Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Nikon dSLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-dslr-57/)
-   -   Nikon Announces D300 and D3(YES FULL FRAME) (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/nikon-dslr-57/nikon-announces-d300-d3-yes-full-frame-127942/)

nymphetamine Aug 23, 2007 1:19 AM

Nikon today announced their new D300 and D3

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"D300 at 1800 looks like the best camera in paper for the price.

D3 sounds like a monstor of a camera



Excellent news from Nikon....stepping up the competetion..rather i feel in paper they could lead the competetion....:)

chris89 Aug 23, 2007 2:03 AM

It's amazing what they managed to do.
Canon's 40D and 1D versions are left behind. Although the 1Ds mk3 still beats nikon in megapixels, but everybody knows mega pixels don't matter that much.

Nikon D3 and D300 get 9fps at full resolution!! and 11 without focus tracking. That's pretty sick.
And ISO 25.000? I never knew it existed, but Nikon pulled it off (partially thanks to sony).

Although Nikon had some disappointing releases in the past, these 2 cameras are definitely amazing me.
(i love how they took some of Canon's features and upgraded them Nikon style).

P.S. i'm no fan boy ;)

nymphetamine Aug 23, 2007 8:03 AM

and introducing 51 point AF to the 1800 camera i feel as one the best steps to not get closer but gain few points over canon.

I have canon 5d and 1d but still adore this nikon news..Its gonna make me happy after a couple of years when i wanna upgrade :)

musket Aug 24, 2007 2:12 PM

Interesting news indeed, I also recieved news via email from Nikon

and CMOS sensors seem to be taking the place of CCD

http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/r...w**&2=1095

......................musket



patrick205gti Aug 26, 2007 6:36 AM

Does anybody know how the existing Digital DX lenses like the AFS 17-55, 12-24, 10.5 etc will work on the new D3?

I would of thought they wouldn't as you can't use them on the 35mm Nikonn film cameras. I hope this isn't the case as I have quite an assortment of these!

Patrick

WCube Aug 26, 2007 10:59 AM

Yes the DX len will work, the body will automatically detect the DX lens and will crop the image (5.1 megapixels). The following was taken from the Nikon's spec sheets:

Compatible Lenses*1


[align=left]1) Type G or D AF Nikkor: All functions supported[/align]

[align=left]2) DX AF Nikkor: All functions supported except FX-format (36x24)/5:4 (30x24) image size[/align]

[align=left]3) AF Nikkor other than type G or D*
2: All functions supported except 3D Color Matrix Metering II[/align]

[align=left]4) AI-P Nikkor: All functions supported except autofocus and 3D Color Matrix Metering II[/align]

[align=left]5) Non-CPU AI Nikkor: Can be used in exposure modes A and M; electronic rangefinder can[/align]

[align=left]be used if maximum aperture is f/5.6 or faster; Color Matrix Metering and aperture value[/align]

[align=left]display supported if user provides lens data[/align]


[align=left]*1. IX Nikkor lenses cannot be used[/align]
*2. Excluding lenses for F3AF

patrick205gti Aug 26, 2007 1:11 PM

Thanks for the reply!

Seems a bit ridiculous that most of my current lenses will need to be changed to get the most out of the D3.

I should think this will affect a fair few Nikon users that own the Digital DX who shoot for stock agencies etc that stipulate a file size that is far larger than what the D3 produces when using these lenses.

For people that have invested heavily in current Nikon Digital camera bodies and lenses this is a bit of a shock as it seems to get the best out of the new D3 and possibly future Nikon products we will have to purchase new lenses.

Not a terribly happy Nikon user today!

chris89 Aug 26, 2007 3:30 PM

You'll be surprised how many Nikon lenses are full frame, even new ones. All the pro lenses are full frame (except the 17-55). So no worries there.
Also i think Nikon wants to lure new professionals, especially pros who use canon. So no DX replacement for that group.

Allot of DX lens users will be satisfied with a D300 which is also cheaper :) so no big worries there as well.

But you still have a point. Some people will have to spend more than twice the money to replace all their lenses if they want full resolution on a D3, but i guess that's where the D300 comes in to play.

rjseeney Aug 26, 2007 6:36 PM

Actually, I think most pro's have a current arsenal of lenses, especially bright primes from the film days, that now can be used for their original purpose. The wide angle is something alot of pro's have been clamoring for and now they have it. As for those folks new to the game, there is still a bunch of wide angle primes and other quality lenses available at fair prices on the used market.

