Ways out of the Digital Wilderness

Hi, I am having another frustrating 'bad scan day' and it brought on

one of those digital migration phases. So I thought I would weigh my

digital options for the future.

 

I don't ask much from a camera but I don't want to give up my current

lenses especially my 180/2.8 and the Vivitar 105/2.5 macro for AF

lenses. I would be spending a fortune and I doubt I could get better

quality - and if I had all that money to burn, I'd put it into a D2x

instead of AF lenses. So the moral of the story is that, even if I

could live with the viewfinder, the D70 and the D100 are out.

 

I know a lot of people will say that the D2x is what I want and I'll

just need to cough up or grin and bear it. But the D2x is NOT what I

want. I don't want a camera that weighs a ton and can stop bullets, I

don't want blazing fast AF, umpteen focus points or frames per

second. Which is why my film body is not an F5 - I am perfectly

satisfied with the N90s.

 

Now, I also realize that no matter how much I whine Nikon is not

going to give me a digital F100, so my question is about alternative

routes out of this wilderness. Like many others I am secretly hoping

that maybe ... just maybe ... the D200 will take manual lenses but I

think that is unlikely. But what about older bodies like the D1x? I

guess the D1 at 2.7 MP is a pretty pathetic compromise at this point

but why don't I hear as much noise about used D1x bodies which are

starting to dip below $1200 or so? Are there any fatal flaws that

makes this camera less attractive?

 

Can you think of other bodies that fit my needs? I want decent

resolution but can live without 12mp behemoths. Apart than that I

just want a nice light-tight box that will have a DOF button and a

shutter and will meter through whatever I stick in front of it and

let me go about my business in peace.

 

Suggestions and advice will be greatly appreciated. I am not about to

rush out and buy a DSLR - this is more like a wait and watch plan,

but my budget would ideally be about $1500 or maybe a little bit more.

 

I am attaching the slide that brought on this phase of depression -

after $10 worth of processing, the slide looks great and as sharp as

I would wish in the eyes, but this is what I could get out of it :-(.

 

-A<div></div>

AFAIK, one of the main problems with the D1x (and in fact anything in the D1 family) is the battery. If you get a used D1x, factor in the cost of 1 or 2 new batteries. Moreover, if you think the D2x is heavy, the D1x is not exactly light itself. But as least you can get by with the D1x for now. I expect Nikon will add some "prosumer" DSLR within a year or so, but that is just my guess.

 

As it has been pointed out by Bjorn R. and now DPReview, the D2X puts a lot of demand on the lenses. Some great lenses from the film era are not necessarily great on a D2X. Those who spend $5000 on a D2X should prepare to spend some more to upgrade some of the lenses as well.

What's the matter with your N90, then? If you are talking about the quality of the scan, how about just spending your money on a really good scanner like the Nikon V 4000? To be honest, I think there is a lot of what could call "technological pressure" out there to switch to digital. A friend of mine finds it almost incomprensible that I am not all eager-beaver to go out and replace my F100 with a D70. I think it interesting that Ansel Adams didn't even use an SLR professionally until the mid-60s. It's the image that counts, not how you got it. So my advice is figure out what went wrong with the image, and assuming it was not your camera, fix it.

I know you've already ruled out the D70 but I think you should reconsider.

 

First, there is a learning curve you're going to have to deal with when you start shooting a

digital SLR. I'm an experienced press photographer with a lot of Nikon experience and it

was a frustrating transition. Exposure latitude is, in my view, narrower than slide film and

you have to get used to that. You're also going to have to deal with a freaking maze of

settings in order to get the photos you like. Rather than spending a mint on a camera, I

suggest you go for a D70 and a pair of fine lenses. Then, if you can deal with the whole

digital thing, you can upgrade.

 

Second, the viewfinder on the D70 is not great, but to me, it's not all that bad. Yes, it's

smaller than I'd like. But I don't find that it limits my work in any way. Other people

obviously feel otherwise.

 

Third, whatever you buy is going to be yesterday's news in about three months. Why not

invest in lenses, which are not going to depreciate so quickly, and skimp a little on the

camera.

 

Finally, the d70 is a great, great camera that takes fine pictures in capable hands.

 

Whatever you decide, best of luck.

You could buy a D70 or (if you can live with the "imperfections and drawbacks") an S2 Pro. Shun is right about the limitations of prior generation SLR cameras.

