Hi guys. I am seriously taking into consideration buying a D100 DSLR, but find myself reluctant due to, basically, the following reasons:
2- 1.5x magnification factor, that forces me into buying a special wide angle lens or a cheap lens converter (the kind sold by Kenko, Adorama or other brands) which solve the coverage problem but whose optical quality makes me doubtful
3- slow interface: USB 1.1 is rather slow, specially considering that USB 2 is now the standard in any computer.
4- Obsolescence: the recent announcement of a 14.1 Mpixel DSLR makes me wonder how much longer will Nikon be able to charge $1500-2000 for the D100 (believe me, I have seen E stores that post the D100 at little over U$1500!!!)...
I would like to read your comments on the later points, specially if you have heard any rumours regarding an upgrade to USB 2, or maybe a Nikon DSLR with 100% lens coverage.
My option is to get myself an "old", trustworthy F100 right now and hold myself away from de D world while this rather new and exhilarating market consolidates itself a little more.
Digital sucks: you can't blame it on the
#1. "RE: D100 interface" | In response to Reply # 0vfnewman Basic MemberMon 13-Jan-03 12:52 PM
There is no doubt that prices will constantly fall. What you must decide is when you want to jump in. If you shoot professionally, the decision can be reduced to pure numbers. If you dont shoot professionally, it just becomes a matter of how badly you want something and if you can afford it. I took the plunge into digital this year and dont regret it for one second.
>2- 1.5x magnification factor, that forces me into buying a
>special wide angle lens...
Nikon will soon have the 12-24mm lens available, which will have the angle of view of an 18-36. I suspect that would be wide enough for you. I have the Sigma 15-30mm that I am very happy with as well.
>3- slow interface: USB 1.1 is rather slow, specially
>considering that USB 2 is now the standard in any computer.
I am never in favor of hooking a $2000 camera to anything that ultimately connects to a 120v power source (meaning, connectinig my camera to directly to the computer via USB, Firewire, or anything else). I have a firewire card reader and love it.
>4- Obsolescence: the recent announcement of a 14.1 Mpixel
>DSLR makes me wonder how much longer will Nikon be able to
>charge $1500-2000 for the D100 (believe me, I have seen E
>stores that post the D100 at little over U$1500!!!)...
Do remember that the 14 MP Kodak is full-frame, and if you look at the pixel density, the D100 actually has just a few more pixels per unit area. The D100 has the same resolution, just the crop factor is the difference.
>I would like to read your comments on the later points,
>specially if you have heard any rumours regarding an upgrade
>to USB 2, or maybe a Nikon DSLR with 100% lens coverage.
I have heard nothing about USB2, but it is widely suspected (but in no way confirmed) that Nikon will have a new camera to reveal at the Photo Marketing Association trade show in Vegas the first week of March.
>My option is to get myself an "old", trustworthy F100 right
>now and hold myself away from de D world while this rather
>new and exhilarating market consolidates itself a little
Only you can decide. How badly do you want to go digital? What are you missing out on by not going digital? Its a question many have pondered. There are numerous threads scattered all over Nikonians by people just like you that are agonizing over taking the big leap.
Speaking just for myself, I'm glad I didn't wait any longer.
Hope that all helped in some way
#2. "RE: D100 interface" | In response to Reply # 0signata Registered since 11th Dec 2002Mon 13-Jan-03 05:09 PM
2. There is quite a bit of debate on just how important this is. I lean towards it not being so much of an issue. If you need wide-angle you can either wait for the DX lens, or get an ultra-wide. Everything else /works just fine, you just have to get used to standing at different distances than you are used to. In some ways it can even be better, since you just use the centre portion of the lens, the sweet spot. Plus, as another pointed out, the Kodak in this instance is just using the same resolution power of the D100 over a larger area. So yes, you'll be back to standing where you are used to standing when using 50mm or whatever, but you won't get any astounding leaps in quality.
The D100's resolving power is quite high, and thus depends heavily upon the quality of the lens. Crisp lenses will produce amazing detail. It's important to remember that the 1.5 does not mean a smaller picture -- it just means you are using a smaller portion of the lens to get the same size output. I am excited to see what the DX looks like on the D100. With twice the optical resolution of other Nikkor lenses, subtle detail might make a big leap.
3. That's about the last thing on my list of priorities. Card readers are cheap, durable, portable -- and in general preferable to using the camera. You don't need the camera power supply (which is going to be more expensive than a card reader by itself), and wear and tear on the little rubber door is kept down to a minimum. I keep one in my camera bag at all times. If you get the right one, you can sit down at any computer and transfer your files. No worrying about drivers or anything. Firewire readers are a bit more expensive, but I wouldn't go for those yet anyway. Most CF cards cannot deliver much over USB bandwidth on speed -- not even /near Firewire's 400 MB/s.
