Upgrading from D40 to F4 / F5 / F100 ?

[sanford_dickerson]

<p>I was very reluctant to switch to digital and had to be dragged " kicking and screaming" into this profound new world. I must use digital for my job but, for my own personal work, I still LOVE film!!. Own two F5's and will not let them go. My biggest fear is the possiblility that in the not too distant future, film will become totally extinct!!</p>

[stp]

<p>I think Lannie's advice is right on the mark. I love film, have some great film equipment with which I've taken some outstanding (IMO, of course!) photos, and I always hope I have a film camera when the best photographic opportunities are in front of me. I recently re-purchased the F100, and I have an FM2N and F3HP that I haven't used yet, but I really enjoy and appreciate the quality I get from medium format film (Mamiya 7II [expensive!] and Pentax 645 [great value!]). But I still want to print those film pictures myself, and I enjoy sharing them with folks on sites like this, so digital is still a part of my world; I'd go broke if I turned the task of digitizing/printing over to labs. Digital cameras have their own advantages, and I'd hate to give those up, so I also use a digital camera about half the time. As Lannie says, it really is an individual choice based on our own needs and preferences. Regardless of the platform, photography is still a wonderful way to experience the world.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The cost/benefit on scanning and printing depends on whether you're a pro doing large prints or a casual user doing 4x6's. Most people live near a store that will do a good 6MP scan of a roll to CD for under $3 and print 4x6 for under $0.20. Compare to the price of the scanner you'd need to get the same quality (which is not good enough for most pros but is more than good enough for most casual users) and consider that printing 4x6 on inkjet costs $0.30-$0.50 in supplies (not including the cost of the printer and the time of the user operating the PC) and the casual user saves, big time, by shopping out scanning and printing.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Jan-Michel, I am going to refer you back to Stephen. Please click on is name and go read his bio--and then look at his pictures. You will be inspired all over again.</p>

<p>What Andrew said is relevant, too. Everything depends on what size you want to have printed, of course. If you really want to simplify your life, shoot film for as long as you can and hand over the film to someone else to process--and put ALL your time into shooting.</p>

<p>Another classic quote comes to mind: "Simplify! Simplify!" --Henry David Thoreau</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

 

[jeremy_jones3]

<p>I have an F90x (as well as an F70) and I LOVE it. I wouldn't trade it for anything digital. It fits somewhere in between the F4 and F5 and you can usually pick one up in excellent shape for about $100. You can't be that.</p>

[frank_mara]

<p>I've been living in a hybrid world of film and digital for some time. I routinely shot with both a Nikon D50 and a Nikon N80, using both print and slide film. I have the film scanned and work with it digitally, just like a digital camera image. The N80 has been perfectly satisfactory. I've used it in climates ranging from Alaska to desert sand storms and never had a problem with it. I should tell you that I recently purchased a Nikon D90. I spend too much time thinking about the whole film vs. digital debate. To me it comes down to aesthetics. I like the look that I get from films like Fuji Reala and have shot a lot of it while traveling. I've also done some work with slide films, principally Fuji Velvia 50 and 100. It's pretty nice to shoot a roll, drop in your bag and move on. No laptop, no portable storage devices, etc. I really enjoy being "untethered" from my computer while traveling. So much so that I've bought a whole bunch of SD cards so I can avoid it when I shoot digital as well.</p>

<p>My chief complaint about film is the logistics of developing and scanning. It's expensive to get E6 film processed and scanned at resolutions comparable to what I can produce with the D90. (It was much easier to justify when I was using the D50.) I found that quality of development and scanning services for both C41 and E6 film to be pretty variable. Frankly, I've had the best, most consistent results from COSTCO, one of the big retail warehouse stores in the US. However, their development services are limited to print film (C41) and their scans are limited to file sizes comparable to what you can produce with the D40. I'd be really happy if I could get COSTCO to produce a 12-15MB scan of a print film image. I have to say though that the technical image quality of the D90 blows away what I can produce with the print film/COSTCO process. On the other hand, a film image just feels more "organic", hence the aesthetics argument.</p>

