To Hell with D-SLR

Dear everybody,

This thread follows the Bill's thread: "To Hell with digital". I'm in a similar situation, but I have no camera to play with for the time to come before my decision. This is why I must be quick, as the show keeps going on.

I'd like to buy the D100, but... what bothers me is the FOV of 1,5. I'd like to get your opinion on this, for I think it is seriously bad. Why? Because if I pay for a special device, for instance the new 24-120 lens, I'd be disappointed to know that I would have paid for a 36-180 instead. Don't you feel it is bothering? Another example: I enjoy shooting with a 50mm f/1.4. If I get the D100, I'll have to buy a 35mm (equivalent 52 mm in 35mm format) for the occasion, but if in the years to come I get the new D* which may be in 24*36, this investement would have been a transition one.

I feel the uncompleteness of today's D-SLR market because of the smaller format. Only the canon EOS-D1s would be fine, but I won't buy Canon.

I'm waiting for replies. Don't be too offensive, the truth being that I am only waiting for someone to convince me that the FOV matter is not so serious and that the D100 is waiting for nobody but me.

vn

, but if in the years to come I get the new D* which may

vnsullivan said:

be in 24*36, this investement would have been a transition one.

Click to expand...

..................... yes it is, but this one lens IMO is a fairly safe bet, it does give pretty awesome wide-angle to the 1.5x factor CCD. I have one ordered actually as I do need that extra wide from time to time.

I know it is a transition and I am a little upset at that but from where I’m coming from if I get this lens next week I’ll have a full year’s use out of it before Nikon bring out an FF and maybe even longer. Now at it’s price, which is relatively cheap in comparison to the 17~35 & 70~200 Pro glass, I’d probably be able to sell it off without too much bother along with y 1.5x factor cameras next year.

I’d not, certainly not consider getting a set of these lenses as I really feel that Nikon will bring an FF to market next Spring but they could equally abandon all research into the development of FF too!!!

So hedge the bets and don’t spend too much money on the DX series, they’ll be tempting, but resist.

You are asking a group of people who mostly own current DSLRs and, therefore, don't have a problem with the 1.5x crop factor. I submit that the answers may be somewhat skewed.

I shoot with Nikon F4s and F3s and have been waiting many years for DSLRs that can be used as part of an interchangeable system with them. I don't consider the current crop of DSLRs interchangeable with film bodies purely because of the small sensors and resulting crop factor. So until such cameras exist I spend a lot of time scanning.

I have decided that I'm willing to keep scanning for one more year. I'm hoping, though not expecting, that Nikon will at least give us an idea at PMA that they are going to start making full-frame pro DSLRs. If, by this time next year, they aren't going that way. Then I will give serious consideration to deciding that after 25 years of Nikon use, it will be time to sell the whole closet full of gear and jump ship to Canon.

Gary DeWitt

Nobody can convince you that it's a good idea... mainly because it just isn't.

I'm in the same boat, my friend. I own a slew of nikon lenses that dont work the way I purchased them to work. I had my whole line coardinated to work flawlessly in 35mm format. I would have to swtich lenses the least, cover the most mms and have the greatest amount of light for each. Now that's all thrown out the window.

Not to mention my viewfinder is twice as small and I cant buy anywhere near the interchangable focusing screens that I could for my F5. What a bum deal this digital turned out to be. I would shoot film if I could but politics rule and my boss is convinced that digital is the greatest thing since x-lax.

Nikon can't take a hint, unfortunately. I guess the 1.5x proponents managed to slip their brain-washing into the marketing stratagists. Now they'll keep the 1.5x because its cheaper and wow they can sell more cameras that way - forgeting entirely that they're segmenting a whole section of the market by doing so.

Maybe canon's on the right track. If their cameras just didnt look so funny...
--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy/portfolio
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

For most photographers, the wide end with standard 35mm is a 24mm lens. This is the average. For pros or advanced hobbyists it is wider, of course.

