Jump to content

D700 VS F5


trent_dietsche

Recommended Posts

<p>BTW I took more photos then needed with the 28mm lens, so I can go wider then I posted, like this.<br>

<a title="pan2 03-21-10 by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" pan2 03-21-10 src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4020/4451623806_e97976374c_o.jpg" alt="pan2 03-21-10" width="700" height="474" /></a><br>

The image that matched the 18mm one is simply a crop from this image.<br>

I can also do the tricks that LF camera can do, like this<br>

<a title="pan3 03-21-10 by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" pan3 03-21-10 src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2722/4451623892_7c346ac8ce_o.jpg" alt="pan3 03-21-10" width="700" height="503" /></a><br>

That is stitched with the same source image, but with the perspective adjusted to keep vertical lines vertical.<br>

And for wide angle shots I often use equirectangular, which looks better if the shot get real wide.</p>

<p><a title="pan4 03-21-10 by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" pan4 03-21-10 src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4004/4451640274_4fa028a12d_o.jpg" alt="pan4 03-21-10" width="700" height="510" /></a></p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3995956">Mauro Franic</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 21, 2010; 02:46 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Scott, I'm still puzzled about this discussion. It is very elemental.<br>

Imagine you take a portrait of a group of 10 people standing 5 meters away from them.<br>

If you use several 100mm shots stitched together they will look alright. If you use a single 17mm shot they will look deformed.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, I see the problem, what you are missing is that the stitch software distorts the image at the edges and cornner to match what a shorter FL image would have been.<br>

As an example this is what it did to one of the image in the corner, to get it to fit with the others.</p>

<p><a title="one image by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" one image src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4451660990_03157b8b20_o.jpg" alt="one image" width="700" height="943" /></a></p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think we are saying the same thing. I was confused why we were disagreeing for a moment.</p>

<p>Correct me if I am wrong, but you agree that to obtain the same relative perspective of a shot with a 300mm but with stitching 4 shots, you would need a 1200mm lens. Possible but very expensive.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well, if you are using 4 shots and if you did no overlap then you would need a 600mm lens to match the image from the 300mm, since the image will only be twice as wide and twice as high.</p>

<p>But for wide angle shots you can use a wide range of focal lengths. I mostly do my stitching using a 50mm lens, but I can get the same perspective with a 100mm lens if I take 4 times the number of images, or if I go to a 28mm lens I can take about 1/4 as many images.</p>

<p>But 50mm works very well since 3 images from my cropped sensor gives me the same FOV a full frame camera would using a lens with a FL of around 47mm.</p>

<p>And by adding some more images I can match as short a FL as I wish.</p>

<p>And now I am going out to shoot some images for stitching, it is a nice morning, too nice to waste sitting at the computer.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Concerning EXIF data, it is totally up to whoever posts the image to include such data as part of the JPEG or not. Personally I routinely strip off all EXIF data from my images because I would rather not let people know what my cameras' serial numbers are. When necessary, I provide camera and exposure information explicitely.</p>

<p>I have OPanda's EXIF reader as a plug in on my Internet Explorer so that I can right-click on an image and view its EXIF data.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That 100% crop is way soft, it starts to look ok when resized to around 40%, but then that has shrunk your 40MP image down to around 6.5. And even at 40aA% is looks soft to my eye.<br />I assume you are talking about this crop BTW</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have slides from the 1970's all the way to 2005, and I am glad that I got a Coolscan 5000 two years ago shortly before Nikon discontinued it. Unfortunately, I get similar results from my scanned slides as Arnab's: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00F7a7">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00F7a7</a> However, he seems to be happy with such results while I am not.</p>

<p>Even at 4000 dpi, I find my scanned slides totally soft as in Aranb's examples, and the grains are completely visible. Initially I thought I had focusing problems with my then new scanner, but then I realized that the boarders for the frames are completely sharp. The sad conclusion is that this is the limitaiton I have to accept from every single frame of slides I shot over 3 decades.</p>

<p>From a quality point of view, if I still shoot color slides today, at least medium format and preferably large format is a must. All the movements available on large-format is still a capability unmatched by any other medium.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There's no point in pixel-peeping at scans. Scanners simply don't do justice to film. Stick your slides into a decent projector and cast the image onto a wall or screen. Then peep at the lovely grain and enjoy all the natural sharpness and resolution you were able to etch into the emulsion. Yes, digital cameras are capable of delivering lots of perceived sharpness and grainlessness but fall short in almost every other department, most importantly, unmanipulated beauty. For me, digital files are too linear, too flat and too sterile. There is no single measure of quality. But people are overly influenced by computers and look at everything through a grid of evenly spaced points. In my opinion, this is very a bad way of looking at real-world images such as, but not limited to, those captured on film.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4212496">Fred Rooks</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 21, 2010; 05:17 p.m.</p>

