The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[fureshi]

speaking of DX, i still don't think DX is dead. nikon wouldn't still be coming out with DX lenses if they were about to kill it. compared to full frame or FX lenses, DX lenses are still cheaper for the amateur. lower cost of entry gets more people in the door and interested in photography.

[dj_mocok]

The thing I like about film is they (certain camera and film) take gorgeous black&white pictures. Oh and the optical viewfinder.

[mbriant]

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.

As someone who shot 35mm and medium format film for many years, I tend to agree with much of this. When I used to shoot weddings with medium format, economics ( how much the couple spent for their photo package) would limit the number of shots I could take. So I learned to make every one count. And with experience, like you, I'd never wind up with many, if any, unusable shots. However, having been using digital for a few years now, I can see some real benefits....especially for pro shooters. For one thing, not having to worry about cost of film and developing, with action shots, you can rapid-fire multiple sequence shots whenever you want, which gives you several choices instead of just one for that perfect "basketball dunk" or "bride throwing the bouquet" picture. The same holds true for regular posed shooting as well. Take group shots for example. With film, I could only afford to take perhaps one "just in case" shot for each pose. Sometimes, especially in group shots, despite my best efforts, both shots would wind up with someone having their mouth wide open in mid-speech or eyes droopy or closed. With digital and few extra seconds, you can take several shots without financial penalty ... increasing the chances of getting a good one. This sort of thing is extremely advantageous with shoots like weddings and sports events, where you don't have a second chance to go back and re-shoot. Which leads to a related benefit of digital ... the opportunity to see what you've got on the spot. Finding out that something went wrong right away, when you can still reshoot, is way, way, better than finding out when the proofs come back. Being able to take more than 12 or 24 shots without having to change film can be a big advantage as well. Also, with the financial restraints of film shooting, you're less likely to experiment, IMO.

Yes, I find it annoying when someone who really doesn't understand the technicalities of exposure, composition, depth of field, focus, etc., machine guns 500 digital frames, pulls out 2 or 3 that luckily turned out good, and thinks of themself as a great photographer. As you indicated, spending $20 to $35 on film and development, only to find out you have a pile of out of focus, heads chopped off, underexposed material for the recycle bin, is great incentive to learn the craft quicker and keeps your ego grounded. But just as with film, you can choose to study and learn from your mistakes, or simply throw them away and forget they ever happened. Since it's not really hurting anybody, and it gives everyone from newbie to pro a better chance at creating good photos, it's hard to not like digital.

[OverlordXenu]

Originally Posted by mbriant

As someone who shot 35mm and medium format film for many years, I tend to agree with much of this. When I used to shoot weddings with medium format, economics ( how much the couple spent for their photo package) would limit the number of shots I could take. So I learned to make every one count. And with experience, like you, I'd never wind up with many, if any, unusable shots. However, having been using digital for a few years now, I can see some real benefits....especially for pro shooters. For one thing, not having to worry about cost of film and developing, with action shots, you can rapid-fire multiple sequence shots whenever you want, which gives you several choices instead of just one for that perfect "basketball dunk" or "bride throwing the bouquet" picture. The same holds true for regular posed shooting as well. Take group shots for example. With film, I could only afford to take perhaps one "just in case" shot for each pose. Sometimes, especially in group shots, despite my best efforts, both shots would wind up with someone having their mouth wide open in mid-speech or eyes droopy or closed. With digital and few extra seconds, you can take several shots without financial penalty ... increasing the chances of getting a good one. This sort of thing is extremely advantageous with shoots like weddings and sports events, where you don't have a second chance to go back and re-shoot. Which leads to a related benefit of digital ... the opportunity to see what you've got on the spot. Finding out that something went wrong right away, when you can reshoot, is way, way, better than finding out when the proofs come back. Being able to take more than 12 or 24 shots without having to change film can be a big advantage as well. Also, with the financial restraints of film shooting, you're less likely to experiment, IMO.

Yes, I find it annoying when someone who really doesn't understand the technicalities of exposure, composition, depth of field, focus, etc., machine guns 500 digital frames, pulls out 2 or 3 that luckily turned out good, and thinks of themself as a great photographer. As you indicated, spending $20 to $35 on film and development, only to find out you have a pile of out of focus, heads chopped off, underexposed material for the recycle bin, is great incentive to learn the craft quicker and keeps your ego grounded. But just as with film, you can choose to study and learn from your mistakes, or simply throw them away and forget they ever happened. Since it's not really hurting anybody, and it gives everyone from newbie to pro a better chance at creating good photos, it's hard to not like digital.

I completely agree with every single last thing you said. If I were a pro (which I never honestly want to be...I think the stress would ruin the fun of photography for me), I would be mostly digital (eg. D3 for stuff in the field, digital Hasselblad back for the studio), but with some film (you really can't beat 4x5, 8x10, and ULF in some situations).

I am really proud that I learned with the same camera that my mother learned with, decades and decades ago. A Pentax K1000. It still works great, aside from the broken light meter.

