Comparison of the original cost of a Nikon F3 and current cost of a Nikon D700

[tallnbig68]

<p>Am one of those individuals who has not come to terms with digital imagery. Have had at least one of the Nikon Single Lens Reflex Digital cameras as a purchase, from the D70 through the D200. Haven’t ever owned a a single digit Nikon digital ie 1, w or 3 or the variants. And they and their accompanying lenses have all been sold often at a financial loss. Have also bought and soldd a few point and shoot digitals as well. Now all gone as well. During the film era started with an F then a Photomic F all the way up to a pair of F3’s with motor drives. My current film camera is a Nikon F100.<br /> <br /> I suspect my problem with digital is one has to manipulate the image themselves, before rendering the result. Most of of my photography over the last 40 years has been colour slides. I find it difficult to understand in my own mind why the world didn’t continue with slides in the digital era. To me too digital imaging is a bit of a rip, with a small sensor and specialty glass. And then came a digital sensor roughly equivalent to a 135mm frame. <br /> <br /> Can’t remember the cost here in Canada of my original F3’s (not HP) or the motor drives which were used with them. And in looking at the price of the much-wanted yet very expensive at C$3500.00 D700 wondering is the price of the D700 that much more or less than say the F3 with motor drive was way back when? In those days we didn’t have an 8 percent provincial and 5 percent federal sales tax here either! I was working full-time then , unlike now asa retired person?<br /> <br /> And for me, digital is only going to be a JPEG image, take it from the camera and use it, for whatever purpose, as is!! <br>

BTW have but three lenses these days, a 50mm f1.8, a 28-105 f/3.5 and the 70-300VR f4.5.<br /> I also have a small Pentax Espio 105 point and shoot, it gets the lion’s share<br /> of any colour print film I use.<br>

Maybe if I knew what was then and is now it might assist me in my decision<br /> for a D700, or should I just foget the whole matter and continue with my<br /> F100? I shoot may 50 rolls of film in a year between the Nikon and the Pentax.<br /> <br /></p>

[luis_g]

<p>I'd say forget it. For only 50 rolls/yr (2,000 exposures), it may not be worth your while to go digital. You seem happy with film, why not stay with it?</p>

<p> </p>

[photo5]

<p><em>And for me, digital is only going to be a JPEG image, take it from the camera and use it, for whatever purpose, as is!! </em><br>

Wow, if you only shoot JPEGs, you're not getting nearly as much quality as you can from an NEF file. So with that in mind, yes, you should stay with film.</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Bryce, it is obvious you don't want to sit in front of a computer and process RAW images. For that matter, you don't even want to process JPEGs. Sounds like you really won't benefit from the learning curve time it will take to learn the digital controls and processing. If you are content letting someone else process your slides, then stick with it. At least you know what you have.</p>

 

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A Nikon F3HP sold for US$1200 just before they were discontinued in 2002. The motor drive (a perfect movie prop) sold for about $400.</p>

<p>I have an F3 (but eschewed the motor drive), and it is a fine camera. But the D700 is a better camera in terms of shutter, mirror (much, much quieter), autofocus, metering, utility with flash and (like it or not) build quality. The D700 will also use all of your AIS lenses, and more.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>I'd stick with film. I do infact. I shoot about the same qty as you,a mix of colour and b&w negs. I only have film bodies, 3 F's, 2 Nikkormats and medium format. I bought a colour enlarger last fall so I could print colour along with b&w. It was way less expensive to buy a used 4x5 colour enlarger, chemistry and a few boxes of paper than have a lab do several hundred 8x10 and 11x14 prints from my collection of thousands of c41 negs. :)</p>

<p> </p>

[brucecahn]

<p>My first F3 cost $400. new in Jan. 1982. This month I spent around $2400 on a D700. I think that the D700 seems priced much higher even considering the cost of living increase. But I don't mind that because it doesn't cause me to spend for film and processing and gives me results the same day. What I do not like about the D700 is the fussy 4 way switch on back which isn't even as good as the one on my D90. I am also unhappy about the unavailability of a really good 28mm digital lens. Overall I like the Nikons though I do wish that the controls were simple dials on top like a film slr, with a few switches as needed, instead of that messy and irritating 4 way switch arrangement they use. I should mention that though I love the convenience of digital, I try to get the best pictures on 8x10 sheet film as well.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>At the time I was considering the switch to Nikon, around 1998, the new retail cost of an F3 ranged between just under $1,000 to nearly $1,500, depending on options (viewfinder type, including the photojournalist's special options, and the MD-4). By the time I actually made up my mind to make the switch (from aging Canon FD gear), around 2002, a good used F3HP in like-new condition with either the MD-4 or decent lens was still around $1,000.</p>

