Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 18, 2005, 12:18 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 22
Default

Hi,
When I moved (several years ago) from a film minolta SLR to Nicon coolpix 9500 - the frst impresssin was: "forget about beautiful pictures. Digits kills the art."

Now I'm thinking of gettin the D70.
Who could answer?
If the D70 image quality could be compared
with old good film SLRs.
I need just an advice from smb. who had moved from film SLR to the D70 - did you felt dissapoited with digital "Spirit"? In other words if the today's D70 is good eough to conquer with a film SLR? Or shoud I wait a couple of years for another generation of digitals cameras?

Dmitry M.
Dmitry M. is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 18, 2005, 3:29 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 236
Default

I was not disappointed - it's just different. Film is cleaner then digital - however - you can do more with the image with digital. You have instant gratifacation - thus - you can be a better photographer, learn from mistakes on the fly.

Once you have the shot you want, then you can go into you digital darkroom and adjust things the way you want. Sharpen, enhance color, burn and so forth.

It's not cheating, people did it all the time in the darkroom, it's just different. Depending on the camera you can blown things up pretty large - STILL - not as big as with film.

With digital you can adjust "film speed" from image to image.

So in short - If you just take a photo and compare the same shot - one film and one digital - the film will win - however, with tweaking and adjustment - you can make it BETTER then film.

Of course - the D70 has so many tools at your disposel it's silly. Of course one thing you should get purchase software to clean up noise - Noise Ninga or NeatImage will clean up noise from even ISO 1600 shots.

I was like you - I went into Digital kicking and screaming but was/am surprised at the results.

On a side note - go to the Photo.net gallary and look at the top 1700 photos from the past 3 days - those are 90% digital, you tell me!!!
Grinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 18, 2005, 10:18 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 269
Default

I went digital because of the times I needed to be able to immediately send a pic to publications, and because film costs were eating me alive. A camera like the D70 will have a much higher initial costs than a similar film camera like the N80. However, once you have the D70 and accessories like memory, by and large you don't have ongoing costs unless you get something else like another lens. With a film camera, you have the ongoing cost of film and if you take enough shots that cost could surpass the extra amount a D70 would cost.
I've also found with digital knowing (or at least having a good idea) you have a shot is worth quite a bit, plus if you mess up you know right away and can get another shot. With film I was constantly worried about whether or not I had a shot vs. the concern of not wanting to waste the relatively few shots I had available. A digital helps with both worries.
murphyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2005, 1:49 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 22
Default

Thank you for replies,
I'm not a professional photographer, I just like to make good shots. When I was using my old minolta 500i with 50mm fix lens, I was sure that if I have not got the exellent result that was MY OWN FAULT.
The only reason I moved to digital is the extreamly poor level of minilabs in Russia.
To get a print 30X40cm without dust you need to be a member of some club and use a semiprofessional laboratory, in other way 15x20mm is your limit.

When I moved to digital (Coolpix 9500) ALL my prints, event the best, lost their "analog" charm. The resolution was not the bigest trouble. The color depth was a real problem: either you have a "white hole" instead of sky, either you lost all the detales in shadows.
When I was on Tenerife vulcanos (Teide) 3500m above sea level, My coolpix was neally useless - 90% of my shots were either overexposed or underexposed in some parts.
A good film + good developing even in standard minilab would give under such conditions a normal quality result.

By the way - what is the color depth of the D70 Raw files?
When I use scanner I can set 10-12 bits per color, and so I have a reserv for curves ajustments, but with my Coolpix even in TIFF format I had only 8 bits and tham means that if i have corrected something I usually can not have a quality printout from that file.

I have seen a lot of pictures in Internet made with different cameras - but they all are JPGs, and when you go printing.. you know, the best JPG could appear absolutely unprintable.
Dmitry M. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2005, 6:12 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Onyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 402
Default

It is said that there is greater difference between slide and negative than there is between digital and film.

The learning curve is steep. If you depend on making photos for a living, I wouldn't go changing unless you've had a clear structured plan of self re-education and also taking into account the potential impact on the hiccups you will experience in thetransition stage. If it's not that big of a deal, you'll have fun learning on the digital at your own pace - it's all good.
Onyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2005, 6:13 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 236
Default

One thing you will need to buy is Noise Ninja or Neat Image, because on a Digital camera photons hit the sensors at different tiems EVERY Digital Camera will get noise. You can shoot at ISO 1600 and smooth the noise out with those softwares.

I have never tasken RAW (I'm software challanged at the moment - Photoshop 3.0 LOL).

CoolPix 9500???

Grinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2005, 7:12 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 22
Default

Onyx wrote:
Quote:
It is said that there is greater difference between slide and negative than there is between digital and film.
Thank you Onyx.

Your reply encouraged me.

I also visited your site...

Well, you have really good pictures. Never had that good myself even with film camera! I think I'll go ahead and take this D70.
Dmitry M. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2005, 8:26 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 113
Default

The RAW files in the D70 are 12 bits.
Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2005, 9:47 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 935
Default

Basically...digital = new school. film = old school.
Kenny_Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2005, 9:48 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 935
Default

Also, with digital, at least you can see if your image is there. With film, you won't know the results until you spend some money and time to get it developed.
Kenny_Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:15 AM.