Why I'm returning to DSLRs - Prole Level Nikon D700

Jul 25, 2008 at 6:56 AM
8 comments

Why the following article? Besides serving as a solicitation for advice, the following might be useful to those who are deciding if they want to go film or digital. Personally, I prefer film for its quality.

If it was just straight photography I was doing,(shoot-cum-print) then I’d most certainly stick to my absolutely fabulous Nikon F6. It is a joy to use. Lightweight, fantastic metering system, well-placed controls, etc - don't know if that applies to Joanna Lumley. However, my being inclined towards photoart requires quite a bit of investment in terms of developing the negatives, having them scanned into jpegs for selection, and re-scanning the selected negatives into BMPs(at $5sgd a shot!) for manipulation.

Besides the cost, a related question which I've been seeking to have answered conclusively is this. If i was to have my negs scanned into BMP (16 base), would the quality be similar to a RAW shot with, for instance, the Nikon D700? Because, if that is the case, then i'd save quite a bit by shooting digitalSLR.(with the additional saving of $7sgd for the film) I don't mind investing in film for its quality, but the cost of doing the aforementioned would basically pay for the Nikon D700 in about a year and a half. Well, I've got my slew of Nikon lenses waiting to be instantly gratified with immediate output through digital, so I don't have to invest in lenses for Nikon's latest.

These 2 questions go towards my deciding to go digital. Cost on the one hand, and quality on the other. If scanned negs are still obviously superior to RAW from a Nikon D700, then I'd stick to film. Up till now, the info I've gotten from the net is that it is similar. If so, then I would be heading downtown to get the Nikon D700 camera today. It's what I call a 'Pro/le Level Camera. Professional features (don't listen to those clowns who call it an 'amateur' camera...it may not have all that double-priced cameras have, but you may not need as much for your sphere of focus), and relatively lower-priced compared to the top-end Nikon DSLR.

To my compadres in the UK, I bet the price is going to be quite high, relatively speaking. The last price quote I got here, in the land where the deer and the antelopes have mistaken themselves for intelligent life, is $3920sgd (£1451) The lowest price I've seen so far on online UK stores is £1800 at 'equipment express'(hope that helps) - current exchange rate is £1 = £2.70. 'Bugger!' eh.

Anyway, I still have my Mamiya 7II(medium format) for those shots I intend to 'blow big' or where resolution/sharpness really matters, or where lens versatility is not required. No 35mm DSLR out there is going to beat this anytime soon. When it comes to sharpness, amongst others, no top-end 35mm canon or nikon DSLR out there comes even close.

8 comments

Tags:

photography

This also appears in:

Comments

[this is good]

you make some great points. i've been pondering the digital/film question for awhile. I have my mamiya RZ67 (not practical for anything other than studio work), an assortment of 35mm, and a small digital camera. i love film, but i wonder if its time to make the jump to digital.

Hey Goobers,

I suppose it is a combination of what one wants to do (photoart or straightphotography), the final output (small vs large prints), importance of convenience and speed of turning out output(that might be important for journalists, amongst others), and affordability.

For myself, the 'photoart' factor and affordability were main considerations. If i was financially fertile, i suppose i might stick to film and do high-res scans till that happy day when the highest res scans matches direct output from a digital camera - don't know if that happy day has been ushered in by either Canon's 5d or Nikon's D700.

If you don't mind my asking, what are your main considerations?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Goobers. I'm sure others might find our attempt to resolve this question helpful.

ed

a lot of what i do is portraits, and i find that (medium format) film is still superior for image quality, however you can hear the money clicking away with every image shot. digital might be better in terms of sheer volume-- i could get trigger happy and take 100 images and get the best 10 in digital and it doesn't cost anything until output. For film each shot needs to be more planned and executed as to not waste money.

I heard that the D700 is quite good with portraits(online and from some camera shop guys here - i.e. skin tones, etc.

But I'm certainly with you on the comparative quality of MF. Medium format can't be beat by even the best 35mm canon or nikon double/triple priced DSLRs. The difference is too obvious even at small-sized prints, i.e. '5r'. Then again, I'm with you on the 'doesn't cost anything until output' - which is why I'm going DSLR again, at most times anyway.

I would be interested to know when you do decide and what your experiences are with the camera of your choice thereafter.

i used to work in a professional photo lab (its been a few years). as long as the photographer knows how to shoot digital (calibrate, exposure, etc) the skin tones will turn out just fine. The problem i always had with digital is the sharpness. If you blow up a print to 16x20 (or bigger) you will notice the differences in digital compared to film-- i never thought the eyes were sharp enough.

i'm still in the looking phase and gathering information, i just don't have the funds for a camera right now (but i would love to!)

Good to know one who has worked in a photolab. I just did soci and psyche, so i'm quite crap when it comes to knowledge in this arena, at present anyway. Just to pick your brains. Which would you say comes out tops? A 16-base scan of a 35mm neg (fuji reala 100) or RAW file from, say, a full-frame 12mp camera? Would really appreciate it if you could enlighten me on this Goobers:)

As for skin tones, if i'm not mistaken, when it comes to digital, and other things being equal, the number of vertically-stacked sensor elements do go a long way in enhancing its capture right? For instance, the Sigma SD14 might be a case in point.

I tore a hole in my pocket getting the D700. But i usually manage this by minimising expenses on non-developmental pastimes - i.e. no restaurants, big houses, cars, branded stuff, etc.

Sadly I can't really help with your scan/RAW question. Most of what i dealt with was the files once they reached me (be it 35mm neg scans or downloaded digital files). I was responsible for color correction and quality control of the output. So my film/digital opinions are from observation.

Also, I do know that digital has made HUGE progress since I left lab work.