Wouter Willemse

Frankly..... yes. It is. Yet, I recognise it partially anyway for making too much shots. Digital does remove this sense of cost per shot, making experimenting easy. In my view, feeling free to experiment is a great asset and a good stimulus to more creative attempts, out of the box ideas etc.Certainly for the learning curve - once you're more lucid about the images you want, it's of lesser importance. Being buried in the options.... that's something to get over. Read the manual, configure things the way you feel best, and then leave it all alone. Playing too much with options (many of them obscure and with limited effect on what you were actually doing) distracts from making photos more often than not. And seriously, how much is there to change shot to shot? You want a less technological camera, but it's not the camera insisting that you look at its techno bells and whistles that much. At the same time, shooting film, with cost for each shot, and more effort (developing and printing or scanning is certainly slower), is also a great asset and a stimulus for more thoughtful, considered shooting, with only the core controls available on your camera. There is no reason why the discipline that comes from that would not carry over to digital. In fact, the more film I shoot, the more I notice I leave my digital camera settings alone (apart from of course ISO, aperture and speed), the less I need or want to review my images on camera and the less photos I generally shoot because there is just a fraction more thought before shooting. Which is nice, as it reduces the time wasted on culling and editing. Discipline sounds a heavy word, but it is what it is. So frankly, the solution here isn't a screenless digital camera. Fixing your own tendency to dive into options, menus and image reviews too much is a lot more effective, and a lot less likely to happen than any of the high volume camera makers making a digital camera with no screen. If the niche market for that was large enough, they would have already. Plus, there is a lot more satisfaction in overcoming your own battles than there is in a technological fix. And probably being a bit less occupied with camera options and more occupied with just making the image work will not do any damage to your photography either.

Don't overthink it too much. Start shooting, follow your curiosity and see where it leads you - a bit as above, follow your gut feeling. Try different things (as above, digital has an advantage there), expiriment. You'll make a load of images that don't work, some that will work, and some that will surprise you and may reveal something about your gut to yourself. Frankly, I'd avoid thinking in different genres as different things to try initially. As a start, just try whatever comes your way. Where it fits, in terms of genre, leave that till later when you know better for yourself what you like doing and what not. Not sure what kind of courses you take, but many of them focus on the essential basics of exposure and some post-processing essentials, the better ones add lessons on lighting. Many of them are very thin on composition and basics of design and colour. As a good introduction on those topics, the book "The photographer's eye" helped me a lot. Even less courses will deal with you finding your own (visual) voice, which comes with experience and knowing what works for you, and what not - so, all those shots made experimenting, combined with better insight into composition, light, use of colours etc. will slowly get you there. A lot of the advice above is very sound and definitely worth doing, but I'd never underestimate the value of experiments and the learning you get from failed images (as well as succeeded ones, as well as those from renowned photographers). Try, and try whatever fancies you.

Frankly, I think there is a basic misunderstanding there. Your image file do not have dimensions measured in inch, centimeters, feet or any other standard that indicates distance. The image file has a lot of pixels, period. Its resolution refers only to how many pixels there are. The image itself hence does not have a print resolution. All you do in software is telling how many pixels per inch you want to use, and the dimensions you get are nothing but a calculation (=pixels/pixels per inch = inch). So, your image file has 24 million pixels, typically 6000 on the long end and 4000 on the short. The normal rule is using 300 pixels per inch for high quality prints, which yields 20"*13,3". And in fact the "rule" you always read that a high quality print requires 300 pixels per inch is not a rule, but rather a guideline. If you get a different brand camera, or a full frame camera, with 24MP, you still get image files that are 6000 pixels on the long end, and 4000 on the short. So, in itself, that move will not give you more details or potential for larger prints (at the same ppi setting anyway). The sensor size has nothing to do with this: it's just about how much data you capture. What is actually captured on those 24 million pixels is another story - and one where lenses come into play. You can cram 24MP in a phone camera, but being a small sensor with a cheap lens in front, it will not look as nice as something made with good optics. And sensor size can play a role here too, but it doesn't necessarily mean you can print larger if the sensor is larger. (as for the 300 ppi - basically it is a good guideline for smaller prints, which will be viewed at short distances. The longer the viewing distance, though, the more you can drop the required pixels per inch. Billboards have prints with huge pixels and would look incredibly pixelated up close, but you never look at them up close..... so basically how large you physically can print based on your image resolution is not a fixed dimension)

