D700 VS F5

[trent_dietsche]

<p>I am currently debating upon whether or not I should buy a new D700 or an F5. I have a D300 and 70-200 VR and 16-35 VR and 50 1.8. I would like to have a 35mm equivalent format for landscape, and cannot decide between the two. Does film still have better color rendition and ability to print at larger sizes, or does the D700 and modern dslr cameras close that gap? The F5 with a film scanner will likely run me less than 1000 dollars, while the d700 will be 2000+. If your vote is for the F5, what film scanner would you reccomend?</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>I have both. It isn't about the cameras. It's about how you want to use them. The F5's autofocus ability is phenomenal, and very powerful. The D700 is also terrific. <br>

From the sound of it, you don't yet know enough to make an informed decision. I'd do a lot more reading if I was you. Anyone asking about print size and something like a D700 vs. film raises a red flag for me. </p>

 

[chrisnielsen]

<p>I love my F5 and I also love my Coolscan. After scanning with a flatbed for years I've had to go back and rescan my negs now I've got a Coolscan IV, it's 100 times better. Got it 2nd hand from KEH.com<br>

I think that although I love my F5, a D700 would kick it's a$$, I just can't afford a D700 and I like my shallow DOF and wide primes to be wide so I'm sticking with the F5 over a crop sensor DSLR </p>

[joshloeser]

<p>My F5 outpaced my D700 recently, easily focusing with my 180/2.8 in a track meet situation on slide film. My D700 could not handle it nearly as well (and yes, I know what I'm doing). Every F5 shot was in focus. <br>

An F5 will shove glass around faster than seems possible. </p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>If you want to shoot film for lanscapes, go with a 4x5 large format camera. You can assemble nice kit including good flatbed scanner for around $1000. 4x5 will give you an advantage over and different look then your d300. I print 24x36 inches posters from my d300 and I doubt that 35mm film will do any better. In addition when photographing landscapes from the tripod, manual focus, f11, cable relase, you can use a humble/light/inexpesive nikon FE, FM or F3 - there is no benefit from F5's fast autofocus, build-in grip or 5 frames per second features.<br>

Good Luck!</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>8 FPS, but good points.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Of course a F5/6 is tempting :D but film are just too expensive, so I just do static images, a roll last me a good month. I am also in NZ where film cost a good 3x than B&H. I import in small quantities to avoid import tax, so the price is under the threshold, I also pay $60US for freight. </p>

<p>To get you an idea, Superia cost us $4US, Velvia 50 at $20US, 160C at $14US, Provia 400 at up to $25US (135 format and yes for "one" roll). Lab not bad at $10US or extra $10US if you want them mounted.<br>

I tend to use spot meter as a result.</p>

<p>In terms of saving money, I might just go for medium format or even larger format. But our labs charge us $4US to develop each sheet, haha.</p>

[swilson]

<p>If you are giong to be shooting landscapes you might want to look at stitching.<br>

Here is an example of stitching three photos from my 50D to produce a clear 34 MP image.<br>

 

<p>Here are the three shots that I used, note the portrait orientation of the camera</p>

<p><a title="source images by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4029/4448895710_eb974c65c0_o.jpg" alt="source images" width="700" height="300" /></a><br>

And here is the resulting photo</p>

 

<br>

<a title="stitiched from three photos by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2796/4448120607_6a1294df74.jpg" alt="stitiched from three photos" width="500" height="329" /></a><br>

With the full size image seen here<br>

<a href=" </p>

<p>Of course you can stitch a lot more then 3 photo together and get even more resolution like this<br>

<a href="

but really unless you are going to print huge 34 MP should be enough.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Does film still have better color rendition and ability to print at larger sizes, or does the D700 and modern dslr cameras close that gap?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shortly after I had purchased the D2X back in 2005, I stopped using 35mm film altogether. And then after I got the D300, I stopped using the D2X completely. With newer cameras such as the D700, the gap has actually further widen.</p>

