D700 VS F5

[lewis_hizer]

<p>Get a cheap older Nikon like an FE or FM and try some fine-grained film. You won't be out too much money if you decide it isn't worth it.<br /><br />I see from earlier posts that you want to go backpacking in National Parks of the southwest, so I assume you want to shoot those types of landscapes and not necessarily street scenes etc. An older, well-working body will record the same landscape as an F5, given identical lenses. The F5 has technical innovations that make it excellent for action, sports, photojournalism, etc. but wouldn't necessarily be any better for landscape, especially if you are backpacking. It's big and heavy compared to an FE.<br>

<br />You can stitch panoramas from scanned film shots too - I do it often, with no special software.<br>

<br />I make 100% of my living from digital, but like to shoot occasional landscapes on Velvia. It captures deep reds and magentas better than my 12.3MP Nikon, and the resolution is competitive. In some cases, I can see details on the film that are "averaged out" by pixels covering a given area on the sensor. Since you want to backpack, consider stitching film or digital rather than MF or 4x5.</p><div></div>

[lewis_hizer]

<p>Another stitched from film shots:</p><div></div>

[anand_dhupkar]

<p> A question - Is D700 faster than D300s for focusing ? is it significantly faster ? I have been almost finalizing my decision on D300s based on reading so far that low-light performance for both of them is almost same. But if the focusing performance of D700 is significantly better over D300s, I might reconsider going towards D700 again. But I really don't want go route of full frame - I am kinda wild life, general photography person, not portraits specifically ...</p>

[lewis_hizer]

<p>One more from film, this time 35mm slides:</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>I see two issues here:<br /> 1. For those who are already processing&printing their own film material, there is not "film vs digital" debate. I can easily made a 16x20" print, plenty full of detail, at the cost of a 4x5" film sheet, plus 1+1/2 sheet of paper and a bit more for the chemicals. The same print could cost me a fortune on digital (high end camera or scanner, monitor and/or calibration device and a big printer). I can always send it for printing, thought, the issue here is that I <em>never</em> get what I expect, and is not certainly cheap, too.<br /> Those who don`t have a darkroom yet, will not find any benefit shooting film, I believe. The same for those who don`t enjoy slide projection.<br /> 2. Digital stitching is great for almost everything, except for subjects that cannot be stitched, like portraits.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>A question - Is D700 faster than D300s for focusing ? is it significantly faster ? I have been almost finalizing my decision on D300s based on reading so far that low-light performance for both of them is almost same. But if the focusing performance of D700 is significantly better over D300s, I might reconsider going towards D700 again.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anand, your question is off topic here.</p>

<p>I own both the D300 and D700, and I used a D300S that Nikon loaned to photo.net. I reviewd all three cameras for photo.net. All three cameras use the same Multi-CAM 3500 AF module and their AF performance is about the same. The main difference is that since the D700 is FX, those same 51 AF points are more proportionally concentrated to the center of the frame. If anything, I prefer AF on the D300 because the AF points cover the frame much better.</p>

<p>The D300 and D300S use identical sensors and produce essentially identical results. At high ISOs from 800 and up, the D700 is about one stop or perhaps a little more better.</p>

<p>If you shoot weddings, parties, or indoor sports, definitely get the D700. For wildlife, the D300/D300S is a much better choice because of the better reach.</p>

<p>Lewis Heizer, both of your film images include EXIF data which show that they are digital captures (with the Fuji S3 and Nikon D90). I wonder how those EXIF data got into your film scans. In any case, I am not exactly what those small JPEG images demonstrate here.</p>

[nishnishant]

<p>Thank you Shun. And yes, I absolutely know that neither you or anyone else at Photo.net will remotely violate the NDAs with Nikon. I fully respect that as I myself am under NDA with some major software companies (but the concept is the same).</p>

<p>I hadn't thought of the D200/80 and D300/90 associations. So that was very useful info. Thank you once again.</p>

[lewis_hizer]

<p>Shun - although I mentioned scanning in my post, I guess I should have clarified that those particular images were not scanned, since I don't own a scanner, unlike many of the film users on this forum. These particular slides and negatives were copied with a macro setup using D90 or Fuji S3 cameras to record the image. The point I was trying to make is that a person can do stitching with film images as easily as from digital images, if the OP was considering stitching as an option. Since he was already considering the possibility of buying a scanner, I mentioned "scanning" in order to keep my answer relevant to his question, since most people would prefer to scan rather than copy with a macro setup.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I don`t want to post a portrait without permission, hence I`ll show any other thing. It is a 4x5" on TMY... the whole frame scan:</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>Here, there is a scan of a portion of the image... concretely from an area of 8.2x9.9mm (0.32x0.39inches). V750pro scanner at 2400ppp (imagine what could be obtained with a high end scanner!).<br /> If for whatever the reason you want big image sizes in one only shot (portraits), film is still a useful media (and very cheap for low production). I can easily make a full quality 16x20" print at home for a little money. <br>