DRGSin Aug 29, 2007 7:42 AM

Man, as exciting as this news is and what it can possible mean for Nikon, Im really surprised it hasnt gotten much attention on this site. Are we THAT outnumbered here?

chris89 Aug 29, 2007 3:33 PM

It was funny to see allot of rumors and speculations on other forums. But since the cameras were officially annouced it has been awefully quiet, also on other forums.

I guess all the canon lovers got quiet because of the impressive new nikons :)
And the nikon owners are working 24/7 to make enough money to buy that new D3 with a shiny 600 f4 :D

Mark1616 Aug 29, 2007 4:00 PM

I think everyone is excited (Nikon and Canon owners alike) to see what the new cameras are going to be like in real life, but until someone gets their hands on them and starts saying this is good, that doesn't work like it should etc (same as they did with the Canon MKIII) then people have run out of things to say apart form "I would like one in my kit!!".

As a Canon owner I'm thinking that I would like to get a Nikon as well, but I know that Canon will wake up and produce something great the next time around and the tools are available for me to get the shots I want with the current offerings. However I would love those toys at the prices mentioned.

DRGSin Aug 30, 2007 9:43 AM

Yea, I agree also. Im new to this but I cant see people switching from one brand to the other, like the "olden" days LOL.All they have to do is wait till the next model from their own brand. Regardless of who comes up with what, its exciting for me to see where this technology is going to go, esp with regards to noise at high ISOs, which is the next mountain to climb, IMO. The MP frontier has been conquered...right?

tjsnaps Aug 30, 2007 9:49 AM

The D3 is 5 grand!! I guess I better start saving those green stamps now

Mark1616 Aug 30, 2007 10:37 AM

DRGSin wrote:
Quote:

Yea, I agree also. Im new to this but I cant see people switching from one brand to the other, like the "olden" days LOL.All they have to do is wait till the next model from their own brand. Regardless of who comes up with what, its exciting for me to see where this technology is going to go, esp with regards to noise at high ISOs, which is the next mountain to climb, IMO. The MP frontier has been conquered...right?
I would say you are right, the only people who might switch are those who only have a couple of basic lenses and were looking at moving up the food chain, other than that there is too much invested in glass, flash, etc.

As for the MP situation, it does seem that the top end is settling at the 12mp range for most uses. It is only the out and out studio 'toys' like the 1Ds MKIII at 21mp, the Mamiya ZD at 22mp and the Hasselblad HD3 at 39mp plus some other fancy digital backs on the market.

Noise is going to be key for those of us who are into photography, however I'm concerned that marketing people will latch onto the MP race rather than the low noise race which is not easy for Job Public to grasp.


dwaldmann Aug 30, 2007 4:13 PM

DRGSin wrote:
Quote:

as exciting as this news is and what it can possible mean for Nikon, Im really surprised it hasnt gotten much attention on this site.
It's all being talked about on the Canon section. You know how envy is... ;)

musket Aug 31, 2007 7:06 AM

Well the road that I think all the manufacturers should be going

down, should be to make pro-level cameras cheaper bycutting out all

the bells and whistles, and provide free decent PP software with

their cameras, at the end of the day It's the quality of the photo's

that their camera'sturn out that counts not the exterior gloss of

the camera, even give the option of rangefinder as well as dslr types.

.................:mad:..............musket

JohnG Aug 31, 2007 10:57 AM

musket wrote:
Quote:

Well the road that I think all the manufacturers should be going

down, should be to make pro-level cameras cheaper bycutting out all

the bells and whistles,
The challenge there is: one person's "bells and whistles" are another person's essential attributes. Try to gain any consensus whatsoever on what are the top essential featues - my guess is you cant do it. For my shooting style, live view isn't very useful - I would have preferred manufacturers not invest in that technology but invest in other areas. But there are a lot of people who want that feature. And, like it or not - it's a business. And in business, the Golden Rule is always applied: Those who have the Gold, Make the rules. So if enough people want certain features and market analysis indicates that fact - then a manufacturer will invest.