<p>So, considering the raw costs of film and processing, the current generation of Nikon dSLRs, especially the D300 and D700, seem like a good value, even with the purchase of the appropriate computer hardware and software.</p>

<p>But not everyone enjoys digital editing. Frankly, I don't. I do it, grudgingly. It's a necessity and I've learned to do it over more than two decades of work in graphic arts on various computer systems (dating back to Compugraphic phototypesetting systems and the original Xerox graphics system from which Apple stole the idea for the Lisa and Mac). But it's a chore, not a pleasure. I still prefer the process of the b&w film darkroom. It's not superior, simply an inexplicable preference for a process despite logic. It's akin to my preferences between research (mostly online) and reading for pleasure (paper).</p>

<p>If you're not committed to shooting raw and dealing with the complications of self-study to master digital editing or taking workshops or seminars for tutoring in advanced digital editing, you will probably gain more pleasure from photography by continuing with the materials and processes already familiar to you. And that's fine too.</p>

[james_hudspeth]

<p>I bought my F3 body when they first came out. I remember the price being $684.00 US. I think it was in May 1980. The list price was higher. My D3 was $4995.00 US. Thats about 7 times more. I think they represent the best of Nikon. I had an Omega Autofocussing Enlarger and if I remember right it was a D3 also. Two years later I got the MD4 motor drive. I think that cost $290.00.</p>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

<p>Bryce,</p>

<p>This is a very interesting question in itself. But it is awfully difficult to stay 100% objective or scientific unless we can compare the things with all the necessary elements : comparing the raw price of an F3 in its time to the present price of a D700 will need an inflation calculator and to be strictly scientific a reliable way to compare the actual buying power of the buyer for the same job then and now.</p>

<p>After which, we need to decide if we include the cost of using both cameras or not...</p>

<p>So, most of the time, only a relatively subjective judgment can be made.</p>

<p>Roughly considering the things, I feel Nikon's higher grade bodies were cheaper to buy in film times than the present higher grade DSLR bodies but the margin is narrowing at each generation, while the quality of the image is improving.</p>

<p>Is the cost of using the camera a pertinent data to include in the comparison ?</p>

<p>IMHO yes, because a film camera not only needs film to operate but processing these films and even slides need to be processed, though the cost per unit was and still is far under the cost of processing a negative film and get the prints.</p>

<p>It is true the cost of a digital camera is almost peanuts (the only real spending being the electricity needed for the batteries). But prints have a cost too. the advantage is you can actually see the result on your computer screen at a negligible cost and decide which you will print. The cost of prints themselves is difficult to assess... I believe outsourced printing at the amateur format are more or less the same as today's negative prints of the same size from the same outsource, but processing correctly RAW files on your computer and printing them by yourself becomes more and more economical when you both chose the ones you print with discrimination and print them at a professional format (for example no less than A4). In which case I found using a DSLR is far less costly than the same use of a film camera.</p>

<p>The other problem with a DSLR is obsolescence. And I don't mean "commercial" obsolescence but real technical one, the kind of which objectively and visibly affects the image quality and the true performance in current use. I still have a Nikon F2 and a Rolleiflex (between a bunch of film cameras), both can still be used and are likely to produce the same IQ present film camera equivalent can produce because they will use exactly the same films available to later, contemporary, models. A DSLR has its image making surface built-in, called a sensor and any progress in sensor technology is something your DSLR won't be able to be beneficiary. This affects both the image quality you can get from it and the re-sale value of your camera.</p>

<p>However, as the generations pass, the IQ is so much better that a kind of "plateau" is reached for a specific use. True, newer models are likely to increase IQ, but beyond the actual needs of your practice (it is generally a question of maximum enlargement value of the prints). But sometimes a true quantum leap appears : for example FX format vs DX format which allows cameras like a D700 or a D3 to perform at high ISO a way we can only have dreamed of in film times and allow to use older Nikon lenses at their original field of view. These performance were as instrumental in my decision to go from silver halide film to digital as the pratctical use experience of a DSLR I got from using my son's Canon 30D. But related to your original question, the most important thing is for most users a D700 or a D3, even objectively obsolete, will still remain valuable tools for a long period, much longer than anything produced before, as ameliorations in IQ with newer sensors will probably be unnoticeable in practice up to and including at least an A3+ format if not an A2 one... So obsolescence is no more IMHO as an important problem as it once was with high end DSLR's.</p>

<p>With this reflection, I must conclude DSLR's are nowadays becoming cheaper than any film camera, mainly because the cost of their use is cheaper and the number of frames you need to shoot with them for this cheaper cost is substantially reduced to compensate for what remains of the higher initial price when compared to a film camera and they are less likely to be practically obsolete before this threshold is reached, even for an average amateur use.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

[gary_watson]

