[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Digital is a great way to learn because it's more forgiving.

The things I've "learned" from digital is to not brace myself when shooting at slow speeds, ballparking exposure because I can always manipulate the RAW file, and shooting a cropload of exposures hoping one or two might come out good. These are all bad habits that I didn't have with my old F2. I'm actively trying to "un-learn" these lessons right now!

I like digital better myself. But I see the advantage of learning things the right way on film first. If I hadn't, I wouldn't even know that these "lessons" are actually mistakes.

See ya
Steve

 

[Hayduke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The things I've "learned" from digital is to not brace myself when shooting at slow speeds, ballparking exposure because I can always manipulate the RAW file, and shooting a cropload of exposures hoping one or two might come out good. These are all bad habits that I didn't have with my old F2. I'm actively trying to "un-learn" these lessons right now! I like digital better myself. But I see the advantage of learning things the right way on film first. If I hadn't, I wouldn't even know that these "lessons" are actually mistakes. See ya Steve

You're right that digital could lead to those bad habits, but be honest, all of them are a result of laziness. You CAN take digital pictures with the same amount of care and attention to detail as you would with film, just many people don't. Someone who is interested in improving their photography will not always just snap a dozen shots of the same subject and "hope for the best".

Some subjects require it. For example, if you're taking pictures of a sporting event or some action subject, you have to get it right the first time. You can't just shoot blind, review the photos, and try again. The moment is lost. For a still life (landscape, portrait, macro etc) there is a strong tendency towards these bad habits. If you're trying to "unlearn" them, try practicing with different subject matter.

Just shooting digital doesn't create the bad habits. Shooting a wedding, for example, requires you get the shot right, yet most wedding photographers use digital. Why is that? Personally, I think the digital workflow is much much easier. I'm enjoying my D80 a lot. I doubt I'll ever shoot film again.

 

[Dimitris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif I checked that same camera store, and the pricing is as follows: NIKON D40 W/18-55 II/55-200 DX LENS $599 CAD NIKON D40 DSLR W/ NIKON 18-55 II LENS $469 CAD

Philodox what is your budget? How about your get a used D200 and then a couple of old AiS lenses? The D200 can meter and also add Exif info for them. You can easily find a 50mm f1.4 Ais for $120 and a 28mm f2.8 in forums. That way you will get the feel of old mechanical system at least in 1/2 of your setup.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The things I've "learned" from digital is to not brace myself when shooting at slow speeds, ballparking exposure because I can always manipulate the RAW file, and shooting a cropload of exposures hoping one or two might come out good. These are all bad habits that I didn't have with my old F2. I'm actively trying to "un-learn" these lessons right now! I like digital better myself. But I see the advantage of learning things the right way on film first. If I hadn't, I wouldn't even know that these "lessons" are actually mistakes. See ya Steve

There is no 'right' way to learn things in my experience. Such talk is foolishness in my mind.

Don't blame a digital camera for your actions. Nor would I applaud a film camera for keeping your bad habits in check. It's up to the student, the photographer, not what camera they choose.

I think an argument that film 'forces' you do to certain things, and thus is a better teaching tool, is silly.
That's my take on it at least.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitris /img/forum/go_quote.gif Philodox what is your budget? How about your get a used D200 and then a couple of old AiS lenses? The D200 can meter and also add Exif info for them. You can easily find a 50mm f1.4 Ais for $120 and a 28mm f2.8 in forums. That way you will get the feel of old mechanical system at least in 1/2 of your setup.

That's an interesting idea... not sure I can afford a used D200 at the moment though.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is no 'right' way to learn things in my experience. Such talk is foolishness in my mind. Don't blame a digital camera for your actions. Nor would I applaud a film camera for keeping your bad habits in check. It's up to the student, the photographer, not what camera they choose. I think an argument that film 'forces' you do to certain things, and thus is a better teaching tool, is silly. That's my take on it at least.

There is a wrong way to learn things. Even a D700 is not immune from my taking crappy pics.

-Ed

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif As you say, that's hard to do, because the new Nikon 50mm 1.4 hasn't been released yet. It's going to be months before the new lens shows up in the US. On paper, the Sigma has better optics, but until the new Nikon comes out, it's hard to tell how that will affect the real world performance. I'm sure the Sigma will come down in price a bit to become competitive. The thing is, if a third party lens performs better or costs less than the Nikon equivalent, people will use them. Those that decide on lenses based solely on the brand name are making a big mistake. There are a lot of great Nikon lenses, but there are great third party lenses too. Some of them are better (or just about as good and much cheaper) than the Nikon equivalent. I've got two Tokinas and a Sigma in my kit, and they are just as good as lenses that say Nikon on the lens cap. (If it bothers you, switch out the cap with a Nikon one and no one knows!) Edit: Just checked into the new Nikon 50mm 1.4, and it doesn't have the main feature of the Sigma that improves the sharpness over the old Nikon 50 1.4 when it's wide open- the aspherical element. It also doesn't have the special coating that reduces CA and uses a non-standard filter size. It does have the 9 bladed rounded diaphragm, so it will have good bokeh like the Sigma. It appears to fit right between the old Nikon and the Sigma in both price and quality. See ya Steve

