Moving from F5; Coolpix 5700, 8700, or D100?

[harry_pluta3]

Hi all,

 

I am a hobbiest mainly doing landscapes, still-lifes and occasionally

portraits, sports photos, and "puppy" pictures. I am thinking about

selling my Nikon F5 (talk about your low milage camera!) and moving

to the digital capture domain. I've done as much reading as I can

find, but I wanted to hear from folks who are using some of these

cameras ( and possibly others ) first hand. I really like the small

size of the Coolpix models, but the D100 felt comfortable as soon as

I picked it up.

 

All of my existing lenses are Nikkor D type's but other then a couple

of primes none are very fast, also the widest I have is a 24mm

prime. I do have several nice options for the F5, but other then the

remote cord none of these will work on the D100.

 

I figure I can sell my F5 body for enough to afford a D100 body or I

could sell off my body, lenses, and such and pick up a "totally

loaded" 5700 or 8700. ( Especially since the 5700 is sporting a

$150.00 rebate! )

 

For the past several years I have been shooting film and scanning it

on a Polaroid SprintScan 4000. These shots are then worked in

Photoshop and printed on an Epson 1270. My question is are any of

the current digital cameras a suitable replacement for my current

workflow?

 

Thanks for your thoughts,

-harry

[jbq]

I'd go for a D70/N80 or D70/N75 pair, if you can find the budget for it. In my very own opinion there's no substitute for a "large" sensor.

 

In my exeprience switching from scanning film to digital capture involves very little change in digital darkroom workflow (other than the fact that you end up with all the pictures on the computer instead of just the keepers). The big difference is "in the field".

[todd peach seattle, washi]

I have no experience with the 5700/8700, a couple thousand exposures on a D100, and many miles on an F100.

 

Since you have framed the question this way, I would make certain you're comfortable with the shutter lag and AF response of any of these cameras. The F5 arguably establishes 'the standard' by which other cameras should be measured for 'right now' shutter response, near instant recovery, and speedy AF. The D100 is noticably slower (to me) in all those attributes than my F100, particularly in low light (AF). I would expect the non DSLR cameras to be worse than the D100 in these areas.

 

For sports, this can be a big factor. Depending on your working methods, ditto for portraits. The D100 (and presumably the new D70) is a nice camera in many respects, but coming from an F5, it's a letdown in a few areas. For $3K plus, you can get F5 systems performance and digital with a D2H or at some future date a D2X.

[Greg M]

As responsive as the F5 is to shoot, ANY digicam (5700 and, probably 8700 too) are not. I made the swtich from film SLR to digicam. First results get you excited, then the lowlight AF problems crop up, then you find out what options your film SLR's flash offers but the digicam doesn't make use of (like the focus assist light and no TTL flash control in manual modes), then you see the terrible noise at any ISO over 100. Take it from someone who's already wasted the money on digicams. For someone moving up from a point & shoot 35 they are a step up. For someone like yourself moving over from a nice SLR, they are a big step down. Stay with you F5 and pick up the newer D70 when it's available. If you can't wait, get the D100 now. Either one will long outlast and outperform any digicam you can buy today or probably a year from today.

[walterh]

dont be a fool!

 

1. landscapes : for the money you are talking about you will get nothing close in the digital world compared to an ais 24mm F2.8 with say a reala film in your F5.

 

2. portraits : for the money you are talking about you will get nothing close in the digital world compared to an 85mm 1.8 on your F5 using a good BW film.

 

3. sports: top of the line digtal cameras -both nikon and canon - with say a good 300mm 2.8 lens on can blow your mind. but: you will not get that kind of money for your used stuff. and quick action is not where consumer D-SLR bodies shine.

