I hate my new D700 gear; ergo, I really do hate digital

[pixelatedscraps]

It's beautiful; it's rugged; it was my dream DSLR setup. And yet I hate it. Apart from the drop-while-drunk-$500-repair debacle, I can't think of a bigger regret. I just don't get anywhere near the same joy taking photos with it as I do with my M4, Mamiya or OM gear.

It's like eating McDonalds when I know I'd prefer to go to the market, buy tomatoes, minced beef and pork, herbs, spices, select my own cheese (gruyere, perhaps) and make the damned burger myself. Every time.

My close photographer friends rib me for this: they know what I'm like. A Hasselblad 500 C/M was my dream camera too, at one point. I had it for about 6 months before I sold it because I couldn't convince myself I had the patience to be a composed, methodical kind of shooter. I'm not: it's all straight-from-the-hip, hell-bent-or-nothing with me. Testing it out in a store while taking photos of other customers staring blankly at giant LCD screens isn't enough of a litmus test for me, it seems.

Has anyone else had this? Gone through this? Regretted it all? Painted a douche-target on their forehead after dropping close to $6k on something that sort of, kind of, makes their skin crawl? (and 6k is a lot of money for me - I don't own property, a car or have savings of any significant value)

(And yes, my D700 gear will go up on RFF Classifieds as soon as I get some photos done)

[Pickett Wilson]

Wouldn't it be more fun to shoot photos than buy and sale cameras?

If you enjoy your M4, Mamiya and OM gear, why spend thousands on Nikon DSLR gear? I don't know how old you are, but if you are young, and can't be happy with digital, though, you are facing an uncertain future with your photography hobby.

[Keith]

Comparing the D700 to a big mac is a little harsh IMO! :p

But I can see where you're coming from ... life and prgression costs ... it's no free ride!

[pachuco]

Have you tried using manual focus lenses? They may give you just the spark you need. I also prefer my Leica to my Canon DSLR but each one has pros and cons.

[Pickett Wilson]

I'm beginning to think digital angst needs its own speciality in psychiatry! We are surrounded by digital stuff. I'm not sure what plunges folks into a metaphysical abyss when it comes to digital cameras.

[Keith]

Actually after reading your original post again I think you went the wrong way in getting the D700 ... maybe you should have got a 5D which would have allowed you to use your Zuiko lenses and have some tangible connection between digital and analog within your gear.

I considered this myself before buying a D700 and in some ways I wish I had actually gone in that direction.

[sper]

Don't sell it. A DSLR is like a hammer. You're GONNA need one for SOMETHING.

And use it they way it's meant to be used, at night.

I 2nd the notion of picking up some AI or Pre-AI lenses. They'll give you some of that old feeling.

You might hate digital, but you shouldn't. It has it's own aesthetic and it's slowly getting better.

[pixelatedscraps]

Well, I'd owned a 2nd-hand D200 and a couple of lenses about 3-4 years ago when I tried to move photography out from a hobby into a side-profession. Did a few product photography shoots and was second shooter on a couple of high-end fashion shoots for magazines here, but at the end of the day, it was my passion that was suffering the most by being told 'this is what shot you need to take, etc'. I pretty much quit and went back to my other day job(s), sold my D200 and picked up my film cameras again.

Don't get me wrong: I love taking photos and I have at least one camera with me every time I leave my home. I suffer no illusions that I spend more time reading reviews on DPreview than I do actually taking photos. I am blessed with the sort of day-job that affords me that much time to spend outside of the office.

Someone suggested using manual-focus lenses on my D700 - I have a 35/2 AIS which I usually leave on it, but I think I enjoy the entire process of film photography: from measuring (or estimating) light to the anticipation of 'did I get the shot?' when you develop (or pick up) film. I'm under no hurry; there is no urgency when I take photos - certainly I don't need the instant feedback of an LCD screen. Maybe I like keeping the somewhat primitive mystery of using film, the light around me, my eyes, fixed prime lenses and the very real likelihood that I may have missed the shot (if it was meant to be, I would have got it!) - I have no idea. Just speculating...

[pixelatedscraps]

I know this may seem cold but how could you spend $7000 on a $1200 camera body? Even with a lens you should be out $2000?