There are two existing lenses that allow users of the Nikon Digitals to get 24mm or below. The 14mm and the 16mm. For average photographers who don't want to spend the bucks for a pro lens, there is the 18-35mm, giving you an effective 27mm (in 35mm terms).

Bottom line is, for MOST photographers, only one dx type lens is needed to get at or below their normal wideangle needs. The 12-24mm lens will fit that need. Any other dx lens will just bring the advantage of lighter, smaller, etc.

The fallback is to keep your current 35mm film camera and it you need to take a really wide-angle shot, keep it for just those.

In my case, 98% of my photo needs are met by lenses with focal lengths of 28mm (35 equiv) or greater. Why defer a decision based on only the 2%?, especially if there is a work-a-round by going back to your film camera if you really need it.

Regards,

Paul

vnsullivan said:

Dear everybody,

This thread follows the Bill's thread: "To Hell with digital". I'm
in a similar situation, but I have no camera to play with for the
time to come before my decision. This is why I must be quick, as
the show keeps going on.
I'd like to buy the D100, but... what bothers me is the FOV of 1,5.
I'd like to get your opinion on this, for I think it is seriously
bad. Why? Because if I pay for a special device, for instance the
new 24-120 lens, I'd be disappointed to know that I would have paid
for a 36-180 instead. Don't you feel it is bothering? Another
example: I enjoy shooting with a 50mm f/1.4. If I get the D100,
I'll have to buy a 35mm (equivalent 52 mm in 35mm format) for the
occasion, but if in the years to come I get the new D* which may
be in 24*36, this investement would have been a transition one.
I feel the uncompleteness of today's D-SLR market because of the
smaller format. Only the canon EOS-D1s would be fine, but I won't
buy Canon.
I'm waiting for replies. Don't be too offensive, the truth being
that I am only waiting for someone to convince me that the FOV
matter is not so serious and that the D100 is waiting for nobody
but me.

vn

Click to expand...

--
'It were not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion
that makes horse-races.' -- Mark Twain (Pudd'nhead Wilson - 1894)

I have a little difficulty understanding the emotional attachment people have to the 35mm format. I guess if it is all you've used, you get used to certain assumptions about what a particular focal length lens does and change is stessful. Have you ever spent time shooting with a 75mm lens on 35mm film? A lot of good images can be shot with that field of view. Why are you so attached to 50mm?

I use the D100, 35mm, 6x4.5cm, 6x7cm, 6x9cm, and 4x5" formats. The last three all use the same lenses. A 210mm lens is about normal for 4x5, but somewhat telephoto for 6x7. So what? It is useful for both.

Different formats have different advantages and disadvantages. The smaller the format, the more depth of field you get for a given scene. So, there is a slight advantage for the D100, if DOF is what you want.

Camreras are tools and different tools have different uses. If you want to break rocks, you want a 9 lb. sledge. If you want to upholster furniture, you need a tack hammer. You can't expect one hammer to do everything. People seem to think 35mm is all there is to photography. That is like trying to use a carpenter's hammer for everything from breaking rocks to upholstering furniture -- you end up with sloppy furniture and large rocks.

The D100 is very much like using a 6x7cm back on a 4x5 camera. There is nothing wrong with doing that. It can be a very useful practice. However, you have to be flexible enough to deal with the differences. Those who have only used 4x5 will probably grumble about how horrible it is.

Well there is my rant for the morning.

they build professinal cameras for PROFESSIONALS.

That 2% of the market that your so quick to ignore is the market that the D1x and D1h is targeted at - not the other 98% of photographers who just want something to remember what their kids looked like one day at the beach.

For most pros I know, cost is secondary to quality. Many would be willing to pay 8000 for a camera that they know will deliver the quality they need. Thats why the 1ds is selling as well as it is. The frustration comes when the camera company you've trusted for so long hasn't delivered the quality you've come to expect. I believe that's the contention of the original post.