<p>Recently I pulled out some slides from 2000 to 2003 and scanned them on my Coolscan 5000. I was very surprsied how unsharp Velvia is. I also find the grain very annoying.</p>

<p>As I have mentioned a few times recently, the D700 is kind of late in its production cycle. If you can wait, I would wait a few months and see what the next model will be. It seems likely that Nikon will produce a more affordable 20+MP DSLR. If so, it'll give you further advantages for landscape work.</p>

[walterh]

<p>We had endless film/digital discussions years ago.<br>

After that this topic became very quiet and I assume this is a relieve for the moderators .-)</p>

<p>Today top digital sensors beat color film in all aspects that can easily be measured.<br>

Especially in high ISO speeds the D700 (D3) sensor gives results that are not possible with film.<br>

The recent D3S tops that and any next generation might still give a little improvement.</p>

<p>Color reproduction, the look of film, of grain or should I say the "taste" versus digital noise is certainly different. Some prefer film some prefer the digital look. Many go after the look of film in digital images in "post processing". Silver based BW film is the only thing that can drag me into a dark room from time to time. But now I have no BW printing facility any more so this will be the end of BW film for me.<br>

High resolution film (low ISO) can challenge digital sensors and specialized film can resolve more detail under certain conditions. But be aware that you loose a lot of information from film by scanning. Direct printing from film beats printing of scanned film. On the other hand even the basic functions of image processing like cropping, burning, dodging etc. not to mention color adjustment like saturation and contrast and adjustments that are just not possible in an analog way can be easy in digital processing (once you know ^^ - if you took a lot of time learning and doing on your computer^^).</p>

<p>The implementation of sensor or film into a body is another topic. Compare an F5 to a D3 class body not the D700. The D700 is a bit like the F100 or perhaps between the F100 and the F5 in the film days.<br>

The AF system of the F5 was fast (above Josh got a real point there) but at least in low light the current AF systems in the D series are better.<br>

The only thing I miss from my F5 (and F2) is the MF capability of the screen. Current screens are optimized for viewing and AF shooting. At least for me MF worked better with the older screens of say the F2,F3,F5 in that order. But MF is "OK" with my D3.<br>

Hope this helps :-)<br>

Cheers<br>

Walter</p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p><em>The F5 with a film scanner will likely run me less than 1000 dollars, </em></p>

<p>Dream on! Nikon stopped making the LS-5000 film scanner, and the used price ($3000) is three times the new price of last year. For what? My experience parallels that of Shun, except I don't have a D300 (yet). After buying an used D1x in 2003 and compared the results, I never used 35mm film again.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Maybe a Coolscan V and F5 under $1k USD.....</p>

[mark liddell]

I'm with Scott W, seriously look into stitching. The software advances where nodal slides and other pano kit wasn't mandatory was the tipping point for me to switch from medium format film to digital for my landscapes. On top of this, software like helicon focus means you can dof stack frames so depth of field issues and shooting in f/22 diffraction territory is a thing of the past. I stitch about 9 frames for each shot and the files are great (and I've come from 6x7 imacon scanned provia from a mamiya 7).

 

I've had the D700 since it was released and in my experience nothing from 35mm film will get too close to it, it's probably close to 645 film quality. Is there any reason you are looking at a 35mm film camera for landscape work? Medium format cameras are so cheap now, move a format or 2. I'm not a huge fan of nikon scanners, stuff I've had imacon scanned is far better. If you are dead set on scanning don't buy the scanner and send it out to a good lab.

 

I don't understand the discussion about AF speed in this thread when the OP is shooting landscapes.

