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

[rob_malkin]

<p>Thank you Shun,</p>

<p>My main aim was to test the water with what people thought of the D700, and current generation of cameras. Like I have said, I have been out of the digital loop for a few years and did not really know if things were at a stage were we could say "Its as good as film is".</p>

<p>Its given me lots to think about.</p>

<p>Thank you very much everyone.</p>

<p>R</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I see the grain quite different. <br>

 <br>

If you compare grain one may say a D200 or even a D70 was superior to a F100.  Sure I agree, people who get FX are imo thinking of full frame.  But that is quite diff to the grain off film. <br>

 <br>

From a separate topic altogether I quite like negative film while there is more grain it is different than digital that I like.  Personally with a D200 there are plenty of lenses to kit it up.  I see a D200 or else a D700.  If you wanna use your own lenses and not get into DX then get the D700 but its quite more expensive. <br>

 <br>

But re: what is impt, yeah if I use film my preference is with a n75 cos it is just so light and works with so many lenses, I can adapt myself to a small camera / small dark viewfinder and slow frames since I do landscapes.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>D700 dynamic range - I rented D700 for few days and dynamic range is nowhere near any film I used [print or slide]. try to overexpose your shots. with print film it is normal procedure to add 1 [even 2 or 3] stops of exposure, with D700 you'll get pure, white nothing. that's maybe because channels do not clip together with digital capture? I don't know... but the fact is, D700 suck in this area.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with your D700 rental, but as a D700 OWNER for nearly a year, and as someone who STILL shoots a LOT of film every month, I have to disagree strongly with your conclusions. I'm guessing that perhaps you didn't shoot in RAW format or you didn't know how to apply the controls in Capture NX or Adobe Camera Raw correctly. That's not a knock on you; it takes a bit of time to learn to use new tools effectively. Some aspects of the digital workflow still confound me.</p>

<p>I LOVE slide film and have shot it extensively for eight years. Slide film's latitude is VERY narrow and if you over-expose it, a film image is just as useless (and hideous) as an over-exposed digital image. By contrast, I can pull amazing detail out of the shadows in a D700 RAW file. Every time I think I've reached the limits of the D700's exposure latitude it surprises me again with amazing results in tough shooting conditions.</p>

<p>Try comparing D700 images shot at ISO 1600 (or even 3200 or 6400) with images shot on ISO 1600 film. Film at 1600 exhibits extremely coarse grain that's visible to the naked eye even on small prints. The D700 at ISO 1600 looks like film at ISO 100 or 200. The D700/D3's low light performance is a revolutionary advancement in photographic technology.</p>

<p>I love film, and I'll continue to shoot film. I understand film's limitations and I've learned over the years how to leverage those limitations for creative benefit (saturation, contrast, etc.). But to claim that the D700 is "inferior to film" in exposure latitude, well, that's just not accurate once you know how to (a) expose the D700's sensor effectively and (b) to harness the power of RAW conversion.</p>