<p>Vistek sold off the last of its new F3HPs around 2002-3 for C$1400-ish/copy.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I find it difficult to understand in my own mind why the world didn’t continue with slides in the digital era. </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cost. Out of all of those slides you shot how many were actually keepers? So essentially with film and processing yo uwere paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the ones that went into the trash. And while manufacturing digital cameras and computers and peripherals has an environmental cost , so does the manufacturing of film and the disposal of the waste products.</p>

<p>Out of those few keepers, for each you have a single physically fragile original that is starting to deteriorate and breakdown from the second after it is finished drying even if you never project it . A digital photo can be replicated (backed up) ad infinitum without that happening.</p>

<p>Finally, distribution. Unless you are going to project, make prints or get your precious few slides scanned (And risk damaging them in the process) no one but you -- hovering over a lightbox , wearing white gloves, and a filtrite breathing mask (All to protect the sleeved slides) -- will ever be able to see them.</p>

<p>I shot hundreds of thousands of slides over the first twenty years of my photographic life. I started my professional photographic career running an E-6 processing line at the photographer's studio where I apprenticed. I even learned how Kodachrome is processed. I know what can go wrong and I'm glad we are passed that.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>To me too digital imaging is a bit of a rip, with a small sensor and specialty glass. And then came a digital sensor roughly equivalent to a 135mm frame.</p>

[rob_wall]

<p>Bryce, I feel you. I was really reluctant to jump into digital as well. Now I love my film cameras and my digital bodies D2-X and D-3) as well. One thing to think about is wwhen you shoot slides, you are going to need to scan and manipulate the images on a PC anyway, unless you want to outsource that work. But, if you are going to outsource the printing you can just as easily do that with a digital camera and a jpeg.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>I wonder how long the currect digital formats will remain. Word processing files created 20 years ago are not supported by most current applications. Will some creative engineers come out with a different format that makes everyone drop jpeg or "RAW" ? Will the CDs we save files on become obsolete ? In some way, film can be viewed because it is a physical medium that just uses light.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Folks, Bryce Lee's original question is about cost difference between the F3 from 1980 and D700 from 2008. As hard as it may be to compare those numbers almost 3 decades aparat, please stick with the original topic.</p>

<p>We have had far more than our fair share of those meaningless film vs. digital debates. Please do not drag another thread into that direction again.</p>

[glockman99]

<p>This month I bought a "like-new" Nikon F3HP and a "like-new" MD-4 motordrive via eBay (2 separate purchases), for about $230 total ($175 & $52), including shipping. I doubt if I could find even a "beater" "pro-level" Nikon DSLR for ANYWHERE close to that price.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p>Will some creative engineers come out with a different format that makes everyone drop jpeg or "RAW" ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Point A: At some point JPEG compression may be superceeded but I'll bet there will be a great and free utility t convert JPEG compressed images to whatever may come.</p>

<p>Point B: "RAW" is not a format.</p>

<p>Part of the problem is that not only does every camera manufacturer have a so-called basic raw coding scheme, each successive camera inside of each has its own variant of the raw formula. This happens becasue sensors and processors keep evolving. Adobe has tried to address this with the open source DNG raw format, but some peopel are resistant and believe (And quite rightly so) that the camera makers software does anywhere frm a slightly to anoticably better job of interpreting the data than Adobe and other second party software companies can. The problem is that forthe mostpart the camera manufacturers software is slow as molasses compared to Adobe Camera Raw, Capture One, Bibble Pro, or Raw Developer. This is kind of like the difference between microdol-X D:76, Acufine, or between thevarious aper developers (Color developers whether for E-6 or C-41 hew fairly closely to the same chemistry formulations and the same for color prints)</p>

[kenray]

