D700 VS F5

[ty_mickan]

<p>film looks more natural than digital. it has more resolution, superior tonal graduations, better colours. if however, you want a more clinical look, then digital may be for you. also, the f5 is better built than the d700, and even the d3 can't compete in that department. if you shoot colour, the advantages of film may not be immediately apparant, but if you shoot black and white, then film is just in another league. if you wish to be constrained with small dynamic range with film, you can emulate digital by shooting chrome.</p>

<p>Mauro's advice above is sound. In the end, most will output to digital, it just depends on how you wish to capture it. solid state capture sure has its advantges as well, so use whichever capture medium engages you the most. but remember Trent, once you've jumped onto the digital gravy train, you'll soon discover that it's an expensive ride.</p><div></div>

[ty_mickan]

<p>The above shot was handheld and scanned with a Nikon Coolscan V. If I were to really want a high quality drum scan, the results would of course improve. And the beauty is that I can rescan in ten years time, when we should have even better scanners. Shots from my old D200 won't look any better in ten years time.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>If there are moving subjects in your landscape image such as clouds, trees, and running water, stiching can be very difficult.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or can be used for interesting effect. This was shot handheld:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6110373-lg.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="256" /><br>

Look to the <a href="http://gigapan.org/">Gigapan robotic pano</a> mount if you think you'll want to get into stitched photos with seriousness. A version is now available that's beefy enough to support a DSLR. I've had one since they were doing beta's a few years ago. The thing works well: highly recommended.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to have a 35mm equivalent format for landscape, and cannot decide between the two.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Get the DSLR, D700 or otherwise. For most use cases, the single shot result out of any current DSLR will be superior to 135 format film on any sensible measures of image quality.</p>

<p>For subjects that can stand multi-minute total exposures, stitch: if you need more resolution, lower noise, or higher dynamic range than those otherwise possible.</p>

<p>By the way, I'm an avid film user (in both 135 and 120.) There are lots of reasons to still use this media, but pure image technical quality isn't one of them.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Unless you are going to print B&W in the darkroom I would would recommend a digital camera for 35mm landscape photography. You scan 35mm film and guess what? You have a digital image. Only the best scanners and and finest slow films will get you image quality approaching high end digital.</p>

<p>Now my 645 can really capture some detail and give DSLR's a run for their money and then some if one is willing to put up with the fuss and inconvenience of film. Even in little 5x7 prints things like grasses and leaves appear with such sharp clarity that you can't help but be impressed.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>I have 30 rolls in the freezer, 9 slides to be reserved for a trip, 6 neg film might be for another. </p>

<p>I have a D70 and I use film. Both are fit for pupose. This means hobby work, for competitions at a local and national level and some have used eithe formats at a international level. Exhibition level. Some of my peers have got into part time jobs as a portrait photographer and a children photographer and they haven't shot a film SLR before.</p>

<p>For me most shoot digital given the cost where I live. $20US for slides or $14US for print film. For one roll. </p>

<p>Digital is certainly easier with the LCD and free film. Digital is sharper, less grain aka: clinically. Film to me is more natural from what I have seen from my earlier years. Film is a diff look less clinically or less perfect but I like it. <br /> <br /> I don't have a slide projector yet. Once scanned. I agree that some Chrome film can look like digital if you are scanning. Slides look unique on a light table like Velvia, but Elite Chrome, and Ektachrome 200 to me looks a bit like digital on a lightbox or scanned. To me my personally view is, slide film have some unique film when backlighted, neg film OTOH provides a look that I enjoy.<br>

I also enjoy using older techniques and cameras and hunting the second hand market, so film works for me, I take the hassle and import film under $250US so I avoid import tax while still paying $60US for freight cost. But that's me. Many people from my camera club wouldn't be bothered and just use digital. I take the time and shoot a roll each month or two, I spot meter and shoot off a tripod. Fortunately I do still images. OTOH if I did portraits, sports, events, in otherwords a wide variety film would just be too expensive for me and I probably wouldn't use it much and reserve special moments for film.</p>

<p>I don't know about larger formats as I have not got into them yet. Maybe 2011.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>can someone please name me a small format digital camera model that could match the sharpness and resolution that could be acheived with a an f5, a 2/28mm ai-s lens, and a roll of adox cms20 developed in adotech?</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I like to shoot some film and latley I have been enjoying B&W film again. It does not really bother me that film has more grain than digital or that I maybe could get the same look from digital. I enjoy processing B&W film, like the look I get from B&W film and that is more than enough reason to shoot it. For me photography is not about finding the setup that has the ultimate resolution or anything like that.</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Heres is another B&W image.</p><div></div>

[maciek_stankiewicz]