 

BTW, your photo looks as if the problem is with post processing and not with scanning -- problems with gamma nad noise reduction attempt etc. You should be able to get far better results from any film scanner (all film shots in my portfolio were scanned with the infamous low-end Canon D2400F flatbed film scanner).Even if you were to go digital, for best results you have to shoot raw and that involves substantial post processing as well though markedly different from post processing film scans. Bottomline: If you are otherwise happy with your 35mm workflow, it should be more wise to find out what's going wrong with your post-processing and then try and remedy those. I trust you that your slides are razor sharp -- just try and find out what's going wrong. There are many folks who make great scans of well exposed, sharp 35mm slides.

 

Now is not the best time to spring for a 6MP DSLR. They have been around for a long time and the bar is slowly being raised to 8MP. There's a slow transition in progress. Even if 6MP does not make much difference from 8MP and you are happy with 6MP, they will certainly get cheaper in the course of next 6-8 months.

 

If I were you -- I would probably buy a 5MP-8MP raw capable prosumer compact and good camera support for the remaining money. I have seen fantastic macro work by Canon G3, Coolpix 5000 etc. You will certainly get better results than the scan you posted. Alternatively -- stick to film and do better post-processing.

I would propose that since it sounds like your photographic style is methodical (no blazing af etc), that metering isn't so important. I use several MF lenses with my D70 to great effect. Guesstimate an exposure, look at histogram and highlight display, adjust accordingly!

<p>

Even flash photography under these circumstances is pretty doable, especially if the flash to subject distance stays constant. One trick I've been playing with for moderate macro work is to mount my flash on a tripod, connect to camera with SC-17 and handhold the camera. A couple shots to dial in the levels and shoot away.

<p>

All this works without a meter of any sort by using the histogram and highlight warnings. Or, if metering with your manual lenses is mandatory for you there are ways to get your MF lenses 'chipped' so they will allow metering. It costs about US $115 per lens and not all can be converted. See <a href="http://home.carolina.rr.com/headshots/Nikonhome.htm">http://home.carolina.rr.com/headshots/Nikonhome.htm</a> for more info on chipping your lenses.

<p>

I say, get a D70 and give it a try.

Nikon will be introducing a new digital camera we can expect sometime this

fall from all accounts, hopefully it will address the viewfinder faults of the D70,

(adequate, usable, are not qualities most serious photographers seek in

buying a camera body, we are hoping the new camera will have available a

verical shot-battery grip, a reasonable cable release mechanism, (yes most of

us shot from behind the camera), 6mg are fine for alot of us, the difference

between 6 and 8 are marginal at best, possible a more solid body, Nikon is

slow in introducing new models, but like the D2x, (the full frame killer) are well

worth the wait.

Dare I suggest it? Maybe you would be better off with an EOS DSLR. At least you'll get some metering: http://www.camerahacker.com/Novoflex/EOSNIK.html

 

Or maybe this guy can help you out:

http://www.aiconversions.com/compatibilitytable.htm

 

BTW...I can't for my life figure out why people make such a big deal out of RAW processing. I spend a fraction of the time that I used to spend post processing scans when I'm processing RAW. And you don't *have* to shoot RAW. In many situations the highest JPEG setting will do fine. A DSLR is pretty good printing straight to a printer, no computer!

You do not want to shoot digital. You feel compelled to. You do not have to.

 

I agree with Ed Piercy. Get a good dedicated film scanner. You are going to need it for your backlog of transparencies, anyway. Forget flatbeds with adapters. Get the right tool for the job.

 

Then, get some good books or classes on processing pix in Photoshop(preferably CS2, which is just out). John Shaw, famed nature photographer, has a good disk on Photoshop, which I got at one of his seminars. johnshawphoto.com. Scott Kelby has a new book out on photos and CS2. You may be able to get more out of your scans with some processing help.

 

Digital shooting is a whole big, huge, learning curve. It will really complicate things by adding more variables. It will be harder to sort out the source of your problems. You do not really seem to need it now. If you get Photoshop down pat now, the transition to digital shooting will be much easier.

 

I started in photography by working in a university darkroom, shoving paper around trays. Then preparing specimens(stone tools) to be shot. Then shooting. Sort of backwards compared to most people but it works. If you know what can and cannot be done in printing(Photoshop), you will know what your film(digital file) must contain. It will help immensely with planning your your shooting.