 

cheers

walter

[harry_pluta3]

I appreciate the feedback so far. I figured that the digicams would not get the job done, seemed like it was too good to be true. So that leaves me with either a pre-owned D100 or a new D70 as possibilities, the D1 is too heavy, weight is one of the reasons I wanted to move from the F5. This actually is not a bad solution as I can keep my little FG as a film backup camera and share lenses. ( Hard to believe this exercise started out as a replacement for my wife's point and shoot! )

 

I realize that none of the digital solutions match what I was once able to do in a wet darkroom, but how would the output of one of these cameras compare to film that has been scanned at 4000 dpi and printed on my Epson? The big struggle there is dust, artifacts in the shadows, dust, scratches, negative to positive conversion algorithims, and dust!

 

Again, many thanks for the input,

-harry

[jbq]

Harry - a 6MP DSLR compared to a 4000dpi scan will have less detail when shooting test charts. DSLRs only resolve about 3000dpi, and on a much smaller area.

 

I bought a DSLR after doing quite a few 2000dpi scans, figuring that I'd get about the same level of detail (6.3MPix with bayer filter vs 5.3Mpix with RGB per pixel). I was totally blown away by the sharpness of the DSLR pictures, the color accuracy (no more issues when scanning negatives), the lack of grain (looking back, even my 2000 dpi scans of ISO 100 color print film showed grain) and the time I save by not having to scan anything.

 

Of course, your mileage may vary. And I still shoot a film SLR for the wide angles, the lighter weight and lower camera value, and the latitude of negative film.

[david_stoerman]

You will sorely miss the F5 if you buy a D100 or D70.

[william_john_smith]

If you have to go digital I would read this review of the D-70 first.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70.htm

[rejamesuk]

the 5700 is a fantastic camera. the 8700 is near enough the same.

 

 

however, i would not reccommend YOU buy them. the auto focus is not fast enough for sports images. everything else they would be fine for.

[simon_hughes1]

Harry,

 

Here's my experience: I had two F5s and when I finally decided to go whole hog to digital (after trying out a Canon G2), I went for the Nikon D1. It was as similar to the F5 as I could get, and performed wonderfully... no comparison to digicams such as the G2 etc. From there, I sold my other F5 and went through a long series of smaller, less heavy digicams, such as the Coolpix 5700, 4300, 5400, and finally ended up with the D100. The main factor was the 6MP, and most importantly the speed (shutter lag, write speed etc.). Finally, I sold the D100 and bought the D1X as the autofocus speed etc., is so much better than the D100.

 

More recently, I began again looking for a smaller camera and tried the following: the Panasonic FZ1 (great camera but only 2MP), the Kodak 6490 (great long lens but no stabalization), and then the Panasonic FZ10 which had the long lens, the stabalization but really aggressive JPEG (and JPEG only)).

 

I now have my beloved D1X and the newly released Leica Digilux 2, which is a 5MP analog control digicam with Leica 28-90mm f2-2.8 lens and RAW... fabulous!!

 

Now, after all that, my advice, given your choices, would be the D100. Neither the 5700 or 8700 will even come close for you after using the F5 (neither will the D100, but out of what you're looking at, it's the only sane choice).

 

Hope this rant helps.

 

Cheers,

 

Simon

[stan_dubrovskiy]

Simon and all,

 

Related to your experiences, what would you recommend based on this set of priorities:

 

1. easily accessible manual controls

1. reasonably low shutter lag comparable to entry film SLR/RF.

(mostly for candids)

2. ability to play with DOF (i.e. has or takes fast lenses)

2. compact size

2. stealth factor for candids: unobtrusive appearance,swivel screen.

2. available light abilities.

 

In particular Simon, how does Leica 2 stands up to Nikon D100 in the above? (and why did you take it over its Panasonic clone?)

Another choice I am considering is Epson R-D1, 1st digital RF from Bessa/Epson, see what the price will be.

 

I thought that a P&S, like Sony F717 or

C-pix 5700, or Canon G3, or Dimage would do it for me, but for several reasons(shutter lag, noice at higher ISO, smaller sensors hence shorter focusing ditances preclude any creative DOF work) it seems not an option (I'd be happy to hear otherwise.)

 

I haven't bought into any system yet. A rangefinder is appealing.

I use Ricoh GR-1s now.

Thanks for your input,

Stan