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

[rob_malkin]

<p>Hi guys,</p>

<p>Its been a long old while since I have posted on here! I have just finished my physics degree and have finally been feeling happy and taking pictures again. Nothing like maths to turn you off being creative.<br>

Anyway,<br>

Just for background;<br>

I own;<br>

Nikon F100 (F80 for when in the bad part of town)<br>

Nikon D70<br>

20mm, 50mm, 85mm, 180mm, 17-35mm</p>

<p>I mostly shoot people/street and print up to 10*15" with a rare print going to 20*30". I am not a pro.</p>

<p>Anyway, I used to get all my film and printing free (long story). And my favourite film was Kodak C41 B&W print film, and Fuji Superia 400 print film. For my print size, it was more than enough. And the "feel" of the Superia was beautiful.</p>

<p>Resolution is not very important to me. Colour, dynamic range and low light performance is. So, I am sure its no real surprise that the D70 did not really turn me into digital.<br>

Now that I am paying for my printing moving to a digital format makes financial sense to me. But, should I wait?</p>

<p>I have been looking at the D700, but would like to know if it would do what the F100 could (the F100 to me is one of the best cameras I have ever used, even over an F5).</p>

<p>I know this question is a little irregular, but should I wait till I have a D5 or what have you, that will do what I need it to do?</p>

<p>Hope that this all makes sense.</p>

<p>Thanks for reading.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The D200 was the DX equivalent to the F100. The D300 improved on that, especially in high ISO performance. The D700 is the FX equivalent. Your search is over. You only need to decide on a sensor size.</p>

[jorgen_udvang]

<p>Is the camera more important to you than the photos you take? In that case, keep the F100 and enjoy it.</p>

<p>If you're really into taking photos, buy the D700. It's not an F100, but then, there will probably never be another F100. Times change, and so do cameras. In most peoples view, the D700 is more or less as good as it gets.</p>

<p>A third alternative is to wait. Your hair will turn gray and your grandchildren will grow up, but somwhere, far away beyond the horizon, your dream of a camera may come through. Maybe you won't live to see it, but at least you've been true to your dream.</p>

<p>It's your world, your dream and your choice.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>What the D700 does better than the F100 (and any film); bettter color; better dynamic range; more control over the complete process (especailly when you shoot NEFs (Nikon's "raw" format); far better high ISO work (ISO 400 and up, way up); better autofocus (if you use it); and better metering. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I stopped using the F100, which I still own, several years ago when I bought my D2X. The D2X itself is now considered an "out of date" camera.<br>

I wonder why you are still waiting for this "digital F100." Those DSLRs that superseded the F100 have already been superseded themselves.</p>

[rob_malkin]

<p>Thanks guys, didn't expect an answer so soon!</p>

<p>Jorgen, I love the F100 as a camera and as a thing that keeps film in a dark box. The camera for me, is perfect for the camera side of photo's. Ie, exposure, AF, build, speed, battery life, viewfinder etc.<br>

I have been out of the loop for a couple of years and I dont know what the current state of digital is. I was not impressed by the D70. I know that it was a very cheap camera but anyway...</p>

<p>I guess the question is this...<br>

Would a D700 give me the camera quality I have in the F100, and more importantly, will it give me image quality that will meet my requirements?<br>

Oh and Ellis, you say that the D700 has better dynamic range that print film. Is this really true? The D70 is not even close in this aspect.</p>

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

<p>R</p>

<p> </p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>If "the D70 did not really turn me into digital" - chances are that D200 or D700 will not turn you digital either, until you become an expert in Photoshop. So, perhaps you need to wait for D5 or whatever.<br>

I guess you are already an experienced user of Photoshop ? and reached the technology limits. If not, then try harder with your D70.</p>

[rob_malkin]

<p>Hey Shun,</p>

<p>I know this is being really picky, but when I have held a D700 it was a bit too big and I didnt like it having a flash (a somewhat illogical thing I know).</p>

<p>I guess I was just hoping that there would be a F100 size dSLR</p>

[rob_malkin]

<p>Good point Frank.</p>

<p>From my experience of suing the D70, it didn't have the range that I was hoping for. Maybe this is down to my use of the camera, but I just found it too narrow.</p>

<p>As for photoshop, not an expert by any measure. I have seen some beautiful prints from the D70, but I dont really want to spend hours on each image.</p>

<p>Maybe I am just lost and the D700 would give me nothing new.</p>

[glenjo]

<p>I use the D200 and the F100. I'm going to agree with Lex. THe D200 is the DX equivalent of the F100 which makes the D300 and the D700 more like F100+ for the DX and FX format.</p>

<p>Your real question should be longevity. I wonder how long the CCD or CMOS chip will last on any dSLR. I honest DO NOT expect them to last as long as an F100. The nice thing about a film camera is that the imaging element is brand new every time you use it.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>I still use my F100 even though I own a D700. They are both superb cameras.</p>

[rossb]

<p>The camera's are changing as is everything else..You can just keep shooting the F100. Great camera and film is just as good as ever. You can move on to newer stuff. The D200 has ISO 100 and the FX has a 35mm sensor size..The D200 will feel very similar to the F100 when holding it..But the real camera sound is gone forever and the viewfinder's are not as good anymore. None of them will ever be just like a f100 and I figure that newer camera's will be farther away as Nikon add's more gimmicks to the bodies such as camcorders, live view and what have you..If you don't want to spend a fortune you can buy a D200 at Best Buy right now for $599.00. You can buy a D700 for the price of a trip to Hawaii for the family...Nothing wrong with just shooting the D70 and the F100. Both are good camera's..</p>

