Still waiting for a digital F100, what would you do?

<p>Interesting thread. I am just a few years into digital photography, but started doing photography longer agto than i care to count. I have never even held an f100. Before digital, my Nikon bodies where F, F2, and the FM line. Still have them, and they are used, but less and less. Used a variety of film formates, darkroom, yadda, yadda. But for what it is worth, i will tell some of my own experience.<br>

How a camera "feels" and operates is an important factor. I really like that part of my SLR's and have grown to feel the same re my D200's. Are they as durable as my older F series and FM's? No. But Nikon has not made body more durable than my 200's since the F3. Those days left when they went auto focus, and adv. computerized metering.<br>

When i first started doing digital, it did take awhile to learn the post processing end. When i started doing that, my 35mm film use dropped to next to nil. I still do some 120 film for formalist B & W landscape, at times.</p>

 

<p>i can't believe no one has mentioned the Fujifilm S5 Pro, which is a D200 with a Fuji sensor. if color and dynamic range is what you're after this is definitely an option to be considered. they're going for $850 new at B&H, Adorama and KEH if you can find one in stock. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have never even held an f100</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's too bad. Its a nice camera.</p>

<p>Hi guys, and this time girls!</p>

<p>Where to start....</p>

<p>Jennifer - Thank you very much for a very well put togther answer. I think the idea of a renting period may wel be ideal. That was I can get an idea if its worth, what to a non-pro is quite a price. £1500 is a good quality second hand car!!<br>

But I fully see what you mean with the image flow. From viewfinder to print you know what you are getting. And I guess that maybe a digital format will never really let me feel like I am in control fully.<br>

Douglas - I see you have spent time in the dark small basement lab of a univeristy ar some point in your life? Sometimes I am tempted to get my department to buy all Nikon gear (currently all Canon) and just buy the stuff I want to play with!</p>

<p>Thank you very much everyone, its nice to know that I am not the only one who feels some trepidation with moving to a digital SLR. And truth be told, I didnt really make friends with the D70 so how could I ever use it and be happy with it?</p>

<p>In the UK its time for sleep.</p>

<p>Thank you all for adding to what has become a longer post than I had planned!!</p>

<p>R</p>

 

<p>Sadly, you may never find a suitable replacement in digital. Digital is just different. I too have tried to love it, but cant. I like it, but a beautiful projected slide, or care free (no photo shopping and fixing in RAW required) print from a negative still is my preference.<br>

Here are some tips for continuing to shoot film when the urge strikes, yet keep costs down:<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157601574874556/">http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157601574874556/</a></p>

<p>Back in the old days of film, the adage was, "3 good shots out of 36 was considered a great shoot." ...and when I go down to my basement-part time darkroom, (Now a historic site), I gaze at the Besseler 23C in storage with a 30 gallon trashbag as its home since 19xx (too embarrassed to say), with the chemical bottles, trays, developing tanks, timer, poly contrast filters, bulk film loading gear(loading ecta, ecta infra red, tungsten, tri-x, plus-x, pan-x), E4,(8 chemicals, =/- 1/2 degree) & unichrome memories when I did my own slides, and the F2, Fe2, F4 that are desktop ornaments, after children arrived on the scene. Always the first on the block, I was a hold out for digital, bec film ruled!<br>

My casio EV3000 (circa & similar to nikon 900) was my "waiting for digital to become film" concession for quite a few years. A novelty snap shot "big P&S" it did a great job for what it was.<br>

I jumped on a D70 late in its life, just before the S, and was blown away by: 36 out of 36, a virtual darkroom in my hands, instant gratification, that immediately told me/taught me how to improve the picture with the next shutter release, and the creative ability to record 10, or 20 times the images for each scene that I wanted to record, that I would ever do with film, and experiment with variations in exposure by tweaking a setting. It didn't have the dynamic range of film, but it did teach you how to creatively expose the scene, and to wait for the next improvement, coming soon...<br>

