i was planning on buying a DS3 in the near future to replace my primefilm 1800U, but am now thinking of holding off because of the D70 announcement. sure, the D70 costs about 3X more, but it comes with so much convenience it's hard to ignore. it basically comes down to workflow vs. cost, but here's a breakdown:
the D70 would allow me to take photos at will and for fun without worrying about film cost or film types. i could afford to spray and pray, and i'd be able to experiment and learn much faster. (the rechargeable battery (without needing a grip) would also be nice.) i'd also be able to see the histograms and thumbnails right away so i could be sure about my exposures and composition. i'd be able to upload and work on them right away and have printed results very quickly. all this convenience is VERY attractive and 6MP ought to be enough to get A4 prints.
i lose the full frame. this will probably confuse me a bit until i get used to the math, but more importantly, this'll necessitate me buying the associated DX lens to get my wide angles back. not to mention this will throw my lens set out of wack. (i don't wanna have to carry another lens, and i like my 50 a 50!) furthermore, every photo i shoot will be digital (and somewhat fragile) and i won't be able to rescan them at a later date to improve them or otherwise. also, i'm rather comfortable with my N80's feature set and i'm concerned that the D70 might be missing a few things in comparison. i'd be trading down just to get 6MP 2/3 digital capability and be paying a small fortune to get it.
all this considered, i'm really unsure which way to lean. am i missing any details? anyone with other insights? i really hate the workflow of filmscanning at times, especially when i'd come back from a trip with dozens of rolls of film to pay for, wait for and work on. and while i figure the DS3 would be an improvement over my primefilm scanner in that process, i'm not certain it'll help that much. and then there's the issue of grain. digital these days is so much nicer.
GJ can't someone just make a fullframed D80 with 6-8MP?
#1. "RE: D70 or DualScan III?" In response to Reply # 0
I have the Dualscan III and it works great. It gives you an 11MP image but it is still not as good as the images from my D100. Here is a scan from it: http://www.butterflydesigns.net/architecture13.htm You can't tell this image from the D100 shots on the other pages.
The thing is you had better be prepared to do a lot of scanning. If you do it for fun it's no big deal but in my case it was costing way too much money. I just went over 17,000 images this year on my D100. That works out to over $5,600 in film and development costs if I had used film. Now add in scanning time and you can see how you can pay for a D100 many times over!
I did have to buy the 12-24mmDX though (ouch) but now I'm happy. The lens is worth every penny. You will love the extra reach on your telephotos lens when you use digital. Except for the ultra wide angle shots nothing will change in the way you shoot. You will just use a different zoom setting. I never even notice it because I am composing through my viewfinder not looking at the zoom dial.
Get the Dualscann III for now because you can always use it later and buy the D70 when it comes out. But what you really want is the D100 now, so bite the bullit and have fun!
#2. "RE: D70 or DualScan III?" In response to Reply # 1
>I have the Dualscan III and it works great. It gives you an >11MP image but it is still not as good as the images from my >D100. Here is a scan from it: >http://www.butterflydesigns.net/architecture13.htm >You can't tell this image from the D100 shots on the other >pages.
I'm not quite sure if I understand...
So, are images produced by the DSD-III as good as images taken with a D100, or not?
#3. "RE: D70 or DualScan III?" In response to Reply # 0
Your Primefilm scanner isn't good enough if you're serious about photography, period. That said you will obviously need a good scanner to replace it even if you decide to get a DSLR as well in order to get the best possible quality out of your existing collection of images (or do you want to have a lab scan them at substantial cost and time delay whenever you need a digital version?). At the cost the SDIII is a steal. I use the SDII myself and I'm extremely happy with it (the SDIII is an improved SDII).
As said, the DSLR you really want is not the D70 but the D100 (well, actually the D2h but the difference is too much ). The D70 looks to be based on the F75 which lacks the functions that make the F80 more than a mainstream SLR. The D100, having similar features and handling compared with the F80 does have those features.
As to the smaller sensor size, that's a deliberate choice Nikon made and is due to the inherent quality problem with fullsize sensors when used with lenses designed to produce an image circle for a 35mm frame. Those lenses just produce too much abberations and ghosting to meet the quality criteria Nikon demands.
any size is fullframe for a given definition of frame
#4. "RE: D70 or DualScan III?" In response to Reply # 3
Salt Lake City, US
I don't think you can say anything specific about what features the D70 has or doesn't have. We'll have to see if it's short on any critical feature, but if it lowers the price to where high quality DSLR images are affordable to you, then I'd consider it even if there are a few advanced features that aren't as convenient to use. The D60 is even lower down the heirarchy, but it offers most of the advanced features of my N80, they're just not as easy to access.
I don't think Nikon's 1.5X sensor size is due to concerns of image quality, and I think Thom Hogan's prediction of a full frame "F6" next year is a high probability. The Canon 1Ds and Kodak 14n may show the shortcomings of current lenses, but that just expands the market for high end, high price, superior optics.
#6. "RE: D70 or DualScan III?" In response to Reply # 3
hahaha. yes, i know the primefilm scanner is crap! it's just what i picked up to start with. that done, it is time to upgrade. i've had my eye on the DS3 for some time now, but at $1000US for the D70, you kinda have to think twice. surely, it would be nice to be able to go back and rescan some of my older shots, but looking just at the future it would matter less to have a film scanner if i had a DSLR. i guess it's true tho, that what i really want is a D100. i guess i should just wait a couple years until prices go down and features go up and get the DS3 for the time being. but sigh... all that work and time scanning and cloning and cloning and scanning...
anyways, on the side: as to why nikon has gone DX (for now), i'm not so sure it's is because of abberations and ghosting. digital sensors do have some issues associated with light striking them at wider angles (not sure how that would affect ghosting tho), but i don't imagine that to be perceptible compared to film. i've always thot that they haven't gone fullsize simply because there hasn't been a supplier. nikon doesn't make them (yet) and they're certainly not going to strike a deal with canon. unlikely with fuji or kodak either (maybe fuji, you never know). the 2/3 format, i figure, has been used only because that's what's been available (from common market digital cameras). and the market was just not there for companies like sony to think about making these huge sensors with 10+ million photosites without quality control issues and a lot of money. it's only now that serious camera companies who have a reason to make these big sensors are starting to come out with them. i think nikon will go that way as well in just a year or maybe two. i really think the DX lenses are just a short term patch. at least i hope so. i like my 35mm lenses.
anyways, end of aside. now.. back to the DS3... should i or shouldn't i...