But really, how much can be said about the news that isn't already said? Other forums get overrun by the same tired speculation threads. To what end? The announcements look great on paper. When the cameras actually start getting produced and tested in the field there will be another round of threads regarding what isn't working and what is working and how this is the "XXXX" beater - insert any camera for XXXX. For some odd reason which I can't understand there are a huge number of photographers who are obsessed with the idea that their system is better than any other system.

As a canon user I'm excited by the announcements. I don't suffer from system envy. I don't cry that the sky is falling and Canon is doomed. Its great because it's competition. It pushes the manufacturer of my system to do a better job. Just like Pentax, Sony and Oly are pushing both Canon & Nikon. But in the end, after saying "wow - that looks like it could be a great couple of cameras" what else can you say until real world field tests are done?

chris89 Sep 16, 2007 2:52 PM

Look at these shots

http://nikonimaging.com/global/produ.../d3/sample.htm

Gotta love that ISO 6400 one :) the noise is only really visible in OOF areas.
imoAnd ISO 400 is as smooth as iso 100 shots from other cameras (rebels and 30d's)..

Cmon :D don't tell me you dont love this!

DarkDTSHD Sep 22, 2007 2:41 PM

Pro cameras and bundled software? Once you're at that level does what software a manufacturer gives you "the pro" reallly matter? I would tihnk not. Bundled software, for the most part, is just to get the user started. Even then, no matter the model of DSLR (entry-level or pro) do we really stick iwth it? I don't. And I'm a novice with a P&S. Soon after I bought my Sony DSC-H1 I used one free photo browser/light editing software called Picasa 2. Then I bought Adobe Photoshop Elements. I never used the bundled software.

And as the saying goes "...you get what you pay for". Or "don't pay for" in the case of "free" software.

But Nikon, IMHO, has always had the right thinking as for as a "systematic approach" is concerned. They are one of the few manufacturers that have thought beyond just developing the camera by putting a concentrated effort in putting out a powerful piece of software called Capture NX. Yes, you must pay! :) But what you do get is a very capable software package developed by the same people who built the camera. A truly "non-destructive" approach.

The new D300/D3 even includes "Capture NX Processing" built into the XSPEED processor. Talking about an intergrated design. From taking the picture, in-camera Capture NX processing to computer based photo editing using the same "language".

Any how, now we wait for the D300/D3 to hit the "market". :) It's going to be a long 2 and some odd months wait. At least for us Canucks. The D300/D3 aren't scheduled to arrive till December 10th. Officially that is.

Have a good weekend guys! :)

JimC Sep 22, 2007 3:09 PM

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:

But Nikon, IMHO, has always had the right thinking as for as a "systematic approach" is concerned. They are one of the few manufacturers that have thought beyond just developing the camera by putting a concentrated effort in putting out a powerful piece of software called Capture NX. Yes, you must pay! :) But what you do get is a very capable software package developed by the same people who built the camera. A truly "non-destructive" approach.
Well, there is another point of view...

Nikon encrypts metadata related to White Balance in the .nef (raw) files from their newer DSLR models. They started that practice with the D2X.

From my perspective, the only reason that they would do that is to stifle competition, so that you'd have to buy Nikon Capture if you wanted the best results.

This was a new practice, beginning with the D2X (and it's still continuing with newer camera models).

It caused a lot of bad press for them, and I wasn't particularly happy about it either.

Eric Hyman (author of Bibble) was the first to crack the encryption. David Coffin (the author of dcraw.c) cracked it soon thereafter and included the decryption routines in dcraw.c (Nikon basically xor'd the rgb multipliers related to white balance, using part of the camera's serial number as part of the key to further confuse).

After a lot of bad press when Adobe decided that they were not going to support the as shot white balance information from Nikon models encrypting white balance, a compromise was made.
What happened is that Nikon decided to offer a mini SDK that allows Adobe to decrypt the as shot white balance information, without using Nikon's demosaic algorithms (so that Adobe could use it's own algorithms for the raw conversion piece).

But, the data is still encrypted. Just because Adobe and Nikon decide to "play nice", doesn't solve it from my perspective. I could care less if Adobe is happy with the arrangement.

What if some bright young teenager comes up with a revolutionary new way to process data from sensors, and he or she doesn't have Nikon's Software Developer's Kit?

Perhaps they don't want to agree to Nikon's terms to get the SDK, or don't qualify as a "bonafide developer" (a choice of words that didn't sit well with me when Nikon started defending it's practice).

