critique my setup

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>With a F100 a N70 can be used as a paperweight.</p>

<p>Consider your annual cost of film and processing. That should easily run into 500 USD. Why not make the step into digital? Maybe a used D300 or a D700? You would not believe what you have missed.<br>

However, a roll of Delta 100 or XP2 in that good old F100 is magic too.......</p>

[skip_kempe]

<blockquote>

<p>"You would not believe what you have missed."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, you could also step up to a 6x9 medium format camera or (God forbid!) a 4x5 view camera and then you certainly would not believe what you have missed. But the OP is not asking about what he should be doing <em>instead</em>—he's asking about anything differently he can be doing with his <em>current</em> setup. For your current 35mm setup, one simple suggestion I'd make (and easily the cheapest!) is to step up to some different films and see what else is out there beyond Fuji 100 or 200 consumer film. (Definitely ditch the 200, which many feel is a pointless compromise between the sharpness of 100 or the speed of 400 with nothing really gained.) Shoot a roll of Kodak Ektar 100, a roll of the Fuji NPH 400 (which I think is still around...hard to remember which films Fuji's ditched recently) and some of the pro Kodak color print films, though I think they're focused on portraiture now. Why not even try slides... Fuji's Velvia is used by many for landscapes, though it's known for rather punchy colors. Go to the fujifilm and kodak professional websites (be sure and find the pro part of the site) where you can look at their explanations of what their different films are aimed at. </p>

<p>The thing is, with the film setup you can try out a whole bunch of looks for only the cost of a different roll of film. Yes, I know, some will remind you that you can apply all sorts of filters or profiles to digital files to get different "looks" too. But if you're especially second-guessing whether you should be spending lots more money on all kinds of new equipment, maybe it's time to take a few breaths and use what you already have to experiment with some different films.</p>

[gerry b.]

<p>If you're interested in landscape work, and you are working with film, you might want to look at "Landscape Photography" by John Shaw. Good on issues of general techniques, composition, exposure, use of lenses of different focal lengths for various effects. Much of the film type information will be outdated because of the book's age.</p>

[moosekaka_lim]

<p>thanks all for the responses. couple of points:<br>

1) yes i know the scanner is the weak link, but i dont print larger than 8x10 and if i really like a shot, i could sneak in a scan in my school's photo studio which has a nikon coolscan v. also i use silverfast (an "unofficial" version, *if you catch my drift *). <br>

2)trolling xraigslxst for a used film scanner....andrew how much did you pay for it and how long did you troll for?<br>

3) i have about 50 rolls of film which i store in my lab'c 4C fridge, some fuji 100's, 200',800's , a few reala, ektar, sensia and a dozen fuji 400H. total film cost was about $150, and i process develop only at costco for $1.59 a roll. I dont think i can finish 50 rolls in one year. a used d700...thats about $2000...a used d300, at least a $1000 (KEH prices). maybe someday i would go for d700 as i want to keep my full frame lenses.<br>

when you factor in depreciation cost of digital bodies i think $200 for film with its dynamic range, negative backups and film look...doesnt seem too bad.<br>

4) flash is my priority, im thinking an SB-30 for light fill flash on the go, and an SB24 or sb26.<br>

5)ND grad would be my next purchase though, since i find the blown out sky at sunset/sunrise most annoying.<br>

6) N70 as paperweight...hmmm i walk around with two bodies on landscape trip with the wide angle on it and the VR zoom on the f100. saves time. and i can load different film on two different bodies. </p>

<p> </p>

[moosekaka_lim]

<p>also its interesting that i had a digital point and shoot for 8 years, and i reviewed my shots, most were rubbish because i just never took the time to think about my shots. over a period of two years i took less than 700 shots with it. less than 10 keepers.<br>

sure a low cost dslr would be faster, but i like the big full frame viewfinders. and D type lenses wont work with entry level DSLR's (and i love my 24mm and 50mm D primes). </p>

<p> </p>

[lornesunley]