Leica R8 with a Summicron-R 50mm. Will do 1/8000th, and the lens doesn't leave much to be desired. Well, maybe except AF, but in low light, the older AF systems of film cameras aren't too great anyway. As much as I'd love to have the 58mm f/1.4G Nikon lens, I find it hard to recommend. Apart from being very pricey, it is also a lens that's all about rendering, and not really designed for straight-out sharpness. A lens that is surprisingly sharp at f/2, but not below, is the Nikon AiS 50mm f/1.2. If it wasn't for the 1/8000th requirement, I'd recommend a FM2 though. And that is actually true.... Delta 3200 isn't going to come close to showing what any of these lenses do better over a 50mm f/1.8 from any brand.

As mentioned above, a highly selfish perspective, and thinking most of us feel about it the same way... well, not a compliment to the crowd here. I don't particalurly care for zooms of any kind, but choosing between the variable aperture 16-85VR which I had for DX Nikon, versus the fixed aperture 24-120VR I have now on FX, I'd quite like the 16-85 back. Optically it was certainly not worse, and as a landscape lens actually better. And ultimately, I care about the lens performance more than having some pristine spec sheet. And most regular posters here seem to be perfectly able to define their uses for a lens, and then buy accordingly. So variable aperture when it doesn't matter, fixed when it matters or primes if you don't need to zoom anyway. Choice is great, actually. As for threaded filters - well, let's say that selfish perspective limits thinking. What alternatives? Bay1-style, which requires a thicker rim and hence is problematic with wide angles? Or hand-hold square filters, since there is no decent way to mount the filterholder onto the lens without that thread-mount? There is nothing wrong with a bit of ranting or stirring the pot at times, but a minimum of thought before going off is mighty useful.

Novoflex is supposed to have a pretty extensive line-up of adapters for Nikon Z and Canon R, but from what I've seen so far, they're not yet shipping. So I guess any test at this moment is still done with native lenses for the new systems.

Well, one thing is for sure: the grass is always greener somewhere else. You sum up the pros and cons pretty well. In the end, whatever way you go, it's a compromise. Not just FX vs DX....every lens is a compromise. Maybe go back to what started the analysis in the first place: sure, the 70-200 f/4VR is better than the 18-140VR. That is no surprise (despite the numbers DxO loves to spit out). The real question: is it better enough to justify spending a serious amount of cash to make the step up? Or was the 18-140VR good enough all along for what you want it to be, even if it's not perfect? I have more lenses than I reasonably need, but increasingly find myself picking up the same lenses - simply because they work for me. None of them is king of the hill and all of them are those that people claim "do not do justice to my D810". But they get me the images I want, and work the way I like to work. Sometimes the best lens isn't the one that comes out on top in a lab-test, after all.

There are 2 affordable 50mm lenses: the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G and AF 50mm f/1.8D. The first is typically around $200-250, the second around $100 less. The first will autofocus on your camera, the second will not. The first one is optically also a good step up. So, between those two, frankly the more expensive lens is worth it for your camera. Since the D3400 has a sensor smaller than the old 35mm film, the angle of view you get from a 50mm lens is different than you had with the film cameras, so using a 50mm lens on the D3400, you will get an image that resembles using a 75mm lens on a Nikon F or Pentax K1000. I'm not sure if you considered this "crop factor"? If not, the better recommendation might be the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX lens, which sits around $200 and represents very good value for money. This lens will be very close to what you're used to as a 50mm lens on your film cameras. (The DX designation is for lenses which cover only the smaller sensor like used in your D3400; there is no 50mm DX lens at present.)

If you find AfterShot easy to use - why are you switching to others? What is it about AfterShot you do not like? There are other alternatives to consider: Lightroom, CaptureOne Pro, Cyberlink PhotoDirector, On1. So if the DxO software doesn't work for you, and you want/need to move away from AfterShot, you could try one of those to see if it suits you better.

