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

[paul_b.1]

<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>

<p>AND NO more SCRATCHES , on your pictures !</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Arash...the D700 is a lot smaller than an F6...the D3 is about the same.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<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."</p>

<p>By definition, the D300 is already a D2X killer. It's quite affordable, more compact, yet more capable. I didn't check the exchange rate or the most recent prices. But I don't think my D300 costed much more than 1000 GBP, brand new, a year ago. Obviously, the D700 and D3 are even more capable; although they are not crop body cameras. </p>

[hawkman]

<p><em>Arash...the D700 is a lot smaller than an F6...the D3 is about the same.</em></p>

<p>No, they are the same size.</p>

<p><strong>D700:<br />Width 5.8 in. Height 4.8 in. Depth 3.0 in. <br />F6:<br />Dimensions (WxHxD): 6.2 x 4.7 x 3.1 inches</strong></p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to respectfully disagree with "better color" and "better metering," but I agree with all of your other points. The D700 also has mirror lockup and the ability to control flash compensation from the camera body, two important features that the F100 lacks. The F100 has the advantage of being lighter and smaller, plus you'll NEVER have to clean the F100's sensor! :)<br>

<br /><br>

<br /></p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>I'd say the D700 is the first true 'digital F100'. The various D1/2/3 cameras are really digital successors to the F5 rather than the F100. The D200 isn't quite there, both because it's DX (which makes a big difference with your set of lenses) and because Nikon didn't give it their best AF system (in some ways it's inferior to the F100's module, let alone the D2X's). The D300 is arguably the 'DX F100' (for the first time since the F100, Nikon weren't afraid to give their 2nd tier camera most of the performance of the flagship, including AF), but the crop factor is still an issue. The D700 is finally FX, has similar features to the D300, and has the same market-leading low-light performance as the D3. This is the first time you can buy a dSLR without accepting some significant compromise relative to the F100 (even the D3 loses points on size/weight in my book). Colour print film may still give you more dynamic range to play with, but this is much less of an issue with the current generation of dSLRs than it was previously (as you'll know, it's quite easy to blow the highlights with a D70, but I've noticed this much less with the D300, either because of improved dynamic range or as a benefit of improved metering).</p>

[rob_malkin]

<p>Morning guys,</p>

<p>While I was sleeping you have all been busy giving me ideas to think about!</p>

<p>i am pleased to hear that the current generation of DSLR's [D300, D700] has a wider dynamic range, better colours than the D70.</p>

<p>My feet are already a little moist from the digital pond. But all I am saying is that in my experience of using the D70, I was not impressed to put down the film. It's ok for certain things, but it was not good enough. </p>

<p>Thanks so much guys, I will write a better post once I come back from the dentist!!!!</p>

<p>Thanks again guys, I really appriciate your input. Guess it may be time to start saving the money for a D700. Just a shame I live in the UK at the moment!!<br>

<br /> Rob</p>

[tholte]

<p>Get a D300 or D700 and your questions will be answered faster than E=mc2.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>You are comparing your D70 as your digital experience with c41 print film? If you can't get a quality image out of your D70, it's not the camera. My D50 takes better images than any film camera I ever had did except for medium format.</p>

<p>And the D700 will very likey put your F100 into retirement for the most part.</p>

<p>Unless you are one of those folks that just can't be happy with a product unless it's exactly the way they would have designed it themselves. I'm that way with guitars, but not cameras.</p>

[rob_malkin]

<p>"If you can't get a quality image out of your D70, it's not the camera. My D50 takes better images than any film camera I ever had did except for medium format."<br>

Im not sure about that Peter. The D50 is still a DX size and I very much doubt it could do better than slide film or maybe even good quality C41 film.</p>

<p>I am not looking to retire the F100, I am just looking for a camera which produces digital filmes which I would consider to be as good as the film I have stated above.</p>

<p>And don't forget that the D70 was over a year old when the D50 came out.</p>

<p>R</p>

<p> </p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Rob Malkin. Forty years, I went through all the cameras form Nikon F . . . . . DX . . . . . to the present D700. Keep you lenses and never bother with DX size. If you limited financially get the D700 if you well of with $, go for the D3. If you planing to go for landscape too, then the D3X. </p>

[Two23]

<p>The F100 was my favorite camera also, but the D300 has the same feel and quality for me. I am mostly a night photographer and the D300 is performing well for my use.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[kivis]

<p>I own a Nikkormat FTN, a Nikon FM3A and just went digital with the Best Buy D200. I have million lenses so I'll be set for awhile. I got the 4 year repair/replace plan with Best Buy ($79). My experience is that when a repair is needed they just swap you a newer "like" model. I am hoping that that will be an FX model by then and that Best Buy will still be in business.</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<p>Considering the discussion of the Nikon D700, could someone please comment on the 95% viewfinder. As the owner of an F4, I greatly appreciate the 100% viewfinder. I wonder: will the evolution of the D700 move to a 100% viewfinder, or will this feature only be available on Nikon's flagship cameras?<br>

