N90s to D100?

[dberryhill]

I would probably categorize myself as a serious amateur. I shoot a

roll or two a week, primarily casual portraits, landscapes of the

rural area where I live, and vacation snapshots. I'll likely never

earn a penny at photography, but I do want to keep improving. I now

shoot mostly with a N90s, but also use a couple of old Nikormats. I

have my film processed and scanned to a cd at the local Wal-Mart

(yea, I know that's a no-no, but I've been pleased with their work).

I then crop and edit in PS and print on an Epson 2200 (probably will

print no larger than 13x19. Generally, I'm happy with the results,

except I sometimes don't get the definition I'd like in things like

foliage in landscapes.

Going to a D100 is appealing, particularly now that the price has

dropped. I could elimiate the processing costs, see immediately what

I've shot and toss out the duds. But by the time I've added a memory

card or two, flash, and other accessories, I'll have spent $2,000.00

or so, which for me is a chunk of cash.

I'd appreciate knowing the thoughts of you've who have traveled a

similar path or have considered it. What else would I gain by getting

the D100? Would my photos likely be better? Would my money be better

spent instead on a MF camera to gain better detail?

Thanks sincerely.

 

Doug Berryhill

[p._neil_ralley]

Doug, as you are using Walmart I am assuming that you are shooting negative film (?) and if this is the case try shooting some Velvia, Sensia, Provia and even good old Kodachrome. If your out put is to CDs for home printing on an Epson then you may as well use slide film which might give you the extra definition you are looking for and then you can postpone the move to digital until prices come down and specs move up another notch. Just my 2c....

[dberryhill]

Great suggestion, Neil, and thanks! I shoot mostly Reala and Kodak T400CN. Haven't shot slide film in years. Maybe it's time for a revisit. I can have the slide film scanned at a good lab thirty miles away.

[arnabdas]

Aside: It is probably not wise to buy a D100 now. It has been out for a couple years already and will likely soon be replaced by a newer model, after which D100 prices will go down drastically. It may be a matter of only a few months from now.

[nick_w.]

Doug,

 

If you're concerned with definition, I'd take a look at the file sizes and format

Walmart uses to make your CDs. Maybe it would be better to invest in a good

film scanner? That way if you want to make a large print of a photo, you can

scan it in at a high resolution as a TIFF file. And if you just want some 4x6s,

you can scan the photos as jpegs with lower resolution. A good film scanner

should cost much less than a new D100 in the short term. Of course if you're

willing to shell out $2000 for the D100 + accesories, I'm sure you won't be

disappointed. It's a tough decision.

[harry_akiyoshi]

I'm shooting with film bodies and scanning the chromes/negs. It's not a bad way to go, really, although becoming proficient in scanning takes some people a lot longer than others. I was already pretty familiar with Photoshop and with digital image processing in general, so it wasn't a big stretch for me.

<P>

Currently, my film and processing costs run about $700 or so a year. When I can get a D1x or equivalent for $1000, I'll probably have to do it. It kinda kills me, because right now all of my film cameras are so small and simple. I'll continue to use film in medium and large format for some time to come, and I'll still shoot black-and-white, but I think digital will completely replace my use of 35mm color film. And then I'll have to lug around some battery-guzzling behemoth of a camera to get quality not quite as good as I used to with Provia. Oh well. . . I can't afford not to do it at some point.

<P>

But like I was saying, consider buying a film scanner in the meantime. You can get one for $300 or so that will usually do better than Wal-Mart, especially once you get to know how to use it.

<P>

Alternately, you could easily get into medium format for $2000 with a Pentax 6x7 system and an Epson 3200 scanner. Your prints will be stunning compared to what you're seeing now. If you wanted to do better, you could get a Mamiya 7, which is a terrific camera with incredibly good lenses (although more expensive), but I don't think you'd see the difference at that print size.

<P>

The order, in terms of quality (well, especially of capacity for rendering fine detail, since "quality" is kind of an ambiguous word), goes something like this: <BR>

1. Medium format scans. <BR>

2. Good 35mm scans. <BR>

3. D100 output. <BR>

4. Wal-mart 35mm scans.<P>

 

Weight that against the fact that digital is more convenient to use and cheap once you buy in.

