digital SLR - to go, or not to go!

[gixxer1000]

Folks, I'm really struggling with whether or not to go down the digital SLR route. I currently have a Nikon F100 (film camera for those not familiar with it), which I absolutely love, and various Nikon AF lenses. Obvious choices are therefore the Nikon D70 or D100 (I actually fancy the new D2X, but that's another story - and way above budget!).

I enjoy photographing with film and do all my own developing and printing, however I am finding it more and more difficult to free up the time to head down the lap to print, so have a pretty healthy backlog of stuff I want printed, which in turn is stopping me shooting more film (as I know I'll struggle for printing time). This is pretty much why I'm interested in going digital.

However, I have made a fair investment over time in my F100 and lenses etc, so don't want them to sit idle. I know the lenses are cross-compatible, but given the obvious focal length adjustment, I can see myself also wanting dedicated digital lenses, and hence more cost.

Many of you must have gone through the same thought process, so I'd be very interested in your experiences:

* with hindsight, did you do the right thing?
* do you still shoot with film?
* did you move from an F100, F4, F5 to a D70 or D100, and if so how did it compare?

Many thanks,
gixxer.

[Scooby_snax]

Go for it!
No regrets...since replacing my F5 with a D2H havent taken one shot with the F5.
The D70 gets rave reviews both elsewhere in the photo press and of course by simpo_two in here...!!
I guess the question re dedicated lenses is dependant on the type of photography you do

[fergusd]

I have been through various cameras, most recently an F65, now using a D70 (replacement for the F65 which died) . . . I'm a total amateur, but enjoy it . . .

I used to do my own mono processing, shot hundreds of rolls of film over the years . . . got a few frames I really like . . .

Negatives : I miss the exposure latitude of film, digital is just not the same, I guess I kinda miss the real grain of fast mono film too . . . you need to do some re-learning when you go to digital . . .

Positives : I'm now taking more pictures than I have for a while . . . simply because I can sit an my PC and play with them in photochop rather than spending hours in a darkroom I no longer have . . . it's more accessable

All in all . . . the white out thing annoys me, repeatedly, but taking more pics is good . . .

Fd

[agp]

I agree, go for it....

I have just sold an F100 and have been using a Fuji S2 for 2 years, I now plan to buy a D2x in Jan (If I can get hold of one). Why not look at the Fuji S3 which is due out soon and all your lenses and other F100 bits will fit.

[simpo two]

gixxer1000 said:

I know the lenses are cross-compatible, but given the obvious focal length adjustment, I can see myself also wanting dedicated digital lenses, and hence more cost.

You don't actually need 'digital' lenses (DX in Nikonspeak) - all they do is project a smaller image which only covers a CCD and not 35mm film. You can use all existing D or G lenses, just multiply the focal length by 1.5. You may want a new wide-angle, but again, this doesn't have to be a 'DX' lens.

gixxer1000 said:

* with hindsight, did you do the right thing? * do you still shoot with film? * did you move from an F100, F4, F5 to a D70 or D100, and if so how did it compare?

* Yes
* No
* F70 to D70. D70 easier to use and more features. And because there's no developing and printing stage, what you do is what you see. Changing modes and compensation is easy, and you can see the effect immediately. That's a massive bonus.

I'm amazed at how quickly my modus operandum has changed. For years I collected prints, sorted and labelled by subject/date etc. No way did I want digital, grinding out hundreds of 6x4 prints on an inkjet at the cost of £££...

But after I got a digital compact, suddenly the F70 didn't get out much. Then in a moment of 'JFDI' I got the D70. Now I collect photos in folders on my HD - and very, very few actually get printed. Now prints are just a nuiscance!

