The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Edwood]

Originally Posted by bigshot

But most people shoot pictures in sunlight, and even DX cameras perform better in low light than their film counterparts that shot millions and millions of great pictures before digital was even invented. Just because FX cameras are better in low light, it doesn't mean that you need it.

No cactus in Flagstaff... That's Ponderosa Pine country.

See ya
Steve

Just because better headphones sound better doesn't mean that you need it.

Oh c'mon, since when does that logic work here?

-Ed

[bigshot]

OCD + rampant consumerism = happiness
(at least until the new model comes out!)

Me? I just take pictures and listen to music. I just want tools that do the job. There's a cost to upgrading beyond just money. I had my F2 for 25 years. It got so it was an extension of my hand and my mind. If I change camera bodies every time Nikon comes up with a new model of DSLR, I'll never get to that point.

DX is capable of doing everything I need, and the lenses are fantastic. Much better than the ones I have for my F2. In order for me to upgrade, there is going to have to be a compelling reason, not just an extra stop or two when shooting under a full moon.

If a DSLR was able to replace my video camera and was redesigned to suit both purposes, not just ape the form of film cameras as others have pointed out recently, that might make me trade the D200 in.

See ya
Steve

[Poohblah]

Originally Posted by bigshot

But most people shoot pictures in sunlight, and even DX cameras perform better in low light than their film counterparts that shot millions and millions of great pictures before digital was even invented.

i'd like to see any digital camera perform a 2+ hour exposure that is so easy to get with film. but i'm assuming you mean handheld exposures, so yes modern dslr's do great in low light. however, modern high speed films such as ilford delta 3200 or t-max 3200 are just as good in low light as, say, a D200.

[Hayduke]

Originally Posted by Poohblah

i'd like to see any digital camera perform a 2+ hour exposure that is so easy to get with film.

Use a ND filter.

[milkpowder]

Originally Posted by Poohblah

i'd like to see any digital camera perform a 2+ hour exposure that is so easy to get with film. but i'm assuming you mean handheld exposures, so yes modern dslr's do great in low light. however, modern high speed films such as ilford delta 3200 or t-max 3200 are just as good in low light as, say, a D200.

You'd probably get an incredible amount of noise (hot pixels), regardless of whether a ND filter is used or not.

[Poohblah]

Originally Posted by Hayduke

Use a ND filter.

you don't need an ND filter to make long exposures, but that's not the point. my point is that when you are making exposures in the range of several hours, digital not only drains the hell out of the battery but also noise and hot pixels become major issues even at the base ISO setting.

it's easy to make an exposure of several hours with film because you can set the shutter to time mode (or use a locking cable release) and there is no drain on the battery (unless you're using an electrical camera, and even then there is still very little drain on the battery) and no increase in grain (the film equivalent of noise).

[stuartr]

It's a balance though, as most films have reciprocity failure and digital does not. So your two hour exposure on film may only require 15 minutes on digital to get an equivalent exposure. It depends on what film you are using. Some like Fuji Acros are extremely well-suited to long exposures and do not require much reciprocity correction, others are not so lucky.

In general though, I will agree that film is a better solution for long exposures over a few minutes.

[dvessel]

Originally Posted by bigshot

OCD + rampant consumerism = happiness
(at least until the new model comes out!)

Keep it coming. When the price drops on the D90 to where the D80 is now, it'll be time to upgrade my D70. Noisy little bastard but it still works great –minus the broke built-in flash.

[Poohblah]

Originally Posted by stuartr

It's a balance though, as most films have reciprocity failure and digital does not. So your two hour exposure on film may only require 15 minutes on digital to get an equivalent exposure. It depends on what film you are using. Some like Fuji Acros are extremely well-suited to long exposures and do not require much reciprocity correction, others are not so lucky.

In general though, I will agree that film is a better solution for long exposures over a few minutes.

that's why you adjust for reciprocity failure using the aperture and not the shutter speed...

[bigshot]

How often do most folks do 2 hour exposures or shoot in the dead of night? The point is, most people shoot most pictures under conditions that make the difference between a D40 and a D700 insignificant.

See ya
Steve