[douglas_greenberg]

First of all, the price of the D100 already has fallen. It's going for $1499 now from some dealers. My assumption is that Nikon's next new dslr after the D2H will be a cheapie to compete with the Canon Rebel model, so the D100 will remain "current" for a while to come. But of course, in the long run, the trajectory is for dslr's to get cheaper.

 

The question is whether in the meantime you will "get your money's worth" from the investment. Really, only you can decide that.

 

I own a N90s and purchased a D100 last May. I did it ostensibly so that I could take photos of my son's baseball games and get instant results to share with other parents. Using the AF lenses I already own, I was able to do this and the endeavor was a big success. I was able to create impressive enlargements at low cost right away using Adobe Photoshop Elements and my Hewlett-Packard printer. I could not have done this using print film.

 

Over the summer, I discovered that this system was ideal for bird photography, as well. With bird and animal photography one of the headaches is that such a low percentage of shots turn out well. You burn a lot of film for a few good images. With the dslr this was/is not a problem. Using Photoshop tools including such features as "fill flash" and unsharp mask, I have gotten excellent, cropped images of birds that are visible in finished, printed form almost immediately after I take them.

 

I *could* add that the "magnification factor" means that my 400mm. lens is "really" a 600mm., but this actually is bogus--what you get is essentially a cropped version of a 400mm. image. The problem is, when you use wide-angle lenses you get cropped versions of those images, as well, and this is not so pleasing.

 

Let me add that one issue that emerged from this switch was the lack of metering capability of non-CPU lenses when mounted on the D100. The truth is that one can get along without TTL metering, given that you can see your results right away and can adjust for misestimated exposures. I also have sent the lens mount of my old 400/3.5 to Rolland Elliott to have a CPU installed. And then there is the renewed usefulness of an old-fashioned hand-held light meter.

 

For me, the switch to the D100 revived my enthusiasm for photography. I have gorgeous enlargements framed and mounted all over my home; had I stuck to film I doubt that most of these would be there. I also now can participate easily in online photo discussion groups where people share digital photos over long distances.

 

Yes, you can do some of this using scanning technology, but in my experience you have to have a darned good scanner to get optimal results, particularly when you start with transparencies. Not for me.

 

I confess that I am a sucker for "immediate gratification" and immediate feedback on my photos, and for this the dslr is ideal. I also confess that my usage of my film cameras had declined over the previous several years. I was/am an ideal candidate for the "digital revolution."

[mbetea]

Here's a sort of different perspective Doug.

 

I did own a D100 with a couple AF-D lenses for about 6 months. I shot 90% in manual mode, manual focus and everything I shot I converted to b&w on the computer. Quirk after quirk came along and I was frustrated to say the least. I decided that the big thing digital had over film, the immediacy of it, didn't mean much to me. So I recently sold the setup, got a MF Nikon and a couple AIS lenses so far. I processed one roll of film (didn't turn out great) in the few days I've had it. But I love it, in the very short time I've had the camera so far. I'm more excited to get out and shoot to see how the negatives turned out than I ever was with digital.

 

I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.

 

matt

[jim schwaiger]

To get good results at 13x19 you need a digital camera with about 22 Mega-pixels. By contrast, using 35mm with slow film (ISO 50-100, neg or slide) and a film scanner (2700 to 2900 ppi), you can get plenty of data for enlagements well over 13x19. This assumes 300dpi prints which is a decent rule of thumb.

 

You can gain a lot of control with even a low-end Minolta film scanner and Vuescan software. The cost is having to learn the scanning process and having to organize these large digital files, but the reward will be great compared to the Wal-mart scans.

[harry_akiyoshi]

Ok, Jim, correct me if I'm wrong here, but a 35mm frame is 1.42 x 0.94 inches. At 2700 d.p.i, that's 3834 x 2538 pixels, or 9.7 megapixels. Why does a digital camera need 22 megapixels, when output from a scanner only needs 9.7?

 

In fact, I think that the D100 will probably produce a cleaner, sharper file than a low-end scanner will under most circumstances. It might not need nearly as many megapixels to replicate the print quality.