I know the answer, you are the dream of every camera salesperson, you bought a whole system of lenses without even trying out the body with a single lens...

whoops :eek:

I think you misread or misunderstand something here: a D700 is still a $2000+ body, even with the D7000 coming into stores. D700, a 3 yr body? It was $3000+ when it first came out. FX vs. DX: let's not go there, either. I bought one lens of cost - of which I had tried and tested the various 80-200mm versions before, coming to the conclusion that a lens of such a length would require VR. The Tamron didn't cost much, and certainly a more consumer/marketing person would have purchased the Micro-Nikkor 105mm VR, no? The 20mm f/2.8 D similarly. Presumptions aside, please.

Keith: I agonized over the decision for a long time. I tested out a friend's 5D MKII for a few days, decided it wasn't for me. I have never liked the feel, fit or menu system of Canon bodies. Plus, I had a couple of old Nikon lenses lying around, too. I did also toy with the idea of an OM->Nikon converter, but they were prohibitively expensive.

[raytoei@gmail.com]

i still keep my first and only DSLR, the 40D. As sper said rightly, " You're GONNA need one (DSLR) for SOMETHING." I use it to take photos of my film cameras that I sell on the local classifieds, eg..

http://retro.ms11.net/familyone.jpg
http://retro.ms11.net/familytwo.jpg

[ebino]

has it occurred to you that maybe you're not fit for D700?

Almost of all of these winning photos were shot with a D700 or a D300. The winning shot of the ants is with a D700.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/categoryGroup.do?group=4


So, if its good enough for winners of such prestigious award, it should be good enough for everyone.

[Phil_F_NM]

I love film as well. I'll never get rid of my M4. That said, I know that digital is definitely the mainstream way now and into the future for as long as the electricity doesn't stop flowing.

If you want to give digital a chance, you can still do it with either a Leica or an Epson RD1. The RD1 is so analog that you can just leave the screen flipped over & never think about what you shot until you take the SD card out. With just a little more automation (winding) you could get a used/refurbished Leica M8. This is what I did after I moved from owning 2 RD1 bodies and loving them but wanting more in the way of viewfinder options (and a few other very small advantages of shooting a Leica over an Epson). Just a week ago today I received my M9. It's got me shooting a ton and once again loving photography almost as much as with my M4. It's just as manually operated as the old Leica. Takes the same lenses with no crop factor. It's amazing.

BUT...
If I had the ability to shoot exclusively film (the time and the ability to process then scan fast) I would just own an M4 and a few lenses. I hear what you're saying though.

If you find that digital capture isn't for you, that's fine too. Sell that body sooner than later because it won't appreciate in value. Lenses will hold their value much better, so there's not as much of a rush to sell in case you have an optic that you love. You could always try an F4 (the greatest AF film camera ever made IMO), they are cheap these days.

Either way, keep shooting what you want. It's your art, not anyone else's.

Phil Forrest

[Keith]

Keith: I agonized over the decision for a long time. I tested out a friend's 5D MKII for a few days, decided it wasn't for me. I have never liked the feel, fit or menu system of Canon bodies. Plus, I had a couple of old Nikon lenses lying around, too. I did also toy with the idea of an OM->Nikon converter, but they were prohibitively expensive.


I know what you mean about the Canon ... I just hate the look of the things! LOL

I only use primes on my D700 ... I don't care how good autofocus is I just plain don't like it ... not for the type of stuff I'm shooting anyway. I'm sure action/sports photographers feel differently! :)

[pixelatedscraps]

but when the chips are down and an image must be made the D700 has a certain usefulness above and beyond charm. :)

Ahh, but here's the difference for me: I don't need to take photos of anything. My livelihood does not depend on taking photos, I do it because I want to. Therefore there is no urgency or great need. I guess I had Kenyan safaris at the back of my mind, along with that nagging thought 'I must be missing something by not using digital'.

For the kind of photography and the type of joy I get from it, it would seem digital is a little redundant. That's not to say the D700 isn't almost perfect: is it. It's an awesome camera in almost every way, I just don't think I have any great need for digital photography.

Anyone interested in trading Leica M gear for a D700 kit? LOL

[Phil_F_NM]

Anyone interested in trading Leica M gear for a D700 kit? LOL

You should have caught me a year ago...

Phil Forrest

[Keith]

A little OT but does anyone here have any info about the Leitax adapters that allow you to put Zuiko lenses on a Nikon body. I can get an adpater for 62 euros that will allow me stop down metering on the D700 and I would seriouly love to see the Nikon IQ interpreted via my 50mm f1.2 Zuiko ... the mind boggles because I call this lens my SLR Noctilux for it's wild OOF areas in certain conditions and I think digitally the Nikon would really do it justice!