When the D200 came out, I , and every one else, thought it was the Holy Grail. "It blew away the D70, the way the D70 blew away the casio. IQ was "so close to film" as the raves didn't stop from the day it came out. A big Plus, all my prized primes & zooms, circa the 3 bodies above, could be used! I've had this for 2 years or so, very happy, accepting its few flaws,...and waiting. I passed on the D300, and was still waiting....(good self control, I might add).<br>

Now the D700 is the next "blow it away" technology, and I'm about to jump again.<br>

The word Kodak will become extinct shortly. Their processing labs, at those high prices, & 3 week turn around times that you put up with to get the best quality processing,...gone. Pro labs...gone, the few that stay in business are now digital. Is Costco, or CVS, or mail order $.10 prints, your trusted photo finisher commensurate to the camera/film that you send them? I still have Ecta Push Processing mailers (extra $2), that I'll send you, if your that nostalgic. (ecta 400 , pushed to 800 or 1600).<br>

Do you do, or have the time to do dark room work? Thats where the other half of the creative process is?<br>

Make friends with someone with a D90, (or D300, D700), who also uses photoshop CS3, and DXO imaging's Film conversion software. A simple CS3 HDR plug in and 3 auto bracketed (+/- 2 stops) exposures, (done magically in camera/by camera) will give you the dynamic range of an oil painting. DxO will convert it to every Film mfg/type available, if you want that particular film look.<br>

You will quickly get over your fear of switching, of giving up your best friend, and wonder why you didn't jump sooner! Plus all your Nikkor len's won't become paper weights. Good luck.</p>

<p>So just a few points here........<br>

FILM is FILM. and DIGITAL is DIGITAL. its like were talking apples and oranges here. You can instantly tell by a post whether a person predominatly shoots film or digital. To say that a digital SLR currently doesnt have the range, resolution, or CONTROL, that film does is simply rediculous. They do. Rob said that he doesnt make huge prints anyway, so miniscule details refering to 100% crops of film vs. digital are irrelevant (thank god nobody started posting those results yet!). People that like film, shoot with it because its what they LIKE. Period. Just like I prefer nikon over canon, zooms over primes, etc etc. All get the job done, for us as individuals. To say that the d700 wont impress rob just because the d70 didnt, is leaving out about 4 years of technological inovation, and something along the lines of ten new models in between. So the only thing that a DSLR can't do........is shoot film.....YET. {IN SHORT ROB, CONSIDER ALL THE OPTIONS, TAKE THAT GREAT ADVICE AND GO RENT A FEW NEW CAMERAS AND GET YOUR HANDS ON THEM. THEN ITS ALL UP TO YOU AND HOW YOU WANT TO SHOOT.} BEST OF LUCK!!!</p>

<p>The D200 was very close to the F100. The D300 being an improved 200. Heck, the D100 was very close to the F100 when introduced. Camera controls & metering were very similar</p>

<p>Wow, yet more good advice.</p>

<p>Thanks so much everyone, thakn you for showing me DXO software. I will have a look at how some of those prints come out. Maybe I will be able to print and not know if I took it on film or digital.</p>

<p>That would be a cool day when on a post you cant tell what format was used. I still find it too easy to tell what was digital and what was film.</p>

<p>I am now set on my path everyone, going to rent for a few days. Print a lot, shoot a lot. And then maybe spend a lot.</p>

<p>Thanks again, it really is very appreciated.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>I'm still waiting for Nikon to come out with a film replacement for the F100. I realize there isn't as big a market for film cameras as digital, but you would think there would be some market for a high quality, modern, AND AFFORDABLE 35mm. And I realize there are a lot of used F100s still out there for sale, but those aren't going to last forever. Even now, I've already noticed a lot fewer F100s for sale on Ebay than just a couple years ago.</p>

 

<p>Just to update, I have had a little look at the DXO Film software. I have only had a few minutes with it, and already giving me the impression that digital can "feel" like film "feels" to me.</p>