Now, pressing the button is just the beginning. IMages worthy of 'playing with' go into PS and I can do anything I like with them. Sometimes a nice image emerges from a boring original... it's remarkable: www.blokewithacamera.co.uk

And as Scooby has kindly pointed out, I have two brand new D70 kits sitting here waiting for buyers

[bacchus180]

think about cost saving.... I have shot 6500 frames since june on one of my DSLR's, before I used a hassleblad for which a roll of 120 was about £2.50, pro lab processing to include contact strip was £25,

lets say of the 6500 frames, 2000 are just cos you can!, although most of those would have been polaroid test shots at £1 ago... so lets say 4500 at £2.30 without thinking about printing costs means I would have spent just over 10000... so thats what I have saved...

remember your shutter and other mechanics will wear out.... but you know it makes sense

[Mad Dave]

Im very very close to buying a D70 just now. With regard to lenses and focal lengths - my 28-80mm lens would become pretty useless, but above that would still be useful. My plan is to get the kit with the 18-70mm Nikkor D lens, that way all my bases are covered.

Im just waiting for the prices to come down at the moment - cheapest ive found is £799 with that lens, but that doesnt include a compactflash card. Given a few months the prices will fall and then ill buy one

[simpo two]

Mad Dave said:

Im just waiting for the prices to come down at the moment - cheapest ive found is £799 with that lens, but that doesnt include a compactflash card. Given a few months the prices will fall and then ill buy one

Except that's a few months you haven't been able to use it for... and in the new year there'll be a D75 or whatever, and you'll want that instead, but it will be top money, so you'll wait a year for it to get cheaper, then a D80 will come along etc - and all the time you don't have one!
I can't match £799 but I'd say: just go and get it

[getcarter]

Don't even think about NOT going the DSLR route.

(moved from F5 - that and buying a Caterham were the best decisions I ever made)

[gixxer1000]

thanks for all the replies folks. You've pretty much all confirmed my thoughts that this is the way forward.

The problem I still have is that I really like shooting film, but just don't have the time to dedicate to printing that I used to, and don't really want to be sticking my F100 on ebay as it's sitting gathering dust.

That said, if going digital means that I fundamentally shoot more then that has to be a good thing.

Decisions, decisions.

gixxer
oh - and there's the small matter of whether or not to go mad and get a D2X when it's out.

[Mad Dave]

simpo two said:

Mad Dave said: Im just waiting for the prices to come down at the moment - cheapest ive found is £799 with that lens, but that doesnt include a compactflash card. Given a few months the prices will fall and then ill buy one Except that's a few months you haven't been able to use it for... >I can struggle on with 35mm for a while and in the new year there'll be a D75 or whatever, and you'll want that instead, but it will be top money, so you'll wait a year for it to get cheaper, then a D80 will come along etc - and all the time you don't have one! >I'd be more than happy with a D70 - not worried about 'latest and greatest', just whatever fulfills my needs. I can't match £799 but I'd say: just go and get it >Tempting Also, how large can I blow a D70 image up to before it starts to lose quality?

[simpo two]

Mad Dave said:

Also, how large can I blow a D70 image up to before it starts to lose quality?

I think that's subjective - it's not so much a D70 thing as a '6.1Mp' thing. Personally I'd be happy up to A3, but technically, according to the purists, 6.1Mp won't match film even at A4.
I would counter: How often do you look at something that closely?/is your printer up to it?/how many dpi can the eye resolve anyway?
The other thing is that if you want significantly more pixels, you'll need to spend several times more £...
For me, 6.1Mp is more than enough.

[getcarter]

I'm selling framed stuff at A3, and nobody has ever asked if it's film or digital.

The image is the thing. If it looks right, it is right.

[Mad Dave]

simpo two said:

Mad Dave said: Also, how large can I blow a D70 image up to before it starts to lose quality? I think that's subjective - it's not so much a D70 thing as a '6.1Mp' thing. Personally I'd be happy up to A3, but technically, according to the purists, 6.1Mp won't match film even at A4. I would counter: How often do you look at something that closely?/is your printer up to it?/how many dpi can the eye resolve anyway? The other thing is that if you want significantly more pixels, you'll need to spend several times more £... For me, 6.1Mp is more than enough.

Im a graphic designer, so being able to use my images in lithographic printing, up to A2 size at 300dpi is an advantage. Generally that large isnt needed - A4/A3 is sufficient, but I can imagine my disappointment if I suddenly need to use an image at that size but can't as the file isnt of sufficient quality.

