Is anybody amazed as much as I am these days?

[jack flannery]

<p>I am a new member here but I wanted to post a few comments. My first SLR camera was a Canon A-1. The battery went dead in a place where I couldn't replace it. So I sold it and got a F2 because it was just about the only mechanical camera out there at the time (and the last, as far as I know). If the battery went dead, I could still shoot. When I was a "geologist in training", I had a rattlesnake incident and wound up rolling a boulder over my F2 in a soft bag. One little dent and that was it. Fast forward to just about now. I went to Wolf Camera in Denver was going to buy a D80 but picked up a D200. Ahhhh, that feels good. Bought it, the 18-135mm kit lens, a Sigma 12-24mm zoom and I was outta there. First of all, the 18-135 amazed me. The thing was decently sharp, it autofocussed, and all in all, a pretty amazing bit of optical engineering as far as I was concerned. The Sigma even more so. A couple of days before Christmas, I checked out the price of a D700 at B&H and bought one. Great, the focal lengths were "what I was used to". It sure wasn't a need for need, but a need for want. The D200 and 18-135 is now on "permanent loan" to my brothe, but I find the D700 a simply amazing piece of machinery. I took some photos in a dark room the other night at HI2. That's like ISO 25k+ and the images were really good. So I got thinking about it. ISO 25k+! A pretty sharp 18-135 zoom that I used on the D200! I've upgraded a bunch of glass and stuff but jeeze, the tools that we are available to us are simply amazing. I spent $500 for a 70-300mm zoom that works on FX. I have a pretty sharp photo of a sea gull flying overhead from my D200, full zoom, handheld and panning. VR, high ISO, amazing sharpness, all of this stuff has me fascinated. But after all of that? The F2 is still the best camera I have ever used.<br>

Jack</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Yes. Absolutely. I am amazed every time I look at my images onscreen and see what a relatively humble D90 and a modest collection of ordinary-but-amazingly-good lenses can produce.</p>

<p>My transition to digital is still recent and not complete, but there is no comparison with the admittedly mediocre film gear I used to shoot. After 20+ years of shooting film, trying to get everything just right, and being disappointed in the results 80%+ of the time, my totally ordinary DSLR setup gives me more than I expect, virtually every time, even when shooting basically boring stuff in lousy light. Those who look at the film vs digital debate and come out on the side of film undoubtedly have their reasons, but for me, today's technology is a revelation, I appreciate it every time I use it, and I remember enough about what I put up with before that I am constantly blown away by what it can do.</p>

<p>Photography has been a somewhat significant part of my life since I was basically a kid, at some times more than at others, but I've never felt its potential the way I do now. For every film shooter who secretly laments the ease and quality of digital I bet there are a dozen digital shooters making unbelievable shots every day and that their shots will stand as the first generation of an explosion in the form that will look like any other revolution in technology from the steam engine to the electric guitar.</p>

 

[photo5]

<p>Certainly, the D700 is breathtaking. I had a D70, then a D80, then a D300, and now a D700. I also have recently purchased a new D200. I love the feel of the D200 in my hand, but as my eye had become comfortable with the D700 image quality, the D200 is a little hard to swallow. I had planned to sell the D700 to pay off some debts, but the more I think about it, I am convinced that I would regret the sale. Photos are important, especially of family, my father is ailing and 85 years old. The D700 is akin to a medium format camera, the way I look at it, the D200 is a 35mm camera.</p>

[philippartridge]

<p>Well, I cannot feign over-oxygenation to the level of you both! My problem is waiting for the 'MF film replacement' DSLR, the one that renders fine natural detail with that characteristic bite and depth, the 'step into the scene' three dimensionality and the soft tonal roll-off at the ends of the brightness range, the deep blacks and soft highlights that 120 film just delivers so effortlessly. <br>

DSLRs are very fine visual computers, but like all computers, they lose value like a falling stone, sadly. Sometimes I think the makers have all the technology stored up and are letting it seep out, one model at a time, thereby rationing IQ and maximising profit from us upgrade consumer junkies.<br>