<p>I've recently shot a couple of rolls of Velvia 100 side-by-side with the D90. I've had it developed and scanned at a resolution comparable to shooting in NEF/RAW format on the D90. I'm looking forward to the comparison. However, I suspect that I'm going to conclude that the differences are not worth the cost and time of lab processing and scanning unless I'm working on something really special and worth the effort.</p>

<p>One thing is for sure. Shooting film makes you a better photographer. I found that it made me slow down and really think about what I was doing for exposure and composition. I used frequently argue that I spent less time on the computer with film compared to digital. In retrospect, I think it's really because I was that much more careful about what I was doing behind the camera compared to my "spray and pray" technique with digital.</p>

[dan_stegal]

<p>If you're going to buy a film camera, check your local camera stores for heavily discounted new and demo film cameras. Shop around before paying over the top prices on eBay. Then again, occasionally, you get the "pro" whose selling off his entire film kit to go digital. There's some good deals there every once in a while. Most of the time, though, they're asking for almost new prices for their stuff. Shop-shop-shop!<br>

<br /> <em>So here it is: how much more fun is it to be shooting film?</em><br>

<br /> Not much. Film doesn't add any "fun". Actually, it can be a real pain in the ass compared to digital<br /> Now, if you like processing film, then; I guess, it does add some "fun". But all I can say is, after a while, following recipes to process film and paper becomes old. It's not very creative. Sure, print making can be creative, in a way: dodging and burning, toning, cropping, etc.. but nothing like what can be done on a computer. Cooking is much more fun in that regard and you can eat what you create; well, at least most of the time, and you don't have to worry about storing shit for all of eternity. You just flush it.</p>

[bruce booher photography]

<p>Hi, Jan-Michel!<br>

Good luck in your decision making. I just traded in my F-4s, lenses, and Nikon SB-26 flash for a medium format lens and flash. I've made the decision to go almost entirely medium format. I still have an Olympus OM-1 that I carry with me places. I also have a small digital point and shoot for birthday parties and other little events. I like to think of them as my sketch book. <br>

I loved the F4, but it is heavy, especially when it has a flash mounted to it. However, it's feel is very steady and well balanced. There are many features on the camera that I rarely used, but I did love the motor drive. I especially enjoyed it when it came time to rewind the film. It always drew a few curious eyes. It's not the quietest thing in the world.<br>

I also owned an FE-2 that was a wonderful little camera. I had a chance to own the F-100, but I passed on it as it seemed like I needed another camera like I needed a hole in my head. :)<br>

Whatever you decide to do enjoy shooting all the photos that you can shoot. For me it's about the process. I need to work in a darkroom environment. I enjoy experimenting with various films and chemistry. I like seeing new and different results. However, the same can be said about digital. Just enjoy what you use and what you do!</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>I absolutely love my F100. The only reason that I don't use it all the time is the cost of film/processing. There are just times when I want to take a lot of photos, and a 8 gig card (~400 raw files) is so much more convenient, especially when firing away at 5 fps.<br /> <br /> I should however mention, that a D40 is not a bad camera. So don't get rid of it! You can almost fit one in your pocket and it still takes great photographs. I'd trade my D50 for a D40 in a heartbeat.<br /> <br /> What I really don't get is why any has to shoot either film or digital. What is wrong with shooting both? Just like I swap a lens for a certain situation, why can't I dig out my film camera?</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>I have my creative inclinations and technical aspirations located on both sides of the fence. I am not yet ready to give up film, as I enjoy shooting it. Having been involved in photography since the 1970's, I feel nostalgic about film and film cameras.<br>

When the Nikon D80 was introduced, I finally jumped into digital SLR photography. The D80 is great for travel, sports, family photos, experimentation, macro photography, street photography, and on . . . I have shot RAW+Jpeg, but also haven't yet gotten into RAW processing.<br>