[CVP]

gixxer1000 said:

* with hindsight, did you do the right thing? * do you still shoot with film? * did you move from an F100, F4, F5 to a D70 or D100, and if so how did it compare?

1. Yes, yes and yes again

2. Only use film for underwater compact camera now

3. F3 -> F4 -> F5 -> D100

Bonuses
1. My shoulders are now at the same level again. The D100 is so much lighter than the F4 and F5
2. Battery life on the D100 is great. I must get a minimum of 800 images per charge and I also spend quite a bit of time looking at the image and histogram on the LCD
3. Batteries are now Li-ion and so do not fall into the "memory" trap of the older Ni-cads
4. I can see whether I got the shot or not immediately now
5. I take loads more images than before and just delete the poor ones
6. Archiving DVD's of digital "negatives" take sup a lot less space than my film negatives
7. Compatible with my older Nikon AF lenses, so the only upgrade cost is the body.

Downsides
1. D100 requires a bit more care than the F4 and F5 which you could have used to bludgeon people with. Maybe you ned a D1 or D2 if you're really going to give the kit a battering, but if you're not using it to earn a living a D100 or D70 is plenty well built enough
2. Cleaning the sensor is a bu66er compared to cleaning the insides of a film camera.
3. err...that's it really

I'd never go back now, I'm a complete convert.

The only thing I'd wish for the the AF on the D100 is not as quick as the F5 as it uses a different module, but that's coming down from a pro spec body to a top end consumer one. Easily rectified in a couple of years when there are D2's for sale second hand.

Chris

[Don]

I used to use an Olympus SLR years ago.

First went digital when they came out with a Kodak. Then a Canon S10 Powershot - which lasted years as a "snapper". Now I have a D70 with a couple of lenses.

Thoughts:

a) I am LOVING getting back into "real" photography rather than snapping away...though I still have the S10 for web page snaps.

b) The D70 is way better than I am and I am having brilliant fun learning about it and what it can do.

c) Image quality is stunning. On good paper with a good printer A4 pictures are indistinguishable from film. I'm looking forward to trying out our photo-quality A3 printer we have at work...I'll let you know what I think!

As an enthusiast (rather than a rank amateur like me) I think you'll get even *more* out of going DSLR.

Do it!

[simpo two]

Mad Dave said:

Im a graphic designer, so being able to use my images in lithographic printing, up to A2 size at 300dpi is an advantage.

I've done some rough sums and if you work out how many pixels you need to fill a piece of A2 at 300dpi, it's about 35Mp.

[Mad Dave]

simpo two said:

Mad Dave said: Im a graphic designer, so being able to use my images in lithographic printing, up to A2 size at 300dpi is an advantage. I've done some rough sums and if you work out how many pixels you need to fill a piece of A2 at 300dpi, it's about 35Mp.

No D70 for me then

[simpo two]

Mad Dave said:

No D70 for me then

If you have a few tens of Ks to spend, you can get a medium format digital jobbie which is 22Mp:
www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-firstlook.shtml

Failing that, you could strap 6 x D70s onto a frame and stitch the images together. You might even get a discount if you buy 6

[Andrew Noakes]

gixxer1000 said:

* with hindsight, did you do the right thing? * do you still shoot with film? * did you move from an F100, F4, F5 to a D70 or D100, and if so how did it compare?

* yes
* hardly at all - I'd only go back to film if a client specifically disliked digital
* had an F601 for years and kept thinking I should get an F90X/F4/F100 but didn't do it. In the end I went for a D100 instead.

D100 is excellent. Just be careful of the effective increase in focal length of your existing lenses, which you already know about, and budget for a new flashgun if you use flash a lot - the Nikon DSLR flash system is different to the old F-series (and not as good).

My only gripe about the D100 is that the metering seems less foolproof than the F-series cameras and it's trick y to judge exposures using the LCD. There also a handy histogram mode which tells you the distribution of light levels in the picture, which should help - but as I understand it the histogram only reads the green channel, which makes it really handy when you're shooting a red car on black tarmac...