[cgiff]

Yeah, from your last post I wouldn't think you'd love a D700. It's a great workhorse -- the only way I've ever shot an assignment since taking ownership. The flexibility of the files is great, it's crazy fast, etc. And I agree that it might be the "M4 of digital" (though the original 5D suits that role.)

If you shoot for the experience and like the results from film, the Mamiya 6, M4 and OM-1 are perhaps the ideals in their respective categories. I don't blame you at all for wanting to get rid of it, though I'd have probably rented first. Whatever works.

edit;
A little OT but does anyone here have any info about the Leitax adapters that allow you to put Zuiko lenses on a Nikon body. I can get an adpater for 62 euros that will allow me stop down metering on the D700 and I would seriouly love to see the Nikon IQ interpreted via my 50mm f1.2 Zuiko ... the mind boggles because I call this lens my SLR Noctilux for it's wild OOF areas in certain conditions and I think digitally the Nikon would really do it justice!
I have adapted the Zuiko 100/2 and 28/2 (which I actually converted back for use on my OM-1.) The Leitax adapters are made well, you'll be really happy with it! My 100/2 on digital is awesome.

[retro]

I totally agree with the OP. For my tastes I don't see any reason to
buy a DSLR that is beyond, say, 6-8 MP which one can find
for a few hundred bucks used (which I have). Preferably one that
uses the same lenses as film SLRs I already own. I just don't see
any reason for going beyond that and spending thousands on
zillions of mega-dots that I don't need.

So, I spend most of my photo time shooting film and picking up
more bargain film equipment. My modest DSLR is fine for quick
snaps of family and friends, etc. but I take no particular pride in
anything it shoots. It's just for expediency in certain situations.

[andredossantos]

And use it they way it's meant to be used, at night.

I agree 100%

I was digital-less for a couple years before getting a DSLR again about 6 months ago. It took a while for me to get along with it that is until I attached a f1.2 lens and brought it down into the subway and other dark places.

DSLR's kick royal ass in low light. Plan and simple. That's when I have the most fun shooting with mine.

And I still love my film cameras just as much.

[Taynt3d]

I love my rangefinders, but you'd still have to pry my 5D2 out of my cold dead hands...

[Ted Witcher]

Rule #1 .. remember that digital cameras are like laptops.. in 6mo they have lost a lot of value.

Actually, as of 2009, Rule #1 is ignore this advice whenever it comes up, which is often. The D700 is not a laptop computer, it is a specialized tool. As long as it turns on, it will be of value, because it will do that which you want it to do: take pictures. And those pictures will have IQ comparable to 35mm film, which cameras under 10-12 MP did not. So once that threshold was crossed, the game changed. I'm speaking about digital cameras in general, but as far as that camera goes specifically, used D700s are very close in price to new ones. There is a reason for this.

Can't help you like shooting digital, though. Keep the lenses and pick up an F6.

[1948nikon]

A little OT but does anyone here have any info about the Leitax adapters that allow you to put Zuiko lenses on a Nikon body. I can get an adpater for 62 euros that will allow me stop down metering on the D700 and I would seriouly love to see the Nikon IQ interpreted via my 50mm f1.2 Zuiko ... the mind boggles because I call this lens my SLR Noctilux for it's wild OOF areas in certain conditions and I think digitally the Nikon would really do it justice!
None of the OM to Nikon adapters allow infinity focus. Ok for macro etc.

[gilpen123]

IMO digital or film in the hands of one with a good eye will result to great pictures. The Nikon DSLRs and pro lenses are actually very good but there are some factors that complicate the process of getting good results as the myriad of menu imbedded settings are so many that more often than not it creates negative effects.

I've used Nikon DSLRs in the past from the D70, D200 and D300 and had some great glass as well; 12-24, 17-55 2.8, 85 1.4, 70-200 VR and of course a 50 1.4 and all gave some pretty nice results. I did some paid jobs with them weddings and calendars, however, I can not make photography as a profession as I have a full time day job which actually finance my insatiable appetite for gears. My only biggest issue with this set-up is the bulk and weight which actually is a nuisance when I travel whether business or family trips. Prior to DSLRs I am into Nikon manual focus SLRs for many years and is not as serious a problem in terms of gear lugging during trips but still is bulky and heavy.

