Nikon D300: Better than Velvia results?

<p>Folks</p>

<p>I have just ordered a new DSLR, a Nikon D300s. Now, I anticipate that this will be a big leap up from my old Nikon D70, but will it be able to do the sort of things my F3 can do with film? Well, according to Thom Hogan's review of the D300 (which I assume the D300s can at least match), you can achieve "better than Velvia" results:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikond300review.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikond300review.htm</a></p>

<p>Any opinions on this?</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

JC</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I thought my D300 (not the S) results were good when I owned the camera. Better than Velvia is a subjective description. It doesn't have the look of Velvia straight out of the camera, and it's not entirely easy to consistently produce that in post processing. So if you are a fan of Velvia's look then it may not be beter. I estimate I got approximately the same level of detail captured on the film and the sensor, so in that regard I thought of it as a wash. The one thing you can't go with the D300 is create slides to put in a slide projector, so it is not better in that regard. It also is a crop sensor, so it won't take pictures the same as your F3 with the same lenses. I would look at it as a much better D70, and not a direct replacement for slide film.</p>

<p>Hi John,<br>

Great camera that you ordered! I loved my D70 and IMHO still a great camera for all around general use. Your new D300s is a quantaum leap in technology etc. Is it going to produce "better than velvia"..to me that is a totally subjective opinion. With all due respect, Velvia is Velvia...I find it interesting that this film has set the bar high enough for folks to try to emulate it electronically. I shoot Velvia with my F3 and love it. I love what my D90 does as well.........<br>

I wish you well and enjoy your new purchase!<br>

Mark</p>

<p>I am not sure what "better than Velvia" means, but I can tell you my experience:</p>

<ul>

<li>I bought my F5 in 1997 and F100 in 2000. I used Velvia a lot on those cameras, among other film.</li>

<li>In 2002 I bought my first DSLR, the D100, and I continued to use my F5 and F100 along with the D100, but between 2002 and 2005, I started using the D100 more and more despits its many shortcomings.</li>

<li>In 2005 I bought the D2X and stopped shooting film and the D100.</li>

<li>In 2007 I bought the D300 and stopped using the D2X.</li>

<li>In 2010 I bought the D7000 and stopped using the D300.</li>

</ul>

<p>Concerning the D300S, I had one on loan from Nikon to write the review for photo.net. It is perhaps 90%, 95% similar to the D300, but I never own one myself.</p>

<p>I still have literally 10s of thousands of slides from the last few decades. Nowadays, every time I look at them, I am very frustrated with their quality.</p>

<p>You can draw your own conclusions.</p>

<p>P.S. I still currently own every one of the cameras I mentioned above, except for the D300S, which I have never owned one myself.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies, folks.</p>

<p>Yes, I suppose my question was a bit provocatively abstract, but then I was quoting Mr Hogan, not making the "better than Velvia" comparison myself. My guess is he was referring to image resolution, a question, really, of 'quantity' rather than 'quality'.</p>

<p>I just got back from a trip to Sarajevo, where I used my venerable D70 (and iPhone) but also took 8 rolls of film, four of which were Ektrachrome. (In fact I posted a link to the Flickr gallery in the Colour Slide forum but it's been deleted for some reason). As usual with slide film, I am happy with the look of the photos even when the photo itself may leave me wondering "why did I take this photo of nothing much at all?" This is particularly true of the two rolls I decided to have cross processed, they came out beautifully. The downside? It cost me over £80 to process the films. And I've just laid out a chunk of cash on the D300s. So I will be giving the F3 a rest for a while.</p>

<p>The D300s seems to be in a slightly odd position in the Nikon lineup. It's besieged on all sides - from its FX big brothers, and from Nikon's higher-end consumer models, particularly the D7000, not to mention the much anticipated D400.</p>

<p>Actually, I originally ordered a D7000, but once I handled one and discovered how small and plasticky it felt in my hands, I switched my order to a D300s. Ordered the 35mm f1.8 G DX lens to go with it. Can't wait to try it out. Whether I'll ever be able to replicate slide film results is another matter, but I'll give it a go.</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

JC</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It depends on what you intend doing with the transparencies. After scanning many of the thousands of 35mm Velvia transparencies I made over the years with Nikons and Leicas, using my Nikon Coolscan V, they don't match the on-screen or printed quality of images made with my D300, or even the old D70 I used to have. I've found the "look" of Velvia when viewed on a light table is lost when the images are scanned, be it 35mm, 120 or 4x5. </p>