In all honesty, a rangefinder isn't necessarily the solution to that. Some of them can have multiple lenses too, and shooting B&W film, you probably end up carring a couple of colour filters too. So, while I can understand that a DSLR stays home because of weight/size, it is a bit an unfair comparison (your DSLR will have multiple focal lenghts, the fixed-lens RF will not), and hence not said that a film rangefinder is the solution. A small DSLR or mirrorless, with a small prime lens, can be as small as some of the rangefinders. Another thing is that rangefinder focussing really is quite different. Not better or worse, but different. Whether you like it or not - no way to know until you do it. Personally, coming originally from a DSLR..... let's say I am glad I have a bunch of SLRs and DSLRs alongside the rangefinders I have. Because they could never be my only camera. Main thing: I don't like them in low light, the patch becomes less visible and it kind of leaves me clueless. With SLRs I don't have that problem, and I happen to like low light shooting. As said above, low light and film aren't the ideal match. I don't mind very visible grain from heavily pushed B&W films, but it is an aesthetic choice that works for some scenes, but certainly not all. Digital offers more choice in that respect. But for those times where I shoot low light with film, I use a SLR, or a really simple zone-focussing (guessing distance) camera, not a rangefinder. Maybe it's me, but it just doesn't work for me. Last but not least: some old all-manual SLRs are pretty light and small too. You do not necessarily need to go to a RF to go small and light. My most used film cameras are Leica R6's, which aren't much larger than a Leica M, nor heavier. So if RF focussing isn't your thing, there are still plenty options. But given your (very nice) example photos: I'd look at a m4/3rd or APS-C mirrorless, with a pancake prime.

It will probably help a lot if you indicate where you are based.

Do ask them why they feel you should do this. To me (as a Nikon user!) this advice makes no sense whatsoever, but maybe they're thinking of something I overlook. Using teleconverters (extenders) with zoomlenses usually will leave you wanting. Teleconverters are no free lunch: you loose light (1 stop for a 1.4x TC, 2 stops for the 2x TC), so effectively a f/4 lens with a 2x TC becomes a f/8 lens. At this aperture, your AF will start to struggle a lot. For the very same reason, I would not easily recommend any lens that is slower than f/5.6. You want your AF to perform at its best for birds in flight, and slow aperture lenses achieve the exact opposite. The Tamron mentioned above sure is a lot lighter, but a do-everything lens involves compromises that many are not willing to take and for sure will not have the optical performance of the Canon lenses you mention. Other options would be the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 lenses, though those too suffer slower apertures (f/5-6.3). So, frankly, there are no real shortcuts: long, fast lenses are expensive and pretty heavy. Trying to make them light will usually mean a smaller aperture, which reduces AF performance, and trying to make them cheap will usually mean reduced optical performance and inferior construction quality. So ultimately, it's about the compromise that you find most acceptable. An option not on your list that could be worth considering is a 300 f/4, and a 1.4x TC. Personally (would I use Canon), that option or the 100-400 would attract me most (because of IS). The 400 f/4 and 400 f/2.8 are in a completely different priceclass. If you're willing to spend that kind of money, I'd actually look at the 500 f/4, and a 1.4xTC.

I actually started on digital and worked my way back to film, or rather a hybrid world of digital, film and scanners. Got into the game late anyway, and not the oldest visitor to this site. There are advantages to digital as a learning tool, as well as advantages to film as a learning tool. The lack of "cost per exposure" can help expiriment more, attempt more point of views etc. Sure it generates a load of junk, but it helps trying compositions and settings away from the beaten track. The value of cost per exposure is restraint and thinking before you shoot. So having both is in my view pretty ideal to continue the learning journey :-) And I still love that moment the negatives come of the reel and you hold something physical you created - that alone will probably keep me shooting film.

Can you post an example of the negatives you get now, and describe what you feel needs to be improved, or what you'd like to see different? The advices above are all spot on, but of course if you feel somehow you hit a problem, it will help to see some examples, so people can give more specific advice and tips.

Depends on what you mean the app to do. I never felt a need to replace the camera app with one with more or less options than the default one. For quick editing photos on my smartphone, I use Photoshop Express, which works fine for me. There are plenty others, but I like PS Express as it's more a swiss army knife than a one trick pony.