In early 2008 I went the route of RF and oh what a relief carrying an R3a and a Nokton 40 1.4 with another lens anywhere I go and much much better in street photography, which I love to do, obviously it does not scare one's subjects. From this time on I went the Leica path and is very happy. I also have a M7II for those times that I need to enlarge something for my house' walls and when I need more details like landscape, architecture, etc.. Btw, I shoot now mostly B&W.

[FrankS]

To the OP: you have discovered an answer for yourself, not a universal answer that is applicable to everyone. Others may reach diffferent conclusions that are just as valid for themselves as your conclusion is to you.

[Keith]

None of the OM to Nikon adapters allow infinity focus. Ok for macro etc.


This conversion is fully reversible and will not damage either the lens or the camera.
-The Olympus-OM lenses will focus to infinity and will maintain the aperture click stops
-The Nikon cameras will show a focus confirmation light in the viewfinder.
-The professional Nikon cameras (D200 and up), and FujiFilm S5Pro, will meter in A and M modes (stop-down).
-Users of non professional Nikon cameras (D40, D60, D80, D90, etc) can select Manual mode and check the histogram of a test shot to meter accurately.



Is there a problem here that I'm not getting regarding focus! Do you mean that when the lens itself is set at infinity it's not true infinity for what the sensor's seeing?

[SolaresLarrave]

Quick baby photos? Family trip images? Products I want to sell? A disappearing sunset? Withering flowers from my backyard? Macro or tele shots? My D700. For everything else I have Leicas. :)

[1948nikon]

The Nikon lens flange is further away from the film lane (sensor). The body is a lot thicker than the OM, so when your lens is on infinity its actual point of focus is around 1 meter.

The canon 5d along with the OM adapter will give you perfect infinity focus because the body is thinner.

[SolaresLarrave]

Actually, I'm beginning to fall for the Nikon Coolpix P7000 just because it has a nice, old-fashioned look about it. And it's a lot cheaper than a Leica! :)

[Keith]

The Nikon lens flange is further away from the film lane (sensor). The body is a lot thicker than the OM, so when your lens is on infinity its actual point of focus is around 1 meter.

The canon 5d along with the OM adapter will give you perfect infinity focus because the body is thinner.


Ahh ... that makes sense. It's a pity the seller doesn't mention this ... I wonder how many people buy these adapters not realising this?

[Nikon Bob]

OK, so you made a mistake and it cost some money, get out from under it and use film. There are plenty more expensive mistakes you could make, try getting divorced after picking the wrong partner. Everyone is different and I am the opposite in that I enjoy digital. I guess I don't mind McDonalds all that much.

Bob

[Phil_F_NM]

The Nikon F lens registration is 46.50mm and the Olympus OM is 46.00mm. That extra .5mm will not allow the OM lenses to be put on a Nikon camera without a negative optical element that will extend the registration but will degrade image by adding another element. The only way to do it without an extra optical element would be to fully replace the OM mount and permanently make your Zuiko lens an F mount one.
Nikon uses one of the longest registration in the industry for a 35mm SLR so only their lenses are usable on their cameras. Leica R lenses are 1mm longer in registration so it's possible to use a mount change flange to turn Leica R lenses into Nikon mount with full meter and focus coupling.
Canon EOS cameras have this market almost locked up since they built their motors into the lenses from the get go, allowing for a shorter registration. EOS-anything adapters have been around for years. I used my SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 on a few EOS bodies and loved it.
Canon was smart to put all the metering and focus confirmation stuff in the body instead of having to talk to the lens as is the case with Nikon.

Phil Forrest

[tbarker13]

I guess, in many ways, this is just another film versus digital thread. The D700 is a fantastic camera, capable of creating wonderful images.
But if you prefer the mechanics of using a film camera, then you are going to feel this horrible sense of regret with any digital camera.