<p>F5 and then Stittching :)</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>Digital is easier, more flexible and the workflow faster, it is grain free even at highish ISOs and manipulating digital files is easier and in some circumstances looks better than film. Film has more character, it has grain which in some circumstances is exactly what you want (and particularly on B&W film as good slide film is pretty smooth), it has miles more resolution than a D700 (yes 35mm film really observably does) and somehow film is more satisfying to use although the subsequent workflow is a pain.<br>

I use both to equal effect and gratification - there is no right answer to your question Trent. All I can say is that if I only had one camera to use for the rest of my life it wouldn't be my D700 but probably my F6.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>... James, those who still develop and print their own film know this perfectly... I don`t know any "traditional" printer who denies your affirmation.<br /> I`m somewhat silly against digital, just the name "digital" sounds even awkward in my mind, but since the D300 my film production decreased considerably (in 35mm format) and with the D700 it has almost dissapeared... I currently use film in medium or large format mostly, and in much lower quantities.</p>

<p>To my taste, a F5 could be interesting only for slides... projection still has an special charm to me.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>it has miles more resolution than a D700 (yes 35mm film really observably does)</em></p>

<p>While I think my Canon 7D is pretty good, I doubt it has "miles more resolution" than a Nikon D700. Yet it out resolves the highest resolution color film made and matches one of the highest resolution B&W films. (See attached.) Some how I think a D700 would put in a similar performance.</p>

<p>Before someone jumps up and says "but that's scanned", film doesn't look much different under a microscope. I've never been able to put more detail on a darkroom print than I could put on an ink jet print with a good, high resolution scan.</p><div></div>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Medium format film naturally pulls ahead of a DSLR due to the difference in sensor/film size. Although the jump isn't quite what some might expect. (Howtek scan of Velvia.)</p><div></div>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Then again, an easy, 3 frame stitch with a DSLR pulls ahead of MF.</p><div></div>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>The map test was devised by Les Sarile. You'll find lots of film scan samples plus some additional DSLR samples at Les Sarile's site: http://www.fototime.com/inv/E0D372FC8001820</p>

<p>As you can see at his site, a Nikon D2x is just barely edged out by 35mm Velvia. Despite the same pixel count I would expect a D700 to do better and therefore edge out the top color film, as the Canon 7D clearly can.</p>

<p>Nothing against film. Some films have a very unique look or palette, others have more dynamic range, and of course there's always 4x5. And while I think digital B&W is capable of matching traditional B&W in look and feel, it takes some training, and one should have experience with traditional materials to better help them master digital B&W.</p>

<p>But I don't think anyone can claim that film is "miles ahead" of modern digital sensors. And for those on a budget, or looking to reduce weight, a simple 3 frame stitch is an easy way to get better than MF quality out of a DSLR.</p>

<p>If I were choosing between a D700 and an F5, I would choose the D700. I might later add a 35mm body, but at this point in time I think I would rely on outside scanning services rather than invest the tidy sum necessary for a CoolScan. (A Plustek would also be an option.) But that's me.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>It should also be pointed out that modern DSLRs, with 10-12 stops of dynamic range in RAW, exceed slide film and are closer to negative film in dynamic range. Some negative films still have more, but it's just not that big of an issue. And of course one can always employ HDR or manual exposure blending to capture a scene with an extreme luminance range.</p>

[mark liddell]

Thanks for posting the comparisons Daniel, I've never done these tests side by side but the results match my impressions in the field.

[james_symington1]

<p>Hi Daniel,<br>

I have done similar side by side tests - on distant foliage/trees - and when D700/D3 NEFs go up against a Coolscan 9000 scan of Provia the finest detail held up rather better on film. Throwing a 7D comparison in isn't too helpful as firstly it has more resolution and also Canon AA filters are less of a blight on performance than Nikon's ones, reportedly, so I don't think we are discussing the same 'fruit' anymore if you catch my drift.<br>

When all is said and done though the D700 is one hell of a camera and largely because of the huge workflow constraints of dealing with scanning in large amounts I do use mine an awful lot for my most serious work. Would those shots look better on film? Sometimes yes and sometimes no - I am certainly not religious about. But I do take the 'digital trounces 35mm' debate with a large pinch of salt. It's simply not that straightforward. I have no experience of the current uber DSLRs like the D3X or 5D II where I think 35mm probably is eclipsed. But not on a D700/D3 or even the older 5D and 1Ds II I used to have.</p>

[2Oceans]