 

<p>There's no point in pixel-peeping at scans. Scanners simply don't do justice to film.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>I did not get good prints from my film shots, until I started to scan them. For me not only do scanner do justice to film but it give me the control I need to get a good print.</p>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's incredible how much input can come in over the course of two days. :) Thank you all. I would try older nikon film cameras, but sadly I have all G lenses and cannot use them with the older models. I think I will pick up an F5 to alleviate my NAS and keep doing most of my shooting with my D300. Shooting panos will help me to not need the FX size sensor and save some money. Robert, that gigapan is amazing, but I don't think I can justify $900 for a robotic pano head. I will try the PTgui software and start practicing! Thank you all again.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you never managed to get a good optical print from your film shots, then I guess the digital process suits you better. I know this is the case for many people -- no need to remind me. <br>

I'm mostly a slide shooter, so projection is my main goal. I've got used to the idea that the picture is made at the time of exposure, not after. I do have an occasional print made digitally, but they often lack the beauty and qualities (I'm not talking about any single quality here) of hand-made enlargements (from negative film nowadays). It's nice to be able to match different media with different subjects. Shame that so many digital users shoot digital only.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A few years ago when I worked in a shop that had a pretty good film scanner and then got a 14MP Full Frame digital SLR (the old Kodak SLR/n), we did a little testing. It was pretty clear.</p>

<p>At base ISO the DSLR smoked film with our in-house scanner, and the results were, to all intents and purposes, too close on most images to call if we scanned the film with a drum scanner... the exception being that when we scanned 35mm film on a drum scan that had a VERY great amount of dynamic range, the difference in the highlights and the shadows was DRAMATIC!</p>

<p>It might depend on how big you are printing and how you are using your images. If you are printing up to 11 x 14 or so, there is no real difference. We tested it, we know this.</p>

<p>If you're printing bigger and have some pretty extreme dynamic range, different story.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It depends on many factors, in fact, whether film or digital is better in a given situation. I'm perfectly aware that digital sensors beat film in certain ways for certain uses, but I maintain that 35 mm film (both colour and B&W, negative and reversal) offers some appreciable technical and artistic advantages over 35 mm digital sensors even in today's, mostly electronic world.<br>

We could talk about its dynamic range and non-linear response curve, or its colour gamut and resolving power with high-frequency, low-contrast detail (such as in foliage or grass, which tend to have the appearance of algal growths when shot digitally because Bayer digicams are no good at this at all). Or we may argue about the ability of film to handle very long exposures. But these are minor points of discussion.<br>

Most importantly, film is different in a whole bunch of qualities, not merely better in one or a few. For me, the main attraction of film is that it can deliver beautiful, unprocessed images literally out of the box. I believe every devoted photographer should shoot some film from time to time, as it brings variety and new qualities to one's work. I don't understand why people limit themselves to taking pictures with digital cameras only. Giving up film is such a shame.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Robert, that gigapan is amazing, but I don't think I can justify $900 for a robotic pano head.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, is it that much! I bought the original model when they were doing beta's; it was just $250. Of course the early gigapan was designed purely for compact digicams. I use my gigapan with a cheapo Canon A720IS.</p>

<p>It's interesting: the robotic pano workflow is surprisingly very much like that of working with a large format film camera out in the field. The kit is big, heavy and takes forever to set up. Identifying a good composition takes <a href="http://gigapan.org/gigapans/8567/">determined forethought, and luck.</a> The element of risk is there too - one's never quite sure what's been shot until everything's done in the darkroom, wet or otherwise.</p>

<p>However, just as 135 quantitatively and obviously lags 4x5 LF in resolution and tonality, so does every imaging technology lag (with exception of perhaps a scanning back) relatively to a stitched composite. </p>

<p>The largest composite I've done was about 250MP. Each 8MP snap from the little Canon digicam was a 16 shot exposure bracket to increase dynamic range, decrease noise, and eliminate jpeg artifacts. The resulting print could have filled a 70in by 40in print with real, noiseless pixels, and with density at the limit of unaided vision.</p>

<p>Damn cool from a $150 Canon digicam if you ask me. Too bad the composition sucked. As an image, it sure wasn't worth the weekend I spent on the thing. And yes, I shoot film and lots of it; I know people who own horses too. If you're truly interested in landscapes, with the resulting print itself as the most important thing, do go with the D700 rather than a F5. </p>

