hard decision..not a pro but need pro advice

i posted this on the nikon talk forum with no response...hope i can get some advice here...i am not a pro but i do take a lot of pictures...i use a nikon f100 now and scan neg with a canon fs2710...i am considering purchasing a nikon d100 but for less of the price of the d100 i can up upgrade my scanner to a nikon 4000 or the canon 4000... scanner...would the photos look better off the scanner or from the d100...i usually do not go above 11x14 on my prints....any advice would be greatly appreciated....thanks, gary

garyh.

figure the cost of film * processing and the time you spend scanning. what's yur time worth to you? are you comfortable in photoshop? are you okay with the digital medium as storage or do you prefer positives or negitives to archive? think about this stuff. personally I only shoot B&W film and all the color I shoot is digital.

bm bradley

If it was me, I would go with the camera. It gives you more to work with. If you take a lot of photos the cost of film and prints will pay for your camera over time. It's much easier to try new things with the D100. You can see your photos right after you shoot.
Good luck.
Ron

Hi GAryh

I have been using my f5 anf f100 for years, and just recently, i got my d100, and its great!! save a lot of my time, and cost in buying films.

the best thing, it i can preview my images imediately after each shot. Now i am thinking of getting a d1x...digital camera are great..

best
alvin

garyh. said:

i posted this on the nikon talk forum with no response...hope i can
get some advice here...i am not a pro but i do take a lot of
pictures...i use a nikon f100 now and scan neg with a canon
fs2710...i am considering purchasing a nikon d100 but for less of
the price of the d100 i can up upgrade my scanner to a nikon 4000
or the canon 4000... scanner...would the photos look better off the
scanner or from the d100...i usually do not go above 11x14 on my
prints....any advice would be greatly appreciated....thanks, gary

Click to expand...

--
alvin

garyh. said:

i posted this on the nikon talk forum with no response...hope i can
get some advice here...i am not a pro but i do take a lot of
pictures...i use a nikon f100 now and scan neg with a canon
fs2710...i am considering purchasing a nikon d100 but for less of
the price of the d100 i can up upgrade my scanner to a nikon 4000
or the canon 4000... scanner...would the photos look better off the
scanner or from the d100...i usually do not go above 11x14 on my
prints....any advice would be greatly appreciated....thanks, gary

Click to expand...

See if you can borrow / rent a d100.
The camera itself is a doll, a bit plasticy and clunky compared to the F100,

but I think once you start working with the files, I doubt that you would choose the scanner.

Unless you are using very fine grain film, the extra res of the nikon 4000ed will just give you better, sharper scans of film grain. Plus, scanning is a real pain compared to downloading a card. It is a fantastic scanner though and if you decide to go scanner, you will love it.

I think the d100 files at 320iso look heaps better than 35mm at 320 iso.
11x14 is a walk in the park for either the D100 or the 4000ED.

The difference is you will see film grain in the scanned files, and the d100 files will look cleaner. However if lattitude is important to you, you can save highlight detail a bit better with a scanner, to a certain degree. Some Photogs wont go digital because they could not be bothered exposing carefully.

If your not pro, you have the luxury of choosing what you enjoy most. Cost, workflow and quality are secondary.

Have fun.
a.

The film v digital debate is well and truly sung. Facts are that film still outclasses digital and a film, a good scanner and a good scanner operator will or can out perform any digital camera format for format.

Digital had evolved to a level of service that far outstrips film, D&P, scanning time and manipulation time which is considerably more for a good neg/slide scan so it is here that the professional world embraces digital – it made a huge cost saving on time to tight deadlines – in turn these deadline became shorter still as clients expect CDs to be handed over within minutes of a shoot etc.

The quality of the digital is different than that of film – better in some respects but I think most honest people will agree that the film is still better but is seen at a disadvantage with today’s market pressures. You don’t need to supply a greedy and hungry market so you may concentrate on producing the best quality in your own time and take as long as you like.

In this regard I make my comments.

As for going digital to meet you class and perceived expectations I’d wait another season or two. The D100 is quite good but maybe a little short on expectations for the novice digital user.

Ger Bee said:

The film v digital debate is well and truly sung. Facts are that
film still outclasses digital and a film, a good scanner and a good
scanner operator will or can out perform any digital camera format
for format.

Digital had evolved to a level of service that far outstrips film,
D&P, scanning time and manipulation time which is considerably more
for a good neg/slide scan so it is here that the professional world
embraces digital – it made a huge cost saving on time to tight
deadlines – in turn these deadline became shorter still as clients
expect CDs to be handed over within minutes of a shoot etc.

The quality of the digital is different than that of film – better
in some respects but I think most honest people will agree that the
film is still better but is seen at a disadvantage with today’s
market pressures. You don’t need to supply a greedy and hungry
market so you may concentrate on producing the best quality in your
own time and take as long as you like.