The keeper ratio for MF film is through the roof for me, unlike my DSLR work. These comments are not intended to rain on your parade or to pursue any film digital agenda (I like them both very much), but do serve as a reality check - in the context of landscape work only. Hence the interest in the forthcoming small body version of the D3x sensor for so many of us. And the evolution of Sony's great stride forward with the A900/Zeiss collaboration.<br>

I just love DSLRs for portraiture, street and miscellaneous work; and I am sure it does great for macro, and of course high ISO. Once you have seen another lot of mushy soft leaves/foliage/branches or rock detail out of a well-shot and processed RAW NEF file, however, and then take a look at even a 3200ppi desktop scanned (film scanner, not flatbed) neg or reversal 6x7 frame with a little very light capture sharpening, that is a true reality check; one which helps explain the exaggeration of the reports of film's hasty demise. Like Mark Twain's work, the artistry produced is a timeless reminder of what was and is possible with 'large real estate' film. The gap compounds with large print sizes too - due to digital output's characteristic 'good, good, good, not so good' response to print enlargement ratios. One day soon, maybe.</p>

[sandysocks]

<p>My main anazement these days is what I am getting out of my Epson printer.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Jack, for many years I made my living with a pentax ME for precisely that reason. I had a mechanical shutter speed of 1/125 when the battery died, just no meter. Close enough for government work. The two times the battery died was an hour from anywhereand/or shots that could not be retaken. Got the shots. Now, I am forever charging. I have a d200 and am amazed every time I pull it out. Good ISO only to 400, but I have to remember shooting at 25 or 64. And whoa, even 100. 3200, I cant wait. With faster lenses, it opens up all sorts of possibilities. And that d200 is built like a tank. Mine is nearly 3 years old and looks brand new. David, I hope you are able to keep the d700. It seems like such a break through in so many ways, unfortunately including cost which translates to current value for you now. </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>I'm amazed that I can now shoot 5 - 7 thousand photos of a sports event (2 - 3 day) and not pay a cent for developing or film.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[rarmstrong]

<p>Jack, I also had a Canon A-1 and loved it. Then a Canon EOS-650 and loved it, too. My wife bought me a D300 for Christmas 2007...and yes I was and still am amazed. At first, I couldn't believe what I could shoot at low light and at low shutter speeds with a VR lens. I'm still impressed and I love the camera, but...the more I use it, the more I realize it's limitations. It has wonderful high iso performance, but the noise is noticeable above base iso when you are working for a perfect smooth blurred background. So, I try to keep the iso at 200 unless it's just not possible in lower light. That doesn't mean it isn't impressive...I'm just looking forward to better and hoping for the day when a full frame sensor body can realistically match medium format film quality. I'm sure that we'll see it. In the meantime I'll be enjoying my D300.<br>

Dick</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Don't try rolling a boulder over the D700, you might be dissappointed in the outcome!</p>

[ronbudway]

<p>I'm as amazed as anyone by what we can do with the new technology. However, I was recently blown away by the quality of color slides from the 60s. At a family gathering someone brought an old projector and screen and a box of old slides -- unbelievable dynamic range. I shoot a D70 so I don't know how much better the newer cameras are with regard to dynamic range, but these old slides we're simply stunning. Noon on a sunny day looked fantastic. Incredible color rendition and contrast. Sharp as can be, too. These old slides made 50 years ago look like yesterday.</p>

[peter_n1664876959]

<p>We're all different. I still much prefer the look of film over digital. An autofocus dSLR is extremely convenient and produces great pix, but I limit my use to family snaps and suchlike. The convenience/speed aspect of digital is key though. Shooting 35mm Agfapan 100 in a rangefinder, dev in Rodinal, scan in a Minolta IV, it's all very time-consuming. But personally, I would much rather shoot 7 rolls and get 7 keepers than get those keepers from 7 thousand files. That's just me, I love the look I get from the older glass on film. Let's remember that these cameras are just tools and they should be used for what they're good at. None of them are good at everything.</p>

[stp]