<p>Maybe I am just very rubbish at Photoshop and could never make my pictures look less digital and more film like.</p>

<p>Good day</p>

<p>R</p>

<p>Rob, further to the suggestion to rent, Calumet in London is offering a decent week-end deal - you can have a D700 for the week-end and only pay for a day's rental. I don't know if you're in the area but if you are, it's a good deal.</p>

<p><em>Nothing like maths to turn you off being creative.</em><br>

Maybe you mean, "turn you off to art"?</p>

<p>There have been some physicists who were so creative that they inspired "artists" - such as the creator of the Multiple Universe hypothesis. You don't have to be an "artist" to be creative. There's nothing more uncreative than a street photographer who takes a photo of an old black guy up close - YAWN! Same goes for nudes.Then, there are those who take a complete done to death subject, like weddings, and do something great - Jeff Ascough for one.<br>

Creativity can be expressed in so many ways. There are creative accountants, by the way - who don't go to jail. There are creative lawyers, chemists - Linus Pauling as an example of one of the greatest. So, what's creative? What's a creative media?<br>

By the way, what's an "artist"? - rhetorical question there.</p>

<p>I think, your science background can lead you into areas that none of us here have even thought of. As a matter of fact, wasn't it a physicist who invented high speed photography?</p>

<p>"Nothing like maths to turn you off being creative."</p>

<p>If you believe that, then you were probably in the wrong program.</p>

<p>The only knock for the D700 vs. the D300 is that the D700 viewfinder is about 95%, while the D300 viewfinder is 100%. Good luck on your purchase. </p>

<p>D700 dynamic range - I rented D700 for few days and dynamic range is nowhere near any film I used [print or slide]. try to overexpose your shots. with print film it is normal procedure to add 1 [even 2 or 3] stops of exposure, with D700 you'll get pure, white nothing. that's maybe because channels do not clip together with digital capture? I don't know... but the fact is, D700 suck in this area.<br>

I rather keep my FA and FM3a.<br>

Rob - even if You have to pay now for developing and printing it's nothing when You compare it to money You have to spend on D700.<br>

Randall - good point.<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157601574874556/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157601574874556/</a></p>

<p >I agree with Randall and Joshua. Digital and Film are two different type of visual art, two different ways to express you creativity. If you want to be a photographer you are shooting the F100. If you want to be a computer operator you are shooting the D700 (well, but you have to sacrifice a trip to Hawaii for the family). At least you won’t have scratches … The worst thing we can do it’s to compare them. No, Rob, we’ll never see the “digital F100”. It’s just nonsense. </p>

<p>I agree the D200 was a F100, you just need to get used to the DX format. I was against it once, but now after getting a 18-200 and a Sigma 10-20 it is brilliant, they are cheaper so at the end of the day I could have a full DX set up and a FX setup and it will be cheaper than getting FX now, I plan to get FX when it is used, ie., sub $1,000. </p>

<p>I would eithe get a used D200 or a D700 in some years. The only adv for me is that the D700 better in low light for travel. Since I do pretty much low light photo on tripod - landscapes and cityscapes.</p>

<p>Tell you what, do three years of maths that even the people teaching you dont fully understand, work on one question for 3 weeks only to find that there was a typo in the question, spend hours and hours trying to get your head around a "simple" idea. When you get home all you want to do is turn your brain off. Sit down, watch trash on tv and go to sleep.</p>

<p>However..... the degree is behind me now. And as soon as I finished I have started to take pictures again.So the two are related. I am sure that if I were to look at my photo's in chronological order there would be a gap of about three years where there was not much work done.</p>

<p>Maths and physics are amazing, but for me they did not inspire my photo's.</p>

<p>Maybe I should not mention that I am now doing a PhD. But this time in engineering. Much much easier than physics. Hope I dont stand on any engineers toes there!</p>

<p>Thanks for all the help fellas.</p>

<p>R</p>

 