If I were new to film, it could be something extremely difficult. I`d prefer to invest on current technologies.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>I thought the OP's question was D700 vs. F5. He makes it very clear that he is interested in the 35mm format, i.e. 24x36mm FX. Since when did it become yet another general film vs. digital debate involving medium-format and 4x5 film?</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I am not sure that you really need an F5 for lanscapes. It is a large heavy camera with features that are not really needed for landscape photography. It is ok if you want to give film a try but you maybe better off using something like an FM2 for landscapes and putting the saved money on a decent tripod or a nice old manual focus prime. Personaly though if landscapes were my thing I would look at a Pentax 67 and have a decent sized piece of film.</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3995956">Mauro Franic</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 21, 2010; 11:49 a.m.</p>

 

<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).<br>

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>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I did a quick test, shooting the same scene at both 18mm and then stitching with 28mm, see the photos below. The perspective looks pretty much the same to me.<br>

<a title="pan1 03-21-10 by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4451435894_b79c6d8e16.jpg" alt="pan1 03-21-10" width="500" height="333" /></a> <a title="IMG_5580 by KonaScott, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2751/4451432550_739174f1f0.jpg" alt="IMG_5580" width="500" height="333" /></a></p>

 

[arnabdas]

<p>How about a 40+ MP image from a 35mm frame of Velvia 50?<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00F7a7">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00F7a7</a></p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Some posters have pointed that there are slight differences between 35mm film (F5) and DSLRs (D700)... some in favour of digital, others film. That difference, in my opinion, is not big enough to make 35mm film cameras interesting (F5) except for certain needs (slide projection, home darkroom enjoyment).<br /> <br /> Digital stitching makes bigger formats not worth it, <em>except for certain needs</em>, like portraits. You cannot get a one-shot, 100Mp image with a Nikon. If someone is considering film, I`d say great, but consider it on a much bigger format.<br /> <br /> Here it is certainly a big, useful difference, and I`m posting a graphic proof. Not a portrait, I`m afraid.</p>

[lewis_hizer]

<p>I'm surprised how similar they are. The only difference other than color rendition seems to be a very slightly wider top to the bookcase in the first shot.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I think the reason that many suggest medium format or even large format is just that in many ways they are more suitable for landscape photography than 35mm. The the prices of medium format kit today one can have a rather nice medium format kit for not too much money.</p>

[arnabdas]

<p>And scroll down on this link to a see a 100% crop from a 40+ MP scanned image from 35mm Provia 100F.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00FKTo">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00FKTo</a><br>

Works for you? That's about as good as it can get with 35mm (or the F5, for that matter) -- so you decide...</p>

 

[2Oceans]

<p>Shun, Sorry to be off topic but how do you get EXIF data to load on to your posted images. I assumed it was not possible. I can never pull that up on my own posted images or others when I am interested in the technique or to make sure that I am posting my own information correctly. Many folks don't include any data at all and I can probably be acused of that as well at times. Andy</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=509425">Arnab Pratim Das</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 21, 2010; 01:58 p.m.</p>

 

<p>And scroll down on this link to a see a 100% crop from a 40+ MP scanned image from 35mm Provia 100F.<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="00FKTo">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00FKTo</a><br />Works for you? That's about as good as it can get with 35mm (or the F5, for that matter) -- so you decide...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That 100% crop is way soft, it starts to look ok when resized to around 40%, but then that has shrunk your 40MP image down to around 6.5. And even at 40aA% is looks soft to my eye.<br>

I assume you are talking about this crop BTW<br>

<a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00F/00FKUl-28300884.jpg">100% crop</a></p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=442714">Edward Woods</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 21, 2010; 02:18 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Shun, Sorry to be off topic but how do you get EXIF data to load on to your posted images. I assumed it was not possible. I can never pull that up on my own posted images or others when I am interested in the technique or to make sure that I am posting my own information correctly. Many folks don't include any data at all and I can probably be acused of that as well at times. Andy</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If you download the image you can check the exif data once it is on your computer.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott, it is very simple. I'm confused why you debate this. In your example you must be using half a crop of the 18mm shot.</p>

<p>Imagine you are shooting a landscape that has a cow at 100 meters and a windmill at 200 meters.</p>

<p>Now you shoot the picture with (a) 17mm lens and also with (b) two shots with a 35mm lens stitched together.</p>

<p>In the first picture the windmill will be half the relative size to the cow as in the second picture.</p>

<p>In other words, the stitched picture with give the windmill twice the prominence in relationship to the cow.</p>

 

[swilson]

<p>The 18mm shot is right out of the camera, you can click on it to get to the full size image.</p>

[swilson]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3995956">Mauro Franic</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 21, 2010; 02:29 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Scott, it is very simple. I'm confused why you debate this. In your example you must be using half a crop of the 18mm shot.<br>

Imagine you are shooting a landscape that has a cow at 100 meters and a windmill at 200 meters.<br>

Now you shoot the picture with (a) 17mm lens and also with (b) two shots with a 35mm lens stitched together.<br>

In the first picture the windmill will be half the relative size to the cow as in the second picture.<br>

In other words, the stitched picture with give the windmill twice the prominence in relationship to the cow.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>This does not make any sense at all, if the cow is half the distance it is going to be the same relative size to the back ground regardless of the FL lens use.<br>

Now if you used a shorter lens and moved closer to the cow the perspective would change, but that is not what we are talking about.</p>

</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Scott, I'm still puzzled about this discussion. It is very elemental. </p>

<p>Imagine you take a portrait of a group of 10 people standing 5 meters away from them.</p>

<p>If you use several 100mm shots stitched together they will look alright. If you use a single 17mm shot they will look deformed.</p>