[trent_dietsche]

<p>Thank you for all of the responses. I think I will defenately look into the stitching software and try to get some practice in with that. What gear do you need to do pano work like what Scott had done. Do you need a special tripod pano head, or will a standard rotating head work. What software do you prefer? I think I will pick up an F5 to alleviate my NAS and keep doing most of my shooting with my D300. Shooting panos will help me to not need the FX size sensor and save some money.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I am into scapes only - city or land. One of the reason I like manual focus Nikon bodies are they are smaller and they use the same film. AF to me is just convenience, the right hand grip while bulkier is a lot more user friendly, 2 command dials, informative viewfinder. For the size I wouldn't use the F5/6. F6 maybe 3D matrix with manual lenses but then again for landscape work I would take my time with spot or CW. F100 does everything. I would use a vertical grip be upgrade or builtin if I was doing a lot of street, events, sports but I don't. I have a D2h I am not even going to buy a L bracket for that..... while the D70 and F100 would/will.</p>

<p>I am not a volume shooter. 120 works for me and I hope to get it next year, was actually end of this year but I have film in my freezer that I need to clear out, incl 2 rolls of Kodachrome plus 4 E6 that will be shipped together, Dwaynes have the same postal cost up to 6 rolls. 120 could be cheaper than 35mm bodies, for the film they are cheaper with less shots, processing they are the same (for me) and printing they are less as less shots. </p>

<p>Not a huge fan of stitching for me personally, some shots just not possible and it can be fussy. Larger formats is an option and then just crop if need be. <br>

<br /> <br /> I've compared film to digital. I am happy with the D70 over 35mm film but slides do look nice for projection and that with film you do have a more personal look with that. The grain and sharpness is better with digital. Film may have some details in shadows than my D70. I agree for many and in many countries who may not have the prices of the USA, that it is just prohibitive. At the end of the day time and money rules....</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>We had endless film/digital discussions years ago.<br />After that this topic became very quiet and I assume this is a relieve for the moderators .-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A lot of that silly debate is merely due to a few individuals who just like to argue in forums. To me, it was very obvious that by 2005, those 10, 12MP DX DSLRs were already surpassing 35mm film. And we are now 1 to 2 generations beyond 2005 DSLR technology; those old DSLRs are all below $1000 now. Of course, all Nikon film SLRs that are not collector items are next to worthless by now.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The only thing I miss from my F5 (and F2) is the MF capability of the screen. Current screens are optimized for viewing and AF shooting. At least for me MF worked better with the older screens of say the F2,F3,F5 in that order. But MF is "OK" with my D3.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks to Live View, I think manual focus has never been easier and has never been so precise.</p>

<p>Concerning stiching digital images together, keep in mind that it is not always easy. If there are moving subjects in your landscape image such as clouds, trees, and running water, stiching can be very difficult.</p>

[nishnishant]

<blockquote>

<p>As I have mentioned a few times recently, the D700 is kind of late in its production cycle. If you can wait, I would wait a few months and see what the next model will be. It seems likely that Nikon will produce a more affordable 20+MP DSLR. If so, it'll give you further advantages for landscape work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, on a similar note, would you advise someone who's wondering about purchasing a D90 to wait a similar 4-5 months in case a D90 successor is out?</p>

<p>I know it's off-topic, but with your NDA based inside info, I know that all you can do is drop vague hints that are permissible under the NDA. Hence the question. Thank you.</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>For stitching I use PTGui to stitch the images together with the smart blend plugin, which removes much of the problems with moving people.</p>

 

<br>

 

<p>I shoot both with and with out a panoramic head, the head makes it easier to take a large number of shots and it makes it easier to rotate around the nodal point of the lens, but for most shots it really is not needed.<br>

<br />These were all shot hand held, you can click on the image to link to larger views.</p>

<br>

 

<p>I am not saying that there are not times when stitching has problems, but it is far less them what most people believe. Clouds have never been a problem for me, sometime people if I am not careful and in some cases large waves, but even then it often works well.</p>

<br>

 

 

<br>

<a title="pan1c from tiff by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2721/4449413026_3e30f7b0d1.jpg" alt="pan1c from tiff" width="500" height="246" /></a> <a title="pan1 12-19-08 by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4023/4448640289_ed7290a423.jpg" alt="pan1 12-19-08" width="500" height="264" /></a> <a title="pan2 08-30-05 copy by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4448642921_20c2d0408e.jpg" alt="pan2 08-30-05 copy" width="500" height="356" /></a> <a title="pan13 09-07-05 by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4449424444_480d34c9d4.jpg" alt="pan13 09-07-05" width="500" height="239" /></a></p>