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy/portfolio
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

It would make little sense to make a D100 sytle camera with a more expensive FF chip.

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy/portfolio
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

--
Henk Van Wulpen
[email protected]

DSLRS were never intended to be used as an entirely new format. They were marketed to replace film - you can't do that AND change the format at the same time. It's just not natural!

If they wanted to stay with the 1.5x when they released the D1, they would have made lenses at the time. They only decided later on that it would be way way to much trouble to actually develop new technology so they opted to stick with the smaller sensor and give us new lenses as a stop gap. Like the little dutch boy, plug some holes. A few years down the line when canon's perfected FF and is able to offer more pixels and greater dynamic range as well as 100% film/digital compatability, the little dutch boy is going to run out of fingers and leave nikon users in a bit of a pinch.

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy/portfolio
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

ib1yysguy said:

DSLRS were never intended to be used as an entirely new format.
They were marketed to replace film - you can't do that AND change
the format at the same time. It's just not natural!

Click to expand...

Natural? What are you talking about? Do you mean that it was something YOU were not used to? DSLRS were designed to allow existing lenses to be used with digital technology.

ib1yysguy said:

If they wanted to stay with the 1.5x when they released the D1,
they would have made lenses at the time. They only decided later on
that it would be way way to much trouble to actually develop new
technology so they opted to stick with the smaller sensor and give
us new lenses as a stop gap. Like the little dutch boy, plug some
holes. A few years down the line when canon's perfected FF and is
able to offer more pixels and greater dynamic range as well as 100%
film/digital compatability, the little dutch boy is going to run
out of fingers and leave nikon users in a bit of a pinch.

Click to expand...

It is my guess that Nikon does not like the technical disadvantages of the current state of full frame sensor technology. To fill the immediate need for ultra-wide lenses they have designed the DX 12-24 lens. I suspect that when the full frame sensor gets to an acceptable level for Nikon they will make full frame cameras. I also suspect that they will continue to make 1.5 factor cameras at a lower price point. So, the 12-24 will continue to have a market for quite sometime.

ib1yysguy said:

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy/portfolio
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

Click to expand...

Looks like you have set goals for Nikon based on your expectations. You disappointment has more to do with your expectations than it does with Nikon's decisions.

where can i take a look at some of your work? i read your posts and it seems you've got some serious experience. i am looking at the 645 and 6x6 options right now (film of course). where does a person with all that knowledge post their pictures? please don't say "paper only" i'll be disappointed.

what could you recommend to someone who wants to get into some of the bigger format cameras but still want to be able to carry it around. by carry it around i mean if it can fit in a backpack that's good enough for me. seeing the mamiya 645AFD looks good, but then again the new hasselblad h1 looks like a nice camera also with the built in pop up flash. then there are the legendary hasselblad 6x6's. i don't forsee myself using any of the medium's with a digital back unless i hit the lotto. any suggestions on where to begin?

i do like digital alot but i love film. i work with computers as a job and sometimes the last thing i want to spend my off hours is working on my digital files. i wanna hit the darkroom (color that is).

regards,
joe

I don't think you're quite ready yet for a DSLR. You should stick with film until they offer everything you want. Why spend $2,000 for a camera that already is below your standards. You'll be disappointed and will take up even more time and space on this forum complaining about something that gets complaints about every other day. We don't need another complainer on this forum.
Pam

vnsullivan said:

Dear everybody,

This thread follows the Bill's thread: "To Hell with digital". I'm
in a similar situation, but I have no camera to play with for the
time to come before my decision. This is why I must be quick, as
the show keeps going on.
I'd like to buy the D100, but... what bothers me is the FOV of 1,5.
I'd like to get your opinion on this, for I think it is seriously
bad. Why? Because if I pay for a special device, for instance the
new 24-120 lens, I'd be disappointed to know that I would have paid
for a 36-180 instead. Don't you feel it is bothering? Another
example: I enjoy shooting with a 50mm f/1.4. If I get the D100,
I'll have to buy a 35mm (equivalent 52 mm in 35mm format) for the
occasion, but if in the years to come I get the new D* which may
be in 24*36, this investement would have been a transition one.
I feel the uncompleteness of today's D-SLR market because of the
smaller format. Only the canon EOS-D1s would be fine, but I won't
buy Canon.
I'm waiting for replies. Don't be too offensive, the truth being
that I am only waiting for someone to convince me that the FOV
matter is not so serious and that the D100 is waiting for nobody
but me.

vn

Click to expand...

