NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: KenP on April 02, 2024, 19:42:47
-
I am curious to know what particular digital camera moved you away from film for good? There seems to be a lot of nostalgia for older digital cameras in recent years. I have not been around photography long enough to have experience worth commenting on. However, the large user group here has extensive professional experience and likely has used nearly every variant of digital technology since inception. I am speaking mostly in terms of 35mm but I do understand that medium and large format in film provided advantages that might still be preferred. Perhaps some members here still use film professionally as there is a recent resurgence there as well. Professional or otherwise, what was the one camera that moved you into the digital realm? Ken
-
I used on occasion Kodak's botched DCS cameras in the '90s and whilst these cameras were horrible in terms of handling and their limited resolutiion, they did provide a pointer to the future. Thus I invested heavily in digital scanners and started converting all my slides to digital files. Which took a while. Then got my first Nikon D1 in 1999. Never looked back.
-
My first Digitals were borrowed. The Dimage 7 from Minolta was the first I did use for a longer time.
Then a friend showed me food shots he took with a D70 and I got one asap. In fact I got two of these and started a career as a food photographer. Easy. I love food, cooking and all these crazy people in the business.
The first camera that felt like a real replacement for my film bodies was the D3. I used it till the display went shaky and then sold it to someone who is still happy with it.
Today I have many digital cameras and use them for different purposes and situations. The one I love most is the Zf but the D500 comes very close and the Fuji X100 is close to my heart. The Z6 and D850 are workhorses. Super dependable.
-
None, I still use my FM3a. My first digital camera was the Nikon D600, which was the first relatively affordable FX camera. My use of film dropped dramatically after that but it is fun to shoot film sometimes.
-
I think Nikon was slow in developing some hi-res DSLRs compared to Canon.
I remember I watched a poster like portrait print which looked very good and I asked what the source was. It was from a 11 MP Canon DSLR.
Can't remember what Nikon had a that time......4 MP maybe?
I then thought......ok....when Nikon come with around 11 MP DSLR I will consider.
So my first DSLR was a Nikon D2x.
It was this camera that caused I sold my Hasselblad as my printed scanned (CS 9000) 6x6 slides does not looked better then D2x printed files (shot at low ISO). The largest prints I made were A3+.
I think Nikon was settled only for DX sized sensors. I remember a Nikon article with a headline saying something like "who needs full frame?"
The competition changed that. Could be interesting to hear Nikon about that decision. But sensors back then liked very much to get the light rays in with 90 degrees to the sensor (perpendicular). This was one of probably more technical reasons for the smaller DX format. I also guess the D in DX stands for Digital.....or what is the history behind the "DX" naming?
For me it was difficult to get the dark shadow details out of the slides by using the scanner. It looked much better projected than when scanned. Maybe I should have made some "thinner" slides for scanning purpose only.
I was "allergic" to blown out highlights when projecting a slide.
-
I think Nikon was slow in developing some hi-res DSLRs compared to Canon.
I remember I watched a poster like portrait print which looked very good and I asked what the source was. It was from a 11 MP Canon DSLR.
Can't remember what Nikon had a that time......4 MP maybe?
I then thought......ok....when Nikon come with around 11 MP DSLR I will consider.
So my first DSLR was a Nikon D2x.
It's true Nikon didn't have a full-frame camera early on; Contax, Canon and Kodak did. I believe a technology known as offset microlenses was developed and used first in Leica rangefinder cameras to manage the light coming from a difficult angle from the point of view of a digital sensor, and Nikon used this technology in the D3 which was their first full-frame DSLR. I don't have any inside information on this I am just recalling what was discussed at the time.
It was this camera that caused I sold my Hasselblad as my printed scanned (CS 9000) 6x6 slides does not looked better then D2x printed files (shot at low ISO). The largest prints I made were A3+.
That's interesting; I have an LS-9000 as well and I do find 6x7 cm film scans to be excellent and in some ways better than digital was at the time. Especially I think black and white film could hold amazingly fine detail. Yes, there is grain also, but there is robust detail and beautiful, rich tones in the sky and other even areas. I was using a Mamiya 7 rangefinder.
I think Nikon was settled only for DX sized sensors. I remember a Nikon article with a headline saying something like "who needs full frame?"
Every company has to try to sell what products they have at the time.
I also guess the D in DX stands for Digital.....or what is the history behind the "DX" naming?
APS film was called IX and so DX is basically Digital APS or DX.
For me it was difficult to get the dark shadow details out of the slides by using the scanner. It looked much better projected than when scanned. Maybe I should have made some "thinner" slides for scanning purpose only.
I was "allergic" to blown out highlights when projecting a slide.