Thanks, Chris</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Christopher, this thread is about the F100 and digital. The F100 does not have a 100% viewfinder either, and even with the F4, since I was mainly a slide shooter, you don't get 100% from the final slide when it is mounted. Therefore, all of that is a bit moot.</p>

<p>Currently among DSLRs, the D3, D3X and also the D300 have 100% viewfinder. But even a "100%" viewfinder doesn't exactly show 100%. My D2X and D300 show about 96% and my D700 actually shows about 89% in terms of area. Just leave a little room for errors when you compos, as I did duing my film days.</p>

<P>

The real problem for a non-100% viewfinder is that the area shown in the viewfinder is not quite centered.

</P>

[photo5]

<p>Shun, in my experience the D300 viewfinder shows about 99%, close enough to call it 100%.<br>

<img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/226168198_meNJP-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="532" /><br>

In this picture, I had the lower corners of the grate touch the edges of the viewfinder in the D300. Pretty close accuracy in the result.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I happen to have a metal garage door. I once placed magnets on the door to indicate the area I could see in the viewfinder and then took a picture. I posted my results for the D700 as a response to photo.net's D700 review on Nov 21, 2008: <a href="../equipment/nikon/D700/review">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D700/review/</a></p>

<p><br />I also tried that on the D300. I placed those magnets very carefully. As you can see, the image in the viewfinder is a bit distorted as what appears to be a rectangle in the viewfinder is not quite a rectangle in reality. Both the D2X and D300 show about 96 to 97% in terms of area in the viewfinder. However, the images in the 100% viewfinders are very centered while what is on the D700 is off a bit.</p>

<p>Of course, live view should show 100% since the image comes from the actual sensor.</p><div></div>

[rob_malkin]

<p>Ok I have a new spin on the original question....</p>

<p>If you had a D70 and you were doing max 20*30" prints mostly 10*15". And resolution was not all that important to you, and AF speed was not that important either, and all the other little extras.<br /> Would you hold onto it and spend the money on glass?<br>

or</p>

<p>or a D700, D3 etc</p>

 

[photo5]

<p>Shun, thanks for posting that. Your test is excellent. That's the only feature the I miss with the D700 from the D300.</p>

[jennifer_spencer]

<p>Hi Rob,</p>

<p>Have you considered renting a D700 for a day and deciding from there whether it's worth it? That's what I would do if I were you.</p>

<p>I have an F100 and I *love* it. I also have a D200, and while I think it's a very good camera, I don't feel mystically bonded to it like I do the F100. The most practical part about the D200 is that my F100 lenses work with it. I am using the same lenses for both cameras, but still I love the F100 while I merely use the D200. "Effy" is my first camera love, I guess.</p>

<p>There is a learning curve with digital. I don't know if I will progress very far with digital for that reason. It won't be without effort, that's for sure. I believe I understand more of what happens to my image with film. I develop my own b&w film and print it, and I print my own color negs. While I work professionally in database management and computer programming, I don't feel entirely fluid, or facile, in the digital photography editing & archiving world. I took a class in photoshop, so I can do the basics, but still I cannot get the consistency I want from digital printing and I don't yet feel the mastery in digital that I earned with film and paper. I think that's why I love my F100 - I know that what I shoot will be what I intended, generally. That is simply not the feeling I have with my digital. It's no fault of the D200's; I believe it's my own ignorance about the camera and digital in general holding me back. I don't know if that's the case for you or not - the D70 is an okay camera, but it's no D200, D300 or D700, especially considering the F-mount lens interchangability. You might consider asking yourself whether your own comfort level is what is influencing your choice, and not the camera. A day's rental might answer that question for you if you don't already know.</p>

[andrew_gale]

<p>Rob, keep your D70 for now. I dont think the D700 will please you enough to justify the price. I would wait for the D800 to come out and see what thats like. You wont get film quality results in a F100 size package from this generation camera. Dont try to rush it, you wont have to wait too long before what you want emerges.</p>

[stp]

<p>Rob, my first digital camera was a D70, and I hated it. It was a terrible introduction to digital photography. Digital cameras have come a long way since then. Forget your D70 experience and look and the current lineup, especially those who equate a couple of digital Nikon models to the F100.</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>If like your F100, why stop using it? If having digital pics are important to you, just scan.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=17942">Ellis Vener</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 12, 2009; 09:06 p.m.</p>

 

 

 

<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>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Better dynamic range? Than any film? Really?</p>

[douglasely]

<p>As someone who is familiar with scientists, my suggestion is to get out of the lab and buy the camera. It's your turn. You will love it.</p>