<p>Yup, digital and film are different. I did some darkroom work, but never enough to get really good at it. There's a huge learning curve there. Digital is much more expensive, when you add everything up, and there's another, different learning curve.</p>

<p>I went digital with the D100 and never looked back. The D100 forced me into the digital darkroom, where I found power and control that I never mastered with film. Of course, the D100 is awful compared to film and to current digital technology.</p>

<p>The D70 is only a modest improvement over the D100. The D200 is much better. The D700 is the first decent D-SLR that I have owned, although I have some quibbles (I skipped the D300).</p>

<p>I'm not sure that you can compare any DX Nikon to the F100 or D700 as the DX models' finders are fairly deficient. The D700's viewfinder is big and bright in comparison.</p>

<p>As for low light, the D700 is a killer. I've done low-light work for over 30 years and the D700 is astounding. I don't hesitate to shoot art performances at ISO 3200. The image quality is about the same as a D200 at ISO 800. Additionally, D700 images look much better after de-noising due to the lower luminance noise (I use Nik Dfine 2.0).</p>

<p>I used to shoot a lot of slide film. I'm used to exposing for the highlights and shooting a bit wide to compensate for the masking of the slide mount. Therefore, a 100% view and exposure strategies are not big issues. [With digital, you want to shoot as hot as possible, reducing exposure as appropriate in post processing.]</p>

<p>To summarize: If you can deal with the expense of digital imaging, and the digital learning curve, the D700 is much better than film and most other D-SLRs (my opinion). For me, the digital darkroom was faster and more effective to learn than the wet darkroom. For B&W, I can make nice prints in less time than it takes to develop a roll of film. [Digital B&W doesn't necessarily look like film prints, but it can. I get better results with digital and have no desire to replicate film -- such as adding grain. I was never an accomplished B&W film printer. YMMV.]</p>

<p>D700 image of Mika Sunago, pianist. From a dress rehearsal.</p><div></div>

<p>I have seen some truly amazing high noise images from the D700/D3 sensor.</p>

<p>Colour print film at 1600 looks really bad next to them!</p>

<p>I dont much like using flash and having high ISO low noise is a big bonus.It really makes me wonder what high ISO will look like in the next generation of DSLR's.</p>

<p>We are just at the start of digital imaging really, and with the exponential increase per generation some truly amazing things are coming I think. Who knows, ISO 500,000 at very low noise.</p>

<p>Thanks for the input Chris</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rob, when the D200 was introduced at the end of 2005, a lot of people considered it to be "the digital F100." In terms of capabilities such as metering with no-CPU AI/AI-S lenses and the prosumer construction, positioned behind the flag-ship models (F5 to the F100 and D2X to the D200 at their respective times), the D200 indeed occupied a similar space as the F100.<br />Obviously there was the 24x36mm (FX) vs. DX difference. The D700 further eliminates that format difference.</p>

<p>In other words, either the D200, D300 or D700 is this so called "digital F100." Whether you want to switch to digital or whether the D700 is affordable in your case it entirely up to you to decide. Otherwise, I have no idea what you are still waiting for.</p>

<p>Unfotunately, threads such as this one have a strong tendency to drift into the usual film vs. digital debate with a lot of faulty reasoning and misleading information that have already been recycled over and over. My suggestion is to use whatever medium, be it film, digital, deguerrotypes, painting ... that works for you. There is no point to debate about medium. However, as a moderator, I do have a very limited tolerance for wrong and misleading information.</p>

<p>So You are just going to ignore the suggestion of the S5pro? probably missed it totally !<br>

Its got the highest DR and best Colour. However you will need to get into DXO or lightroom to get the best out of it as the Highest DR setting does look a little washed out.</p>

 

<p>Hi,<br>

I was not ignoring the suggestion, but I had discounted it at a earlier stage.</p>

<p>The reason I was looking at the D700 was that its a full frame DSLR. Its 90% of the reason to buy one if you ask me.</p>

<p>But thank you for the suggestion</p>

<p>R</p>