The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[skyline889]

Originally Posted by bigshot

DX won't go obsolete. I have thirty year old lenses that still work on my D200. Nikon is very good about backwards compatibility.

See ya
Steve

I agree. I might be wrong of course but I can't see Nikon making FX their mainstream format for a while and even once they do, I would imagine they would introduce a crop format program like on the D3 for a few years after the stop of DX production.

[WhatMACHI]

Okay, ive got my girlfriend heading back HK again and im thinking of upgrading my 18-135.

I have a wedding coming up in August and i was thinking to just get an 18-200 as a run about lens, but using this with my SB600 to shoot some shots at the wedding. Are there any quicker lenses that wouldnt break a $700 AUD or so budget?

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by WhatMACHI

Okay, ive got my girlfriend heading back HK again and im thinking of upgrading my 18-135.

I have a wedding coming up in August and i was thinking to just get an 18-200 as a run about lens, but using this with my SB600 to shoot some shots at the wedding. Are there any quicker lenses that wouldnt break a $700 AUD or so budget?

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It certainly lacks the zoom of the 18-200, but for most wedding shots I'd be more concerned with a faster F-Stop than a longer focal length. Just watch out for sample variations, as third party manufacturers aren't exactly known for their consistency.

[OverlordXenu]

Originally Posted by meat01

That will be a while. Not everyone upgrades their bodies to the latest and greatest. People still actually use film cameras. Nikon has 1 full frame camera right now that is what $5000? I think it is safe to say, DX will be around for years to come.

I wasn't aware that film isn't as great as digital. I didn't know that digital could match the contrast that I get with Rollie ATP (or the resolution for that matter, 35 theoretical megapixels).

What kind of stupid comment is that to make about film? It costs about the same as digital (more or less, depending on different factors), sure it takes longer to get processed, and you might have to get your hands dirty (god forbid, right?). Digital is fast and clean. That's pretty much its only pro over film. You can't get the kind of contrast that you can with film.

You can get a good medium-format film outfit for less than $800. Digital medium format backs go for $30,000. And that is just the back, not the body or the lens or anything. There really isn't a digital large format.

I mean, really...What an absolutely ignorant comment to make.

In the end though, it is the photographer that matters. Not the medium, equipment, or the amount of money that you spend.

[Edwood]

Unless you're shooting high end Medium and Large format, film is pretty much dead. And the so-called better contrast you think you're getting with film is often crushed blacks. A lot of film, depending on the ISO shot, is actually lacking in dynamic range of the best CMOS sensors out there. Now, color rendition is a whole 'nother story. I've professionally retouched many many photos in a past life, and have seen the crappiest photos shot in high end film, and absolutely phenominal pics shot with a point and shoot digicam.

One of the things people don't take into consideration with film (if you don't develop and print from your own film) is the retouching work that is done by the lab. With digital, much of that work is now in the photographer's hands. While you are saving a lot of time by not having to deal with a print lab, you are trading that in for doing the lab work up front on your computer.

But in the end, all the high end printers deal with a digital file. So even film ends up being digital. Albeit with a very expensive drum scanner in the middle.

But, yeah the person behind the camera is the most important part of photography.

-Ed

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu

I mean, really...What an absolutely ignorant comment to make.

Sorry Overlord, but you are starting to show your age and/or ignorance.
Digital is vastly superior for some people, myself included. I'm surprised you can't see that.

If I spent 8$ for a roll of film (or slides), and 8$ to develop that roll, I would have spent over 3333$us on film/developing costs alone. Many of which would be totally pointless prints/negatives because I'm still learning. That 300$ price premium I paid to buy a DSLR vs. SLR was more than worth it for the money I saved in developing / film costs. You didn't consider this?

Being poor, with digital I don't have to worry about making that one shot count. I can take a few shots to help insure I get at least one that came out nice. I'm surprised you never thought of this.
I also feel more free to experiment with some silly and often times stupid ideas. Many of them never turn out nice, but it helps me progress as a photographer. Would I do that same if I was strapped for money and using film? No.

Loading film / slides is a pain in the arss, especially when a lot of action is happening at once. Even with 2 cameras slung around yourself, you'll be wasting a fair amount of time changing film. I'm doubly surprised you didn't consider this.

Why didn't you consider these wonderful points? Any sane person having known full well these benefits of digital would never make such a foolish statement saying film is better. Of course it's not better! They both have their pros and cons. Can't you see that! Life is usually not black and white. There are many subtleties and gradations.

Wow, some people................

[OverlordXenu]

I never meant to say that film was better. And I shoot slides--no color-correction at the lab for me.

It is hardly, worse. More of a pain, maybe. But you can get effects with it that you can't with digital. It is simply, different.

And learning on digital? I find that appalling, honestly. Knowing that you would have to waste all those proof sheets (etc.), you would more carefully choose what you shot. And having an automatic camera just make your exposure correct?

It is much more rewarding to start with an all-manual film camera than it is with a digital camera. With one, you have penalties for your mistakes, which is important. You learn the ins and outs of photography.

Learning with digital (or rather, a fully automatic camera, like my F100) is like learning to parallel park a car with one that does it for you!

And if you didn't have the freedom to shoot $3,000 worth of film, you wouldn't.

I spent a day at MoMA in NYC. I went through one roll of film, that entire trip. I would consider nearly every one of those photos good ones, and maybe one or two "great" (for me, I suppose). When I was there, I saw tons of people with DSLR's, just snapping away. Do you think that they have 30 good pictures, or lots and lots of medicore ones and a few good ones? I can't say that someone didn't go and take 300 amazing shots that day, but I doubt that they did.

Saying digital is better because you can shoot more is like saying...Digital is better because you can shoot more. I'm not a pro photographer, I shoot for myself. I suppose you could call it "fine art." Ha. I don't need to take 300 pictures every day.

I'm a poor, destitute student with next to no money, and I manage to spend $10 to buy a roll of film, and $20-$25 to develop each roll. It would probably be much less if I did it myself, but I'm lazy. I don't go crazy shooting, I carefully contemplate every shot I take.

Oh, and another fine point of film-grain. With digital, you have none (you do have noise, though). I can choose a super-slow, super-fine grain film (Velvia50, Tech Pan, etc.) if I don't want any grain, or I could go get some 6400 ISO film and crop aggressively if I want lots of grain. That's something you can't do with digital.

And yes, some film does actually have more contrast. Film is still the best medium for black and white.

Oh, and many labs still print optically. I'm getting ready to send some of my films over to the UK to get some Ilfochromes done.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu

It is hardly, worse. More of a pain, maybe. But you can get effects with it that you can't with digital. It is simply, different.

Good, that's all I wanted to hear you say.

I refuse to let anyone go around saying film is better. It is not better, they are just different. It all comes down to personal preference.

[OverlordXenu]

I never meant to say anything else. I was honestly offended when meat implied that digital was better. I just wanted to defend film. :P

I always thought it was funny that I liked film so much, when I don't care for vinyl (in regards to listening to the vinyl vs. transferring it to a PC or just buying the CD or something).

[lan]

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu

I never meant to say anything else. I was honestly offended when meat implied that digital was better. I just wanted to defend film. :P

Funny how we read things. I didn't read meat01's comment as implying anything was better than anything else. To me he was merely stating that film is still being used. It has not been made obsolete and by that token neither will DX.