<p>Absolutely agree, Sergio. When I get slides processed and mounted, I always have them scanned at the same time. I then go though each slide on the light box with a loupe, and of course they always look wonderfully rich, but when I look at the scans on the PC they don't look as good, ever. To be fair, they wouldn't look as rich when projected either, obviously.</p>

<p>But still: I will likely get much 'better' images in terms of resolution, from the D300s. I just need to find a Lightroom workflow or plugin or whatever, that will let me replicate that slide film look.</p>

<p>I heard about a plugin called Alien Skin Exposure, anybody tried that?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>It was not until the D200 when my rate of chromes started to be gradually reduced. Now, looking at the past, I consider my expense on previous digital Nikons a total waste of money.<br /> Even with D300, I still used to shoot chromes from time to time, more as a habit than a real need.<br /> It was not until the D700 where I radically lowered my rate of shooting chrome film in 35mm format. Not for the image quality issue (that is very close to that on the D300) but for other camera considerations, mostly related to the full format.</p>

<p>I don`mind so much about "the look" of Velvia (some might be surprised reading that this film is considered as a "reference"), there are many great looking films. I`d not mythicize "Velvia".<br /> ---</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I still have literally 10s of thousands of slides from the last few decades. Nowadays, every time I look at them, I am very frustrated with their quality.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too. I find so funny that they seem to have such "old looking". Personally, most non-family, non-personal photos seem inusable even to my lowest standards (nature, trips, etc.). I now don`t even consider to scan them in high quality. Anyway, I love them, too many wonderful lifetime images... :)</p>

<p>I use a D300 but came from the Kodachrome 25, 64 and Fuji Velvia school. I too have thousands of old slides that were shot with reasonably good equipment (Pentax LX, decent lenses) and looking at them on a light table today they still look good. Since my major concern is not the capture - digital or film makes no difference to me - but the final print, I have compared medium sized (11 x 14) prints made from the slides, and from the D300 RAW files. Even with my beautiful Velvia slides, the D300 files always come out on top for prints. </p>

<p>I think this is what Mr. Hogan was talking about - not necessarily replicating the color of Velvia, but the general resolution of D300 files against the slower slide films from the past. In that case, I agree with him - my D300 prints look better than my prints from slide film (my prints are made by a pro lab). </p>

<p>Last year after the earthquake in Japan I decided to move up to the D300s from the D70s. For a very short moment I looked at the D7000, but between the smaller size and especially the preset dial on top (which I often nudged just at the wrong time on the D70s), I decided against it. I'm extremely happy with the D300s; image quality, frame rate, autofocus speed, ISO, controls, feel, all suits me perfectly. I use two bodies to shoot concerts and subsequent events, one with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC, the other with a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not sure what "better than Velvia" means</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure either. Can you put it in a projector?</p>

<p>As discussed, I think he meant "better [resolution] than Velvia".</p>

<p>Whether it's Velvia, Ektrachrome, or whatever, what I'm interested in is replicating the look/feel of slide film, using a Nikon d300s (or similar). That's all.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>what I'm interested in is replicating the look/feel of slide film, using a Nikon d300s (or similar). That's all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I am afraid that is the wrong approach. If you like the look and feel of slide film, use a film SLR and slide film. Of course, if you want Kodachrome, that is no longer possible, and Kodak is phasing out all slide film. However, Fuji is still producing Velvia although there are not as many labs processing them now.</p>

<p>As I wrote earlier, I am very frustrated every time I look at my old slides. I have zero interest in capturing more of those to increase my frustration. However, that was the only medium available to me in the 3 decades prior to the 2002 to 2005 period. There is merely the reality of life. It is like there was no D800 until a month or so ago.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if what you are looking for is over-saturated colors as Velvia is known for, that can easily be achieved in post processing. Would that result be close to Velvia and be desirable to you? Only you can decide. If it is not, continue to use the real Velvia.</p>

<p>John: I (very happily) use a D300 for most things. If you're the sort that even began to notice the ergonomic differences between it and the D7000, you likely made the right choice. The D7000 certainly has newer guts - but it just doesn't feel anything like its beefier cousins (or auto-focus like one, for that matter!).<br /><br />As for film-ishness with the output from the D300: Download a free trial of Nikon's Capture NX2 to have the experience of what it can do with those 14-bit RAW files. Then, while you're testing, download a free trial of Nik Software's Color Efex Pro plug-in for NX2. You'll have a one-click Velvia-izer (among many other very cool things). They (Nik) present you with dozens of film profiles, and they Just Work. Of course you can tweek from there, if you think their idea of Velvia is a little <em>too</em> Velvia for your taste. <br /><br />I highly recommend this no-cost experimental set up, as it will help you to explore exactly the sort of stuff you're talking about.</p>