[meat01]

OverlordXenu, Please tell me where I said film was better!

Not everyone upgrades their bodies to the latest and greatest. People still actually use film cameras.

I never said film or digital was better. I said some people still shoot with film cameras. Is this not correct? How is that offensive? I was trying to explain that DX lenses will not become obsolete anytime soon, because some people do not always use the newest technology. Please read posts before you start bashing people.

What kind of stupid comment is that to make about film?

Uuh, that would be the truth that people actually take pictures with film cameras.

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

Not as ignorant as you accusing me of things I never said and going off on me for no reason.

[bigshot]

I see the point that film is a good way to learn... and that's where I learned with both 35 and medium format- both B&W and color darkroom work. But I've never found that restrictions and difficulties lead to a better grade of thinking. They just slow thinking down. Sitting there with my stopwatch and bucket of water at the precise temperature taught me nothing. Neither did having to wait several days to see what I had shot. I learn a lot more when I'm shooting and reviewing pictures than I do when I'm thinking out all the settings.

I've shot since I was a teenager, and the things I've learned that are the most important involve composition, lighting and how to be in the right time and place to push the button. Those things are infinitely more complex than depth of field, reciprocity or adjusting color balances subtractively.

Cameras have progressed from something you have to think and labor over to tools that fit your workflow so seamlessly, they make the adjustments you would make a hundred times faster than you would be able to. I think that's a great thing, because it frees the photographer up to do the thing that machinery will never be able to do... capture light in a beautiful way.

The difference between film and digital is an entirely different story though. If you are a professional shooting landscape, high end studio or architectural shots, you won't be using digital. Nothing can touch medium and large format view cameras for that sort of thing. Digital is more of a replacement for amateur uses and news photographers.

See ya
Steve

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by WhatMACHI

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?

Weddings move so fast, you don't have time to be changing lenses while the cats get herded. The 18-200 is perfect for that. As for faster lenses that do similar things... not at the price you are looking at. Add a fill flash. That will be as flexible a rig as you could hope for.

See ya
Steve

[mbriant]

Cameras have progressed from something you have to think and labor over to tools that fit your workflow so seamlessly, they make the adjustments you would make a hundred times faster than you would be able to. I think that's a great thing, because it frees the photographer up to do the thing that machinery will never be able to do... capture light in a beautiful way.

I've never been a fan of reflective metering. IMO, even with lots of experience in compensating, it's difficult to get it exactly right unless you use a grey card which defeats an auto/internal meter's main benefit ... convenience. It would be a great thing if someone were to develop/include, an incident meter into the camera body. I've found that in most situations, the light falling on the back of the camera ( as long as the photographer isn't shading it), is the same as the light falling on the subject ... and if it's not, it's usually not too difficult to walk up the subject and take an incident reading there. Having the incident meter built into the camera and it's internal exposure computer would make both auto and manual exposure that much more accurate, IMO.

[stuartr]

A lot of the earliest cameras with meters featured incident meters rather than reflective ones. You could get a metering knob for the old hasselblads. Yes, the film winding knob actually contained the meter, and it was an incident. Today, you can get a PME prism (either 45 degree or 90 degree) that has an incident meter built on top...it also features TTL metering. All that said, I think reflective metering can be quite effective if you use something consistent and you pay your dues getting used to how it meters. I have used Leicas for awhile, and the strongly center-weighted metering is very consistent and very accurate. Once you learn what tones give you an accurate exposure, just point it at those tones and fire away. The same goes for the Hasselblad 203FE -- it has a similar center-weighted meter that is incredibly accurate if you point it at an appropriate tone. It's really about the photographer knowing the correct tone to point it at.

All that said, I have found the matrix metering in the D3 and F6 to be superbly accurate. It can get tricked in certain backlit situations, but even in those, it generally gives you a usable exposure...perhaps not the optimal one, but one that you can work with.

On the digital versus film thing, it is really about your preferences, intended output and experience with the given cameras. For me, the camera I find most enjoyable to work with and shoot is the Leica MP. It just disappears and all I think about is the image I am trying to create. The camera I would trust to get the shot no matter what would be the D3. As long as you press the button at the correct time, it will make an excellent image. The camera that I think makes the best de facto image is the Mamiya 7II (6x7cm). I like this even more than 4x5 cameras because you get more depth of field, wider angle lenses with less vignetting, much more real-world usability, and astoundingly good lenses.

Here are images from all three...I hope the Nikon thread will forgive me that only one is with a Nikon:

MP:


D3:

Please forgive the fact that the D3 shot is worse than the others...I have not had a chance to take too many with the D3 yet...I have only gotten it recently. Take solace in the fact that that is a largely unmodified ISO 2000 jpg, right from the camera. No other camera that I know of can yield a file like that.

Mamiya 7II:

[kevin gilmore]

warning: large
http://gilmore.chem.northwestern.edu/squirrel.jpg

D3, 400mm f5.6 VR iso 800
Shot thru a glass door from 35 feet away handheld
(next time tripod for sure)

None of my film cameras would have a chance at doing this.