Dear everybody,

There's no need to get crossed against each other. Let me say stupid things but obvious too: natural? The 50mm is natural, giving a human-eye proportion picture. With the D100, it is a 75mm, which has not the same goals, even if goals it has. As I see the Nikon products, the digital ones, I see a real mess which one cannot talk about... But at least, we try. Why a real mess? They sell 15.6*23.7 D-format, right. Then you have to apply de FOV factor, right again. Then, as I want a human-eye lens, I buy the 35mm lens. Then it starts to be weird. In order to get a real wide angle, Nikon has to develop a 12*24, which is specific to 15.6*23.7. Then it looks as if they took a new format as a basis. But when you see Canon develops its full format D-SLR, you may fairly guess Nikon will do the same. Then what? You find yourself with a shattered digital market, with lenses for 35mm cameras being used on 15.6*23.7, with DX-lenses that won't be of any use on the Nikon D-SLRs to come (maybe...). I'd like to see some coherence in the options they propose, and as it is now, I cannot see it.

Everything happens as if the consumer was a lab monkey, and I don't want to be one of them. I'm scared to invest in Nikon D-SLRs because I presume the market will be so much reliable and coherent in some years. Still the D100 may be a wonderful camera for those who need a D-SLR now, but as I am no professional, I won't invest in a D-SLR for only two years.

vn

Robin Casady said:

ib1yysguy said:

DSLRS were never intended to be used as an entirely new format.
They were marketed to replace film - you can't do that AND change
the format at the same time. It's just not natural!

Click to expand...

Natural? What are you talking about? Do you mean that it was
something YOU were not used to? DSLRS were designed to allow
existing lenses to be used with digital technology.

Robin Casady said:

If they wanted to stay with the 1.5x when they released the D1,
they would have made lenses at the time. They only decided later on
that it would be way way to much trouble to actually develop new
technology so they opted to stick with the smaller sensor and give
us new lenses as a stop gap. Like the little dutch boy, plug some
holes. A few years down the line when canon's perfected FF and is
able to offer more pixels and greater dynamic range as well as 100%
film/digital compatability, the little dutch boy is going to run
out of fingers and leave nikon users in a bit of a pinch.

Click to expand...

It is my guess that Nikon does not like the technical disadvantages
of the current state of full frame sensor technology. To fill the
immediate need for ultra-wide lenses they have designed the DX
12-24 lens. I suspect that when the full frame sensor gets to an
acceptable level for Nikon they will make full frame cameras. I
also suspect that they will continue to make 1.5 factor cameras at
a lower price point. So, the 12-24 will continue to have a market
for quite sometime.

Robin Casady said:

--
Al
http://www.pbase.com/ib1yysguy/portfolio
Set low goals and you'll never be disapointed.

Click to expand...

Looks like you have set goals for Nikon based on your expectations.
You disappointment has more to do with your expectations than it
does with Nikon's decisions.

Click to expand...

Well said Robin,

Personally, I feel the only real problem with 1.5X cameras is the 1.0x viewfinders that they all currently have. I do use a 1.5x camera (and a 1.3x and a 2.6x camera) and the only real dificulty for me is the viewfinder. I can get every bit the quality of image that I need (image IS the important thing, right) with the digital cameras. Sure, I use the 85 f1.4 where I might have used the 135 on my film cameras but that is not a problem.