4. Digital cameras are not computers, and don't believe the salespeople who pitch them like computers. There are no major software upgrades. You don't have to worry about Windows eventually not working on it anymore. Once you get the camera, it is a self-contained package that will deliver it's current quality until it dies.
So the question then becomes, is the current quality good enough for you right now? The D100 will very comfortably make fine 8x10 prints, and if you are willing to stretch quality a bit, you can go bigger (200-250 dpi as opposed to 300.) If that is the extent of your needs then I'd say the current crop of DSLRs will work for you. If you don't make large prints ever, or don't even do prints -- then the quality of the D100 is going to be well beyond what you use it for, and it's size becomes cropping gravy (very nice for multimedia.)
It doesn't matter if Nikon/Kodak/Canon/Etc releases a 25MP full-frame wunderkind a day after you buy the D100, the camera you chose is the one that will serve your purposes until it croaks.
#3. "RE: D100 interface" | In response to Reply # 2vfnewman Basic MemberMon 13-Jan-03 05:14 PM
I agree with all your points except the one regarding card reader speed.
My Firewire reader downloads my CF cards four times faster than my USB reader. (I checked) When I have upward of two gigabytes of data to download, that makes a big difference. I just bought one from B&H for $50. I think its worth it.
#4. "RE: D100 interface" | In response to Reply # 3signata Registered since 11th Dec 2002Mon 13-Jan-03 05:26 PM
I stand corrected! Actually I left half of my argument out -- I use slow speed cards because I've never run into a buffer blockage while shooting, and they are cheaper. So it means sitting around a while longer to download, but that is about all. I am a hobbiest, so time isn't that important. As long as I don't miss a shot because the buffer is full. With high-speed cards, a firewire reader would be to advantage.
#5. "To add to what has already been well said..." | In response to Reply # 0
The D100 makes great images RIGHT NOW. There may be newer cameras coming out that have a higher pixel count, but don't count on them necessarily being cheaper. If you don't print larger than 11x16, then you have enough pixels at 6 Mpixels. I routinely print crisp A3-size prints (acutally 10.75 x 15.5") from my D100 that rival 35 mm film. The new 12-24 mm Nikkor lens will fill the only real hole in the lens line for the D100 in a few months. Finally, nobody uses the camera to transfer data to the computer. (And if they do, they shouldn't.) A card reader is the way to go: they are cheap, and as fast as whatever the current technology is.
Keep this in mind: even if a higher resolution comes out tomorrow, the D100 WILL STILL make great images that are a good as it was when it was new. If a D100 is enough--and it is for many advanced amateurs and some professionals--then it's, well, enough. Only you can decide if the state of current technology is sufficient to meet your personal needs.
I am not sanguine about the digital SLR market ever "consolidating" any more than the computer market has consolidated. You can spend forever waiting for the next, better technology just around the corner. And in the digital camera world right now, we might be getting to the point that the image sensor size is growing faster than memory technology. Your 14 Mpixel camera is going to take 7 Mbyte JPEGs, 14+ Mbyte RAW files, and 42 Mbyte TIFFs. On a $100 256 Mbyte card, that's only 36 JPEGs, 18 RAW files, or 6 TIFFs. Realistically, you're going to want to shoot RAW files when you can, and that's going to mean you're going to have to own 1 Gbyte flash cards to get the most out of a 14 Mpixel camera. That will cost $$$. With the D100 I can get by on 2 256 Mbyte and one 512 Mbyte card for now, but even that is a bit cramped when shooting RAW files. And don't forget the computer storage and image backup needs for a hi-res camera. You're talking about high-capacity hard drives for temporary image storage, and DVDs for image archiving for such large images. And a more capable computer to edit large files...etc.
I actually think that 5-8 Mpixels might be the current sweet-spot in digital photography, where memory storage costs are still relatively modest, and image quality is sufficent up to a size that is large enough to satisfy a larger fraction of serious users. I will bet that the 6 Mpixel range camera will be around for a while, certainly until large-capacity flash memory costs come down significantly.
Sometimes the most advanced tool is not appropriate for the job at hand, even if it might do it "better." Usually it's more cost-effective to use a tool that is just capable of doing the job at hand. I have found the D100 to be more than capable of satisfying my photographic needs. (And I will be significantly happier about it when the new 12-24mm lens is available. I'll be one of the first in line...)