Yeah, it's pretty obvious from the size of the lens that it's just an evolutionary step up from the old 50mm f/1.4 It looks like they just put an ultrasonic motor in there. I hope they significantly improved the optics. Otherwise, it's way late to the game. Seriously. How hard was it to slap an AF-S motor in there? I think it's more of a marketing decision, since the D700's release.

Nikon really needs to re-release or update their legendary 28mm f/1.4, but much like legendary top end headphones, they just don't see the mass market appeal and marketing potential, despite the crazy prices on eBay lately.

-Ed

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even a D700 is not immune from my taking crappy pics. -Ed

All it takes is time and practice practice practice.
Give it a year or two and I'm sure you'll be making stunning photos, especially if you have nice equipment.

 

[OverlordXenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think digital caught up to color film 3 years ago. It's now at a point where there are subtle differences between the two if done 'right', so it's up to preference.

Nearly all film (unless you use a really ancient emulsion) will have more technical resolution than any digital out today. The film I commonly shoot is upwards of 30 megapixels (if I can find a good enough scanner), due to how many line pairs per milimeter the emulsion has (and I shoot some even finer-grained emulsions). What it comes down to, is the lens though. Your average lens probably can't resolve above 80 lp/mm, which means that it probably records less information onto the film/sensor than a 5D Mk. II or modern emulsion can hold.

Print film still has much, much, much more latitude than digital cameras can capture, and even more than our monitors (even high-end ones) can reproduce. I think slide film and digital are about equal.

(I'll probably switch to digital for 35mm when Kodachrome is discontinued and a full-frame body is under $2,000 and as good as the 5D Mk. II.)

I'll still say this, grain looks better than noise.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverlordXenu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nearly all film (unless you use a really ancient emulsion) will have more technical resolution than any digital out today. The film I commonly shoot is upwards of 30 megapixels (if I can find a good enough scanner), due to how many line pairs per milimeter the emulsion has (and I shoot some even finer-grained emulsions). What it comes down to, is the lens though. Your average lens probably can't resolve above 80 lp/mm, which means that it probably records less information onto the film/sensor than a 5D Mk. II or modern emulsion can hold. Print film still has much, much, much more latitude than digital cameras can capture, and even more than our monitors (even high-end ones) can reproduce. I think slide film and digital are about equal. (I'll probably switch to digital for 35mm when Kodachrome is discontinued and a full-frame body is under $2,000 and as good as the 5D Mk. II.) I'll still say this, grain looks better than noise.

Ok, if you say so.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitris /img/forum/go_quote.gif Philodox what is your budget? How about your get a used D200 and then a couple of old AiS lenses? The D200 can meter and also add Exif info for them. You can easily find a 50mm f1.4 Ais for $120 and a 28mm f2.8 in forums. That way you will get the feel of old mechanical system at least in 1/2 of your setup.

That's a very good idea. You better listen to this man.

 

[Dimitris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's an interesting idea... not sure I can afford a used D200 at the moment though.

They go around $750 in forums I think. If out of budget I would wait a bit. I really love what old lenses can do on newer bodies. I have 6 of them and I am using them on my 20D. I just hope one day Nikon will launch a manual Dslr so I can dump by Canon gear.

 

[Hayduke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitris /img/forum/go_quote.gif They go around $750 in forums I think. If out of budget I would wait a bit. I really love what old lenses can do on newer bodies. I have 6 of them and I am using them on my 20D. I just hope one day Nikon will launch a manual Dslr so I can dump by Canon gear.

"manual Dslr"?

By definition, wouldn't a DSLR be electronic? Only a few of the lower end Nikon DSLRs don't have a "real" mechanical shutter. They all have an M mode. What exactly are you waiting for Nikon to do?

 

[GTRacer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayduke /img/forum/go_quote.gif "manual Dslr"? By definition, wouldn't a DSLR be electronic? Only a few of the lower end Nikon DSLRs don't have a "real" mechanical shutter. They all have an M mode. What exactly are you waiting for Nikon to do?

A D700 with a manually cocked shutter and old Nikon F ergonomics/looks.

 

[mightyacorn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRacer /img/forum/go_quote.gif A D700 with a manually cocked shutter and old Nikon F ergonomics/looks.

I think that is to advance the film, but I get your point. I've wanted a stripped down full frame camera for a while now.