Wouter Willemse

No idea for Ilfosol, but if I am not mistaken, not a developer particularly suited to stand development. Since I used to have a pile of expired C41 film, I used to use Rodinal 1:100 with stand development for 1 hour for test shots. It rendered grainier results than the OP has posted, but for testing purposes good enough to understand if a camera is working correctly. Rodinal is cheap enough and has pretty much infinite shelf-life, so useful to keep around for purposes like this one. Personally, if I had quality films (Ektacolor for sure), I wouldn't go down this road, but rather just get them properly developed.

It doesn't mean anything. The 100k quoted by Nikon is not a limit, but a statistical average on when failure is most likely to occur (the MTBF). It only concerns the shutter, which as a mechanical part is more likely to get worse with more use. But that doesn't mean other parts cannot fail either. And for none of them you can predict when a single camera will fail.

When I'm fine with large, heavy and battery dependent, I'll take my DSLR :-) I do tend to small, light and mechanical film cameras. Rather than the Leicaflex SL/SL2, it's the R6 for me. It's probably not as good (and in fact not as good as the FM2n in my view, then again, not much SLRs are), but the R lenses make up for it. Though they also make up for any weightsaving - they're not exactly lightweight lenses. For larger, and yet light: I'm liking the Yashica D more and more.

Stores I typically use for online shopping are www.retrocamera.be (good prices, and wide selection of the usual materials) and Fotohuis RoVo shop (good prices, and a good source for less regular stuff).

In my experience, the only thing that helped somewhat reducing grain with Rodinal was slow and little agitation, and running lower temperatures. I've used Rodinal with the current Agfa APX100, and it is *not* a low grain combination, plus the contrast pretty easily became excessive. If I want really low grain, I go with Perceptol. Gives great tonality, but sacrifices some sharpness in the process. With good slow(er) films, that is not much of an issue, since they're inherently sharp enough. HC110 is also an excellent choice, and since it stays good for a very long time, getting one bottle to last you several years makes a lot of sense if you develop irregular quantities.

"Image quality" -which means something else for each of us- versus budget is always a worryingly slippery slope. Ultimately, we all have to make our own choices, and each of us have a different amounts of cash to waste. To each his own. I'm very happy with my 58mm, but as said above, it's not the logical choice for all. As much as I dislike the rendering of the Sigma 50mm Art, I don't find anyone is wrong for choosing that lens. I get the qualities of that lens, but it emphasises qualities I am not particularly looking for. Likewise, if somebody wants to spend good money on a Lensbaby, I get that. I see zero need to dismiss any of these tools, because the only thing that matters is whether they work for you, get you the results you're after, and whether using them makes you feel satisfied or not. How others spend their money isn't my problem much.

The lenstip test is not very consistent with what many users have found in actual real use on their camera. There are plenty user tests that show the lens is capable enough (photographylife.com for example). Yes, the lens doesn't have that highest resolution of them all. Well, surprise, resolution isn't the end all and be all to all users. As said, choice is good, and just because something doesn't float your boat, doesn't mean it's a hoax of sorts.

Mine feels solid, despite being lightweight. No reason to assume it's any less than other lenses that are doing their job without issue for years. Heavier doesn't necessarily mean that something is more durable or resistant to bumps and such. It's costly because it's a speciality lens that appeals to a niche. Some people feel the rendering qualities of this lens are worth it, and are willing to pay the price. Many feel it's not, and are happier with a Sigma Art, or the other 50mm lenses that Nikon has (which are even lighter). I rather have the choice than not. Do you have any reason to assume it's not reliable, apart from the false belief that lower weight means lower quality?

.... the first one I bought was digital :-) A Fuji A201, compact very simple camera with fixed lens and 2 whole megapixels. I was trying to learn image editing at the time, and wanted a way to get materials to play with in Photohop. It was the cheapest camera I could find (and afford), and it made me realise I liked taking photos better than I like editing them. First film camera I bought myself was a heavily used Nikon F3. Lovely camera, but it's eating batteries (probably some leaking condensator somewhere), so it sees no more use these days.

Very philosophical, gear lust.

Light, cheap, sturdy - pick 2. Carbon fiber is pretty much the lightest material you'll find that is yet sturdy enough to be really stable. So frankly, I severly doubt you can do better than the one you already have, at best a smaller carbon fiber (and Gitzo is a great brand), but the weight savings won't be massive.

Delta 3200 @ ISO6400, HC110 dil. A Canonet QL17

Colour spaces like sRGB or AdobeRGB have nothing to do with how much data is available in the image, only with how the data in the image will be "mapped" to colours on the output device. So whether you have sRGB or AdobeRGB files coming out of your scanner doesn't matter: it still has captured the exact same amount of data.

I share between digital and film, and with film, I do shoot slightly different. I mostly shoot B&W film, so there are colour filters to be considered, plus grain/contrast based on the film and ISO used. While with digital I usually know up front that an image will end up in B&W, the actual choices for conversion (colour filters, grain) take place during post processing. Also with film I tend to shoot somewhat more conservative when it comes to wide apertures, or maybe better to say that with digital I experiment a lot more and use more extreme large apertures and shallow DoF. In a way, a lot of my digital images work as studies for things I later re-do in film; but whether I ultimately end up with more keepers in film than with digital, not too sure.

Personally, I would go for the Z6, the added value of higher resolution isn't enormous to me (don't print much larger than A3, and I don't crop all that much), so I rather have the savings as the price point of the Z6 is a lot more tempting. I do enjoy the D810 as well but not because of 36MP, but as a total package I like it better than the 24MP options (D6x0, D750). In that sense, I do like that both Z bodies are identical, so that the choice between high res and low res doesn't become also a matter of handling and ergonomics. Video should also be better on the Z6, if that's a consideration.