<p>For the few times where higher resolution is called for, shoot a few frames handheld for a composite: a 4 frame burst from a 12MP DSLR will net a 30MP final image. Actually, a even better idea is to go with a lower end Nikon digital body. Spend the left over budget on a spare body, better lenses, a lighter tripod, whatever...</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There was a thread, not long ago, where a poster showed two sunsets, taken from almost the same place, one year apart. One was with Fuji film and the other was with digital. The film had much more colors as it transitioned from the bright ball of the sun the the reds beyond. The digital was white, and then red. The yellows and oranges just weren't there. I think it was a discussion about high contrast shooting. I'll see if I can find it.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Does film still have better color rendition and ability to print at larger sizes, or does the D700 and modern dslr cameras close that gap? The F5 with a film <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00W2qS#" target="_blank">scanner</a> will likely run me less than 1000 dollars, while the d700 will be 2000+.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is film's color better? In the best light, potentially. In mundane light, no.</p>

<p>Can film give a bigger print? Probably not. At 12MP the results should be fairly close, but in my opinion (and everybody has one) the D700 outperforms 35mm film in terms of detail. Note that lots of people will argue with this conclusion. Also note that I still shoot film regularly (albeit large format), so I'm not a digital fanatic with no frame of reference.</p>

<p>The scanners that you can buy on a sub-$1000 budget (including camera) are NOT going to yield impressive results. Plus, scanning is a major pain in the aperture (so to speak).</p>

<p>Also, the D700 does impressive things that film can never compete with especially with regard to high-ISO operation.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=477916">John Williamson</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 22, 2010; 12:58 a.m.<br>

There was a thread, not long ago, where a poster showed two sunsets, taken from almost the same place, one year apart. One was with Fuji film and the other was with digital. The film had much more colors as it transitioned from the bright ball of the sun the the reds beyond. The digital was white, and then red. The yellows and oranges just weren't there. I think it was a discussion about high contrast shooting. I'll see if I can find it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I wouldn't even bother to find that thread. It sounds more like either the photographer overexposed the digital shot or those colors were simply not there at that particular moment a year later. Every sunset is different and the prime colors usually only last for a few minutes. You could be at that same spot and capture two totally different images 5 minutes apart. Going back a year later to capture another image for comparison is simply pointless.</p>

<p>Do you think this image was captured with film or digital?</p><div>00W3a1-231095584.jpg.6c1d40ec9d0988e9e333d707b42a71f0.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2257221">Ty Mickan</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> </a> , Mar 22, 2010; 03:36 a.m.</p>

 

<p>"D700 outperforms 35mm film in terms of detail"<br>

there are so many films available, so that statement is a little broad.</p>

 

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/Film/page32.html" target="_blank">http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/Film/page32.html</a></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Very true, in terms of absolute detail, the D700 most certainly does not outresolve fine grained 35mm film. I've found that Ektar 100 and a 4000ppi scan is a pretty good match for my Canon 7D....which outresolves the D700.</p>

<p>Does this really matter though. The latest DSLRs are a pretty decent match for 35mm in terms of detail. Latitude and dynamic range still has a way to go though. But for my use, I use film for the look I wish to obtain in certain images....and that has nothing to do with MTF, DR, resolution, etc.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>One point which has not been mentioned is the relative difficulty of scanning versus digital photography. I have found it <em>far</em> easier to get half-decent shots out of my new D700 than half-decent scans from my Minolta Dimage scanner. In fact, the D700 gave excellent results from the off, but the scanning is an art form even at the lower levels of attainment. (I recently bought Windows 7 Professional rather than Home <em>just</em> so I could continue using the original Minolta software under Virtual XP, since I think it gives better results than VueScan or any other Win7-friendly software)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>John</strong> , at least in digital, this depends also on the color space which you are using to represent your image. Different spaces have different volumes, and these volumes are indicative of the number of colors you can ultimately represent.<br>

<strong>Shun</strong> , at this resolution level it is impossible to tell apart film from digital. The dynamic range (DR) you get from a Nikon D3s or a Fuji S5 should be comparable to film. I order to take full advantage of digital DR, however, you need an adequate tone-mapping algorithm, which reduces DR for displaying (otherwise you blow out highlights and/or get shadows without detail). As soon as film is scanned, it is constrained in a similar way. You need again a tone mapping procedure in order to display the full color range and DR, respectively, of your negatives. Until high DR displays are widespread, we depend on good tone-mapping procedures.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>I'll keep looking, thanks. I would suggest that digital is NOT infallible, and that there may be situations where film might work better. I know that goes against the modern way of thinking, but that doesn't make it false.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John, nothing is infallible, but most of the problems are with the photographers. Digital opens up a lot of new grouds such as live view, HDR, focus stacking, stiching ..., and some of those new techniques can be applied onto scanned film also. Even simple concepts such as ETTR, which is now routinely tought in basic to intermedicate digital photography classes, generated a major debate with well over 200 posts: <a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00Vy86">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Vy86</a> The real problem is ignorance.</p>

<p>My sunset sample above was captured with the D2X back in 2005; that is no longer a state-of-the-art camera. I merely want to demonstrate that is not hard to capture the different colors in a sunset sky with digital. If you are unable to do it, I would try to figure out what you are missing, rather than blame the medium.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...