I've been using a N65 for a couple of years now and feel it's time for an upgrade.
I'd like to hear some more experienced users' opinions. I'm considering either the D100 or the F100 & film scanner (Canon ES4000 or Coolscan 4000) combo.
The greatest advantage for the D100 that I could think of is that your 'negative' won't scratch or get dust on it, while on the other hand your resolution is limited in comparison to film. Must admit being able to see what I've shot immediately would be very nice and the scanning time is a pain... then again, the F100 is just such an awesome camera... see my dilemma??!?!
Any thoughts and tips will be appreciated
#1. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 0Thu 07-Mar-02 04:41 PM
What would you do if you had an endless supply of free film?
One of the big advantages of a digital camera is that taking photos becomes essentially free: you pay for the electricity to recharge the batteries and that's it. This freedom gives you tremendous possibilities to experiment and learn. OK, you also need to pay for some form of storage media (CD-R's are very cheap these days) and for the prints you make of your best shots, but if you're planning on doing your own prints from scans then you'll be doing this anyway.
Another other big advantage is that you're in complete control of the process from start to finish so you can get exactly what you want.
The snag, of course, is lack of resolution. The question to ask is just how large you want to make prints: I'd guess that, with 6MPixels, the D100 should give excellent results at A4 size and should be quite acceptable at A3.
P.S. I'm biased: I've owned a D1 for about two years....
#2. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 1Thu 07-Mar-02 09:30 PM
The D100 is a bird in the bush...nobody knows what the image quality will be compared to the D1. Any comparison of image quality is purely hypothetical. I hope the image quality is very high and the street price low. We'll see.
One significant disadvantage to going with just a digital body: battery management. Battery consumption is voracious for digital cameras and you have to be prepared to carry the power (batteries, battery packs, chargers) you need for your shooting. The task is made more difficult when you're traveling. Going digital for an 18-day trip in the Grand Canyon is a real puzzle when you try to figure out a battery budget. Solar chargers don't appear to be up to the task when a large portion of your day is spent being drenched in rapids. Even if there existed a digital camera that I would choose to use instead of film, I'd still carry a film body as a backup given the "current" state of power consumption.
Until there's a full 24x36 imaging chip, you'll have your wide angle lenses neutered by the multiplier (more appropriately called a "crop factor" by Phil at dpreview). My superwide 18-35 zoom becomes a pedestrian 27-52mm equivalent with the D100's 1.5x multiplier. 28mm is much farther from 18mm in terms of angle of view than 600mm is to 200mm. Whatever the advantages of digital, I can't get exactly what I want with a camera that crops my wide angle capability.
The "free film" concept suffers a bit when you consider the rapid depreciation of expensive DSLR bodies. The economics can be good if you're a pro shooting a lot and not very good if you're an amateur shooting infrequently. If the Canon D60 comes in just above $2000 US, the resale value of older DSLR bodies will be even lower than it already is now. On the plus side, as DSLR prices drop, a 50% hit in depreciation is easier to rationalize if you aren't a working professional.
Wet blanket mode off
I'm hoping that as the prices are made official for the newest DSLRs, I'll be able to snap up a nice used D1 or Fuji S1 and get an affordable, capable digital SLR to replace my Coolpix 990. If the investment is reasonable, a DSLR doesn't have to equal the performance of a film body to be worth the added capabilities.
#8. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 2Fri 08-Mar-02 05:36 PM
>... Going digital for an 18-day trip in the Grand
>Canyon is a real puzzle when you try to figure out a battery
Good point: this is another "know what you want the camera to be capable of" issue. It's not been a problem for me since the D1's battery is good for several hundred shots when fully charged and I'm never away from a power source or a computer for very long.
Having sufficient storage to cope with an extended trip would be another issue: I've taken 300-400Mb worth of photos in a day on quite a few occasions....
>Until there's a full 24x36 imaging chip, you'll have your
>wide angle lenses neutered by the multiplier (more
>appropriately called a "crop factor" by Phil at dpreview).
>My superwide 18-35 zoom becomes a pedestrian 27-52mm
>equivalent with the D100's 1.5x multiplier.
Don't forget it cuts the other way as well: my 80-200mm zoom turns into a 120-300mm: very nice for photographing wildlife, for example.
>The "free film" concept suffers a bit when you consider the
>rapid depreciation of expensive DSLR bodies.
Well, I've got to justify it somehow!
#4. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 0
Low film cost
No developing cost
Reasonable printing cost
Instant viewing of your pictures
No film grain
Eat batteries at high rate of speed
Noisy for long exposure pictures
Resolution doesn't equal film yet, but is very close
Memory is limited. Film is available anywhere...
Long term storage is questionable (will those CD's work in ten years?)
Personally the disadvantages still outweigh the advantages. As such, I'm still a film guy. I expect this to change in the next five years though.
Nikonian in the High Desert of Southern California.
The Manzanar Project: http://www.renewingmind.com/photography/manzanar/manzanar.html
Check out my blog: http://transformingrenewal.blogspot.com
#5. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 0
I too have been using a N65 since it came out. For Christmas this last year I got a Coolscan IV (LS-40). All I've got to say is wow. The image quality is great.
However, be prepared to spend some time regardless of film scanner to just doing the scans. For me, its about 1.5 hours per roll of film just to get the basic scans in. If I have to do any color touch up, cropping etc, add another hour.