<p>I know you have gotten good advice in the above responses but I too am somewhat in your same position. My current film camera is an F3 (not HP) and an MD-4 grip which to me was much more than a mere 'prop' but an integral very useful part of the camera. I also had 2 Leica M6's with a complete set of lenses. I have been into photography for well over 50 years and mostly in the Hassleblad/Bronica 2 1/4" world. One of my loves was hunting Dangerous Game in Africa and To have a camera at all times after my first safari (where I carried the F3 and lenses) I picked an APS Canon ELPH as it had high capacity and fit in a shirt pocket. When the Digital ELPH came out I migrated to it immediately for the much higher capacity and savings on processing. I took MANY more pictures and enjoyed them more. I began to use the film camera less and less and finally got a Panasonic Lumix with Leica optics and used it a while. Bought Microsoft Digital Image for my laptop and was more or less in the processing of prints business. It was simple software to use. Alas,they no longer support it. My decision came to switch fully to digital and get an SLR that had full lense interchangeability so I sold my Leicas and Lumix and started on my present quest. Kept the F3 though and a couple of lenses. I wanted pro-grade equipment but a D700 or D3 was FAR out of my reach so I looked at earlier Pro Nikons. I decided on the D1x for many reasons and purchased one on Ebay for well under $300 with charger and a couple of batteries. I was aware of the drawback the D1x has in short battery charge span. But since this is a hobby with me I decided I could cope ( I have since seen where a battery pack can be converted to Lithium Ion am in the process of doing so) with the inconvenience. I too only produce JPEG files at the present time but hopefully someday I will graduate to better understanding of the software ( I now have PhotoShop Elements 6) and can draw on the full capabilities of the D1x. It is admittedly a heavy camera but the feel inspires confidence somehow and it does everything I ask of it with little trouble. It just required a few hours of reading and understanding the BASIC settings to produce GOOD pictures. You are limited on this body to 2GB CompactFlash cards but they will hold many more JPEG images than I shoot in one outing and nothing is missed as they can of course be checked as you shoot them to be sure you got what you wanted. If I had it to do over I would probably get a Fuji Pro S3 body as it has more capabilities than I will probably ever use and the main point of the Fuji is the superior JPEG images it produces straight from the camera and The color saturation is closer to The Fuji color films and in fact it has settings to duplicate the look of two of those films,Velvia and one other I can't remember. This would fulfill your desire to duplicate easily your slides. The Fuji also takes regular rechargeable batteries which makes it much easier to get batteries and recharge them. They are available at any WalMart or Walgreens. Fuji also has the Pro S5 which is a later model but is quite a bit more and I believe not a real advantage over the S3. The S3 is selling for about the same as a D1x with some Refurbished ones going for $500/$600 on Ebay. Digital equipment is of course obsolete almost as soon as it is introduced and the used value drops precipitously with each month. But just because it is superseeded does not make it any less usable,just not state of the art. The laptop I'm typing this on is a Compaq Presario with Vista which replaced a Compaq Presario with XP that was about 5 years old. This one has more memory and is thinner than the previous one but I can assure you Vista is not as reliable as XP and I never used all the memory in the XP. This has dual processors and the XP model did not. As I don't run any games or graphics I see little difference in speed of operation. I only mention this as it is analgous to digital cameras which are just optical computers and are only as flexible as you wish to make them.</p>

[dariusz_konkiewicz]

<p>I do not print slides, i project them on the wall. I develop print film in my darkroom and print what I want. I don't use computer for that at all. In my case, complete cost of darkroom was about 900£. Nikon FA cost me 130£. Paper and chemicals are cheap. Colors and dynamic range of film is FAR better then digital [i rented D700 to try].<br /> ... and even if I'll get scratches on my slides that means this medium is alive.</p>

[roman_p]

<p >Don’t worry, Bruce. In two years D700 will cost as much as a 20 yrs old F3 does. </p>

[leighmcmullen]

<p>@ Ellis:<br>

<em>"you have a single physically fragile original that is starting to deteriorate and breakdown from the second after it is finished drying"</em></p>

 

<p>Not wanting to create a debate on this, but I find your observation interesting, because there is some significant debate in historical circles regarding the resiliency of digital. The problem lay in the fact that NO DIGITAL MEDIUM are "Permanent". They have to be constantly backed up, or these eventually deteriorate.<br>

 <br>

We have scrolls from Ancient Egypt that are thousands of years old, we have cival war journals we can refer back to for our history, but in 200 years how much of the digital media we're using today will have survived? Will the only historical record of our age be what some interested 3rd party decides should be preserved?<br>

 </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em>The problem lay in the fact that NO DIGITAL MEDIUM are "Permanent". They have to be constantly backed up, or these eventually deteriorate.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>True enough. But you can't make an exact duplicate of any piece of film. You always pick up contrast, lose detail. introduce flaws & damage by handling the original piece of film. NASA has proably the best methodology for storing film originals but you don't have NASA's budget.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> <em>We have scrolls from Ancient Egypt that are thousands of years old, we have cival war journals we can refer back to for our history, but in 200 years how much of the digital media we're using today will have survived?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Question: Care to estimate how many photographs made with a camera using film, glass plates, tintypes, or other technologies are 200 years old? I am asking about camera originals, not prints and not photograms (the oldest photogram is thought to have been made around 1805). The real power of digital is that I can take the same digital file and make 1, 10, 100, ,1,000 , etc. copies and send them off around the world<br /> <em><br /> </em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>... and even if I'll get scratches on my slides that means this medium is alive.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just wait until your color starts fading. But you won't remember what the original color looked like because you'll have no fixed reference. This is a serious problem with all color dyes and paints.</p>

<p>Look I have no problem with people loving the look and ease of shooting film. I love that too. But just recognize it for what it is : a feeling of emotional attachment to a technology.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Since this thread has drifted into the usual film vs. digital debate, I am closing the discussion.</p>