<p>I found the D7000 to be small in my hands, too. But that is easily fixed with the battery pack. I do like the heft it has and the vertical format grip. That makes all the difference in the world. I looked at the D300, but felt the D7000 was superior in almost every respect.<br>

<br />i know this doesn't address the digital vs film question, but I think that there is not enough time left in the universe to address that issue.</p>

<p>In some agreement with Shun, my experience is/was, a roll of 24 or 36 exposures on Velvia, or any slide film usually yielded 20-25% in actual keepers. (Macro stuff, not event or vacation's.) The rest just didn't quite make the grade or were a safety net from bracketing or experimentation.</p>

<p>In digital, bad shots are either discarded while shooting or in post, making for more instant gratification. The projected size of viewed slides far exceeded actual prints, and "pixel peeping" myself, started long before moving to digital.</p>

<p>Just as an example, this is a hummingbird image I captured two years ago with the D300, which is similar to the OP's D300S: <a href="../photo/10930999">http://www.photo.net/photo/10930999</a></p>

<p>I can arbitrarily add a crazy amount of saturation during post processing. It is not my cup of tea, but apparently some people like things that way.</p><div></div>

<p>Format for format, digital has been able to trounce any film at any level for the last 5 years. BTW Shun, you forgot to add some random noise, reduce the dynamic range, add some odd speckles of dirt and reduce the sharpness and colour depth. Having done all that you might have begun to emulate Velvia. </p>

<p>If you want a digital image with high technical quality that can take well to a lot of different treatments, your D300S is better than 35mm Velvia. Same if you want the convenience of being able to shoot a large number of exposures and get the results onto a computer immediately, or the ability to shoot at high ISOs. (Velvia maxes out at 100, D300S starts at 200.)</p>

<p>If you enjoy using your F3, can't stand the 1.5x crop factor, really like the Velvia look and will be disappointed by images that don't match it, want to create tangible originals or want to shoot landscapes to project onto a wall, the Velvia is better.</p>

<p>I do enjoy the process of shooting a manual focus camera and waiting for slides to come back, but I'm a bit crazy and it's certainly not for everything, and a good DSLR is usually more versatile.</p>

<p>Shun: I do like your images -- even when they get overcooked like the example above. I think if someone is wedded to Velvia, it is such a personal taste that no matter what digital offered it would never be perfect.</p>

I do love Velvia, but as someone mentioned above, there is a tendency to mythologize it. I have found Ektachrome nearly

as pleasing,

 

I haven't played much with post processing, but I often find it hard to make digital images look as three dimensional as

film ones, there is some intangible quality missing from (a lot of) digital shots. Maybe I just need the right tools, and

thanks for all the helpful advice, above, I'll certainly investigate the Nikon and Silbef Effects software.

 

Cheers

JC

<blockquote>

<p>I haven't played much with post processing, but I often find it hard to make digital images look as three dimensional as film ones, there is some intangible quality missing from (a lot of) digital shots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is something I can't help you with. Unfortunately, my film images are every bit two-dimensional. Until 3D photography becomes popular, I control depth of field and perspective to generate the perception of 3D out of 2D; in that sense, to me, there is no difference between film and digital. However, I am well aware that there are plenty of people who can see differences that I can't.</p>

<p>Once we start talking about intangible things that are out of my world, it is totally beyond my capability. Again, in such case you should stay with film.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"..there is some intangible quality missing from (a lot of) digital shots."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Please, please, somebody tangiblise that nebulous film "quality". You know, the one that 99.9% of us are unlucky enough not to be able to see. Then maybe we can all finally get over film, move on and just take pictures (in an ecologically responsible medium). You don't find many modern painters pathetically whinging that synthetic oil paints aren't a patch on egg-tempora.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You don't find many modern painters pathetically whinging that synthetic oil paints aren't a patch on egg-tempora.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You should look on some artists' forums!</p>

Apples and oranges. Velvia has a lot of contrast and saturation. To some degree, you can replicate this look in post

production of raw files, but it will never look exactly like Velvia or any other film.

 

'Better' is subjective.