I think it's just best to accept that the printed medium is different from a transmitted medium (transparency) and they have different properties. I've always been happy with the latest-generation LS-5000 and LS-9000 scanners compared to what scans I could get commercially for a reasonable price per scan. However, the film still contains more detail as can be seen in some comparisons between Nikon's 4000 ppi and Minolta's 5400 ppi scanners, as well as when looking at slides under a good microscope. However, depth of field creates challenges in the scanning process and while there are ways of mitigating it, digital cameras do capture more consistent detail across the frame than scanned 35 mm film.
-
Was your film scans from positives or negatives?
I think the light in LS-9000 is not strong enough to get all the shadow/dark details out of a slide but much better with negatives. If I tried to "force" the details out from slide I just got a lot of noise that was not in the slide. I think for scanning negatives are much better. They are not as dark as the slides so you can get more details out of a negative (in this case the highlights).
-
Negative colour film has a base mask that can limit dynamic range -- my experience.
Whatever technique used, film grain ultimately limits what details can be extracted.
-
My best scans was from the B/W film called "Gigabitfilm".
It is still available?
http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/products/product_photo_135.htm (http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/products/product_photo_135.htm)
For that film I could have used a 8000 dpi scanner to get more details out if it.
-
The Gigabit website looks pretty much dead?
-
Yes, a bit dead but website has always looked at bit strange and not obvious where to "click".
The funny images examples is still there with the x1000 enlargement as the last example:
http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/information/24x36/examples/examples.htm (http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/information/24x36/examples/examples.htm)
-
Liquidated in 2011?
http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/imprint/imprint.htm (http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/imprint/imprint.htm)
From memory I purchased my Gigabitfilm here:
https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/black-white-films/ (https://www.macodirect.de/en/film/black-white-films/)
Maybe they have something now that is close......
-
I jumped directly onto Nikon D1, but kept shooting film for some projects where needed. Shooting F5 and also 6x7 on film scanned on Nikon LS-8000 with Silverpix
-
Started with small kodak cameras that allowed manual mode, jpg only
my pentax film camera was failing
Eventually got a nikon d40 and I started using raw
the rest is history
-
first one using was a Sony Mavica with 3.5" floppy disc, but it was in my job
first I owned was a Nikon Coolpix 950 (2000), then a Canon Powershot G5, then Nikon D200 (2006) with all the expensive consequences
-
Started with small kodak cameras that allowed manual mode, jpg only
my pentax film camera was failing
Eventually got a nikon d40 and I started using raw
the rest is history
My experience is very similar. I started with a sony dsc-w5 I bought specifically for a trip to India. A graphic designer friend so saw the images and encouraged me to get a real camera: nikon d200. He also gave me the first lessons. Thank you Mario!
-
My first DSLR was Nikon D2H because it could shoot both in IR and UV. I decided to invest in this highest-end model after reading Brna's classic naturfotograf.com.
I remember Birna revealed that even the image quality of D1 with a "lowly" 2.73MP APS-C sensor could be at least on par with that of the 135-size Kodak E100VS film:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D1_review.html#top
Around at that time, I was experimenting with a Hasselblad 6x6 body with Fuji RTPII film for UV, but I totally abandoned 135-size film camera.
-
Mine was a Canon G1. I loved that jangly thing, and even bought a wooden grip.
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/dcc463.html
-
Some very interesting replies. Seems just Roland continues to shoot film. Do any of you have an interest or would return to film of any format? Short of a particular aesthetic, there is probably no reason to do so. I did play a bit with film growing up as my Dad had a Polaroid Land Camera in the late 60's. Not much since and still own an older D2xs that I have not shot much since my kids have grown.
-
I am quite sure I will never return to film.
Life is too short for that. The money saved I can use for good wine, new lenses etc........
-
Makes sense in terms of cost though there is nothing inexpensive about digital technology. I have not purchased anything since the D2xs and that I got for cheap as it was quite a few generations old by then. Since I do not shoot much these days, the only consideration for me would be to buy a smaller camera.
-
We are a very small group of people that use "real" cameras to take photos.
I wonder if you take all images shot in a period of time. Which percentage are shot using a phone or another Android or IOS device?
My guess is 99.99 % or more. I think it is more but don't know how many "9" no need after the ".".
-
Seems just Roland continues to shoot film. Do any of you have an interest or would return to film of any format?
I was happily developing and printing my own black-and-white film until 2013. The camera was a Nikon F100, although an F2A came out to play once in a while. Then my new fiancé (and now lovely wife) asked if I could take family photographs in colour. That pretty much meant going digital. A search for a used D700 led to a refurbished D3 :) After discovering the joys of editing and enhancing digital images, I have never looked back.