[Keith]

The Nikon F lens registration is 46.50mm and the Olympus OM is 46.00mm. That extra .5mm will not allow the OM lenses to be put on a Nikon camera without a negative optical element that will extend the registration but will degrade image by adding another element. The only way to do it without an extra optical element would be to fully replace the OM mount and permanently make your Zuiko lens an F mount one.
Nikon uses one of the longest registration in the industry for a 35mm SLR so only their lenses are usable on their cameras. Leica R lenses are 1mm longer in registration so it's possible to use a mount change flange to turn Leica R lenses into Nikon mount with full meter and focus coupling.
Canon EOS cameras have this market almost locked up since they built their motors into the lenses from the get go, allowing for a shorter registration. EOS-anything adapters have been around for years. I used my SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 on a few EOS bodies and loved it.
Canon was smart to put all the metering and focus confirmation stuff in the body instead of having to talk to the lens as is the case with Nikon.

Phil Forrest


Hi Phil,

The Leitax adapter does actually replace the original OM mount on the lens and comes with hardware and fitting instructions.

[jonmanjiro]

Quick baby photos? Family trip images? Products I want to sell? A disappearing sunset? Withering flowers from my backyard? Macro or tele shots? My D700. For everything else I have Leicas. :)

Basically this. Except that I have Nikon rangefinders instead of Leicas and no babies (that I'm aware of :rolleyes:).

Now only if there was a way to stuff the D700 sensor into a Nikon SP 2005 body.... :bang:

[cgiff]

Hi Phil,

The Leitax adapter does actually replace the original OM mount on the lens and comes with hardware and fitting instructions.

Look at my post on the first page. I shoot OM lenses with a Leitax adapter and it's great. http://www.flickr.com/photos/12639385@N03/tags/1002/

(Sorry for OT)

[Keith]

Look at my post on the first page. I shoot OM lenses with a Leitax adapter and it's great. http://www.flickr.com/photos/12639385@N03/tags/1002/

(Sorry for OT)



Thanks for that link ... I don't see too many problems there! :D

[sparrow6224]

I felt the same way with my first digital; or something like it anyway. I kept thinking that with film and manual focus in particular, I was taking the picture but with digital the camera was taking the picture.

I've since come to feel otherwise. I would sell the 70-200/2.8 which is a very expensive lens, and the ohter pricey lens; and keep the D700 and the 24mm AF; and add the $100 50mm f/1.8 AF lens; and a used manual focus 100/2.5 Ai or AiS, and let them sit and take them out once in a while and you'll see.

I think what a lot of experienced digital users forget is that for one starting out in it, there's a sense of glut in terms of the pictures taken; and no real understanding of how to process them in useful ways, etc. It's a huge knowledge base and learning curve that's required.

I just got a Canon P which I am loving loving loving. Hand metering, thinking, etc. The film is in the camera and I'm speaking to it, somehow.

But I also recently got a used D300 and I deeply enjoy that too. Tonight I was taking pictures of the moon with a MF 300/4.5 AiS handheld, braced on my windowsill. Then I played with the images in ACR. Here's one. I wouldn't know how to get this with film. I was at ISO 2500.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/commodiusvicus/5124764525/

[sparrow6224]

Ooops. I don't know why it won't load, even at 79KB, but it's on Flickr if anyone is interested.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/commodiusvicus/5124764525/

[robbert]

I had the exact same thing with the 5dII.

Terrific camera, absolutely wonderful, but not for me. I acted quick and sold it within 4 or 5 months after purchase, didn't lose too much. (quite a lot of money and stress for a student mind you :))

I got a M6TTL with an elmarit 2.8/28 V4 and couldn't be happier for my handheld camera needs. Now I'm getting married, so I'm holding of large format camera purchases :)

[Keith]

Ooops. I don't know why it won't load, even at 79KB, but it's on Flickr if anyone is interested.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/commodiusvicus/5124764525/


Hmmm ... it does look like cheese doesn't it! :D

[Brian Legge]

I've been shooting almost nothing but film this year. I vastly prefer it to shooting with my D70.

That said, give me a full frame camera with good iso performance at 6400 and I'd have a hard time saying no, even if it was a larger beast than I'd prefer to use.

On the other hand, my D70 with 3 lenses, Bronica kit and gaggle of rangefindefs cost less than half a D700. Big picture, I can't complain (well, aside from the iso performance - I'll complain perpetually there)

[shyoon]

Have you seen the classifieds here on RFF? People are selling film cameras everyday. It must mean that they hate film.

Silliness aside, people have different tastes and needs. If one camera doesn't work for them, it doesn't mean the whole format is rubbish. Just means that you didn't likethe camera.