#9. "RE: D70 or DualScan III?" In response to Reply # 8
i know.... the histogram and preview are so nice to have... it's killing me! and really, with the DX lens i'd be 'okay' with the D70 as long as i don't lose too much compared to the N80. and really, it's hard to tell what it'll have when it comes out, but when you consider that the D100 is so similar to the F80 in features, the D70 has to give away something for sure. either that or expect the D100 to go away right?
#10. "RE: D70 or DualScan III?" In response to Reply # 9
Go read the specs for the N75 and I bet you two dollars they are the same for the D70. You'll get better metering than the F80 or D100, via the 25 segment matrix metering, but lose out on flash sync and some other minor things (not that flash sync is minor). I also bet it has better in camera file processing (eg less out of camera processing), just because it is newer and those engineers have probably learned a thing or two.
#11. "RE: D70 or DualScan III?" In response to Reply # 0
It really depends if you have a lot of slides at the moment or if you are planning to keep your F80 and shoot slides in the future. I've F80 & DSIII and D70 will be my target as well. I'm keeping my F80 so scanner will have use every now and then.
"Sunset is always an experience - but check the ISO speed!"
#12. "RE: D70 or DualScan III?" In response to Reply # 11
I am in the exact same dilemma as Gavin.
Stick with film and buy a DSD-III now, or wait to switch to DSLR (D70, but probably a D100 or its replacement).
I am leaning toward switching completely to digital. The switch means:
- convenience, convenience, convenience - cost of film (pro films are not cheap) + development - time and gas to the lab - cost of a film scanner (even something as affordable as a DSD-III) - time and hassle of scanning
That said, I almost bought a D100 a couple of months ago. 6MP is good enough for me, and I am satisfied with the quality of digital images.
Of course, there are other costs to add if I do switch to DSLR (e.g. big CF card, extra battery)
BUT lately, I've been re-thinking this a bit...
My only concern is archival of images. I also use a digital P&S and archive them on CDRs that allegedly will last 100+ yrs. If I switch to DSLR, I will be taking uncompressed images. Which means it makes more sense to archive them on DVD-Rs, yet lifespan of DVD-R media is not proven yet... (I know, neither do CDRs but at least CDRs have been around for many years).
#13. "RE: D70 or DualScan III?" In response to Reply # 12
You know, something else that I'm considering that you may want to as well is the idea of using the DSLR to 'scan' and archive whatever films you have or may shoot the odd time later. What I figure is that copying slides is not a new idea and works quite well, so why not do it with a DSLR instead of a regular film camera? DSLRs should have plenty of dynamic range, and seeing that film out resolves 6MP pretty easily, the resulting digital image should be no grainier or any less sharp than any other shot you might make with your DSLR. You just have to find a way to rig a good setup that can do it quick and easily. The beautiful thing is that it shouldn't be too hard to do and you could easily adjust exposure and preview your scans to make sure they're perfect. In fact, do it really well and it'd be quicker than any film scanner I figure. Anyone have any objections to this idea? I don't have a DSLR yet, but I might be able to borrow a friend's to see how well this might work. Not a bad idea to reasonably kill two birds with one stone.
#14. "RE: D70 or DualScan III?" In response to Reply # 13
I thought about this too...
I tried doing it with my 3.2MP p&s DC (I know I know), just for fun, and the image that came out was noticeably softer than what I got from scanning a 4R print with a $99 Canon flatbed. But to be fair, I was only testing it out casually so the setup was far from perfect. And of course it isn't a DSLR, so both the lens and CCD are nothing to write home about.
#16. "RE: D70 or DualScan III?" In response to Reply # 12
This has been an operational concern for a while now. You'll just have to accept the fact that you will have to migrate your data from one media to another as part of technology obsolesence. I shoot RAW mostly now, so I understand the issue of storage - my fear is media failure - so I'll parse out as many categories/subjects/events per CDR that I can. The collection is growing, but I accept that for all the other advantages that digital gives me. Eventually, CDRs will go the way of the floppy and be replaced by *insert latest technology here.* Slides and negs will last a long time, but eventually they will also succumb to time, so the alternative (at least at the big image archives) is to put them to digital form as well. Redundancy (if not already practiced) will come into play as well - I eventually have to sit down and burn back-up copies of everything I consider vital and move it off-site somewhere or put it in the fireproof safe along with the family documents. It's all part of the digital workflow.
#17. "RE: D70 or DualScan III?" In response to Reply # 0
Actually, why are you comparing a $1000 product with a $300 one? I recently wrestled with a similar conundrum and decided that spending $750 on the DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 was a much better choice. The 40 Megapixel scans of the SE5400 simply can't be touched by anything. 16 sample, 16 bit per channel color, digital ICE, grain dissolved scans are to die for. They take over 3 hours each, but they're to die for. Velvia and Reala 100 stuff I have looks insane. At full resolution, we're talking about 240MB image files, so for obvious reasons I can't post them. If you have a camera shop that will let you take one home to try out, give it a whirl.