[wenhan_xue]

<p>Rob, I am with you for the feeling of F100. It is my major camera for my serious work in terms of 35mm for street scene and landscape. I use fast prime lenses in available lighs. I like the film tone because it's real to me. I tried D700 and was not sure about its built-in flash, the cheap memory card latch, no ISO info on top panel, etc. I will continue shooting F100 for many years ahead. Wenhan</p>

[photo5]

<p>For all intents and purposes, the D700 is the digital F100.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>The D700 far surpasses the F100.</p>

[rob_malkin]

<p>Thanks for all the input guys, its very appreciated.</p>

<p>I do sometimes see D2X cameras come up on the used market for £1000. Half of what they were when they were relased. Sometimes with as few actuations as 600. I guess thats the good thing about digital kit, its always going down in value.<br>

Who knows, maybe I will be able to get my hands on a D700 in a year or so for under half its current price. I guess the D70 was not good enough, but now the digital format has gotten to the point where I can say "yes please thanks"</p>

<p>Like I am sure that there are still a lot of people who use large format as 35mm is not enough.</p>

<p>Will it do what you need? Yes. Then buy it.</p>

<p>Maybe I have answer my own guestion.<br>

And Ross, I agree. Its like its a camera, camcorder, gps positioning satelite, tape recorder in one.</p>

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p><em>...chances are that D200 or D700 will not turn you digital either, until you become an expert in Photoshop.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bad point by Frank. You learn by doing. Yes new tools require new skills but lets be honest and admit that while there is a learning curve to digital processing it is not as monumental as some people make it out to be and a lot of the curve simply consists of learning new terms and what they mean.</p>

<p>And yes when you shoot 14 bit per channel NEFs the D700 has better latitude than color negative film. Better color balance too.</p>

[g._v.]

<p>Rob, if you are located in the U.S. I recommend spending the $600 on a new D200 and get your feet wet in the Digital Universe. I also suggest trying Nikon Capture NX2 before investing in Photoshop; a 60-day free demo is available online. I think that NX2 is just as capable as Photoshop for image editing and that it's interface is actually more intuitive to use than PS. It seems to be mainly long-time PS users who cannot accept that there are other ways to tackle image editing than the Adobe Way.</p>

<p>The only lens you might need is a wide-angle zoom. When I switched to DX Nikons I brought along a bunch of MF and AF Nikkor primes and zooms. The only lens that I needed was a wide-angle and elected to purchase my first non-Nikkor lens in over 25 years: a Tokina 12-24.</p>

<p>If you find the D200 suits you then you will have purchased an excellent quality DSLR that is very similar to the F100. Then you can spend some real $$$ and get a D700 if you want the advantages of FX. If the D200 doesn't ring your bells for some reason, you can sell it for close to what you paid for it.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i bought the D200 to answer that same wanting while using the F100.<br>

and i loved my F80 so much i bought the D70s.</p>

[mike_bisom]

<p>Maybe this was brought up earlier (?), but shooting digital is far different than film. With film, you selected the film you wanted for the look you wanted and the lab did all the work (or you did it in your own darkroom). Shooting digital means you are responsible for the "developing" of the image via your computer darkroom. This is a pretty big switch. I know of a few film photographers who made the switch to digital and all they shoot are JPEGs- they feel this is the closest thing to their old workflow: metering correctly for proper exposure, create the image, done. However, most professionals see the advantage of the Raw file. This means even more post-processing and DAM (digital asset management) as well. All of that said, I think the current crop of cameras have at least matched, it not exceeded films latitude. The D700 is one tough camera to beat. Of course it will be heavier due to all the electronics. The sooner you start shooting and maintaining a digital database, the sooner you will learn the ins and outs. Eventually everything will be digital as it becomes harder and harder to make a profit making and selling film!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Rob, Photoshop ain't for everyone. Not everyone needs it. You might try some trial versions of easier to use programs from PictoColor. Their iCorrect software is remarkably easy to use for global corrections. I'm not sure whether raw is supported but it will handle TIFFs converted from raw files in any handy raw converter. Might help you enjoy the benefits of your digital cameras better.</p>

[tobycline]

<p>I feel the D700 and F100 are the film/digital "twins." I use my F100 for Velvia and the D700 for digital, together. The FX D700 matches with lens focal lengths and the viewfinder is better than anything from the dinky DX format.</p>

[trevor_newman1]

<p>Wow rob you use the exact same films i use. Kodak 400CN BW and Fuji Superia 400. I just got a D90 but I still can't put down my old N90s. I too enjoy low light shooting as well. I have always lusted for an F100 but my N90s is very similar and having bought the D90 I can't afford even the 300 bucks it would cost me for a minty F100. I have used a D700 and a D300. Personally as one who has been waiting for the N90s equivalent in Digital I believe I have found it in the D700. It is a little on the big side but that camera is really it for me. It is also incredible in low light with very low noise that is almost film like in its grain. I hope that in 4 years there are some good used copies still around that I could get for a good price. Until then I will keep using my D90 for events and N90s for fun. Good luck and whatever you do hold on to that F100!</p>

[mjferron]

<p>I own a F100 and did own a D200. I think the D200 is the F100's digital counterpart. Both have their advantages. Really you can't beat the latest DSLR's at the low light game. Film doesn't come close. As a B&W film shooter I will say I'm not convinced the digitals at this point can match B&W film's dynamic range. You have a lot of control in your exposure/development process. As far as color accuracy well who wants accurate color anyway? I'm half joking but slide film colors blow me away.</p>

[hawkman]

<p>Nikon has already made not only a Digital F100 but a Digital F6, it is called D700.</p>