Or, perhaps someone wants to develop a raw converter for a platform that Nikon doesn't have an SDK available for (think Linux, Solaris, etc.)

Then, what do they do?

Do they take the risk that they're not going to get into trouble over violating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by decrypting the data (which was apparently Adobe's concern over this issue until they finallly reached a compromise with Nikon)?

Or, worse yet, do developers avoid working on converting the raw files entirely, stifling potential innovation and improvements with raw converters?

Yes, some developers have decided to risk decrypting it. But, I sure don't like it.

IMO, the only reason to encrypt metadata in raw files is to stifle competition and I'm sure they'd love to sell you Capture NX to try and solve that issue for you. ;-)

If Nikon thinks they've got a better solution with something like the optional Nikon Capture software, fine. But, let the product stand on it's own merits. Don't throw roadblocks in front of competitors by encrypting data.

We all end up spending more money for software, even if we don't own Nikon gear over this kind of thing (although I guess software manufacturers could decide to price raw converters based on what camera you own).

Developers have to spend time decrypting data, sorting through legal issues, etc., and that cost gets passed on to consumers.



DarkDTSHD Sep 22, 2007 3:22 PM

JimC wrote:
Quote:

DarkDTSHD wrote:
Quote:

But Nikon, IMHO, has always had the right thinking as for as a "systematic approach" is concerned. They are one of the few manufacturers that have thought beyond just developing the camera by putting a concentrated effort in putting out a powerful piece of software called Capture NX. Yes, you must pay! :) But what you do get is a very capable software package developed by the same people who built the camera. A truly "non-destructive" approach.
Well, there is another point of view...

Nikon encrypts metadata related to White Balance in the .nef (raw) files from their newer DSLR models. They started that practice with the D2X.

From my perspective, the only reason that they would do that is to stifle competition, so that you'd have to buy Nikon Capture if you wanted the best results.

This was a new practice, beginning with the D2X (and it's still continuing with newer camera models).

It caused a lot of bad press for them, and I wasn't particularly happy about it either.

Eric Hyman (author of Bibble) was the first to crack the encryption. David Coffin (the author of dcraw.c) cracked it soon thereafter and included the decryption routines in dcraw.c (Nikon basically xor'd the rgb multipliers related to white balance, using part of the camera's serial number as part of the key to further confuse).

After a lot of bad press when Adobe decided that they were not going to support the as shot white balance information from Nikon models encrypting white balance, a compromise was made. What happened is that Nikon decided to offer a mini SDK that allows Adobe to decrypt the as shot white balance information, without using Nikon's demosaic algorithms (so that Adobe could use it's own algorithms for the raw conversion piece).

But, the data is still encrypted. Just because Adobe and Nikon decide to "play nice", doesn't solve it from my perspective. I could care less if Adobe is happy with the arrangement.

What if some bright young teenager comes up with a revolutionary new way to process data from sensors, and he or she doesn't have Nikon's Software Developer's Kit?

Perhaps they don't want to agree to Nikon's terms to get the SDK, or don't qualify as a "bonafide developer" (a choice of words that didn't sit well with me when Nikon started defending it's practice).

Or, perhaps someone wants to develop a raw converter for a platform that Nikon doesn't have an SDK available for (think Linux, Solaris, etc.)

Then, what do they do?

Do they take the risk that they're not going to get into trouble over violating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act by decrypting the data (which was apparently Adobe's concern over this issue until they finallly reached a compromise with Nikon)?

Or, worse yet, do developers avoid working on converting the raw files entirely, stifling potential innovation and improvements with raw converters?

Yes, some developers have decided to risk decrypting it. But, I sure don't like it.

IMO, the only reason to encrypt metadata in raw files is to stifle competition and I'm sure they'd love to sell you Capture NX to try and solve that issue for you. ;-)

If Nikon thinks they've got a better solution with something like the optional Nikon Capture software, fine. But, let the product stand on it's own merits. Don't throw roadblocks in front of competitors by encrypting data.

We all end up spending more money for software, even if we don't own Nikon gear over this kind of thing (although I guess software manufacturers could decide to price raw converters based on what camera you own).

Developers have to spend time decrypting data, sorting through legal issues, etc., and that cost gets passed on to consumers.