[john_demott]

I've owned an N90s for a number of years. For several years I scanned my slides/negatives with a desktop scanner and printed on Epson printers. About a year ago, I bought a D100. Although I still have the N90s and the scanner, I seldom use them because I much prefer the D100. I print the files from my D100, after post-processing in Photoshop, on an Epson 2200, often at 13 x 19. Overall, I think the results are usually equal to or better than I got from scanning film.

 

The advantages of the D100 include:

 

Very clean, noise-free files.

Excellent color.

Immediate feedback, including verification of exposure information with the on-camera histogram display.

No additional cost for additional exposures, which makes me much more likely to experiment. I'm also more likely to use multi-exposure techniques such as blending bracketed exposures, or stitching panoramas.

No trips back and forth to the lab to drop off and pick up film for processing.

A camera with more modern features than the N90s, such as multi-zone autofocus, second control wheel for aperture, many customizable functions, etc.

The added flexibility of working with RAW files which let you adjust several important parameters, notably white balance, after the fact.

Ability to change ISO setting at any time, no need to change film.

Ability to change white balance at any time, no need to change filtration for changing lighting.

 

The drawbacks of the D100 include:

 

High upfront cost.

Need for DX series speedlight.

Limited usability of some older MF lenses (this wasn't an issue for me, but would be for someone with a large collection of older lenses).

Slightly less resolution than scanned film (although for me the lack of noise/grain seems to give better overall image quality).

 

The N90s is a great camera, but I'm happier with the D100.

[steve_chan5]

We had only an F90x (same as N90s) for quite a while before picking up a D100. The current verdict is that for B&W shots, film still produces nicer images (maybe we just haven't figured out the right PS manipulations yet). But for color, the D100 is excellent, and there doesn't seem to be much lost vs. film.

 

We had a Minolta 2900dpi film scanner, and while we could occasionally get very nice scans from slide film, it was almost never as nice as we could get from a good D100 image. This is without all the hassle of screwing around with the scanner settings, and all the waiting around. A 4000dpi+ scanner, good technique and slow film, could you get better resolution than the D100, but I doubt normal shooting technique and normal speed film and a 2900dpi scanner will.

 

The D100 has less exposure latitude than color negative film, but is comparable (supposedly a little better) than slide film in that regard. So maybe you could get _more_ shots with a D100 than with provia on your N90s.

 

Once you get a D100, you'll find that you're free to shoot as much as you want. Some folks will say that that means you'll just become like a thoughtless point and shooter, but that is too cynical. There is nothing that says you can't be methodical _and_ get instant feedback. You won't need to finish off a roll before having it developed. You won't feel bad about doing the same shot in many experimental ways - in fact, you will be very free to experiment and very quickly see the results. You wont get stuck with slow film in low light, or fast film in bright sunlight. In terms of convenience, there is no comparison.

 

Economically, it depends on how much you spend on developing and scanning. One month, my wife spent $250 on developing and whatnot - at those kinds of rates, the D100 pays for itself very quickly. The shutter counter on the D100 is over 30k in under a year, that is over 800 rolls of 36 exposure color film.

 

Can you print to 13x19? Yes, you'll only have about 150dpi, but you won't see grain which you might start to see with film - with packages like genuine fractals, you can easily get up to 13x19 and 300dpi, no grain, and lots of apparent detail.

 

Will your photos be better? A camera won't make your photos better, but thoughtful practice does - a DSLR makes it easy (and fun) to practice. It also lowers the penalty for being lazy and thoughtless. Are you the sort that responds better to a carrot, or to a stick?

 

Would you get more detail from a MF camera? Yes, undoubtedly. And the hardware could be cheaper as well. I picked up a Koni-Omega recently for about $225, and the 6x7 transparencies from it have jaw dropping detail. Resolution comparable to Nikon 35mm lenses, with 5x more film area and less camera vibration. On my Epson 3200, that has a useful resolution of only about 2000 dpi for scanning film, I get scans that crush the D100.

 

The downside of MF is that it is slower, more work per frame of film, and you can't go to WalMart for developing. If you are shooting 6x7, if you blew the shot, that was 10% of the roll! But for absolute definition, a D100 can't compete against a good medium format and even a fair scanner.

