> I like your point about "working a subject" as opposed to clicking off frames. It is easier to try various ideas and techniques that may or may not work out when you arent paying for each frame.
This is an aspect that seems to be often overlooked. I've been criticized - fairly aggressively in fact - for my high frame count. "Spray and pray" is one example. But if you keep working on a subject for an hour, and shoot 8 or 9 frames, it's hardly "spraying." I think it's "diligent." And of course I don't do just one type of photography. Sports is one thing, landscape or architecture is another. If you're shooting architecture at 9 fps (or even 1 fps) you're either shooting HDR or you're doing something wrong.
> do you think digital inspires bad habits compared to film in regard to composition, or do you think it helps due to the instant feedback?
There's no question that the feedback helps those who wish to learn. If you're dedicated to the craft, it does help. Some will say that it makes you lazy, because you don't think in advance, but I beg to differ. Just this morning I was out shooting and really, I was thinking fairly carefully about exposure. I botched a number of exposures - obviously my idea of dark tone just wasn't dark enough - and if I had been shooting film I would have ended up with a number of botched exposures. With digital, a quick look at the histogram revealed the error and I corrected them. Lazy? Hardly. The lazy would not have thought about the metering in the first place, and might not have looked at the histogram either.
For the record I don't think that the equipment "makes" anyone lazy. It may enable bad behavior, but it sure doesn't force it. A zoom lens enables a photographer to frame without moving camera position, but it doesn't "make" one do that. And I've seen - and experienced - the reverse, which is "oh just leave that prime on there, it'll be close enough" although that is conveniently overlooked in the "zooms make us lazy" argument.
And as I mentioned above, with digital shots being nearly completely free, it's a lot easier to practice. Panning is important to motorsports shooters. It's also a skill that's hard to develop, especially at the more aggressive end of the scale. With film, you're still spending at least $0.15 per frame. On digital, I can go out to the highway and shoot 1000 frames of pans at whatever shutter speed I like - and then delete them all. All I've used is some rechargeable battery power, a tiny amount of wear leveling on the CF card (and I can even use an old scrap card for that). The most expensive thing I've used is running up the actuation count on my camera. (Although in my case I might do such practice on my D100, which doesn't have a cycle counter, and which has such a low resale value that it wouldn't matter even if it did. Sort of like putting a few more miles on a '79 Vega whose odometer stopped working ten years ago...)
> D3... AF
I didn't really know that either when I got it. I knew I needed the higher ISO capability because I had 7000 files on disk that needed post processing and/or had motion blur even with f/2.8 lenses, to say nothing of f/6.3 or f/8. I discovered the AF issue when I noticed that some of the shots on the main straight came out and some did not - and all were shot with a 400/f2.8, the fastest AF I know of. Then it was pointed out to me that the missed ones were on the D2x and the good ones were on the D3...
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!