1) I do want to buy a full frame camera for landscapes. As I am an amature, and landscapes are only a small part of my shooting, I realy can't justify the cost of a full frame DSLR camera. 2) I realy miss the dynamic range of the pics I took with my old Oly. Especialy clouded skies have never been the same after I switched to digital.
So I was thinking of buying a used film body. I would use it mostly with my 17-35, and sometimes with my 35-70. AF is not a must, but good metering is! It would be great to have metering that is not too different of the metering of my D200.
I find a F5 too big and heavy, so maybe a F4? Or do you have other ( better ) sugestions?
“I do want to buy a full frame camera for landscapes.”
I am not sure what a $3000 D700 or a $5000 D3 will do for your landscape shots that your D200 will not do at half the price.
If you need wider coverage than your 17-35mm lens gives you with your D200, instead of buying another camera body, consider getting a wider prime lens (12mm or 14mm) or a wider zoom lens (12-24mm or 14-24mm).
If you want wider dynamic range and more detail in your landscapes than your D200 can deliver, then consider a large format or medium format film camera.
1) If you miss the dynamic range in your digital photos, then perhaps you should try shooting in HDR (High Dynamic Range) basically bracketing multiple exposures and merging them into a single image. (Sorry, I don't shoot digital, just film...I'm sure that searching will lead to more and better information on HDR techniques.
2) I have seen some incredible images created by many members here using "old" equipment like the D100. Perhaps your workflow needs a little fine tuning to get the results you desire.
3) There are some wider lenses available for your D200; Sigma, Nikon, Tokina have the 12-24 and I know there are some wider range lenses available.
Having said the above, I can now say this, as this is the AF Film Bodies Forum: 1) Look at the F100, everything that you want from the F5 without the additional weight. In my opinion, this is the best bang for the buck film camera. While its 10 segment matrix metering is not as accurate as the 1005 segmet 3D color matrix metering of the F5, its no slouch! The F100 is fully compatible with all current (save DX) lenses in the Nikon lineup including AF-S and VR.
2) The F6 may be another option (albeit a bit more expensive).
3) Get some Velvia and Provia slide film and your ready to rock. Of course, if you want to digitize your images, you'll need a good scanner.
I love my F100 and will never get rid of it. The D700 definitely has me interested in going digital. I just may reward myself with one when I pass my state board licensing oral.
I do shoot HDR, and it can look stunning. But it is not always possible. On very windy days, everything is moving, and that doesn't agree with HDR. I know there are wider lenses, and I tried all of them , but didn't like them. The 14-24 is a wonderfull lens, but you can't use filters on it.
A film body will not replace my D200, but I would like to have one , just for those occassions when digital is not the way to go. They are dirt cheap, so it will cost me less than a WA lens. I allready have a filmscanner.
Yes, I forgot that landscape photographers shoot with the wind...with architecture, it really doesn't matter (most of the time) if there is a breeze or not, but it could.
Older (and therefore less expensive) option could be the N80/F80 or the N90/N90x/F90/F90X. The N80/F80 can use VR and AF-S; the N90/F90 series cameras cannot perform VR (they lack the 5 AF points) but the metering is superb in either. The N90/F90 series can meter with MF lenses whereas the F80/N80 cannot.
Still, I think that bang for the buck, the F100 is pretty hard to beat.
- of print film it has no equal even with a D3 or D300, first because negative film is a far better starting point than digital as regards highlight detail and second because modern lab processing equipment adjusts levels, colour balance, highlights and shadows to get print quality that needs from a little to a lot of post processing (depending on the picture)with digital. Sure you could experiment with D lighting, take 3 shots at different exposures on a tripod and blend them together in something like PhotoShop but not every-one has the computing skill or free time. My advice is buy a second hand F100, some print film and enjoy photography as you used to do it
Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.
Nikonians do have the F100 User Group so that may be a good place to start.