<p>The SB-800 (used) would be the best flash for your setup. If that is too expensive, I'd recommend an SB-28 rather than the SB-24/26. The SB-800 will work with the F100 and with any of the Nikon DSLR models if you go over to the dark side and get a D700 at some time. The SB-800 has an SU-4 mode for wireless TTL with the film cameras. If you get an SB-28 be sure to pick up an SU-4 so that you can use wireless TTL with your SB-30 as the on camera controller.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Yeah, I think what you're saying about two bodies makes sense, and two F100s would be a lot to carry. I have smaller bodies I use too. And I came to the same conclusion on the film cost analysis - it's not nearly as expensive as people think, especially when scanning at home. But try the new Portra 400 when stores manage to keep some in stock. Fantastic stuff - fine grain, color is excellent, and you can expose it at anything from ISO 50 to 1600.</p>

<p>The scanner trolling on Craig's List issue - first thing I did when I started doing a lot of scanning was use my Epson V500 for film, which I still use for medium format. When I decided I wanted a better scanner I post a "want to buy" on CL and somebody sold me a Minolta Dual III for $80. Later I wanted something faster/better and I had some software issues that made the III freeze up sometimes, so I set up some RSS feeds on CL for film scanner search terms and later, maybe two weeks, ended up with a Minolta Dual IV for $75, and sold the III to another guy for $100. He was doing less volume and didn't mind the freezing issue as much as I did, and the IV is definitely better.</p>

<p>BTW, if you want to consider a "normal" zoom, a Tamron 28-75/2.8 can be had used for not too much, it gets very sharp at around f/4 and it's not as heavy as you usually get with f/2.8 lenses so it can be used comfortably on an N70.</p>

[moosekaka_lim]

<p>thanks for that tip on RSS feeds andrew, and here's a tip:<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/396053-USA/Fujifilm_15473707_Pro_400H_135_36_Professional.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/396053-USA/Fujifilm_15473707_Pro_400H_135_36_Professional.html</a></p>

<p>discounts on 400H!</p>

 

[mag_miksch]

<p>replace the Nikon 24/2.8 with the Sigma 24/2.8 Super Wide II, its much better.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Learning with a digital camera is way easier, faster (<em>much</em> faster) and productive than with a film camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Get rid of your film cameras, prime lenses, scanner, filters - all film related decor!</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Consider your annual cost of film and processing. That should easily run into 500 USD. Why not make the step into digital?</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Hate to say it, but my recommendation would be a used digital SLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We are not all sheep following whatever everyone else is doing.</p>

<p> </p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>sure a low cost dslr would be faster, but i like the big full frame viewfinders. and D type lenses wont work with entry level DSLR's (and i love my 24mm and 50mm D primes).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know I`m running the risk of being called <em>"sheep"</em> again, (LOL, as a film freak I consider myself I`d have never believed it, there must be always a first time, I`m afraid :), or maybe to offend others, <em>which is far of being my intention</em>... but <br /> <br /> To the best of my knowledge D70 and D80 cameras work with screwdriver type AF lenses; I have already checked that used D80s are available in good condition easily under $380 at KEH. D70s around $200, which seems dirty cheap to me. Not "full-frame" viewfinders, I`m afraid.</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

I don't consider myself a sheep. Film and developing costs here in Holland were a solid reason to go to digital. I know

that doesn't answer the OP's question, but I took the liberty of suggesting digital anyway.

 

There are many sound reasons for film photography, I think b&w on film still is the most beautiful form of

photography, nevertheless I bought a digital body 18 months ago.

 

I suggest a sb800 for its compatibilty with the F100 and that iTTL body in the future. Furthermore I was nog dismissing the two body set up I just wouldn't care for the N70 NeXT to the lovely F100.

[thomas_k.]

<p>"We are not all sheep following whatever everyone else is doing."<br>

Right, we are not sheep, we are hairless apes. As to following: we all do, photography was invented over 150 years ago. Shooting 35mm film is not much of a discovery.</p>

[m_dawg]

<p>To be fair, there's a pretty good reason why everyone's shooting digital now. Cameras are small, easy to operate, sharp, and much cleaner than film and with lots of latitude. Full frame is often compared with 6x7 and large format (some say it's as good as 8x10; I think not), crop sensors with at least 645. It's worth at least trying a digital slr. I used to get hung up on the chromatic aberration and distortion you get with zooms, but these are easy to mitigate if you shoot raw. And perspective correction can be done easily at the cost of losing a bit of resolution.</p>