That's very true too.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"But really, unless you're a working photographer ("professinal" sounds so pretentious to me), the amount of "destruction" that goes on when you use third-party software isn't really important. So in the end I think we should buy the software that best suits our own needs and that we feel the most comfortable using. Capture NX or not (assuming you're a Nikon shooter).

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"That being said, if you are a future D300/D3 owner, why not buy Capture NX? :) For a near seemless shot to PP to print (assuming you've properly calibrated your monitor and your printer...assuming you do your own prints).



JimC Sep 22, 2007 3:32 PM

Nikon Capture NX is an option.

But, there are many alternatives and a number photographers may prefer a faster raw converter and/or one that offers a better workflow for their needs, and/or one that has more features for editing and/or one that runs on a different platform (for example, I use Linux more than Windows) and/or one that offers more detail based on more advanced algorithms and/or [insert your favorite reason for using a different raw converter here]

I believe in the user having a choice. Competition on the software side of it is a good thing from my perspective.


nickphoto123 Sep 22, 2007 5:39 PM

The D3 and the D300 ar the very first things I will look at at PhotoPlus Expo in New York this October.

Nicholas

DarkDTSHD Sep 22, 2007 6:52 PM

JimC wrote:
Quote:

Nikon Capture NX is an option.

But, there are many alternatives and a number photographers may prefer a faster raw converter and/or one that offers a better workflow for their needs, and/or one that has more features for editing and/or one that runs on a different platform (for example, I use Linux more than Windows) and/or one that offers more detail based on more advanced algorithms and/or [insert your favorite reason for using a different raw converter here]

I believe in the user having a choice. Competition on the software side of it is a good thing from my perspective.

I totally agree. And I'm sure many photographers, amateur or pro, will be using different photo workflow mangement and editing softwares. I'm also sure there are many that might own Nikons and not use Capture NX. "To each his/her own". What ever works for you. :)

Any how on with the wait. Heh!

Have a good weekend JimC! ;)

JimC Sep 22, 2007 7:11 PM

Yes, many photographers seem to really like the newer versions of Capture (much better than some of the older Nikon software for sure). But, many users are fond of Adobe and other solutions for image processing. So, I'd rather Nikon didn't use tactics like encryption of some metadata.

They're not the only ones that do that kind of thing, though. They just got more bad press than most others.

Nikon will probably have more hits on their hands with these models. The higher ISO samples I've seen from the D3 are pretty sweet.

I'd rather the manufacturers didn't try to cram that many pixels into an APS-C size sensor though (Nikon D300, Sony DSLR-A700 and whatever else that comes out using a 12MP APS-C size sensor). Of course, we're starting to see manufacturers announcing non-DSLR models with that many pixels stuffed into a much smaller sensor, too. So, I guess we should be thankful it's not 24MP by now (without keeping the noise as low as they're managing to do).

I guess it depends on what you want to shoot. I'd rather have a lower resolution sensor with lower noise levels like the larger D3 sensor produces myself (but, at a much lower price tag). If they'd spend more time improving the sensors and processing, without increasing the resolution with each new generation of cameras, we'd probably have much higher ISO speeds available with improved Dynamic Range. Heck, I'd settle for 3 or 4 Megapixels if they'd give me a reasonably clean ISO 19,200 in an APS-C size sensor (without an overprocessed look from noise reduction). lol

But, many people will want the higher resolution. So, the manufacturers are going to try and accomodate them. This megapixel war never seems to end.



DarkDTSHD Sep 22, 2007 11:26 PM

JimC wrote:
Quote:

Yes, many photographers seem to really like the newer versions of Capture (much better than some of the older Nikon software for sure). But, many users are fond of Adobe and other solutions for image processing. So, I'd rather Nikon didn't use tactics like encryption of some metadata.

I'd rather the manufacturers didn't try to cram that many pixels into an APS-C size sensor though (Nikon D300, Sony DSLR-A700 and whatever else that comes out using a 12MP APS-C size sensor). Of course, we're starting to see manufacturers announcing non-DSLR models with that many pixels stuffed into a much smaller sensor, too. So, I guess we should be thankful it's not 24MP by now (without keeping the noise as low as they're managing to do).