[nobbylon]

I've had my D700 for nearly 2 years and they are actually more expensive now than when I bought. With a dk17m eyepiece the viewfinder is huge. I've tried using my manual focus lenses with it but after getting a 24-70 2.8 it's a waste of effort. Spot on focus every time and performance that matches the primes. As for using other manufacture lenses, why bother. With the Nikkors you get the full functionality of the camera without faffing with adapters and stop down metering etc. It's an old and often re used statement that a D700 and D3 are still way ahead in IQ compared with most.
True milestone cameras. If you don't like it then sell and give someone else the pleasure of it.
Don't get me wrong, I still like using my old school F2's etc and the odd roll with my M2 but for everyday ease of achieving and enjoying photography I'll take the D700 with the 24-70 any day.

[Brian Legge]

Rangefinder users like cameras that are smaller and quieter in general. The OM series is the closest to a rangefinder. In fact, the cameras were supposedly inspired by the Leicas.

[noimmunity]

I'd figure out what in my shooting needs made me choose the D700 in the first place, then decide what percentage of my needs those occupy, and redistribute resources accordingly based on the new appraisal of my needs acquired through experience. Experience costs money and time. Don't sweat it. And although you can read forums ad nauseum, there's no substitute for figuring out what you like through your own experience.

Let that be a lesson as you contemplate your next system change! I've debated selling some top-shelf RF lenses to get a D700 for a year now, but can't do it, in spite of well-meaning apostles here and there. Objectively speaking, there are just some things that the RF can't do for me which the D700 could do easily. Nevertheless, I would not enjoy carrying the D700 with me, hence I would not actually use it as much as I imagine, plus selling lenses always causes me grief, hence I'm not trading in at this point, just working around the limitations in a different way.

Working with limitations is a good thing, and maybe that will also help your photography in general.

[Ruvy]

he.he.he.... reminds me so much of myself in any new major thing I buy (and that is after I study it to death)... Its not only regret for the money spend, its being blind for future use and lose of the whole picture that I experience.. I gain it back after a while and eventually become happy with it so my 2cent advice is to let it be with you for a while - you may gain a different tool without taking away the tools you already have.

It's beautiful; it's rugged; it was my dream DSLR setup. And yet I hate it. Apart from the drop-while-drunk-$500-repair debacle, I can't think of a bigger regret. I just don't get anywhere near the same joy taking photos with it as I do with my M4, Mamiya or OM gear.

(And yes, my D700 gear will go up on RFF Classifieds as soon as I get some photos done)

[pixelatedscraps]

This shouldn't degenerate into one of those film vs digital debates. God know they're exhausting, futile, and ultimately should be found on other less refined forums. I apologise in advance if I have come across as spoiling for a fight.

I guess a better intention to this post would be this (and please answer only if you have, there's no need to speculate why you wouldn't ever trade your DSLR for any other camera):

-What made you switch back from digital to film, and do you have any regrets?

[Naumoski]

Get a M9, obviously.

[Jamie123]

-What made you switch back from digital to film, and do you have any regrets?

So can you please explain again why exactly this isn't a film vs. digital question?? The "what made you switch" question is pretty much the stereotypical film vs. digital question.

Why do you really care about other people's reasons for switching one way or the other? Different people like different things for different reasons. You seem pretty confident about not liking digital so why make all the fuss about it. Just sell your digital gear, get over it and go back to using what you like.

[Turtle]

There is nothing to be explained or broken down here. Digital is completely different to some people. It is to me. I think the point is not to beat yourself up and face the truth of it. Then you can decide what it means and where to go from there.

Digital does virtually nothing for me, but that is not a knock against hte process for others. I do very much enjoy some of the output, but have no inclination to deal with the entire process from the myriad of buttons and camera settings to the ever deepening post processing quagmire. Some people love that stuff. Me? I use computers every day all day. Do I like them? No. Digital photography can bear a greater resemblance to computer tech work than what used to be photography. The former never interested me (I HATE it) so its no surprise I cannot get excited about 500 page PS books, plugins, calibrating monitors etc. I am the way I am and I no longer fight it. Ironically I am about to buy into a digital system for where I need the utility, but I am not doing so because the idea excites me.

Why do you feel there is something wrong with you for being left cold by your D700? Its like being at school and being top of your class in most subjects but not wanting to go into law, medicine, business, research... why should you want these things?

[Brian Sweeney]

Well, if you hate the D700, and you hate Digital, you can either use film or take up drawing. I guess you could find an old Analog Video-Capture camera. But we do not have a forum for Film vs Digital Vs Analog Still Capture.