For that reason, a D100 or D1x is on my dream list. I really think that I will always have a place for film (weddings and formal portraits), but there are many places where digital will become the prefered medium. I can't tell you the number of times that I wish I could have seen what I shot before I loaded up and left.
I share your dilemma, but for me the solution is to save my bottle caps and get a D100 (or if I'm REALLY REALLY REALLY good, a D1x).
If you give up liberty for safety, you probably won't have either in the end
#15. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 5Wed 16-Jan-08 12:07 PM
Thanks for all the responses. There are definitely some very strong opinions both ways, which I must admit I share! That's what makes the decision so tough...
Haha, yes Scott, I do think your resolution is the best I would if I could...
A quick (and I know very ignorant) question: I've got a comparison from the nikonusa.com site between the D1x and the D100, from which I find it hard to understand what makes the D1x so much better that the D100. I guess not all specs are listed, but can anyone turn the light on for me? (see the attached file for the comparison).
Attachment#1 (zip file)
#6. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 15Fri 08-Mar-02 05:26 AM
The D1 performance features add up and the D1 is more rugged and better sealed. The D1 will focus and shoot faster. The D1 will hold up better to professional use.
But the real question is what the D100's image quality ends up being. I can't help but believe that Nikon will position the D100 below the flagship in image quality. There is manufacturing cost associated with keeping circuitry noise low, dynamic range high and data handling fast. We'll see...
If the D100 does offer a high level of image quality, I'd expect that the D1 series prices would come down somewhat. This would help keep them comptetive with the EOS D.
#7. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 6ChuckDiggins Basic MemberFri 08-Mar-02 12:10 PM
You might be right on the relative image quality of the D1 vs D100. On the otherhand, technology does march on. The D1X and D1H have been out for how long now, 1 year maybe? That's an eon in the digital world. I'm betting on comparable image quality, but not as well built. Hoping anyway.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#9. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 7
#10. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 0
I must admit that I am starting to lean towards the D100... The fact is I still have a film body, albeit only a N60 (did I say N65 in my original post?? - oops! ). I'll just have to save up and get the F100 later
I guess the image quality and price (unfortunately) will be the big factors in the final decision.
Was wondering if anyone has read anything about the shutter lag time on the D100? This is something that is quite important to me. Is it comparable with a film body?
Thanks again for all the responses. I appreciate the info I got very much!
#11. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 10RRowlett Charter MemberSat 09-Mar-02 03:40 PM
There is no reason why the shutter lag on the D100 shouldn't be similar to the N80 (or your N60). Keep in mind that the total shutter lag in AF cameras includes the time to achieve autofocus plus the time required to meter, stop down, flip mirror, etc. The reason for the extended shutter lag in compact digicams is because of the slower autofocus mechanism. The D100 uses the same AF module as the N80, so expect similar performance. Compact digicams and and SLRs have similar shutter lags AFTER FOCUS IS ACHIEVED, and this is typically in the 25-50 millisecond range.
I will be adding a D100 to my N80 when it is available. It adds capability that you can't get with an N80 (frame-by-frame adjustable ISO and white balance, immediate review, one-step image digitization) at the cost of some tolerable disadvantages (slightly less intrinsic image resolution, 1.5X field-of-view crop, limited battery life). I'll still be keeping the N80 and film, but expect to utilize the digital medium more and more. Digital is not better or worse, just different. Think of a D100 as an infinite supply of Fuji "Digia" complete with all the quirks and flavor as in traditional films. I'll miss all those extended evenings scanning slides and despeckling images. (Probably replace some of them with CCD-dusting sessions.)
#12. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 11nkcllewis Charter MemberSun 10-Mar-02 12:12 AM
I gave a friend of mine a digitally enlarged image of a negative that I had scanned in. She loved it. After a year or so, the image showed some deterioration that I noticed. She wanted me to sign it so she could frame the picture. I told her that I would simply print out a new one. Then she exclaimed in a real surprised voice that she would pay for a "real" photo. I ended up taking the negative down to the store, payed 7.50 and got a beautiful 8x14 print.
Bottom line, prints, to the layman, and the one with the bucks, is the real deal while digital anything is simply, well, digital.
What does this have to do with this thread? Absolutely nothing.<G>
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
"A poor worker always blames his tools" Anonymous
#13. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 12Auhsoj27 Registered since 10th Mar 2002Sun 10-Mar-02 03:54 AM
Keep in mind that you are comparing an inkjet (probably) print to a photographic print. A photographic print using light sensitive paper will always look better than a dot matrix print on normal cardstock whether it is from a digital camera or from a negative.
The print you got from your photo-lap might actually be a digital print too! Most labs are converting their standard printing machines into high-tech computer stations. Instead of projecting light through a negative onto the photo paper, the negatives are scanned with at a super-high resolution. The now digital image is color balanced and then projected onto the same paper that the “old fashioned” machines use.
#14. "RE: D100 vs F100 & film scanner" | In response to Reply # 13Sun 10-Mar-02 09:03 PM
And by the same token, you can get a "real" (aka silver based) Lightjet print from any digital image or scan from film. These are typically printed on Fuji Crystal Archive paper.
Inkjet print stability can be archival, but there are only a few models that offer the stability of pigment based inks. This is changing and more pigment ink printers are in the pipeline.