I guess it depends on what you want to shoot. I'd rather have a lower resolution sensor with lower noise levels like the larger D3 sensor produces myself (but, at a much lower price tag). If they'd spend more time improving the sensors and processing, without increasing the resolution with each new generation of cameras, we'd probably have much higher ISO speeds available with improved Dynamic Range. Heck, I'd settle for 3 or 4 Megapixels if they'd give me a reasonably clean ISO 19,200 in an APS-C size sensor (without an overprocessed look from noise reduction). lol

But, many people will want the higher resolution. So, the manufacturers are going to try and accomodate them. This megapixel war never seems to end.


As a hobbyist, I too am not for the MP wars. I'd rather the manufacturers stick to a good lunber like 12.3 and just work on giving us cleaner pics throughout the entire ISO range. Meanshile extending the useable ISO range. Which is what Nikon has done.

Have you guys seen the 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400 ISO D300/D3 pics? They are amazing!

Any how, I'm outta here for a while. Probably till I get my D300. Cya then folks! :)

musket Sep 24, 2007 2:56 PM

Some sample photo's from the D300 are now on the Nikon site

http://nikonimaging.com/global/produ...300/sample.htm

:|......................musket

JimC Sep 24, 2007 3:28 PM

musket wrote:
Quote:

Some sample photo's from the D300 are now on the Nikon site

http://nikonimaging.com/global/produ...300/sample.htm
Yes. But, they are low ISO speed, low dynamic range subjects (very little range from dark to bright).

I want to see the tougher lighting conditions at higher ISO speeds.


NHL Sep 24, 2007 5:44 PM

Well guess what - Am I the only one here to shoot @ low ISO? :blah:

I totally understand why some folks need ISO3200 (now 6400), but 95% of the population never go above ISO400! How did everyone survived in the film days then?

-> Also one of the nice feature of the D2X was to shoot @ 2x crop, now we have a D300 @ 12Mp at 1/2 the price and no one want the higher resolution? Come on this is great for as long as they can maintain the IQ the more resolution the better IMO
Great for lowering the cost of tele that's what I think... :cool:

JimC Sep 25, 2007 5:35 AM

Quote:

Great for lowering the cost of tele that's what I think...
That's what I'm thinking. I'm warming up to the idea of having that many pixels in smaller sensor.

I've made many an 8x10" print from 2 Megapixel Images. 2 Megapixels is borderline. But, 3 Megapixels is plenty from my perspective for the print sizes I use. :-)

If they can keep the quality up, the idea of stuffing 12MP into an APS-C sensor is growing on me since I could even crop quite a bit and still get usable prints. lol



BillP2R Sep 25, 2007 9:35 AM

Quote:

I totally understand why some folks need ISO3200 (now 6400), but 95% of the population never go above ISO400! How did everyone survived in the film days then?
Fast prime lenses and push processing.

------------------------ Bill

NHL Sep 25, 2007 9:42 AM

BillP2R wrote:
Quote:

Fast prime lenses and push processing.
Agree - but have you seen thoses grainy results as compared to what we are getting today? :-)




JimC wrote:
Quote:

That's what I'm thinking. I'm warming up to the idea of having that many pixels in smaller sensor.
See how Oly did it - 10Mp in a 2x crop
-> A Bigma becomes a 100-1000mm effective focal lenght (with VR in the body to boot) ;)
Look @ how much weight you're leaving behind plus the 4/3 matches most print materials!
(That's equivalent to a 14Mp 2:3 dSLR after the crop on both sides...)

I guess Nikon thought about it too with all the possible crop options on their D3 :idea:


BTW the Nikon posted images for download are great (even @ low ISO) - It's best to check them for details in the shadows and highlights where the contents are at both end of the histogram (and not the middle) where the problematic areas are!

BillP2R Sep 25, 2007 2:14 PM

Quote:

Agree - but have you seen thoses grainy results as compared to what we are getting today?
I remember them well.

As far as I'm concerned, these are the good old days. I can shoot as much as I want (instead of what I could afford) and the results are better.

(And I much prefer working at a computer in the den than downstairs in the darkroom!)

------------------- Bill

JimC Sep 25, 2007 2:30 PM

I use higher ISO speed Fuji (800, 1600) color film from time to time (Superia, Superia X-Tra).

Unfortunately, the film scan results are terrible from the local discount processors (Wal-Mart, Walgreens, Ritz/Wolf), and I want good scans of the film if I'm going to use it, without the hassle of doing it myself.