So Film vs Digital is it.

[Arjay]

I recently moved back to film for certain types of pictures. However, I would never want to give up my digital gear. To me, this isn't about film vs. digital, but horses for courses.

The nice thing about film and M-style cameras is their simplicity. You have (more or less) one exposure measurement mode, maybe an AE mode and (most probably) manual focusing. Also, you 'choose your sensor' ahead of time by selecting a certain film (and maybe EI plus developing workflow).

So, the basic operation of a film camera is generally a lot simpler than that of a sophisticated DSLR. That's because in a DSLR, you have a lot of added complexity: Autofocus can be configured to work as one-shot or continuous, it can be configured to work well for fast or slow-moving objects, to work well under low light or to concentrate specifically on faces.

The same applies to 'film choice'. You can preset sensitivity or even how sensitivity is being changed automatically. You can set for tungsten or daylight operation, or even for fluorescent light. Have you ever heard of a film specifically optimized for FL light? You can even determine if you want neutral or vivid colors.

I could go on in this context for quite some time, but what it boils down is that a DSLR is a lot more complex than any film camera we came to love. And thus, DSLRs have a much longer and steeper learning curve than film cameras.

Mind you, if you cared for wet lab processes and the inner workings of film chemistry, or all the tricks people developed to rapidly focus their RF cameras, you might arrive at the same complexity. But to get there, you'd have to include a lot of things you would previously not have considered as being associated with the camera (such as e.g. a lot of filters).

So, take your time, and get to know your wonderful D700 camera and its lenses. Discover the meaning of the various functions, and see what they can do for you. Discover the functions you won't ever need, and stop worrying about their menu branches. Take your pick of functions that support your shooting style and configure those functions into your quick-access user menus. Also, get a grip on digital image editing software.

How can you hate something you don't fully know yet?

PS: I work in a business in which I am at least a decade older than virtually all of my clients. I think that's helpful, because I am forced to learn something new every day - still today. That sort of keeps me alive and ready for new challenges.

[Brian Sweeney]

And as far as Digital cameras losing value very quickly, as compared with Laptop computers- Consumer oriented Digital cameras certainly fall in price as fast as Laptops. Professional grade cameras retain value longer, but it is not like professional film cameras retaining value in the past (when film ruled). As soon as the newer Pro cameras come out, the older-generation takes a hit. The refresh rate is not as fast as the P&S cameras.

I bought my M8 in Jan 2010. It was mint, in the box, all packing materials there, under 400 clicks on it, with spare battery, case, some other extras. I bought it at Half what the original owner paid, the original receipt was included. Worked for me. It was originally bought in late 2009. So I can follow PKR's advice and come out ahead.

So in the film vs digital debate: if you do not mind buying a used camera and want bang for the buck: GO DIGITAL!

[Ronald M]

Buy a manual focus lens, put a Katz Eye screen in the camera, move it to M mode and leave it there. Now it is retro and does not need film. I used mine for years that way.
The AF lenses stayed in the cabinet.

Then I got a D3 for which there is no Katz Eye available so I focused with the dot. Sucks. Got out the array of AF lenses, programed the AF/AL thumb button for AF, turned off the AF from the shutter release and I am bacl to being happy. Sort of like learning to like a automatic transmission.

It is still big and heavy and any Leica is smaller and more portable. I was fondling my 111F and 111C yesterday. Maybe you should have got a D7000 or D3100. Consumer junk I understand, but the pics are nice and the camera small.

Someday you will want to come to the digital table or you will have to do so.

[Neare]

I bought a dslr after using my sisters kit for this and that. I used the kit AF lens for a week before I decided autofocus was not for me. I then started using manual focus lenses and it was a bit more enjoyable. 2 months after buying it I knew that there is nothing like film and a mechanical camera for my tastes. Sold it and lost $500 off what I originally paid for it.

I own 1.. really old digital camera now, a p&s. It takes all the shots for the auction sites and nothing else.

Photography is my passion primarily. For all the advantages of digital (not that I actually think digital is advantageous) it doesn't give me nearly as much enjoyment as good old film cameras. Mechanics and creating something physical is so much more rewarding to me. And as it is my passion, there is no cutting corners on enjoyment. Why would I do something I'm not completely happy with?