[tcb.photo]

Hi Doug

 

I own the D100, and a couple of film bodies, and I use them all consitently. I use the D100 when I'm in a hurry, or want to see my photos on site, as opposed to waiting. Digital is "generally" sharper than film, but I still personally believe good slide photos are the best. Especially when printed properly. There is a place that processes and then scans slide to CD at 17meg Tiff that I use, and it's awesome.

 

The metering of the D100 is suppose to be better than a N90s, but that may subjective. I never had a problem with my N90s metering.

 

I also like B&W, so digital is out. Yes I can convert it in photoshop, but I like the feel of Ilford HP5, and Pan 50. Digital can't reproduce that "feel".

 

I believe there is a place for both digital and film in a photographers bag. Some disagree, but for me neither replaces the other. You will gain somethings and loose others. In a few more months you'll be able to get the D100 even cheaper I'm sure.

 

Best

 

Rob

[dberryhill]

Wow, you guys are terrific! Thoughtful, informed, honest responses all! I'm very grateful for your time, knowledge, and experiences. Here, in summary form, is what I think I've learned from you. (1) Medium format, and particularly slides, still beats digital in terms of detail/definition; (2) For color, good digital has probably caught up with 35mm, unless one wants very large prints; (3) Digital can promote a machine gun approach to photography (take a bunch and hope that one is a hit); (4) Having Walmart scan negatives isn't a good idea. Prints are very likely to be better if one learns to use a good scanner well or has a good custom lab scan the negatives; (5) There is a learning curve with any approach to good pictures, but digital eliminates the scanning step; (6)Prices of digital cameras like the D100 are likely to drop further, so one shouldn't rush to buy. If I've misinterpreted someone, of if you disagree, I would be grateful for further comments.

[james_watkins1]

Doug there is lots of great advice here, but you may want to try what I did.

 

I have 2 Nikon film bodies and 5 lenses. Jumping to digital will happen soon enough,

but I love the look Velvia or Provia gives as there is so much richness and texture

inherent in the slide. I scan the slides into a 2720 DPI scanner and yes it take a lots

of work but so does making any 13 by 19 digital print. There are just a few more

steps with slides.

 

The D100 is the only Nikon option for me, as I cannot justify $3,500 plus for other

digital Nikons for my hobby. It is a good 1st step on the part of Nikon to make a

prosumer level camera, but as you can see by reading this and other forums there are

a few things that need improvement. A local camera store let me test shoot some

D100 shots and the richness of the digital prints was not quite as good as my

scanned slides. But probably better than the quality you are getting from the scans

from Walmart. And at the time the D100 cost 2 grand for the body only. It just didn't

make economic sense to pay so much for slightly less print quality, as after all that is

what Photography is all about, the quality of the print not the type of equipment you

use to achieve it.

 

So I went out and bought a Canon G3 to learn about digital photography. It is a great

4 MP camera and the photo quality is really amazing. I carry this camera with me

everywhere. I have printed up to A3 size prints on my Epson 1280 but realistically 8

by 12's are about the largest size you should expect to achieve high quality with.

Mostly the G3 photos are for computer screen viewing and learning the digital way.

Having a digital camera is great and my interest in photography has jumped 200%.

 

Now I eagerly await the release of the D200 (?) as it will be the digital SLR I finally buy.

So what if it is next year? Knowing my slides still produce the best looking print is

enough to carry me through the next 6 months.

 

James

[dberryhill]

Thanks James. Your good experience with slide film has reinforced the view I got from earlier posts that slide film scanned on a quality home scanner will likely give me richer and better detailed images to work with in PS than has been the case with my negative film and Walmart scans. If so, I will likely be content enough with the photo quality to focus my energy on capturing the beauty and the ugliness of the people and place where I live and work. Given that its also the cheapest option, it certainly is worth a try. I'm going to buy an Epson 3200 (regular or Pro??) put some Velvia, Provia, and Sensia in my Nikon 90s bag, and get out and try to take some good pictures. If I'm still not happy with the definition, prices on used Mamiya 7s are going down. And as you said, down the road, digital cameras will still be for sale. Thanks for sharing your experiences!