So when is film more fun? I think that it depends on how and what you shoot, and what your level of commitment is to learning about the process. I think it's fun to shoot star trails over the mountains, and my Nikon FM with a prime lens is well suited to the job. Using a tripod, I can leave the shutter open for 10 minutes, or for hours, using print film or slide film, and not worry about anything. I think it's fun to head out on a hike with the FM and a couple of prime manual lenses, and see what I can accomplish. Occasionally, I like to shoot a roll of black & white print film, order a contact sheet, and decide if my skills are up to the task of producing a good b&w print. The all-manual FM is also good for winter photography when an Arctic air mass descends over Montana. For star trails, my D80 needs to have long exposure noise reduction turned on, and even then it's noisy, and battery life is a concern.<br>

I also enjoy my Nikon F4, and chose the camera because I have a collection of Nikkor manual lenses, and I like the interface of the F4. Since I primarily shoot landscapes in the western US, I don't have the absolute need for autofocus. I enjoy viewing slides on a light table with a good loupe, and then slipping my select slides into archival sleeves. For scanning, my local lab has been having a Spring scanning special, with a low price for the last two years. Otherwise, I just have them scan and produce an individual print. Currently I like the look of scanned scanned Velvia over the D80 for landscape photography.<br>

While all this is going on, I keep fairly up to date on the digital evolution, and look forward to owning a full-frame Nikon DSLR that will function with my AIS and AF lenses. In the meantime, I continue to enjoy and appreciate the abilities of the D80.<br>

Keep your D40. Decide if you need autofocus or not, then choose a Nikon film camera. You could start with the lenses you currently own, then consider budgeting in a wide angle lens. It's not unreasonable to be involved with both technologies.<br>

Chris</p>

<p> </p>

[un_soon_choi]

<p>Wow, as a reader, I am delighted by such enthusiastic answers. Among all, Lannie's comment stands out and speaks to me. It's definitely something to consider.</p>

[kivis]

<p>I love film and generally do not like Digital but.... I hate sending out my film and waiting....so I usually shoot digital. Plus as a part time Pro most of my clients want it NOW. Still I love film.</p>

[e_b7]

<p>Film give two stops more contrast, so you have less chance of blown highlights in mixed lighting. It's physics, and nobody has found a way around it accept in post-processing. Also, film has archival qualities that digital does not; you don't need a machine to view the image, and Kodachrome slides stay the same for decades if kept in the dark. I have some approaching 50 years that look the same. Digital is convenient and has great manipulation potential in the digital darkroom. I'd give that a try, by the way. Shoot both film and digital. Get the F100. Also, check out the N80. It has great mirror dampening, and has most of the features even a pro needs. You can pick it up and use it without reading the manual. It's plastic, but so are many cameras, including parts of the F100. Best of all, good used ones are $80. The F100 is faster and uses AA batteries, big pluses, but more money.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I would suggest you get the F100, afterwards you can get something that you prefer. The F100 will probably give you a taste of a pro camera. </p>

<p>I also don't like photoshopping, I do my most photog cos it is cheap and I do a quick edit in Lightroom for under 2mins and just export or print. I quite enjoy slide film shooting cos you just develop it and project. I am a landscape / cityscape person and travel which I don't shoot a lot. </p>

<p>Having shot with my D70 you get to know when it is a good shot and when it is not. If I did more shots like portraiture, street, sports I would stick to digital due to cost and flexibility. With the recession our dollar to the USD had crashed by half, so I have delayed my medium / large format purchase and plan to shoot my New York purchased film and have a blast with my F100 and my FM2N. I quite enjoy the F75 and will get that eventually for its lightness, after having a very light Canon off my bro.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p><em>So here it is: how much more fun is it to be shooting film?</em> <br /> The Kodachrome Project<br /> There are many photographers, including myself, that plan on having fun shooting more Kodachrome before it's too late.<br /> www.kodachromeproject.com</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_baker12]

<p>I recently bought an F5 in excellent condition for under $350.00 I have been wanting one for years. And yes film can be pricey sometimes, but my film shooting is my play time, my artsy fartsy side, and although its not needed all the time, bracket shooting is unbelievable with the incredible speed of an F5 with good batteries, it shoots so fast that even with a subject thats in motion, your brackets are still almost identicalshots, and nothing matches an F5's autofocus system, if only because it holds more batteries and has a larger motor...</p>