At one time, I used a Pronea 6i. That is a 1.5x Film camera but it at least had a 1.5x viewfinder. The camera was a pleasure to use. Unfortunatly the workflow of APS stinks. It does show that if the camera is designed for the image size, the image size is somewhat unimportant as long as the resolution is there.

So, whatever the CCD size is on the "D2", I hope the viewfinder matches. Since current technology can allow better than 35mm film quality with a 1.5x size imager, I don't care as much what the size of the imager is as I do the quality of th final output vs. the cost of the camera.

Ron

If you answer for the pleasure to watch your own message, then pass your way. You advise me not to buy one, that's OK, but you need not say I'm a "complainer". Keep your cynical words. I'm not here to complain, but I'm neither here to answer so agressive message.

For the others: I'm sorry for my sad answer.

vn

Pamela Almodovar said:

I don't think you're quite ready yet for a DSLR. You should stick
with film until they offer everything you want. Why spend $2,000
for a camera that already is below your standards. You'll be
disappointed and will take up even more time and space on this
forum complaining about something that gets complaints about every
other day. We don't need another complainer on this forum.
Pam

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt you’re interested in owning any DSLR, a quick look over your history tells me this.
Regards
Lee

vnsullivan said:

Dear everybody,

This thread follows the Bill's thread: "To Hell with digital". I'm
in a similar situation, but I have no camera to play with for the
time to come before my decision. This is why I must be quick, as
the show keeps going on.
I'd like to buy the D100, but... what bothers me is the FOV of 1,5.
I'd like to get your opinion on this, for I think it is seriously
bad. Why? Because if I pay for a special device, for instance the
new 24-120 lens, I'd be disappointed to know that I would have paid
for a 36-180 instead. Don't you feel it is bothering? Another
example: I enjoy shooting with a 50mm f/1.4. If I get the D100,
I'll have to buy a 35mm (equivalent 52 mm in 35mm format) for the
occasion, but if in the years to come I get the new D* which may
be in 24*36, this investement would have been a transition one.
I feel the uncompleteness of today's D-SLR market because of the
smaller format. Only the canon EOS-D1s would be fine, but I won't
buy Canon.
I'm waiting for replies. Don't be too offensive, the truth being
that I am only waiting for someone to convince me that the FOV
matter is not so serious and that the D100 is waiting for nobody
but me.

vn

Click to expand...

I don't quite understand what you mean when you say the cameras are 1.5* as the viewfinders are 1.0*. Can you explain to me?

Thanks.
vn

Ron Schroeder said:

Well said Robin,

Personally, I feel the only real problem with 1.5X cameras is the
1.0x viewfinders that they all currently have. I do use a 1.5x
camera (and a 1.3x and a 2.6x camera) and the only real dificulty
for me is the viewfinder. I can get every bit the quality of image
that I need (image IS the important thing, right) with the digital
cameras. Sure, I use the 85 f1.4 where I might have used the 135
on my film cameras but that is not a problem.

At one time, I used a Pronea 6i. That is a 1.5x Film camera but it
at least had a 1.5x viewfinder. The camera was a pleasure to use.
Unfortunatly the workflow of APS stinks. It does show that if the
camera is designed for the image size, the image size is somewhat
unimportant as long as the resolution is there.

So, whatever the CCD size is on the "D2", I hope the viewfinder
matches. Since current technology can allow better than 35mm film
quality with a 1.5x size imager, I don't care as much what the size
of the imager is as I do the quality of th final output vs. the
cost of the camera.

Ron

Click to expand...

Don't be so sure. A few days before I was about to buy it, and I'm still working at it. You'll have the final answer in less than two weeks.

vn

Lee H said:

I seriously doubt you’re interested in owning any DSLR, a quick
look over your history tells me this.
Regards
Lee

Click to expand...

I would say just buy what fits your needs and you are comfortable with.

Dal

vnsullivan said:

vn

Lee H said:

I seriously doubt you’re interested in owning any DSLR, a quick
look over your history tells me this.
Regards
Lee

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Dalamar