I have heard of several problems with the F100 and just about all of them with the early body. With the advent of the internet, I believe that the problem was magnified to a larger proportion than it really was. The problem related to the way rewind fork on the early version. Nikon have since replaced it. I have heard of one camera where the ON/OFF switch corroded away and the member turned it on/off by inserting or removing the battery tray - said member lived in a rather humid environment from my recollection.
Other than a few other minor problems, the F100 has been a reliable camera. It has been for me, but truth be told I probably have less than 150 rolls through mine since I purchased it new.
I recently purchased used F90X for just 120 EURO in a very good condition. It may not be built like F4, F5, or F6, but for that price you can't go wrong. However it does feel more solid than my F65. It works great on landscapes, especially with Fuji Velvia - the meter is right on everytime. You won't be able to use VR lenses, but I'd rather spend my money on brighter high quality lenses than buying a new body. I checked with Nikon Service Centre recently and you can still service F90/N90 series cameras.
Look for a used F6. It is by far the closest film camera to your D200. For around $1000 you get complete compatibility with all your D200 accessories including CLS better AF engine and a camera you can have for a lifetime.
Tom D200, D70, F6, F3/T, F2AS
I always wanted to be somebody, now I realize I should have been more specific. Lily Tomlin
Now way I'm gona spend that much money om a film body. I'm very happy with my D200, exept for those rare occassions were film might be the better madium. ( less than 100 pics a year ! ) Besides that, the F6 is much too big and heavy.
I think you would want DX lenses if you want to go really wide with a DX sensor.
I also used to take my film camera with me, along with the digital. I stopped that, since digital is just so much more convenient and the files are cleaner then scanned film (i shot slides).
Even with the D2H, but now especially with the D300 i am getting results which would have not been possible with film. I mean convenience wise, because with a lot of work, scanning slides and knowing your way around a good scan program (like VueScan) and Photoshop, you can get great results.
I am feeling with the D300 today, with a 12-24 DX lens, i get these results much easier and conveniently.
Just a note, there is no difference in the image you get between a DX lens and a non-DX lens. A 17mm DX lens would give you exactly the same image as a 17mm FX lens when either is used on a DX camera. The only difference is that the DX lens will be lighter and probably cheaper due to construction differences.
The BIG disadvantage to DX lenses is that you will not be able to use them on a 35mm film or FX digital body because the DX lens does not create a big enough light circle to cover the full frame of FX or film.
Now if you were to compare the images from a DX camera and an FX camera taken with the same FX lens, the FX camera would have a wider field of view than the DX but that has nothing to do with the lens and everything to do with the camera.
The D700, while a fantastic camera, can not match the resolution of a properly scanned slide of even 35mm slide film. The D700 has a max resolution of 4256x2832 whereas a slide of 35mm scanned on an Epson v700 at 6400dpi would give you an image of 9070x6047 or roughly a 55MP image. If there are any issues with image quality in scanning slides it's either 1) using a scanner with insufficient resolution to make a good quality scan OR 2) poor quality slides out of the camera being used for scanning.
A good slide and a good scanner should give better results than even the $30,000 Hassie digital rig.
Sat 08-Nov-08 11:55 PM | edited Sun 09-Nov-08 12:06 AM by K6AZ
>FWIW. >D700 FX dSLR does not provide that much over DX for landscape >photograpehrs. You may want to consider split neutral density >filters and use DX lenses to get the focal lengths right. > >Re: larger formats - they are so cheap now that you could get >camera and a lens for less than a F100 if you look. > >Nikon 35mm film. Yes you can. It's an option. Depends on >the individual. I for one really like the F75 just cos it's >so small or a FM2N.
I just picked up a brand new F75 on eBay for under $100. I already had several lenses that work with 35mm SLRs so I jumped on the chance. My landscape trips now include the F75, D200, and a Canon XSi. I just don't see the need to go to full frame DSLRs right now and with the way things are going by this time next year the prices will drop even further. I've noticed that the D3 has dropped to under $4400 so the replacement can't be far away.
I took the F75 with me yesterday and dropped off the film for processing today. This is the first time I've done film in about five years and I'm anxiously awaiting the prints and CD.