In this regard I make my comments.

As for going digital to meet you class and perceived expectations
I’d wait another season or two. The D100 is quite good but maybe a
little short on expectations for the novice digital user.

Click to expand...

--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com

garyh. said:

i posted this on the nikon talk forum with no response...hope i can
get some advice here...i am not a pro but i do take a lot of
pictures...i use a nikon f100 now and scan neg with a canon
fs2710...i am considering purchasing a nikon d100 but for less of
the price of the d100 i can up upgrade my scanner to a nikon 4000
or the canon 4000... scanner...would the photos look better off the
scanner or from the d100...i usually do not go above 11x14 on my
prints....any advice would be greatly appreciated....thanks, gary

Click to expand...

How about a different perspective.

Do stay with film but purchase a less expensive Pro-sumer (Hate that word) Class camera. [My suggestions in order Fuji 602, followed by a tie for second Nikon 5700 or Minolta D7i or if you refuse to use flash consider the Sony 707 my reasons for that order are too long to get into here e-mail me if interested].

I've been in Photography since age 9; almost 40 years ago; worked as Pro; semi-pro and currenly almost totally amateur now since I get to shoot what I want to shoot. Thus it currently takes arm twisting for anything else.

I purchased a Pro-sumer class digital slightly over a year ago. The quality of the images has actually been constantly better than the quality of film prints I've gotten for the past 3 to 5 years. Film processing at the local pro lab and several so called national ones has gotten so bad with their "never seen by human eyes systems"

About 3 to 4 years ago I started having the labs scan the negitives; the result were better than their prints most of the time. This was true even with less than 2.1n mp files. Again, I was able to consistantly print equal or better prints up to 8X10" than the labs were getting with the original 35mm film [Their print exposures were so off at times].

I've taken over 9,000 digitla photos this year [and less than 10 rools of film] and I was going to say how much I've saved in processing costs but I'll put it this way it is more more than a ¼ of my son's college expenses for the year even when you include the cost of the camera.

Note I was already printing my own photos on the computer so I simply eliminated the costs of film.processing and either prints or the CD with software I did not need.

I have learned a good deal, had a lot of fun and improved several areas of my skills with the nearly instant feedback I was able to get with digital.

If you are able to purchase a D100 or S2 or ... without breaking into savings do so. Otherwise consider keeping your 35mm cameras or at least 1 of them and going "prosumer class" for 3 to 9 months as a learning expirience. Going from film to digital is not extremely difficult but there many things to learn; an a prosumer class digital camera will be an excellent teacher. You can actually improve your skills and still use 35mm for the "big" stuff until you feel ready. BTW I know a few Pro-photographers that are using the Fuji 602 as their primary camera and selling portraits up to 16X20" [not inkjets] with customers loving the results.

So you now have a new option added to "go for it" and "hold off".

Wasn't it nice of me to complicate matters further???
--
Ray
RJNedimyer

I've done b/w in my own darkroom for 32 years. I've done a variety but mainly studio portraits (as a fanatic amateur). In recent years I've had a blast scanning old negs and playing with them. For a few years I played with color before I realized that it was a complete waste of time (I even got to the point of mixing my own chemicals from scratch) and that it was really cheaper to get prints from a lab. Well, with my scanner I was able to actually make prints from old color negs that were very good. Hooray!!

About 3.5 years ago I got a Nikon Coolpix 900 and then a 950.

About 9 months ago I bought my D1x and a full set of "D" lenses (I'd had manual Canon equipment for the past 30+ years.

Since that day I haven't shot a single piece of film or been in my darkroom (which had always been a place of metaphysical refuge for me)

Frankly what's really amazed me is the complete change in my photography. Before I was a pretty confirmed studio portrait photographer. Now I do all sorts of things I've never even thought of before. I've done some abstracts (weird, I've never liked them till now), architecture (some of which I've turned into abstracts), nature and flowers, and lot's of people (but mainly outdoor portraits and just fun stuff).

Now, to really answer your question...

It's almost impossible to say what effect a D-100 will have on you. It totally changed my outlook and I'm having more fun than ever. It's put a LOT of FUN back into photography.

Just getting a scanner did a lot, but didn't expand my vision the way the D1x has. It's like looking at a whole new experience of photography.

Now, you may not respond to the joy of digital that way. You might indeed be happier with a better scanner. I have no way of knowing. But in may case it was a complete change and I love it.

It's been VERY costly. Far more than the best scanner would have cost. But that would only have changed the way I dealt with the same old stuff. This has changed everything for me.

Will I give up film completely? I wish I knew. I've still got 2 Canon AE-1 Programs, 2 Mamiya 645s, and a 4x5. I've also got 8 rolls of 120 film I shot just before I got the new camera and haven't even developed (they're some really bad portraits I did that I just don't really care to look at). But I'm not ready to sell the cameras and darkroom just yet. But I'm not guaranteeing that they will just gather dust till the time comes to part with that part of my past.

