> Innocent, you make your point as eloquently as ever, and I can appreciate the passion with which you hold your views. However, I believe you have misunderstood the direction of my previous posts. I am not seeking to criticise any particular camera, least of all the D70. From the start, the question was about the evolution of technology, and the fact that there is often value in older principles - hence my desire for a "digital F100". It would obviously be a great camera, and I sought to illustrate why I would prefer this particular model to have the features listed as desirable. These do not appear to be important to you, or perhaps to the majority, considering Nikon's current range, but I would find their inclusion very useful.
Certainly, the D70 is a very desirable camera, and I have looked closely at its capabilities and features. It is light, well-built, and takes all of my lenses. I am sure I would be delighted with the images. However, there are still certain features that I find to be less than ideal, or have been omitted all together. Having listed them on a few occasions, I will not repeat them here. However, I can see few reasons, if any, to no longer include such features - indeed, some manufacturers do just that to this day.
Your point regarding battery life is well made. I have not tried one of Nikon's new lithium-ion batteries, and so you speak with an authority that I cannot match. However, using my F100 in a game park was pretty exciting for me, and I have to admit that, believing film to be cheap in comparison to the cost of getting there, I did indeed shoot a lot of photos (I've posted some of those I have scanned on the gallery). I guess this was not "contemplative", but my abilities as a wildlife photographer will have to be made up for by shooting more frames.
Perhaps my lithium ion batteries would have held out fine, but I was able to recharge my AA's with a solar charger every day - quite important as I was c&ing in Etosha reserve, and had no easy access to an AC power supply. CR2 battery or not, I would have had difficulties - the nearest place to sell such a specialised cell would have been many miles distant (fortunately, my 80-400VR has an aperture ring, so I could have used my FM2 if necessary ... but then, that was on the wish list, too!)
I don't know that 90% of my photos were unacceptable, but a fair few were less than I had hoped! I guess that is one thing that would change with a digital SLR, that a film-based camera can't match - the ability to review what images you wish to keep, and those you do not. With film, I have always felt that for wildlife shots you are better shooting more than fewer, because I will probably never get the same opportunity again. Isn't it true, though, that you will have to go through the process of aiming, focussing, vibration reducing, shutter releasing, and image storing, whether or not you keep the image? If so, then this must use a comparable charge to a film camera (apart from the motor for film transport), while LCD screen display and subsequent on-camera editing will also have a power penalty.
As stated before, I am not suggesting the D70 is anything other than a fine camera. However, so is the F80, and yet this did not suit my style of photography as well as the F100. Perfectly good camera, but I wanted the feature set of the F100. As Jorgen stated earlier, "The (D70) is not particularly small, still there is no extra battery grip which would be convenient for long days without electricity, no possibility of AA batteries 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." I could have written the sentence myself...
If I look for similar features to an F100 in a Nikon digital SLR, they are simply not there. Many other wonderful features are, but there are some items that I have found of great benefit over a number of years, and so I am reluctant to give them up simply to adopt a digital system. The "D200" may fill the gap, but I still hold that there is no equivalent to the F100 in the digital range. Some may consider these items to be outdated, but my point is that to some of us they are as relevant today as ever.
Thanks also for your comments, Dick. I found your analysis interesting and helpful. My attachment to certain camera features, though, is purely practical, and has less to do with emotion. It is simply that I have chosen certain cameras for what they could do for me, and I find I no longer have the choice. Rather, my current Nikon choice (D2 or D70) sees me leave such features behind.
Your second point is very valid - what is it about digital imaging that appeals, when I have been more than satisfied with analog imaging to date? I guess I have a number of reasons, again all practical as far as I can tell.
Firstly, it seems like fun! I have a small Pentax digital P&S, and there is no doubt that it is quite liberating, and instructional, to have the instant feedback of the digital image. I am sure I would shoot more photos, and see what I could learn from this instant feedback. I love getting my slides back, but of course, analysis will not alter how I take a shot in the field. I would also really like to spend some time doing some digital darkroom manipulation. True, i can use scanned slides, but this adds another complexity to the process.
Secondly, it is obviously good for display and reproduction ease. As perhaps you do, I have hundreds (thousands!) of slides, from many years of photography, and I simply do not look at them as often as I would like. They are packed away in boxes for much of the time, which seems a shame. Digitised images can be displayed, shared, printed, and so on, with relative ease, whether scanned or captured on an image sensor. Film may be scanned, but it takes a while to do, that's for certain!
Thirdly, I am aware that my storage space is limited. I like the idea of storing all my images on disk, and perhaps backing up all to removable media. If I wanted, I could store images "off site" as well as those stored locally. No doubt, storage will continue to expand exponentially, but I feel it is approaching the time when I will benefit from storing digital images, rather than celluloid in plastic mounts. Just as important, when travelling, the idea of being able to store digital images (even duplicating the storage in case of loss or theft) is appealing. It simply seems to make good sense, as long as image quality is considered reasonable.
You are absolutely right - today has seen a technological revolution, and whatever is new today will itself be superceded tomorrow. Larry has made the point that digital cameras should be considered exendable - they will be out -of-date all too soon, and so we should make the most of them, enjoy them, and move on. I guess it is difficult for me to consider a camera as "disposable", with limited lifespan - that is just the way I was brought up, I guess (more emotion!), but I can see this very same argument applies to all consumer electrical goods - computers, PDAs, mobile phones and the like. It's high turnover.
I certainly agree with your sentiments regarding the purchase of a second-hand, less elaborate camera for learning purposes. I have considered this, and the idea of a CP8800 is, as I have said in the past, very tempting. Not an SLR, true, but it sounds to be an excellent imaging machine - even moreso for the price charged. As you stated, it does not replace the interest I have in an SLR that has the features I would look for, but if it proves a half-decent choice, it would at least be a place to start learning about digital photography, for the reasons mentioned above.
Again, many thanks for your comments. All much appreciated.
Kind regards,
Ian