Where I live, Acros in 120 is still reasonably available, but I cannot find it in 35 anymore. So if you still find it, get it..... I won't get in your way, since I'm always well stocked up on Delta 100 anyway.

In that range, I'd look at the 105 f/2.5, which can be found at very reasonable prices and is a stellar performer.

Acros has been discontinued (since Oct. 2018), so enjoy what you have left. I like Acros a lot in Pyrocat HD and Perceptol, for what it's worth.

I have a CoolScan V on loan, and own a Reflecta ProScan 7200 (in the meantime replaced with a newer model which is still available new today; in the US the brand name is Pacific Images), so I have been able to compare them using the exact same slides and negatives, using VueScan to operate both. The Nikon is slightly better, retrieves a bit more tonality with dense negatives, bit more shadow detail with slides. It's all very subtle. In terms of resolution, I see no huge differences either. The Coolscan can scan strips of 6, while my scanner is manual advance. Personally, I don't mind this much, and prefer scanning over other methods of digitizing. Considering that the CoolScan cannot be bought new, and costs approx. twice what I paid for the Reflecta, brand new with warranty, I think the Nikons are poor value. Yes, they're very good, but the prices are inflated, and in fact the scanners you can still buy today deliver a lot better quality than many give them credit for. For medium format, I use a CanoScan 9000 Mk.II. It's OK, but far from great. Since the bulk of my work is 35mm, I'm unwilling to spend more on a medium format capable scanner. Dedicated film scanners that do medium format simply cost a lot.

If you can live with not zooming.... 300 f/4 with a TC14E yields a 420mm f/5.6. A lot of performance at a reasonable price. The current 300 f/4 is relatively small and light, and has VR. The older one (AF-S 300mm f/4D) is quite affordable now though, and is optically fine, though not the fastest focussing lens.

My experience too, but I guess like with all things, "first impressions" make up for a great deal of the overall judgement. Looking around, yes, you see a lot of younger people absorbed in the world of their mobile phone. If you don't engage with them, they will seem closed into that world. If you do engage, you'll find many of them do understand the difference between that virtual world and their actual surroundings quite well. As for the original post - yes, software is increasingly taking decisions for you, and many "power users" (or at least, people who see themselves that way....) don't particularly like it. Then again, a lot of newcomers do like it, a lot, since they've got little to no interest in arcane old stuff like folder structure, file names and other things that required you to learn to use a computer in the past. And most of the time, those default easy-to-use settings do actually just work. Improving ease of use means improving it for the masses, but not for all. The better programs (including Lightroom) do however still give you options to stay in control, but at the cost of ease of use, as you won't use defaults. And the software provider will have a lot more effort supporting you too. That is in fact another reason why you cannot always be on top - infinite customisable options lead to situations that cannot be realistically supported, and increases the chance of bugs by a lot. If you manage to finish writing the software at all. So, they have to enforce certain "rules" and make certain assumptions about how things are used. So, you're basically faced with a choice between ease-of-use and handing off decisions, or learning how to use something and investing some time, and keeping better control on what happens in the back. Realistically, you cannot (yet) get software that allows you to control its behaviour without you investing time into configuring that behaviour - it cannot guess how you'd like it to work, and frankly that's a good thing because machines are even worse at guessing than people are.

One additional thing to note in addition to the above notes, with regards to the 20mm f/3.5 AiS: it is much better on shorter focus distances than it is at infinity. It's a lovely little lens, with good contrast, colours and a gentle pleasant rendering, but not ideal for landscapes. The drop in definition was already noticeable on a D700 for me, let alone on a D8x0. But great for getting close® and making the best of the exegerated perspective of a wide angle. Never tried it on DX, has a Tokina 12-24 for that which made more sense to me for that sensor size. For small on a DX, I used a 24 f/2.8 and quite liked it, mine seems to be a nicer copy than per above.

I'd strongly recommend setting some money aside for a good course on photography, or some good learning books - or even better maybe: start with those. Buying prime lenses without knowing much about focal lengths, aperture and basically jumping into using a film camera without basic knowledge sounds like a great way to end up disappointed. As much as I like to shoot film, for initial learning digital has clear advantages: no cost per photo, which gives you all liberty to expirement with different settings, and second instant feedback via the screen. Everything you learn with a digital camera with regards to composition, exposure and the settings involved with that carry over 1 on 1 to film cameras, so it's not like you learning "digital photography" and later will have to re-learn "film photography". As much as I prefer primes myself, I'd get a zoom lens first to get started, so that you learn for yourself what to expect at different focal lengths, and what works for you, and what does not. For every person here that likes a 50mm as the standard go-to focal length, you can find a person who doesn't like it, etc. etc.

Not really. Not because of any consideration about image quality, as most above pointed out, you will not make gains there really. The key point is: the last D700s were produced in the end of 2012 more or less. So, it's 7 years old at the most positive, which practically means its reliability will start going worse and the risk of failure increases (and no, shutter counts do *not* tell the full story). Buying 2nd hand, you simply will not know the full history of the camera either, how it's been treated and what kind of use it has seen. Too much unknowns. This is a business tool; betting your business on something that is inherently increasingly unreliable simply isn't smart. For a hobbyist, wanting a solid build full frame camera, the D700 still has its place, but as a professional tool, I'd only keep it as backup body if I'd know its full history, and certainly no longer spend any money on it.