I hope this helps.

garyh. said:

i posted this on the nikon talk forum with no response...hope i can
get some advice here...i am not a pro but i do take a lot of
pictures...i use a nikon f100 now and scan neg with a canon
fs2710...i am considering purchasing a nikon d100 but for less of
the price of the d100 i can up upgrade my scanner to a nikon 4000
or the canon 4000... scanner...would the photos look better off the
scanner or from the d100...i usually do not go above 11x14 on my
prints....any advice would be greatly appreciated....thanks, gary

Click to expand...

shijo,

I have been trying to decide between the D100 and the D1X (or the Cannon D60 or 1D). Since you have the d100 and are considering the D1X, why do you want to go to the D1X from the D100?

Thanks,

Marshall

shijo said:

I have been using my f5 anf f100 for years, and just recently, i
got my d100, and its great!! save a lot of my time, and cost in
buying films.

the best thing, it i can preview my images imediately after each
shot. Now i am thinking of getting a d1x...digital camera are
great..

best
alvin

garyh. said:

i posted this on the nikon talk forum with no response...hope i can
get some advice here...i am not a pro but i do take a lot of
pictures...i use a nikon f100 now and scan neg with a canon
fs2710...i am considering purchasing a nikon d100 but for less of
the price of the d100 i can up upgrade my scanner to a nikon 4000
or the canon 4000... scanner...would the photos look better off the
scanner or from the d100...i usually do not go above 11x14 on my
prints....any advice would be greatly appreciated....thanks, gary

Click to expand...

--
alvin

Click to expand...

--
Marshall

If you have done much scanning you have some idea of what drudgery it can be. The final straw was when I spent an eternity scanning 14 rolls of film from a weekend air show (not every frame thank God, but probably 1 of every 3). After I finished that project, my next chore was to purchase a Canon 1D.

The pixel count of the 1D versus the scanner isn't even close. The scanner can produce a lot more pixels so in theory should produce better large prints. But printed at 11x14, a digital SLR should produce fine images.

garyh. said:

i posted this on the nikon talk forum with no response...hope i can
get some advice here...i am not a pro but i do take a lot of
pictures...i use a nikon f100 now and scan neg with a canon
fs2710...i am considering purchasing a nikon d100 but for less of
the price of the d100 i can up upgrade my scanner to a nikon 4000
or the canon 4000... scanner...would the photos look better off the
scanner or from the d100...i usually do not go above 11x14 on my
prints....any advice would be greatly appreciated....thanks, gary

Click to expand...

Nice comparison

American Photo September / October 2002
D60 vs film scan (Nikon D 100 is comparable see DPR comparison tests)

To sum up their tests: Photographed the Historic Brooklyn carriage house using fine grain 100 ISO negative film and using the same lens shot the same subject with the D60 in RAW mode. The processed film was scanned at 4800 dpi producing a 90mb, 16 bit TIFF file. The D60 file was enlarged 50% with Genuine Fractals software. Both were printed 13 x 19 at 240 dpi on a Canon Bubble Jet S9000 Inkjet printer. "The results knocked our socks off" "Image detail was identical but the film scan exhibited obvious grain" "The D60 was grainless, smooth, and visibly more saturated"
David.

I'm a D60 guy myself, but it's basically the same as the D100 & S2. I would defenitly go with the D100 or S2 (your choice) if you already have the lenses for your F100. As many have said throughout this thread, your life will not be the same after you try it. I used to scan my negs & slides... haven't used my scanner in a over a year! Shoot both film and digital if you want. You already have the tools to shoot film... however, you probably will VERY RARELY shoot film once you do a couple shoots with your DSLR! Add the D100 or S2 body to your Nikon bag and enjoy!

Good luck.

garyh. said:

i posted this on the nikon talk forum with no response...hope i can
get some advice here...i am not a pro but i do take a lot of
pictures...i use a nikon f100 now and scan neg with a canon
fs2710...i am considering purchasing a nikon d100 but for less of
the price of the d100 i can up upgrade my scanner to a nikon 4000
or the canon 4000... scanner...would the photos look better off the
scanner or from the d100...i usually do not go above 11x14 on my
prints....any advice would be greatly appreciated....thanks, gary

Click to expand...

I respectfully dissent. For 11 x 14, from an image quality standpoint, there is no difference, (assuming a "pro" digital camera). Waiting "another season or two" will only postpone your learning curve, (and there is one) ... and will cost you needless film, processing costs and scanner time.

Times are changing .. (when I was in Law School .. I clerked for a judge who could not figure out how to use a dictating machine ... know anybody who still knows how to take "shorthand"?) ... my point being .... there is no question that "digital" will take over ... the only debate is ... when.
Regards
Karl
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.,J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com

Well said, John
Regards
Karl
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.,J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com