 

You can do what you need now within your budget. Worry about Nikon digital cameras next year. They will be better and cheaper. No surprise there. You can just read all the present users' whining for now. A vicarious thrill.

 

I use a D70 now, but have a now mostly unused F3, and somewhere an Olympus OM-2. Use Photoshop CS2.

 

Bill

Interesting and thoughtful responses to a gread question, and an interesting problem. I shoot very differently, but may have something of use to add. I use the D70 for now (waiting for the D2Xs to come out so the price on the D2X drops). Yep, the viewfinder is cramped, but it is very usable (yes, I can see facial expression in it). I haven't gotten my hands on the D70s, but I wonder if they didn't do some viewfinder tweaking in it? Might be worth a check.

 

I know you have a lot invested in Nikon glass, and someone suggested looking at Canon (worth looking at, might find what you need)...but I have a friend who is shooting Olympus. He went there from Nikon and has been doing some incredible stuff with it. The viewfinder is exquisite, and his results are fantastic. Might be worth looking at, even if you are (like me) married to Nikon (too much money invested in the lenses)...

 

If you CAN live with a D70 for a couple of years, the prices seem to be rock bottom right now, and a firmware upgrade makes it a D70s as far as internal software goes...

Sounds like a Fuji S3 would suit you down to the ground.

Get a D70. You will not be able to use your 180mm f/2.8 on any digi body with satisafction, anyway (if you care about CA, that is).

 

If your 105/2.5 Vivitar lens is anything like the 90mm f/2.5 Viv.Ser.1, it will do fantastically on a digital body.

 

As pointed out correctly, you will be frustrating yourself more with a purchase of D1 and the like.

Come on Vivek, the 180/2.8D is a delight and gives excellent image quality on the D70. It's one of the most positive surprises ... I knew it was a great lens but it made such a difference on the D70.

Just a thought, why not move up to medium Format? My Rollei 6008 just arrived today. There is definatly an oooh and ahhh factor, and I hope that carries over when I shoot a few rolls...

I agree that a Canon DSLR could be an alternative for you. Good luck.

I agree that a Canon DSLR could be an alternative for you. I use several Nikon lenses on a Canon EOS camera which has the same mount as an EOS DSLR. Good luck.

Well there's always teh Canon 20d/Lens adaptor/stop-down metering solution. I'm

considering it myself, although I might cheap-out and get a D50 then chimp alot.

"There is definatly an oooh and ahhh factor, and I hope that carries over when I shoot a few rolls..."

 

I am sure it will do that and more. After 1 year of shooting with a D70, when I look at the MF images (even from a fixed focal length lens sporting 1950s classic TLR like a Topcoflex), the difference is far too clear and very visible.

 

Anupam, The MF options are huge at the moment.

Thanks for all the great suggestions. I realize that I really need to get to know Photoshop better, digital or no digital.

 

As for the MF, I use a TLR for street shots sometime and 6x9 for pinhole. But I don't think I want to shoot damselfies with MF.

 

I will probably break down and get a D70 eventually, but meanwhile I am taking a long hard look at the 7D. If it weren't for all these lenses ... :-)

My recommendation is install a lamp with a single 48 (120cm)

fluorescent daylight balanced (full spectrum) tube directly over

your head or an inch or two (2.5 to 5.0cm) forward. You dont

want to see this lamp in your peripheral vision. You also dont

want a large shadow from your head cast on the desk surface at

your hands. For your computer, setup a monochrome (all gray)

desktop for use with Photoshop. Hang a couple of medium gray

matte boards behind your monitor. If the lamp glares off your

monitor fashion a small hood to shade the monitor. Install blinds

or blackout curtains in your computer room. <br>

<br>

The purpose of this is to prevent color pollution and to give a

low light level that will aid in color and image brightness

control of your images. Calibrating your monitor is of little

value if there is color pollution in your work area and if the

light level changes throughout the day.<br>

<br>

If the computer is used for both a digital darkroom and for

offices and study a twin 48 tube lamp with two single lamp

ballast units will allow low light for your digital work and

twice that for your office or study. A string switch can turn off

one of the ballast while doing digital darkroom or page layout

work. I don't know if such a lamp is made but one can easily by a

generic fixture and remove the double tube ballast and replace it

with two single tube units.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.