<p>Trent, I think we are at the point of apples and oranges. The digital cameras that are out there have resolution that will knock your socks off. Being in the moment with digital cameras allows you to make adjustments immediately. I think for landscapes the D700 would be fantastic and for the price of 300 rolls of film and processing you can purchase a magnificently fast PC and Epson 3880 printer, work up your digital raw files from a DSLR and print them on archival paper to be remembered for 200 years. It that serves your passion. If I were a professional my needs would be dictated by the market not by my personal desires and each piece of gear would be balanced against a requirement to produce revenue. I would probably be digital only. Digital scans of film can be altered just as easily as raw files. I would think that your current D300 would probably be fine for landscapes. Film has been has been characterized as a type writer compared to a DSLR that is a word processor but I have often heard of great writers who choose smith corona over PC. If you’re doing this for fun and no other reason, choose the system that satisfies your inner desires. I hope this does not sound too pedantic. Good hunting Andy</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>In pre-digital photography times "the" format for landscape photography was 4x5 and 8x10 film - not 35mm. Nikon F5 is simply a wrong tool for the job. But Trent, you mentioned that it is the evil NAS which is driving you to this camera, so get it and report back to this forum about your experiences.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>I don't have an F5, but I have F2's and an F4 in addition to my D700. With fine grained slide or negative film, my film cameras, using the same AIS Nikkors with either camera and with the film scanned at 4000 ppi using my CoolScan LS-8000 ED, the two final images are essentially indistinguishable up to 100% crops. In fact, the film often out-performs the digital in terms of final resolving power. And the fact that I used the same exact lenses with the two cameras, is very telling.</p>

<p>As previously mentioned, cameras are only tools, they are recording devices. The person behind the camera, not the camera itself, is what makes the difference between a poor or mediocre image, and a great photograph. That is as true today as it was a hundred years ago.</p>

 

[fred_rooks]

<p>All these comparisons between digital captures and scanner output are worthless. Yes, crops from DSLR files do look better than film scans on screen at 100%. That's all. Comparing film cameras to typewriters is utterly stupid, by the way.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Trent, while some people's results with even 35mm film outresolve DSLRs in 2010 and other people's results with film is inferior than their own 5MP old digicams is irrelevant. Both are very high resolving tools.</p>

<p>Your pick will ultimately be decided by things other than resolution. It is very easy to get any resolution you want by picking the right film size.</p>

<p>Very often I shoot 35mm TMAX 400 at iso 800. Because I love the way it looks - nothing else. Resolution is never a constraint.</p>

<p>Give both a try. Most, if not all, photographers who have chosen to shoot mainly film also have DSLRs they use when they see fit. In today's time when a photographer chooses film, he/she does so as a mature preference - not because of a theoretical discussion.</p>

<p>There is only one way to find out what/when you like to use best.</p>

<p> </p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>As many pointed out, stitching is sometimes useful (with both digital and film) especially when you want to shoot panoramas with a long focal length. It allows you to keep the prominence of subjects in the background that would be diminished by using a wide angle. (once again, don't let resolution be your driving force).</p>

<p>Conversely, if you are looking for perspective, stitching several shots with a normal lens will not give you the results of a wide angle.</p>

<p> </p>

[photo5]

<p>Apples and oranges folks. As we can see with this thread, the film vs digital debate will not die. I too prefer digital overall for convenience, but I still enjoy shooting slide film and will be shooting three rolls of Kodachrome this summer as a swansong to that emulsion. Film is still more archival than digital. That for me is a huge distinction. But who knows if we will still have film scanners 50-100 years from now? Certainly the Nikon Coolpix line of scanners looks pretty well finished. I saw the Nikon Coolscan 9000 is unavailable at B&H Photo at the moment. And new copies of that scanner are cheaper now than used copies of the Nikon 5000. Glad I have a Nikon Coolscan V ED! Canon does make inexpensive film scanners but I have not used one so I don't know how they compare to the Coolscans.<br /> Different formats.<br /> Film and digital are different formats. Different media. I went through a 2 year commercial photography degree program from 1997-1999 and it was mostly film then. We did have a 4x5 scanning back that we could use with our view cameras to produce a digital file, and that was cool. We also had an old Kodak digital SLR that was based on a Nikon body that I think was around 1mp, but nobody used that. It just sat on the shelf with a nice Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS lens mounted on it. I feel very fortunate to have gone through the program shooting and developing and printing there. I still have the film I shot. I still have the digital I shot since 2000 as well. I have too many slides and too many negatives, it's a pain to manage all the media I have. Easier to manage digital by far. I can scroll through 40,000 images in iPhoto in less than a minute and pretty much see all thumbnails. I don't think film is going away soon. Somebody out there will still produce it and somebody out there will still manufacture chemicals so people can develop it at home. And a lab will stay open to develop film for those who don't want to do it at home as well. At least I sure hope so.<br>

To the OP, I would buy an F5. The D700 will be refreshed hopefully this year sometime. The F5 is the F5 and will always be an F5. I have an F100 and it is very similar to the F5, I prefer its size over the F5 for sure. But I can remember when the F5 was introduced, and the metering was so advanced, I thought to myself, it's possible to shoot any scene and get a perfect exposure, it's just a big point and shoot!<br>

We had a customer who came in to the shop (I was managing a camera repair business then) and asked us which SLR he should buy, the new Nikon F5 or the new Leica R8. We told him the F5 because it was just a better camera overall. He bought one and enjoyed it. The R8 would have been a sexier camera, but the F5 is better for everything else.</p>