[lwg]

<p>Load up some Ektar 100 and print it optically and you will be surprised at what film can do in 35mm. No visible grain at 11x14 and very sharp. That combination may give the D700 a run for its money. I like the Ektar in the F100 over the D300 for macro and landscape, though medium or large format blows it all away. I don't get why people try to shoot landscapes with 35mm, so my real recommendation would be to get a 4x5 and keep the D300 for the non static stuff. If you are determined to stick with 35mm format I would get a F100 (or older manual focus) over the F5 for landscape. It's a lighter camera, and autofocus isn't really needed (actually it's a nuisance most of the time).</p>

[chuck_t]

<p>If you really want to use the 35mm format, digital or film, for landscape photography, I would recommend digital Leica M9, Leica M2 or Leica MP with a used summicron IV 35mm lens plus a 24mm Summilux f1.4 lens. Forget about using 4x5 and Nikon because large format is a hassle to set it up and time consuming. Also, the Nikon lacks the micro-contrast, smooth bokeh and the smooth transition in tonality.<br>

The Leica M lenses is expensive, but it always hold their value over the years in the trade market. My 2 cents.<br>

If you do lots of sport and Marco, then you need to keep the Nikon.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Nish, photo.net currently has an excellent relationship with Nikon USA. The last thing I'll do is to violate any non-disclosure agreement in a public forum such as this one for everybody to see. On the other hand, I am also glad that we are under no obligation to trumpet every piece of new Nikon equipment. In any case, I currently have no advanced info on any up-coming Nikon equipment; everything I point out is already in public domain.</p>

<p>The D700 was introduced as a downsized D3 with identical electronics inside a body that is similar to the D300. The upgrades to the D3S and D300S plus Nikon's own comment that they need to add more DSLRs with more than 12MP should give you a pretty good idea how they are going to improve the D700.</p>

<p>Both the D700 and D90 were introduced in the summer of 2008. Assuming a two-year production cycle, you would expect both of them to be replaced within 2010. However, the D80 and D90 have been downsized D200 and D300, respectively. Since Nikon upgraded the D300 to a slightly improved D300S instead of a totally new D400, at least to me, it is unclear how they will update the D90. The video feature can certainly be improved, for example.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The best scanner to get today (still in production) is probably the coolscan 9000. It will also allow you to handle MF if you move up in format. A GOOD SCANNER IS CRUCIAL. For landscape work, you can save up the money from the fast camera and spend it on the scanner.</p>

<p>It is clear from the many threads that compare digital and film that people's results and experiences with film vary dramatically hence they arrive at widely different conclusions. Some can't get better results with film than they can with a 5mp DSLR, others believe they exceed the results possible with the best of today's DSLRs.</p>

<p>In my experience, the results I get with film (35mm and 6x7 - mainly TMAX and Velvia) cannot be matched by the best DSLR. </p>

<p>For B&W I find film is still a quantum leap better than a DSLR's interpolated color which is even later rendered monochrome. B&W film is also much more straight forward to get the results you want out of the can.</p>

<p>For my color work, mainly Velvia 6x7 scanned with a Coolscan 9000, I find film is also far superior to any DSLR in my opinion for landscape work.</p>

<p>There is, in addition to it all, a subjective component that makes photographers prefer film or digital. </p>

<p>You would have to try them side by side to figure out what you find best.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Keep in mind also that for landscape B&W work, film allows you to capture scenes of much wider DR which would not be possible with digital.</p>

<p>Example:</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The best advice is probably to use film and digital alongside and see which one you gravitate toward to as you gain experience.</p>

[randyhargraves]

Strictly for landscapes I would go f5 and coolscan but you're probably looking at more than a grand for the pair. If you

need one camera for all types of photography then go digital. If you are a landscape shooter then try to rent or borrow

Large format. Jaw dropping results if you can get it right.