Smaller prints are usually OK (I'll have 4x6" prints made at the same time I'm getting it processed and scanned). But, you'd never know they'd come out that well by looking at the scans). lol

The scans I've gotten at these vendors locally look more like they have scanner noise than grain (or perhaps a little of both), and I'm not going through the hassle of doing it myself or the expense of having done by someone other than the discount processors.

Digital definitely wins in my book.


DarkDTSHD Sep 25, 2007 3:35 PM

JimC wrote:
Quote:

I use higher ISO speed Fuji (800, 1600) color film from time to time (Superia, Superia X-Tra).

Unfortunately, the film scan results are terrible from the local discount processors (Wal-Mart, Walgreens, Ritz/Wolf), and I want good scans of the film if I'm going to use it, without the hassle of doing it myself.

Smaller prints are usually OK (I'll have 4x6" prints made at the same time I'm getting it processed and scanned). But, you'd never know they'd come out that well by looking at the scans). lol

The scans I've gotten at these vendors locally look more like they have scanner noise than grain (or perhaps a little of both), and I'm not going through the hassle of doing it myself or the expense of having done by someone other than the discount processors.

Digital definitely wins in my book.


Hiya Jim,

Well, not to be blunt but what did you expect taking film to those places. They're usually manned by minumum wage monkies who work there because they need the work. Not because they are into photography. Not because they are interested increating a long lasting relationship with the client. Or really care if the customers are really happy with the print. Nor do they really give a dam about the job itself. A lot ofwhom are still in high school. At lest that's usually how it up here in Toronto. In such cases you definitely do get what you pay for IMHO.

Ocassionally, if you're lucky, you (we...here in Toronto) do find the odd small bricks/mortar shop with a developer who actually knows his craft. Giving you good results on a choice of high grade archival paper even.

I don't know how the photography market is in Savannah but up here there are tons of specialty developer houses. That usually cater to "professionals" and corporations.

We also have a Kokak developing location I think at the Canadian Kokak corporate building. Not sure if it's the Canadian headquarters. Any how they have the latest and greatest gear. And qualified people doing the work. I think they also service mostly the "professional" (I hate the word "professional"...sounds so pretentious)photography industry but will also do work for the average joe. My parents used them a few times.

Any how, as far as film vs. digital...I do think digital is more "convenient" and cost effective. Whether you're a absolute beginner just learning. Interested in photography only as a hobby. Or a working photographer watching the bottom line. But has for which format is better all thigns considered...I thinkis a personal choice.

Though, I did listen to a podcast/interview where a noted working photographer said B/W photos are better using film cameras and color photos using digital.Keeping in mindthat's just one man's opinion.


JimC Sep 26, 2007 9:31 AM

That was my point (you can't get good high ISO results from the discount processors). That's why using a dSLR is a better way to go. ;-)

Quote:

The scans I've gotten at these vendors locally look more like they have scanner noise than grain (or perhaps a little of both), and I'm not going through the hassle of doing it myself or the expense of having done by someone other than the discount processors.

DarkDTSHD Sep 28, 2007 11:22 PM

Nikon USA just posted a few interesting D3 pics. Whereas, the D300 only has 2 offical shots of a HaWG. What's up? Could there be some problems already in production of the D300? Hmmm.... :)

DarkDTSHD Oct 9, 2007 8:50 PM

Update for Canadians!

I was just at the Aden Cameras website and noticed they had again reduced their asking price for both the D300 and D3. The cameras aren't even expected here till December. :)

Any how, the D300 is now listed for $1999.95. Down $100.00.

The D3, is now $5499.95! Down $600.00!!

I wonder how much the pricing will be come December. :)

Any how, I'll still most likely go for the D300. But at the rate they are already discounting the price of the D3 I might be pleading "temporary insanity" in December and pickup a D3. :)


Part 2 (Oct 12th, 2007):

I just looked at the Nikon Canada website and it seems the price rediuction was not part of one shops doing. But that Nikon Canada is now offering "introductory pricing". And knowing how this shop, Aden Camera is so competitive, maybe we (Canadians) will see further price reductions come December after all. :)

chris89 Oct 10, 2007 5:02 AM

That's good news! let's hope they'll continue dropping the price before it hits the shelves.
Doubt it though.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:36 PM.