, studio, sports ground (muddy & wet).