As for presentation, for me personally a well-done print still beats all digital methods, if the scope is to present it as a still image. But there are a fair number of alternative print techniques that do leave you with prints that are probably technically inferior, but bear the clear signs of the process used. I've got (too) little hands-on experience, but I just finished preparing a number of cyanotypes for a small exhibition, and strictly, they have technical issues. But it works, at least for me. The unevenness is part of the process used, and hence in my view integral part of the final result. The same goes for the image itself: sure a technical very good executed photo is often worth the admiration for its technical competence. But that's far from the end-all-and-be-all, and apart from what Gary Turner mentioned above, it also tends to come a bit with specific genres and what viewers expect for that genre. Ultimately, it's about finding an aesthetic that fits what you try to bring across. That can include intentionally technically inadequate photos, or unintentional. For me, nothing would make me run harder from a club than one where people cannot look beyond the technique, and not discuss and evaluate the aesthetic choices made, the composition and the resulting message. One learns a lot more from that, I think. After all, m,aking a sharp photo isn't too hard, making a meaningfull photo is.

The whole idea that a photographer who cares about the tools he uses is by definition a fetishist of sorts, and would not prioritize vision and creativity, is a silly simplification, and some ill-conceived idea that talking/discussing about the camera means it is the primary scope of one's photography. It is also a pretty ignorant notion. It all sounds very sophisticated to not care about gear, but for some reason, you do not see a lot of large format cameras along the sidelines of a sportfield. Just like you don't see your plumber carrying a screwdriver as his one and only tool. For plenty types of photography, getting the right tool matters. It makes the difference between getting the job done, or not. For some types of photography, it does not. Less important for some, and important to others, is the simple fact that some cameras you like using, and some not. Cameras you don't like using, stay at home and deliver no result at all. Cameras you like using, come each and every time, and become second nature to operate, again maximising your chances to get that photo you envisioned. So, there is plenty shades between "gear does not matter" and camera-fetishism, and plenty nuance too. The ludite idea that it's either all vision/creative/gear-doesn't-matter versus camera-geek/no-vision/no-creativeness, black or white with no in-betweens, is pretty insulting to plenty excellent photographers on this site who manage to find a balance, in fact.

Lol!

Not a full moon, but quite present nonetheless... D810, AiS 20mm f/3.5, 30sec, f/5.6, ISO400

If you're willing to spend some money, I can only repeat the advice already given: Affinity Photo. It is cheap, supports raw as well and is really competent. It's head and shoulders above the other editors in the same price bracket.

As Vincent said indeed. The note on the Nikon F is adding confusion, and nothing of substance to the sentence. But it's merely included to indicate a better known and more popular example than the Contax S would be to the average reader.

VueScan supports ICE too, also with the Nikon scanners. Switch to the pro mode (and Vuescan stops being "somewhat basic"), and go to the filter tab - the infrared cleaning option is used to control the ICE option. Note that it doesn't work with B&W film, regardless of the software used.

Also note that this is a thread of 2016, and so even if the OP would have chosen to link from a more "steady" environment, he might have removed those photos in the meantime. It's simply the risk of responding to a thread that was dormant for a fair while.

Just a thought, but maybe the quote is "cut off" a bit awkward? The Nikon F wasn't introduced shortly after WW2 at all, so as it is presented, the quote makes no sense. However, what would make sense is something like "the pentaprism SLR, ... as in the popular Nokon F, introduced shortly after World War II by Zeiss Ikon of Dresden as the Contax S. As far as I know, the Contax S is indeed amongst the first commercially available SLR cameras, and the Nikon F certainly a camera that made the camera type popular, so that would make sense.

In my view, the biting sharpness is more due to the design of modern lenses than it is due to the AA-filter. Comparing the same lenses on a D700 (with a rather aggressive AA filter) versus a D810 (no AA filter) shows that the older lenses still record bucketloads of details on the D810, but don't have that coarse biting sharpness that the newer lenses have. They just render different, and in my opinion more attractive - I frequently find images with the modern lenses sterile indeed. I'll gladly take a tad less resolution for a more pleasant rendering any day.