[Poohblah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayduke /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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 person but it still works great –minus the broke built-in flash.

 

[Poohblah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvessel /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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 person but it still works great –minus the broke built-in flash.

That's why when you see someone upgrades his/her camera every year, don't get jealous, don't prevent it, don't talk them out of it. Ask them to buy more instead. That way they are supporting the company, so the company can provide us with better products with lower prices. I hope most people embrace this DSLR consumerism thing so that DSLR can become a commodity.

Imagine if everyone sticks with their plain old cameras and hardly upgrades. Technology improvement won't be that fast, price won't be as low as now - argh! the horror! C'mon buy more instead, so people like me can get a fairly new, barely 'outdated' DSLRs for cheap.
I hope D400 is out next year so that I can get a D300 at the store for a discontinued price.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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

I think in 4 years taking picture, my slowest shutter speed was less than 1 minute exposure. And I can't even remember when I did that. But then again, as I said, buy more cameras folks!

 

[stuartr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poohblah /img/forum/go_quote.gif that's why you adjust for reciprocity failure using the aperture and not the shutter speed...

Not if you are already wide open...

Quote:

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

Most people don't. But I would not necessarily agree that people don't benefit from better high ISO performance. Most of the people I know who are very casual photographers shoot a lot at parties, holidays and so on. Usually those events are indoors at night and require either flash, very fast lenses or very good ISO performance. But while people might benefit from these things, I completely agree that a d700 is overkill for anyone other than skilled amateurs and professional photographers.

 

[dvessel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's why when you see someone upgrades his/her camera every year, don't get jealous, don't prevent it, don't talk them out of it. Ask them to buy more instead. That way they are supporting the company, so the company can provide us with better products with lower prices. I hope most people embrace this DSLR consumerism thing so that DSLR can become a commodity.

It's also good for the floral and pet industries. I see a heck load of photos of dogs, cats and flowers.

Whatever floats thee boats..

Hrm, my kitty is all grown up.. Upgrade!! ::kidding::

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr /img/forum/go_quote.gif But while people might benefit from these things, I completely agree that a d700 is overkill for anyone other than skilled amateurs and professional photographers.

What are you talking about, Stuart? We all know that those rich crazy Nikon people, they buy lenses and cameras just for the sake of buying and having them, not actually using them. Who cares about benefits? It's new Nikon!

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvessel /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's also good for the floral and pet industries. I see a heck load of photos of dogs, cats and flowers. Whatever floats thee boats..

Those, would be fighting words. ^_^!!!
hahaha

 

[stuartr]

I am actually in the "if it makes them happy, good for them" group. I always thought it was kind of stupid that people get angry that someone who is a poor photographer has a great camera. So what? I look at it like the ugly guy with the hot girlfriend/wife -- that person knows something good when they see it and obviously has what is required to get the thing they wanted -- whether it is a good personality, money or sheer determination. If you like cameras and want a good one, who cares whether you are a good photographer or not? We'll all know that a good photographer with a bad camera will take a better picture than a bad photographer with a good camera, so why all the angst?

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am actually in the "if it makes them happy, good for them" group. I always thought it was kind of stupid that people get angry that someone who is a poor photographer has a great camera. So what? I look at it like the ugly guy with the hot girlfriend/wife -- that person knows something good when they see it and obviously has what is required to get the thing they wanted -- whether it is a good personality, money or sheer determination. If you like cameras and want a good one, who cares whether you are a good photographer or not? We'll all know that a good photographer with a bad camera will take a better picture than a bad photographer with a good camera, so why all the angst?

Here here!
That's the best point of view to take.

 

[dvessel]

I took a cheap shot but I agree with stuart. Just have fun and enjoy it to the full.

The best thing that could come out of this is that more people who partake in this hobby, the more likely someone will float to the top creating amazing photos.

 

[Poohblah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartr /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am actually in the "if it makes them happy, good for them" group. I always thought it was kind of stupid that people get angry that someone who is a poor photographer has a great camera. So what? I look at it like the ugly guy with the hot girlfriend/wife -- that person knows something good when they see it and obviously has what is required to get the thing they wanted -- whether it is a good personality, money or sheer determination. If you like cameras and want a good one, who cares whether you are a good photographer or not? We'll all know that a good photographer with a bad camera will take a better picture than a bad photographer with a good camera, so why all the angst?

cheers!

(unless the hot girl is my ex who left me for no good reason of course )

oh about people getting angry at those who are poor photogs but have expensive/good cameras... they're just jealous