<p>But if you like negative film (and, to be perfectly honest, the nicest print I've ever seen was taken on 400ISO negative film), that sounds like a decent set up. I just find even APS-C digital nicer and more flexible than even my Nikon 9000 scans of 135 velvia. I seriously prefer the color of the film but like the dynamic range and flexibility of digital. And I can hand hold in most light with digital, see what I get immediately, and shoot tons of stuff, which is the real attraction.</p>

<p>If you want the absolute best image quality for landscapes for not too much money, get a monorail and some caltar ii-n or schneider symmar lenses and shoot on velvia 50. But the cost of film is astronomical, $6-$10 per color shot and most people bracket. If you're happy with your set up, and it sounds like you are except that you need grad filters, just spend the money on film and keep shooting. But the more gear you use and the more you shoot the better you'll know what you want. After trying everything (except a MFDB, can't afford it), I have finally settled on medium format for portraits, 4x5 for landscapes, and a rebel t2i and kit lens and plastic 50mm for what I actually use 99% of the time!</p>

[dennis_d._hardenburger]

<p>Lim<br>

You have a good setup.<br>

I think what I would add would be an SB800 flash this will be able to move up with you should you ever go digital. Orther than a flash possible a macro lens, I think the 100mm is the best balanced for all around use.<br>

I sold my F100 when I went digital, I do miss that camera and might get another one. I love Fugi Reala the color including skin tones were just great.<br>

I think you have made some very good choices in gear, and the amount you are shooting film is the way to go. Hopefully you have a good lab in your area. Where I live all the local labs have closed their doors, that was a big reason I went digital, I just need to get a decent printer now and I will be set.<br>

Nikon has stopped making scanners so they are going to get harder to find and I doubt the price will come down.<br>

Good luck <br>

Dennis</p>

[moosekaka_lim]

<p>thanks all for the responses.<br>

I have no interest in going down the digital vs film debate. I am looking to get an RB67 to play with at some point though (hopefully i can borrow it from my school's photo lab, if not KEH has them with a 90mm for less than $300). <br>

SB800 flash....now many people recommend that as digital compatible, but its at least $300....i could use that money for said RB67, or a manual lens or two, or another f100 (and a f80 to spare)! <br>

when it comes to flash, i got a cheap light SB30 for $35 and a SB24 with sc17 cord for $75. i think strobist was the one responsible for driving up the prices of old speedlites!<br>

now if i can just find someone with a minolta scan dual who will sell it for a $100....</p>

[moosekaka_lim]

<p>here is a cliche sunset shot with the f100, fuji 200.<br>

note to self: take off cheap uncoated UV filter next time!</p><div></div>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>Moosekaka,</p>

<p>At least you won't get dust on your sensor........</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>The reason why many answers, including mine, pointed you toward digital SLR is your stated goal to learn photography. I think for most of your goals the equipment you have chosen is not the best.<br>

For learning of basics of photography a DSLR is the best choice. For landscape photography 35mm film is a poor choice you should go up to medium or large format. If you persist on doing landscapes i 35mm film - the best tools are fully manual cameras with manual focus lenses - your f100 with consumer autofocus lenses are not well suited. If you would like to learn flash photography - again a DSLR with instant feedback and adjustments is the best tool. There is nothing wrong in using the equipment that you already have - but you should be seriously considering different options to reach your goals. </p>

[m_dawg]

<p>Thomas puts this really well. The issue with learning on an automatic 135 camera and negative film is that the camera does half the work for you and the lab does the other half. It's not a film vs. digital thing but rather it's that you lack the kind of feedback you need to learn technically. All you're challenging is your ability to compose (which is, admittedly, far more important than anything else). Furthermore, the only advantage of 135 for landscapes is that SLRs are handholdable and so you get a nice finder and don't need a dark cloth or waist level or rangefinder or whatever and you don't have to set up a tripod. The thing is, digital cameras are even more easily handheld for far superior image quality (full frame is somewhere between 6x7 and 4x5 most agree), so the draw of 135 film is waning.</p>

<p>If you plan to use a tripod and want to shoot film, it's 4x5's game.</p>

<p>We don't know how far advanced technically you are, but the RB67 and a spot meter coupled with slide film is a great way to learn how to expose properly and you'll have the benefit of vastly superior image quality. But for serious landscape photography, skip medium format and go for a view camera. View cameras are cheap. On the other hand, if you like what you're getting in technical terms (tonality, contrast, exposure, sharpness, etc.) focus exclusively on composition and stick with what you like. I'll admit I rarely use my view camera because it's so slow to set up.</p>