<p>I can't imagine the fun of sifting through 5-7 thousand photos of a sports event. Yeah, I might be thinking all these shots were "free" (never mind the camera depreciation), but what is time worth?</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Jack, the camera I used when I was young and full of beans is still the best camera I ever used.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>One of the positive things that amazes me is what I imagine the learning curve must be for a beginner with no training and a camera straight out of the box. With a multitude of automatic functions, I suspect that it's plausible that a beginner can probably make a decent photo with no skills and no training. They'll probably have a rougher "intermediate" phase, though, as they go back and try to figure out how things are made. But, when I think about how someone who never saw that beginner had to design and build a camera; that's amazing.</p>

<p>I prefer my manual film equipment; but, I suspect that beginners probably have it easier, and more of them will stick with photography because of it.</p>

[alec_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>I can't imagine the fun of sifting through 5-7 thousand photos of a sports event. Yeah, I might be thinking all these shots were "free" (never mind the camera depreciation), but what is time worth?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I regularly shoot 5-7000 shots in a day, at a sports event. The time to sort and edit them is paid for by the sales of the pictures. How else?</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>No, I'm not amazed. I see all these digitals with f3.5/5.6 or slower zoom lenses. I'm "stuck" using my "antique" lenses like the 35/1.4 or 50/1.2 or 24/2 or 135/1.8. Ain't that too bad? If not those then all those lenses that were designed by engineers with only calculators that, nowadays, are "uneconomical to produce" and can't be equaled. Film to the end. Digital is for snapshots. </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>They are putting batteries in cameras? What ever for?</p>

<p>Actually I am amazed at the quality one can get from both film and digital if you know what you are doing. The films are better. Scanners are better. I guess I am one of the few that bought a DSLR that can take fast lenses like f/1.2 or f/1.4. I must have gotten lucky.</p>

<p>Another good thing is that we can so easily share our images with others. We can get or give critiques. </p>

<p>Another great thing is the quality and longevity of today's printers.</p>

[brad_smith8]

<blockquote>

<p>My main anazement these days is what I am getting out of my Epson printer.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ditto. I just printed my first 13x19 from my 40D on my 2880 using Qimage (about a 6.5X enlargement) on Ehibition Fiber. The image was converted to B&W with Silver Efex. The on-screen image looked a little noisy even after Noisware, but the print was perfectly smooth, detailed, noise-free and neutral....I mean GEEEEEZ it's stunning!</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>"My main amazement these days is what I am getting out of my Epson printer."</em></p>

<p>100% agree there! No matter the camera the Epsons deliver (I am talking about the newer, past three years Epson ink jets with the K3 inks, wow, spectacular prints). No matter the camera -- lowly P&S's, high end lenses with DSLRs or 35mm, the printer delivers (as long as you know your end of the bargain in the making of a stunning print).</p>

<p>I am amazed. I still look back on my color print chemical darkroom days and LOL at myself for being so bad at it!</p>

[summitar]

<p>My main limitation is me, old and arthritic. I have a Nikon D200 as my top digital camera, and for film, Nikon F100, Leica M6. But when we went a 7 day Danube river cruise last November, it was a Canon A650IS for me and a Canon A620 for my wife. Put new lithium AAs in them and they will shoot for months. A few postage stamp size memory cards, and you are all set. No hassle getting through airports, no feeling like you hava fireplug around your neck, and photo quality very nice to me. On rare occasions, I make 12 by 18 inch prints using Costco, and these cameras are more than adequate. So my amazement is the quality you can get from a take anywhere camera.</p>

<p>Limitations? I try to keep the ISO at 200 or less, and I wish the lenses were wider the 35mm (equiv). But my goal is record a trip, not make great art. I have been shooting film for a long time, but I have never use a faster film than 400 ISO. It is the convenience factor on trips that I admire.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Modern equipment doesn't amaze me as much as old mechanical equipment.</p>

<p>Take a look inside a Compur shutter and marvel at the engineering inginuity and the fact that it was designed by someone sitting at a drawing board without the aid of CAD or 3D drafting.</p>