Also... for everyone who goes about saying film is dead for work purposes. People love the fact that I turn up to a job with film instead of digital. They also love the results.
Honestly I don't feel as if I need an entire memory card of space simply to take a great photo. I hope that as a photographer I can get to a point where I love each and every shot I take, a couple of rolls of film at a time is more than enough.

[dave lackey]

Digital... just recently disposed of all of my professional Nikon gear to pay the bills. Don't miss it a bit.

Now, I take the M3 along and shoot what I want when I want and life is sweeter than ever before.:angel:

[Brian Sweeney]

well Dave- of course it is! You are talking about the M3, with the best viewfinder/rangefinder ever created in the known course of history. Got to load my last roll of fresh Kodachrome 64 in it. The K25 is not as fresh.

But which lens to use. Thinking Uncoated Sonnar 5cm F1.5, 1935 vintage.

[dave lackey]

well Dave- of course it is! You are talking about the M3, with the best viewfinder/rangefinder ever created in the known course of history. Got to load my last roll of fresh Kodachrome 64 in it. The K25 is not as fresh.

But which lens to use. Thinking Uncoated Sonnar 5cm F1.5, 1935 vintage.


Curiously, that is what I just did... it is my last roll of K64 and thought I would use it last weekend in the mountains with the grandsons but managed only to finish one roll of K64 with my old Nikon AF film camera. Now it looks like I may have to wait until Turkey Day to dedicate my last roll to my granddaughters!:rolleyes:

I have an old roll of K25 (2002 vintage) and am wondering if it would be worthwhile shooting something, but what?

Lens choice is easy...Summarit or Industar... oh well!:angel:

[1948nikon]

Hi Phil,

The Leitax adapter does actually replace the original OM mount on the lens and comes with hardware and fitting instructions.

Many thanks for the update on that Leitax adapter. I might try one on my 21mm f2.

[dimkasta]

The only thing I do not like about my D700 is its size. The M4 was a very nice choice to cure that and fill the spot of my everyday camera.

However, when I want to shoot something "important", I always bring the D700.
Let s say in trips or close friend weddings or whatever, I want to be sure about my photos. Something that the film/lab/chemicals combination cannot offer. I am talking about the "security" that digital preview/trial/error/plus_no_lab offers.
I also like film very much, but I use it either only on photos I do not really care if I lose or not, or in conjunction with digital.

[Ti29er]

Some pertinent points here, especially as you seem to be young and so your world is laid out before you - yours is a digital future, make no mistake about this.

Why buy a hugely expensive camera in its death throes? Your quoted price that you paid is just plain wrong, plus, and you’d know this from your magazines, the D700 is due to be replaced in March!

Sounds to me like you haven't even begun to do your homework, especially as you describe yourself and photography as "side-profession". Either you are a professional or you are an amateur.


I strongly suggest you man-up and start to get to grips with the camera as I can tell you something, as any ½ decent photographer will confirm, the camera is a means to an end, not the end in itself; ergo any camera, regardless of vintage or format should be a tool to you taking great images.


Can I sell you some double glazing, some underwater basket weaving looms and a dozen skyhooks whilst we’re here?

[richreidjr]

I have been into Digital for years, going from a D50 to a D80 to a D700. So I feel I can honestly say after using several Nikon DSLR that the D700 is an instant classic as far as DSLRs go. It does absolutely whatever I want it to do. High ISO in particular is what sets it apart. I agree with the previous poster, who recommended AI or pre AI man. focus lenses.
The AF is nice when you are shooting a sporting event, but it really makes you lazy. I started losing interest until I put on a nikkor 50mm 1.4 prime (forces you to shoot fully manual, if you weren't already). My camera was transformed! My passion was reborn. That feeling of just not knowing for sure what it's going to look like; of actually having to think about my shots first.
This quickly prompted me to break out all of my old film cameras and start shooting with them again. I had forgotten how much more fun it is to photograph instead of just point and shoot. Now I can say I have found a happy balance. I shoot a little more film now than digital; but when I need thousands of crazy high quality images of an event I will use the D700. Because there really is nothing better in digital, in my opinion. Unless you are a soccer mom and need to be able to record video of your kid's at Chuck-E-Cheese. Then get any of the newer DSLR's.

[Nikon Bob]

For anyone considering using a manual focus lens on a D700 mounting a non ai lens is not a good idea. Consult your owners manual regarding compatible lens types.

Bob