<p>As for a flash, that would be nice, but no one uses them for landscapes, really.</p>

[moosekaka_lim]

<p>"If you plan to use a tripod and want to shoot film, it's 4x5's game."<br /> "View cameras are cheap. "<br /> i can think of two good reasons for MF for landscapes:<br /> <br /> cost: you pointed this out earlier, but just to be clear, i can process a roll of color 120 for $5 (and a roll of reala 120 is like $3.5), so about $0.50 a shot. Its $2 gets to develop ONE 4x5 , and 20 sheet box of velvia 50 is $55 at freestyle, which means $5+ a shot!.....ouch...i'm not sure i can find a scene thats will be 10x better though...<br /> <br /> setup time and learning curve: as you yourself said its really slow to setup and there is a steep learning curve for view cameras?<br /> I do agree the RB 67 is the way to go for better quality, maybe in 6 months time i will get a cheap one to play with, or a RZ67 so i can have a TTL meter.<br /> in the meantime, i have three lenses to play with, two of which i ve no experience with in terms of FOV (the 24mm and 70-300 zoom). <br /> and regarding lab doing the work, i scan all my film ( i do need a better film scanner though)</p>

[m_dawg]

<p>Sounds like you know what you like and have found it, then.</p>

<p>View cameras aren't that hard to use (harder than SLRs, imo, but not terribly), they just take a long time to set up and then often you'll find the shot isn't worth it or the light has passed and it's easy to forget a step. The dark cloth is a pain. I'll sometimes insert the dark slide the wrong way and lose a shot, and thus $5, or screw up setting the shutter or calculate focus wrong or something. Loading film is a pain. It's not too bad, just a lot of steps. I do think the quality is even better than digital, though, but that's just my opinion. The main advantage is the lenses don't have any distortion or chromatic aberration (though they're also not very sharp) and you have a lot of leeway with perspective correction and adjusting the plane of focus.</p>

<p>I guess my only advice then would be to try slide film. You'll get better negative density and more immediate feedback on how accurate your exposures are. But if you're using a ttl meter instead of a spot meter the extra latitude of negative film will allow for any mistakes the matrix meter might make. In which case, it sounds like you know what you like and just stick with it. Maybe get a better scanner but that's it.</p>

<p>Personally, I found 135 was too grainy, 6x7 didn't have the lens movements I wanted, and 4x5 had it all but was expensive. Digital is so easy to fix in post and grain free that I'm using it a lot now, too, but I have to approach it differently from 4x5. But that's just my experience.</p>

[moosekaka_lim]

<p>you know what, for MF, what about the FUJI GA645pro with fixed 60 f/4?<br>

less than $500 for and ex or < $400 for a bgn at KEH. tempting...do really need teh extra size of 6x7? is 6x7 really that much nicer than a 645 negative?<br>

its so much lighter (actually the same as an f100 with prime 50 lens!) than a rb67!</p>

 

[andylynn]

<p>I used to have an RZ67. Never had a GA645, but I've shot 645. The 6x7 frame is noticeably larger (about 1.5x) but the 645 frame is 3x as large as a 35mm frame, so either is a big step up from what you're using now. The RZ was huge, I had a padded bag for it that I think must have been designed for video cameras, and the RB is about the same but heavier. It's not very practical for carrying around and hard to use handheld - you want to use it in a studio or bring it somewhere with a tripod, set up and shoot. A 645 rangefinder is much smaller and meant to be carried and handheld.</p>

<p>So, 6x7 gives you more image quality for large prints, but GA645 is a lot more manageable so it might be better for you. It's also got a lot more automation - simple film loading, motor drive, metering, etc. The RB is totally mechanical and you don't get metering unless you add a meter prism, which is more expensive and a lot of people prefer waistlevel finders. Most people use a hand held meter (though you can also use your N70 to take meter readings).</p>

[moosekaka_lim]

<p>"you can also use your N70 to take meter readings".<br>

exactly! now if only nikon SLR's can take a polaroid back :)</p>