-
Bought a Coolpix 4500 (follow up of 950) in 2003
from this day on I noticed that I am more and more tended to shoot digital
I decided to wait -and buy a Coolscan 5000
D2 Series appeared to expensive, considered D100 but it was lacking metering support for non CPUlenses
Then in 2006 the D200 that indeed supported old lenses was my first digigal SLR body. Two years later the D700 made me go full-format.
-
When I first had access to 24x36 interchangeable lens cameras, I liked the color and "sharpness" of Kodachrome, plus that was what the great color photojournalist/artists of the day like Ernst Haas and Harry Gruyeart used.
Alas, Kodak stopped processing Kodachrome in the late 1980's---first nail in the coffin. Then Kodak stopped making it---end of the line. I was not happy with Ektachrome 100 or Fuji E-6 films.
The D200 was the first 'affordable' interchangeable lens Nikon digital camera. Got D200 in 2006, D2Xs in 2007. Alas, the D3 (2007 release, 2008 to buy in the store) came out and DX went away for me.
Digital meant the freedom to shoot unlimited quantities of shots. Comparing the per frame cost of E-6 film plus processing against the cost of purchasing and then shooting the same number of frames on 2 D3 bodies, the two D3 bodies "payed for themselves" within about 1.5 years.
I still have a fascination for the look of very large format film such as 8x10.
-
I was relatively late giving up film for good. At some point earlier on I got a couple of early generation digital point and shoots at yard sales, which I found useful for non serious stuff like keeping track of the parts of some machine I was fixing, or posting pictures to forums on things like how I added a leaf spring to my Jeep or the like. My first digital was a Kodak with something like 1.2 megapixel sensor, and not even close to continuous shooting. In 2012 my wife and I needed something compact that worked underwater and got a couple of new Fujis that worked under water, and the ease of packing as well as the ability to take lots of pictures was nice. The change came in 2014 when we set off for the Galapagos and beyond. I got a D3200 and my wife a D7100 (she had some earlier AF lenses and wanted the screw drive).. A couple of years later she tired of the D7100's tiny buffer and I of the D3200's limitations and a tendency for the high ISO noise to cause ragged edges, so she got a D7200 and I took over the 7100, and that's how we have remained for the last 8 years or so. She's getting weary of the weight, and thinking of lighter mirrorless cameras, so I might end up with the D7200, but that's yet to happen, and I might succumb to the urge to go mirrorless too, for the combination of more compact travel and the ability to use interesting old lenses.
My D7100 is getting pretty worn, and has a pretty high shutter count, but you never know. In my experience if you wait until a Nikon camera breaks, you may never get a new one. I used an F for 40 plus years, and if I'd waited for it to break, I'd be up to 60. I like new machinery, but at the same time there's an advantage to something older. Less tragedy if lost or stolen, and I can change settings in the dark.
-
I just slowly moved to digital but I kept my film cameras. My first digital camera was a Canon bridge camera in 2003. After about 6 months of use, I hated the output and started looking for a DSLR.
My first DSLR was the Pentax K10D which i bought over from a good friend. 1.5 years later, I got the K20D. Every 1.5 or 2 years I would upgrade to the next model. My last Pentax was the K1 MKI.
In between, I got Olympus and Panasonic m43 systems. In 2023, the Fujifilm X-T5.
It was only in Mar 2024 that I got the D850 second hand and a Df in May 2024. The menu of the Nikon is fairly similar to the Pentax and I got used to it quite fast.
I also bought a Nikon Nikkor-SC Auto 44mm F1.2 in April and 2 weeks ago the Voigtlander Nokton 55mm F1.2. I will be comparing them soon when I go for a photoshoot at the end of the month.
-
It wasn't a particular camera as much as the realization that digital proved to be better suited for my purposes.
When AF came along, I had switched from Nikon to Canon and sometime later I also started using Leica rangefinders. My first digital camera was a Canon 30D that I used along with a pair of Leica M6 film bodies. I was reluctant to give up using the Leicas but digital was proving to be capable and certainly the future. When Leica came up with a digital M body it was way too expensive for my budget and it had some annoying quirks. After some years, I started using Fuji X-Pro bodies. They handled much like the Leicas but had AF and a much lower entry fee. I also found the Fujinon lenses to be outstanding. I didn't really use my Canon digitals that much after discovering Fujis. Eventually I wanted a full frame digital. I also wanted to digitize some of my old negatives using camera and negative holder--an endeavor I later abandoned. Since I had used Nikon gear for 20+ years prior to Canon, I bought a used D800 and the 60mm micro Nikkor with an ES-2. It kinda snowballed from there. Older used Nikon digital bodies were plentiful and relatively cheap as well as older AF and the beautiful old manual focus Nikkors I had started using in the early 1970s.